Ok sorry, this is the same link.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
Tea Party GOP Senate Candidate: Evolution is a myth
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
A fact is just a theory that has a shitload of strong evidence in its favour. E.g. it's a fact that Russia exists, that the moon landings occurred, that Pol Pot organised the killing of several million people.
So all this BS about "evolution is a fact" vs "evolution is a theory" is missing the point. There is a shitload of strong evidence for evolution, so it's a fact, in the commonly understood meaning of the word "fact". End of story. The only reason to call it a "theory" is to try to play BS semantic games to imply that it doesn't have that much supporting evidence. If that were the case then there'd be a large number of scientists pointing this out, there'd be lots of controversy (as there is with global warming, for example, which is a theory and not a fact, at least not yet). There aren't a large number of scientists disputing evolution, so it isn't a tenuous theory, still to be confirmed, it is a scientific fact, i.e. an *already confirmed* theory with a huge amount of evidence that it is true and no credible evidence that it's false. If the evidence is strong enough for the Vatican then that is saying something.
On the other side we have the idea of the world created by a supreme being in 6 days. No supporting evidence whatsoever, clearly ludicrous to common sense, contradicted by everything we now about the natural world and the universe. Only reference is one religious text, which also claims the world is only 6000 years old, lol.
If you seriously dispute evolution in favour of creationism then you are an uneducated ignoramus, end of story.
So all this BS about "evolution is a fact" vs "evolution is a theory" is missing the point. There is a shitload of strong evidence for evolution, so it's a fact, in the commonly understood meaning of the word "fact". End of story. The only reason to call it a "theory" is to try to play BS semantic games to imply that it doesn't have that much supporting evidence. If that were the case then there'd be a large number of scientists pointing this out, there'd be lots of controversy (as there is with global warming, for example, which is a theory and not a fact, at least not yet). There aren't a large number of scientists disputing evolution, so it isn't a tenuous theory, still to be confirmed, it is a scientific fact, i.e. an *already confirmed* theory with a huge amount of evidence that it is true and no credible evidence that it's false. If the evidence is strong enough for the Vatican then that is saying something.
On the other side we have the idea of the world created by a supreme being in 6 days. No supporting evidence whatsoever, clearly ludicrous to common sense, contradicted by everything we now about the natural world and the universe. Only reference is one religious text, which also claims the world is only 6000 years old, lol.
If you seriously dispute evolution in favour of creationism then you are an uneducated ignoramus, end of story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from stu:
...evolution quite clearly isn't "just a theory".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from stu:
Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucrum I think what stu is saying (maybe?) is fact that evolution happens to organisms. This is fact. In this facts is the theory of how this evolution facts happen. Genetic drift? Natural selection? How much of each?
Sorry stu if I am wrong about what you say.
Quote from stu:
...evolution quite clearly isn't "just a theory".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from stu:
Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucrum I think what stu is saying (maybe?) is fact that evolution happens to organisms. This is fact. In this facts is the theory of how this evolution facts happen. Genetic drift? Natural selection? How much of each?
Sorry stu if I am wrong about what you say.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IfreMMJP6C4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IfreMMJP6C4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaaahahaha!! So funny!
I agree. If I were American, and especially a right-wing American, I'd be blushing and hanging my head with shame at the calibre of the Tea Party candidates. They are a fucking disgrace to their country. Uneducated, scientifically illiterate, clueless about basic economics and politics, narrow-minded, racist hicks from the sticks, exactly the sort of people that everyone from civilised countries outside the USA (and a lot in it) points and laughs at.
What is strange is that they have no platform, they are just an "anti" protest movement. Single issue protest movements never form successful governments, they are condemned to be players on the lunatic fringe, at most they might form an effective NGO or think tank, but that would require a few more IQ points than the Tea Party have.
The most ridiculous thing is that there is a great platform ready and waiting to be implemented. Small-government US conservatism in the spirit of the founding fathers. I.e. slash the size of the state, roll back the power of government, and strengthen individual and civil liberties. Abolish the Fed, fractional reserve banking, the patriot act, all US bases abroad, and gun control laws. Cut the military budget by 75% and make it defend the USA instead of fucking around in 3rd world countries constantly creating new enemies, slaughtering civilians, and piling up body bags and trauma for soldiers. Introduce a flat tax of around 15-20%, ban deficit spending unless the country is in recession or at war, abolish social security and replace it with private pensions. Strengthen freedom of speech and expression, property rights, and democratic accountability, bring in term limits, abolish drug prohibition, and stop serious jail time for all but actual criminals, no 5 year sentences for bouncing a $50 cheque. This would not only be a very popular platform, but it would work. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore have shown how well a flat, low tax works for the economy. Many countries in the first world have shown that 'extreme' civil liberties are nothing but beneficial for both individuals and society. Crime stats from 'Shall-issue' CCW permit states have shown that gun rights result in lower crime. The vast majority of violent crime is related to the illicit drug trade.
What's not to like about lower taxes, small government, lower and eventually negative debt, a more stable economy, zero inflation, lower crime, and more freedom. Doh. Why the fuck aren't the Tea Party proposing the obvious stuff like that, instead of going on about the right to racially discriminate in business, or the evils of masturbation, or how the world was made in 6 days and creationism should be taught in schools. Dumb idiots, 2 years of their idiocy will *guarantee* Obama gets re-elected in a landslide.
Anyone who has spent even 1 hour reading up on evolution can see plain as day that a creationist could only hold that view by deliberately ignoring an overwhelming mountain of evidence. Anyone who is still a creationist this late in the day is either just plain ignorant and uneducated, or wilfully ignoring the evidence in order to cling on to their beliefs for other reasons. After all, many people find it hard to accept that something they have believed all their life is totally false.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I understand this. This is like culture shock.
Oh I know organisms "evolve," mutate, change over time and in different ways in different environments.
It's the "we all evolved from space dust that spontaneously erupted from nothingness" THEORY that I have questions/doubts about.
In no small part because of the huge gaping holes in the fossil record where creatures supposedly evolved form earlier creatures that don't even remotely resemble one another. With no real evidence of any transitional creatures in between. Meaning, in my view, there is a tremendous amount of speculation, assumptions and even guessing involved. And while "evolution" has certainly been observed in very small organisms. I doubt we're ever going to observe FIRST HAND in real indisputable evolution of larger species.
In that regard, correct me if I'm wrong, technically the theory of evolution will always be just that.
I have no idea how old the earth is and don't claim to, I wasn't around 6000 years ago. Let alone 5 billion. So far as I know neither was anyone else alive today. For the record I do enjoy science, and even more so history.