If Evolution

[Stuu]

Whatever helps you sleep.

So I'm right about you quote-mining then.

Stuu: This creationist model of special creation is the same as this evolutionary tree of common ancestry except the creationist model involves ignoring the bottom part of the diagram to suit...

... the evidence.

No, not 'the evidence', only the small cherry-picked portion of the evidence that suits your religious prejudice / contrarianism. You ignore the evidence that supports the bottom part of the tree of common ancestry, and thereby consign yourself to the ranks of the tiny crackpot minority who are just wrong about natural history.

If you believe that, you should put me on ignore.

A good atheist shouldn't abandon his fellow humans in their times of need. I'm not a christian with dust to be shaken off my shoes.

Unfortunately, the Darwinists aren't interested in a rational discussion over the evidence and they declare their amusement at the expense of others justification for their involvement.

And the assembled brethren doff their caps and say amen, and how right he is...except one lone voice in the corner heard to say 'Hang on, that's a self-serving platitude designed to play to the masses, isn't it? I've definitely read similar from Stripe before and it meant nothing then, and it means nothing when 6days says it..."

Nope. You declare plate tectonics a fact. It's not. It's just a theory.

It's both, like the fact of evolution explained by the theory of natural selection: the facts of natural history with natural selection (and other related factors) as the best explanation we have, and one that has stood for 160 years. No one has disproved Darwin.

So it is with the fact of the tectonic plates, used in theories to explain geological features of the earth and of other planets. There are no facts incompatible with plate tectonic theory. Other hypotheses for how geology works tend to be incompatible with most facts. I can't think of even one fact for which hydroplates are a good explanation. Can you?

When you declare ideas to be facts, you won't be swayed by the evidence.

Not that I'm a big fan of philosophy, but it's definitely not your strong suit, is it.

You know how religions are always claiming the high ground morally, well how is it that devout followers of religion are the most ignorant of the basics of constructing ethical arguments? As religions are essentially life philosophies, how is it the religious are so ignorant of philosophy? What of any actual use does the religious life teach a person? Not science, obviously.

Nope. Nope.

So that's you in denial then.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

It's both.

Nope. It's just a theory.

A single concept cannot be both a fact and a theory.

 

[Stripe]

A good atheist shouldn't abandon his fellow humans in their times of need.

You know how religions are always claiming the high ground morally.

 

[Stuu]

Nope. It's just a theory.

A single concept cannot be both a fact and a theory.

The fact is that tectonic plates exist. The theory is that their movement causes geolological phenomena. That theory is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and contradicted by none, that it would be perverse to deny the fact that the movement of tectonic plates causes the observed geological phenomena. 'Plate tectonics' is both a theory and a fact.

Glad to have been of service.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The fact is that tectonic plates exist.

Nope. It's just a theory.

 

[Stuu]

Nope. It's just a theory.

Electricity is just a theory too.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

You know how religions are always claiming the high ground morally.

If the prison statistics are anything to go by then the religious have no claim. In the US the non-religious section of the population runs at something in the region of 10-20%, and increasing, but the percentage of atheists in prison is 0.23%, and that's tiny, even taking into account conversion during incarceration.

The biggest improvement in crime rates would come from locking up all the religious believers...

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Electricity is just a theory too.

Nope. Electricity — the phenomenon of electron flows providing energy — would be a fact.

There are two categories: Facts and theories. These are not the same thing and a single concept cannot be both.

We find this with Darwinists a lot; they act like there is only one or the other, or they pretend they are the same thing.

What's the problem? Evolution is a theory. Gravity — and electricity — are facts. Why would you want to conflate these things?

 

[Stripe]

The biggest improvement in crime rates would come from locking up all the religious believers.

:AMR:

 

[Jose Fly]

What's the problem? Evolution is a theory. Gravity — and electricity — are facts. Why would you want to conflate these things?

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

https://www.britannica.com/science/...l-theory-and-other-aspects-of-physical-theory

 

[Stripe]

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5...l-theory-and-other-aspects-of-physical-theory

There are theories attemping to explain the fact that masses are attracted to each other according to the inverse square law.

Theories are not facts. Facts are not theories.

Why do Darwinists have such difficulty understanding such a simple concept?

 

[Stuu]

Nope. Electricity — the phenomenon of electron flows providing energy — would be a fact.

That's a theory of electricity you are promoting right there. You are attempting to explain the phenomenon of electricity by a mechanism of moving electrons. The phenomenon exists, but do you have evidence that supports your theory that it is caused by electrons moving?

Of course you are almost certainly right, the effect we call electricity, the fact of its action, is quite well explained by the theory that electrons move. That is because the theory is consistent with all observations, inconsistent with none, and makes predictions that can be tested.

There are two categories: Facts and theories. These are not the same thing and a single concept cannot be both.

We find this with Darwinists a lot; they act like there is only one or the other, or they pretend they are the same thing.

Do you 'find this' with electrical engineers too?

What's the problem? Evolution is a theory. Gravity — and electricity — are facts. Why would you want to conflate these things?

Evolution is the fact of the changes in living things over time as found in the fossil record and demonstrated independently in patterns of mutation in the same gene in different species. This fact is explained completely and uniquely by the theories of natural selection, sexual selection and related factors. If you want to call evolution a theory, then it is a theory and a fact, otherwise you could just call it a fact.

Gravity is the fact of the effect that causes you to feel a downwards force, and it is explained by theories of the effects of mass on space-time, and propagation of waves. This is still called theory of gravity, so gravity is both theory and fact.

Electrical theory is the theory that explains the fact about electricity you discover when you insert your fingers into the light socket.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Do you 'find this' with electrical engineers too?

Only if they are Darwinists.

Evolution is the fact of the changes in living things.

Nope.

It's just a theory.

Gravity is the fact of the effect that causes you to feel a downwards force, and it is explained by theories of the effects of mass on space-time, and propagation of waves.

Those are two different entities.

A single concept cannot be both.

Why do Darwinists have such as problem with this?

 

[Stuu]

Only if they are Darwinists.

Nope.

It's just a theory.

Those are two different entities.

A single concept cannot be both.

Why do Darwinists have such as problem with this?

Yawn.

Is there anything interesting on Side B? Even the Glyn Tucker racing records from the 1970s are more interesting that you, Stripe. Did you ever hear one of those? The idea was that you got your friends round and put bets on fictional horses, then put the record on and would hear Glyn Tucker giving a fictional racing commentary from Te Rapa or somewhere, then there were forks in the grooves of the record that randomly selected different race outcomes near the end of the record.

They were less predictable than your responses are. I feel like I have heard all of your tracks now.

Do you know any science, Stripe? Have you ever inserted your fingers in a light socket?

Stuart




The Following User Is Beginning To Understand How Little Science Stripe Knows:
_______________________________________________________________________________

JudgeRightly

 

[Greg Jennings]

There are theories attemping to explain the fact that masses are attracted to each other according to the inverse square law.

Yes. And GRAVITY is our theoretical explanation for that. We still have no clue why it's so weak compared to the other three forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). It's a working theory with holes yet to be filled in.......like evolutionary theory!

From Mr. Fly's first source: "A theory of gravitation is a description of the long range forces that electrically neutral bodies exert on one another because of their matter content."

The theory of evolution is a description for why the flora and fauna of the fossil record change so drastically and often, and also has explained anitibiotic resistance in bacteria and viruses in real time

 

[Jose Fly]

There are theories attemping to explain the fact that masses are attracted to each other according to the inverse square law.

Exactly. Theories don't become facts, theories explain facts.

Try and remember that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Deleted....never mind.

 

[Stuu]

Deleted....never mind.

I think the point is that the theory becomes so well-established in evidence that you begin to call the theory a fact as well. So it is a fact that electricity is caused by electron movement, as well as a theory.

So perhaps my earlier example should have called natural selection a fact about evolution that is true, as well as the theory that explains it. After all, the fact of a piece of evidence is really based in a theory about that piece of evidence anyway.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the point is that the theory becomes so well-established in evidence that you begin to call the theory a fact as well. So it is a fact that electricity is caused by electron movement, as well as a theory.

So perhaps my earlier example should have called natural selection a fact about evolution that is true, as well as the theory that explains it. After all, the fact of a piece of evidence is really based in a theory about that piece of evidence anyway.

Stuart

My deleted comment wasn't about what you posted. It was about trying to have conversations with certain posters.

The reality is, evolution--like gravity--is both a fact and a theory. That populations evolve over time is a fact; we see it every single day, and we both exploit it (domestication) as well as fight against it (antibiotic resistance). How they evolve over time, i.e., by what mechanisms and pathways, is the theory. Stripe basically acknowledged this concept when he stated that theories explain facts. So obviously the theory of evolution must explain some set of facts, right?

But all you'll ever get from Stripe is "Nope" and re-statements of his empty assertions. And that's what I had posted about....the pointlessness of trying to engage such a person.

 

[Stripe]

Exactly. Theories don't become facts, theories explain facts.

Hence, theories aren't facts.

Try to remember that.