Evolution as a "fact"

[Frenger]

Pics or it didn't happen!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Seeing as how this thread is now ~ 5:1, I think I will bow out of it. Perhaps having less people to respond to will allow gilbo12345 to better read and understand what is being said.

It seems he's put a few on the foe list anyway, so chat away.

I also thought as much as well. However, it appears that everyone else in this thread is already pointing out what I would have said (and most of them are saying it far more eloquently than I would), so I do not see a point in posting here, since he is ignoring my posts.

I guess since no one is going to get band from this forum for simply correcting gilbo12345's misunderstandings of evolution, he must than ignore us for trying to give him a free education.

 

[Inferno]

ince no one is going to get band

 

[Frenger]

Dear Gilbo.

This video corrects a lot of your mistakes. Please watch it before making any further comments.

 

[detrean]

I am here to act as the dictionary Nazi. I usually do not have to do this in debates but Gilbo constantly needs to be reminded how things are defined. I also know there is a quote system here but I will be drawing from multiple Gilbo posts so I'll just quote the old fashioned way. Let us begin again.


Gilbo: "Thus bringing us back to my call for a distinction to be made since they are different things and therefore shouldn't be lumped together, unless we like having the automatic ability to equivocate terms, since you admit that there are two different formulations to evolution... (Of which I only doubt the largescale extrapolated one)"

There need not be a call for a distinction. A distinction has already been made and you already know about it.

Evolution (defined by your dictionary): change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Theory of evolution (defined by your dictionary): a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. (I do not think this is a very good definition of the theory but it is acceptable. See the definition of scientific theory if you are still confused by what that means)

Scientific fact (defined by your dictionary): any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.


Gilbo: "Where have I used my own definitons? I have been using dictionary definitions so I ask you to retract your wrongful statement."

You constantly exchange definitions and muddy the waters. For example you even requested that people say "scientific fact" instead of "fact" within a scientific discussion. You have many times misunderstood the definition of a scientific theory. Example: "If its a theoretical model then how is it claimed to be a "fact." You asked that question after I had already clearly defined the word theory for you from multiple sources.

Evolution is a fact within the theory of evolution. Do you disagree with this scientific statement given the above definitions from YOUR source? If not, why not?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

ince no one is going to get band

Blast! My dySlEXiA strikes again. The sad thing is when I originally wrote that out I had "banned" and had changed it while editing my post.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

By the way...

Pardon my manners, Aelyn: welcome to LoR!

Gilbo12345, in keeping with detrean's post above, your observed tendency to insist on using unnecessary words is becoming ridiculous.

To put it into perspective...

What if you went to a scientific conference and insisted that the scientists used "scientific" before they said "theory" or "fact" - what reaction would you get?

The same as if you joined a group of Christians discussing God, ethics and morality and insisted that they use the word "Christian" before they said any of those three: "Christian God", "Christian ethics" and "Christian morality".

Since they would be using the words "God/ethics/morality" solely within the context of Christianity - they wouldn't need to specify to which they're referring.

Equally, all those in this discussion know that we're using "theory" and "fact" in the scientific sense, not the general sense of the term.

Your inability to grasp this simple use of context - and your continuing to argue semantics - says more about your one-dimensional thinking than about our supposed lack of accuracy.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

This has already been discussed before, (read my posts), and I will now ask you the same as I have asked before. WIth the small variations we observe and which are a fact can these ever lead to new structural changes of the basic body plan of the organism.

For example colours of moths is touted as "Evidence" of evolution, I will ask you does the changing of the frequency of the colour of moths lead it to a new structural adaption in order for it to not be a moth anymore.... No, its simply a moth with different colours... Its still the same thing... Now would any change such a this, hair colour, skin tone, resistance to diseases etc, logically lead to a structural change? Unless this can be demonstrated and empirically verified then you're simply comparing apples to oranges, since its not verified that these small changes ever would lead to the large scale structural changes meaning that there is no reason to think that they would, (unless one already has an apriori agreement to deem evolution is a "fact" in which it can never be wrong). This is why I ask for evidence, otherwise the extrapolations of change being made are unfounded and thus unscientific.

This is utterly irrelevant.

You're re-defining the biology term"evolution" to mean more than it does.

It means change in populations.

Do you accept that change is an observed fact?

Actually, you've already answered that, by bringing up the moths that CHANGED.

I have no idea why you insist on this change being structural before you seem to be willing to accept the fact that it is a change.


But well, what you seem to be doing is to equate the term "evolution" with the "Theory of Evolution", when I have on two occasions made it abundantly clear that they are not the same thing.

Then you go on to denying that small changes can lead to bigger changes, which goes against the evidence that science has found, but that is your prerogative - but I would argue that is another discussion entirely.




Edit: Just in case...


One last time, gilbo:


"Evolution" IS NOT THE SAME AS "The Theory of Evolution".

Got it??

 

[detrean]

Given that he has posted multiple times on his forum but has yet to follow up with a response here I gotta wonder if he simply gave up.

I know it must be hard to have your preferred dictionary disagree with your use of words.

Once you force him to use words as they are clearly defined he doesn't have much fight after that.

 

[Inferno]

Given that he has posted multiple times on his forum but has yet to follow up with a response here I gotta wonder if he simply gave up.

I know it must be hard to have your preferred dictionary disagree with your use of words.

Once you force him to use words as they are clearly defined he doesn't have much fight after that.

Actually, I followed him to EvolutionFairyTale forum and he said that he was STILL correct, because you only found the definition for "scientific fact", whereas he was using the definition for "fact". So if they (by that, he means scientists) had said "evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact" he'd have agreed, but since they said "evolution is a fact" you're still wrong.

It makes me want to weep.

 

[Frenger]

Actually, I followed him to EvolutionFairyTale forum and he said that he was STILL correct, because you only found the definition for "scientific fact", whereas he was using the definition for "fact". So if they (by that, he means scientists) had said "evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact" he'd have agreed, but since they said "evolution is a fact" you're still wrong.

It makes me want to weep.

Well......that's fairly spectacular.

Anyone want to play "when well Inferno get banned bingo"?

 

[Inferno]

Actually, I followed him to EvolutionFairyTale forum and he said that he was STILL correct, because you only found the definition for "scientific fact", whereas he was using the definition for "fact". So if they (by that, he means scientists) had said "evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact" he'd have agreed, but since they said "evolution is a fact" you're still wrong.

It makes me want to weep.

Well......that's fairly spectacular.

Anyone want to play "when well Inferno get banned bingo"?

Since I'm not going back, they'll have a hard time banning me.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Since I'm not going back, they'll have a hard time banning me.

That's too bad (about you not going back). You and australopithecus resulted in some of the best unintentional hilarity I've seen in a while. Most notably this one which gives us the following example of simple, yet beautiful, logic.

Premise 1. Inferno teaches biology.
Premise 2. Calypsis4 taught biology.
Conclusion: Inferno must now explain abiogenesis in a macro evolution topic.

Joking aside, you'll never get through to them because they don't want to learn. I do salute you for at least attempting it. That's all anyone can ask.

 

[Inferno]

Since I'm not going back, they'll have a hard time banning me.

That's too bad (about you not going back). You and australopithecus resulted in some of the best unintentional hilarity I've seen in a while. Most notably this one which gives us the following example of simple, yet beautiful, logic.

Premise 1. Inferno teaches biology.
Premise 2. Calypsis4 taught biology.
Conclusion: Inferno must now explain abiogenesis in a macro evolution topic.

Joking aside, you'll never get through to them because they don't want to learn. I do salute you for at least attempting it. That's all anyone can ask.

Indeed.

There is one member on that forum who seems to be objective and fair, at least based on the few interactions I've had with him up until now. I have invited herebedragons here and would be glad if he took the opportunity to discuss things in a more sane environment.

 

[Inferno]

Screw it, I've given it one more shot.

 

[Aelyn]

Screw it, I've given it one more shot.

Come to the Dark Side, Inferno.... It is your destiny.... huuuu-shhhhhh....

EDIT : PS : Thank you for the welcome, Dragan Glas ! ^^

 

[Inferno]

Screw it, I've given it one more shot.

Come to the Dark Side, Inferno.... It is your destiny.... huuuu-shhhhhh....

EDIT : PS : Thank you for the welcome, Dragan Glas ! ^^

Haaaaaaaaa, what can I say, it gives me a kick.
Also welcome, would be nice to know something about you. (Hint: Introduction thread?!?)

Second also, who are you on EFT forum?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Screw it, I've given it one more shot.

I've been looking at the EFT forum - strange how one of the Admins ("Ron") keeps using threats of banning when people insist on questioning his assertions. I see a number of Junior Members - who are YECs even! - have been banned.

Which topics are you in?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Screw it, I've given it one more shot.

Come to the Dark Side, Inferno.... It is your destiny.... huuuu-shhhhhh....

EDIT : PS : Thank you for the welcome, Dragan Glas ! ^^

You're welcome!

Just reading through Why don't you believe the bible?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Aelyn]

Haaaaaaaaa, what can I say, it gives me a kick.
Also welcome, would be nice to know something about you. (Hint: Introduction thread?!?)

Second also, who are you on EFT forum?

I'm "aelyn" on the EFT forum; I first posted here in Aron-Ra's thread "Here comes another one", and as I said there I was mostly following Gilbo over and I can't tell whether I'll stay here long or not. You all are friendly and welcoming but there are only so many forums one can spend time on in a day . Then again Gilbo left and I'm still here, so... we'll see. I might post on the Introduction thread later.