Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Evolution IS A Science
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 1:15:39 AM5/25/12
to
In article
<06de99b0-e678-4d66...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolution is a known fact
Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
Evolution , being a scientific theory,
is much more important than a mere fact.
It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
like all other scientific theories
<06de99b0-e678-4d66...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolution is a known fact
Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
Evolution , being a scientific theory,
is much more important than a mere fact.
It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
like all other scientific theories
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 6:01:52 PM5/25/12
to
In article
<4345498f-c73f-4342...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
> is a fact
Thy don't, they tech it as a theory, like the theory of gravitation or
quantum field theory.
<4345498f-c73f-4342...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
> is a fact
Thy don't, they tech it as a theory, like the theory of gravitation or
quantum field theory.
Waldo Tunnel
May 27, 2012, 2:26:05 AM5/27/12
to
On May 24, 10:15 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
fact he wrote an article about it. I'll dig it up if you want to read
it.
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
The late Stephen J. Gould said evolution was a fact...and a theory. In
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
fact he wrote an article about it. I'll dig it up if you want to read
it.
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 6:42:58 PM5/27/12
to
In article <49Odncg9PuXe6F_S...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
> > IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> BroilJAB wrote:
> >>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
> >>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
> >>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
> >>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
> >>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
> >>
> >> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >
> > No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
Those who claim macro-evolution has never occurred need to provide
objective physical evidence of their claim if they wish to see in
accepted.
There is considerable objective physical evidence at least strongly
suggesting, if not totally proving, that it has occurred, and inteligent
people follow that sort of evidence, rather than religious mythology.
>
> > It's all microevolution.
>
> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
They are only deceived by creationism, for which absolutely no objective
physical evidence exists, not by evolution for which lots of objective
physical evidence exixts.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
> > IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> BroilJAB wrote:
> >>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
> >>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
> >>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
> >>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
> >>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
> >>
> >> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >
> > No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
Those who claim macro-evolution has never occurred need to provide
objective physical evidence of their claim if they wish to see in
accepted.
There is considerable objective physical evidence at least strongly
suggesting, if not totally proving, that it has occurred, and inteligent
people follow that sort of evidence, rather than religious mythology.
>
> > It's all microevolution.
>
> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
They are only deceived by creationism, for which absolutely no objective
physical evidence exists, not by evolution for which lots of objective
physical evidence exixts.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 10:49:46 PM5/27/12
to
In article <NK-dnYa6l89TWF_S...@earthlink.com>,
> news:tYednQRbIOuW4V_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
> >>
> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
> >>
> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> >
> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> do at the original creation.
Except those "genetic limits", given the long time since life began on
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
> news:tYednQRbIOuW4V_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >>
> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >>
> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >>
> >>> It's all microevolution.
> >>
> >> Only within genetic limits.
Except those "genetic limits", given the long time since life began on
> >>
> >> Only within genetic limits.
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
> >>
> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
> >>
> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> >
>
> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> do at the original creation.
Except those "genetic limits", given the long time since life began on
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:39:36 PM5/28/12
to
In article <w_GdnUvjZMqjoV7S...@earthlink.com>,
> news:icidnUlAub6XUV_S...@giganews.com...
>
> Simply the limit of genetic information.
Where is your proof that any such limit exists?
The existence of diploids suggests that no such limits exist.
>
> > What is the limiting mechanism?
>
> Simply the lack of genetic information.
Becoming a diploid doubles the potential amount of genetic information,
with no provable limit.
> news:icidnUlAub6XUV_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
> > What is a genetic limit?
> >
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
>
> Simply the limit of genetic information.
Where is your proof that any such limit exists?
The existence of diploids suggests that no such limits exist.
>
> > What is the limiting mechanism?
>
> Simply the lack of genetic information.
Becoming a diploid doubles the potential amount of genetic information,
with no provable limit.
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:44:01 PM5/28/12
to
In article <7qmdnX2I-cLWoV7S...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not he genetic information
> that is contained therein."
Since any genetic flexing changes "the genetic information that is
contained therein", every such change DOs exceed the prior information.
Besides which diploiding doubles the potential amount of information,
blowing your alleged limitations to hell.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >> >>
> >> >>> It's all microevolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only within genetic limits.
> >> >>
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >> >>
> >> >>> It's all microevolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only within genetic limits.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> >> >
> >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> >> >
> >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
> >>
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
> >
> > Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
> >
> > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not he genetic information
> that is contained therein."
Since any genetic flexing changes "the genetic information that is
contained therein", every such change DOs exceed the prior information.
Besides which diploiding doubles the potential amount of information,
blowing your alleged limitations to hell.
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:48:26 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<41552972-4f63-49c2...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> For centuries evolutionists like Darwin
> believed that 'the cell is merely a blob
> of protoplasm' undifferentiated and simple.
Since it has been less that two centuries
since the theory of evolution even existed,
Liarboi BroilJAB is caught in his foolish lying.
> Now, we know that 'even the simplest
> cell' is a factory of machinery imminently
> more complex than any machine Man
> has ever built. As science advances, it
> leaves superstitious fantasies, such as
Creationism, in the sewer.
<41552972-4f63-49c2...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> For centuries evolutionists like Darwin
> believed that 'the cell is merely a blob
> of protoplasm' undifferentiated and simple.
Since it has been less that two centuries
since the theory of evolution even existed,
Liarboi BroilJAB is caught in his foolish lying.
> Now, we know that 'even the simplest
> cell' is a factory of machinery imminently
> more complex than any machine Man
> has ever built. As science advances, it
> leaves superstitious fantasies, such as
Creationism, in the sewer.
Immortalist
May 28, 2012, 1:20:38 PM5/28/12
to
On May 24, 10:15 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
>
> It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
> scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
> like all other scientific theories
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
>
> It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
> scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
> like all other scientific theories
verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which
is intended to explain or interpret facts....
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact Scholars and clinical
researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded
numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature
of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry
include: the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized
and accepted as such; whether and to what extent "fact" and
"theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and
separable from one another; to what extent are "facts" influenced by
the mere act of observation; and to what extent are factual
conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a
strictly systematic methodology.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars
assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas
Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and
how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age
of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by
reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than
a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited
with the methodological position known as operationalism, which
asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily
defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
0 new messages