outhouse
Atheistically
even the creationist websites say STAY AWAY from this subject or you will get OWNED LOL :slap:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a 'theory' ?
- Thread starter Iasion
- Start date
even the creationist websites say STAY AWAY from this subject or you will get OWNED LOL :slap:
Gday sandinshorts
False.
The term was introduced by astarath back on page 2 :
Is you argument so bad you have to lie about something so trivial ?
Like I said.
Like I said.
Iasion
False.
The term was introduced by astarath back on page 2 :
Is you argument so bad you have to lie about something so trivial ?
Like I said.
Like I said.
Iasion
Gday,
There is the problem.
You confuse uncertainty with some specific issue with uncertainty over evolution itself.
It's the same old nonsense we hear evety day from evolution deniers - such and such is "uncertain" !!!
See! UNCERTAIN! I was right! It's NOT certain! hahaha pwned !1111one111
What idiocy.
There ARE many details in science that are not certain - of course there are, else we would KNOW everthing.
But evolution itself?
A competely certain, known and observed fact of life.
Tell us newhope101 - what did Moses have for breakfast on his 40th birthday day?
What? you don't KNOW?
Haha - so the bible is UNCERTAIN - you DON'T KNOW anything !
See! UNCERTAIN! I was right! It's NOT certain! hahaha pwned !1111one111
Iasion
There is the problem.
You confuse uncertainty with some specific issue with uncertainty over evolution itself.
It's the same old nonsense we hear evety day from evolution deniers - such and such is "uncertain" !!!
See! UNCERTAIN! I was right! It's NOT certain! hahaha pwned !1111one111
What idiocy.
There ARE many details in science that are not certain - of course there are, else we would KNOW everthing.
But evolution itself?
A competely certain, known and observed fact of life.
Tell us newhope101 - what did Moses have for breakfast on his 40th birthday day?
What? you don't KNOW?
Haha - so the bible is UNCERTAIN - you DON'T KNOW anything !
See! UNCERTAIN! I was right! It's NOT certain! hahaha pwned !1111one111
Iasion
newhope101
Active Member
.The morphology of the skull has to do with many things including dietary habbits. Also flat faces appear in non human primates and are not unique to the homo line. Neanderthal had a larger brain than Sapiens and this was related to smell, according to flavour of the month of course. Hence large brains are not necessarily an indication of growing intelligence at all. Your skulls could belong to any non human primate. The human version of FOXP2 BTW is dated to 5,000ya. Plants have Foxp2 and guess what? They neither think nor speak. Genetic similarities mean nothing. It is RNA regulation that is master of uniqueness and appears to be have been used by God in the creation of kinds.
Here is an excerpt:
New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features
ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one. The finding sheds important new light on the evolutionary development of hominids, including orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans.
Anoiapithecus displays a very modern facial morphology, with a muzzle prognathism (i.e., protrusion of the jaw) so reduced that, within the family Hominidae, scientists can only find comparable values within the genus Homo, whereas the remaining great apes are notoriously more prognathic (i.e., having jaws that project forward markedly). The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo, the researchers note. However, the similarity might be a case of evolutionary convergence, where two species evolving separately share common features.
Journal Reference:
- Salvador Moyà-Solà, David M. Alba, Sergio Almécija, Isaac Casanovas-Vilar, Meike Köhler, Soledad De Esteban-Trivigno, Josep M. Robles, Jordi Galindo, and Josep Fortuny. A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0811730106
Note...this guy has no relationship to Homo for once. I wonder why? Could it be tied to making things fit or NOT. I believe so.
Gday,
Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
But you are still stuck on word games over what "theory" means.
Not only are you ignorant of the basic details, you refuse to learn.
Iasion
Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
But you are still stuck on word games over what "theory" means.
Not only are you ignorant of the basic details, you refuse to learn.
Iasion
Gday,
Over the years, MILLIONS of tests by many THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries SUPPORTS evolution.
100.0% of such tests support evolution.
0.0% of such tests disagree with evolution.
If there was even ONE that disagreed you would shout it from the rooftops all day long!
But nothing !
So evolution deniers are left with vague claims and preaching - anything to avoid addressing the facts.
Iaison
Over the years, MILLIONS of tests by many THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries SUPPORTS evolution.
100.0% of such tests support evolution.
0.0% of such tests disagree with evolution.
If there was even ONE that disagreed you would shout it from the rooftops all day long!
But nothing !
So evolution deniers are left with vague claims and preaching - anything to avoid addressing the facts.
Iaison
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
This has already been pointed out, but let's try it again. Even if the fossil record did not exist, there would be overwhelming proof of the theory of evolution. The fossil record is not the only evidence for it, nor is it any longer the most convincing evidence for it. However, in light of all the other information we have to establish evolution as a scientific fact (e.g. DNA), the extremely rich fossil record that we do have more than corroborates it. Indeed, there is no other theory of fossils that could explain the patterns of ancient plants and animals that we find lodged in rock strata.
newhope101
Active Member
This isn't about the bible. This is about what is theory. I suggest that such desperate attempts, that in no way address nor refute the points I make, are in theselves laughable. If that's the best you have to offer. How about this?
Wiki: Demarcation in contemporary scientific method
The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science today vary in their details from application to application, and vary significantly among the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science. The criteria typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific. The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory[citation needed]:
Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future. Nope. Human/chimp differences in Y chromosome nor expected. New theories again required to explain the unpredicted eg accelerated evolution. Selection of deleterious mutations, Aves phylogeny in dispute with lizards taxon. Dates keep changing etc.
Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation. Nope youve got more contradictions than you can poke a stick with.
Eg.Cladists use cladograms diagrams which show ancestral relations between species to represent the monophyletic relationships of species, termed sister-group relationships. This is interpreted as representing phylogeny, or evolutionary relationships. Although traditionally such cladograms were generated largely on the basis of morphological characters, genetic sequencing data and computational phylogenetics are now very commonly used in the generation of cladograms.
Cladistics, either generally or in specific applications, has been criticized from its beginnings. A decision as to whether a particular character is a synapomorphy or not may be challenged as involving subjective judgements,[4] raising the issue of whether cladistics as actually practised is as objective as has been claimed. Formal classifications based on cladistic reasoning are said to emphasize ancestry at the expense of descriptive characteristics, and thus ignore biologically sensible, clearly defined groups which do not fall into clades (e.g. reptiles as traditionally defined or prokaryotes).[5]
Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena..with the presumption of ancestry.
Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made. Yep..thats why it is a theory and not a fact. Facts are not changeable.
Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle Nope eg Aves, reptiles..so unrobust and non integrative that your cladistics and taxonomy are often contradictory.
Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities. Nope you have hundreds of them to explain everything that is unexpected and most are still in debate despite commonly accepted popular thinking, that has been proven incorrect in the past.
Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.Absolutely correct
Ha Ha
Alceste
Vagabond
You're not "making points", you're copying and pasting stuff you found on the internet.
Newhope101
How amusing that you, of all people, should assert:
"So what I think your researchers actually have is theory grounded on a wish list."
Ah, I see. So all of the scientists in the world have conspired to advance a false theory, in order to deliberately deceive everyone on Earth, because they have a secret agenda - a "wish list".
Fortunately, creationists have united in the spirit of advancing true scientific knowledge, and have organized a noble crusade to crush the evil lie spun by those sinister scientists with their self-serving wish list. At least these creationist warriors can be trusted; they certainly have no personal agenda of their own that might colour their impartiality.
Next, you have the audacity to preach: "Evidence is what you can see."
Finally, you provide a sentence that is so ungrammatical, that for the life of me, I cannot decipher its intended meaning:
"Evolutionary theory is about how to scew [sic] the algorithims to show decent and ancestry with any find researchers BELIEVE is connected."
A word of caution: If you wish to engage in a war of cut-and-paste, it would certainly make my job of refuting you effortless. But I'd prefer you educate yourself, rather than put me in charge.
How amusing that you, of all people, should assert:
"So what I think your researchers actually have is theory grounded on a wish list."
Ah, I see. So all of the scientists in the world have conspired to advance a false theory, in order to deliberately deceive everyone on Earth, because they have a secret agenda - a "wish list".
Fortunately, creationists have united in the spirit of advancing true scientific knowledge, and have organized a noble crusade to crush the evil lie spun by those sinister scientists with their self-serving wish list. At least these creationist warriors can be trusted; they certainly have no personal agenda of their own that might colour their impartiality.
Next, you have the audacity to preach: "Evidence is what you can see."
Finally, you provide a sentence that is so ungrammatical, that for the life of me, I cannot decipher its intended meaning:
"Evolutionary theory is about how to scew [sic] the algorithims to show decent and ancestry with any find researchers BELIEVE is connected."
A word of caution: If you wish to engage in a war of cut-and-paste, it would certainly make my job of refuting you effortless. But I'd prefer you educate yourself, rather than put me in charge.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Oh! A "Cut and Paste" war!
Can I play?
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In laymans terms, if something is said to be just a theory, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They dont really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hooks law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Can I play?
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In laymans terms, if something is said to be just a theory, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They dont really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hooks law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
You are absolutely right to return to the topic. This is a debate about what is "theory". Going back to the OP, the point made was that there were two senses of "theory" at issue: the scientific "explanation" sense and the hypothetical "speculation" sense. Do you disagree with that point, which is not about the Bible or science, but about linguistic usage? If not, then we can turn to our dictionaries for cut-and-pastes.
If you accept that the word "theory" is ambiguous, then you can examine the claim that "Evolution is just a theory". Which sense of "theory" is meant by "theory" in the expression "just a theory"? It is the speculative sense, not the scientific sense. Scientific theories are regarded as truths established by the preponderance of evidence--for example that the diameter of the sun is greater than the diameter of the moon, despite the fact that the sun in the sky looks like it is smaller than the moon. One would not use dismissive language to call that "just a theory". It is established fact. And so is the "theory" of evolution, by the same usage criteria. It is not "just a theory". It is an established fact.
Last edited:
Lasion,
You quoted my assertion: "Fortunately, the entire "missing links/gaps" argument is irrelevant."
Your only reply was: "Like I said."
Again you quoted me: "As Richard Dawkins points out, even if fossils never existed, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. It can be observed in a test tube, both literally and figuratively speaking."
Again, your only reply was: "Like I said."
I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Could you try to articulate an intelligible reply?
(Incidentally, the correct grammar is, "As I said.")
You quoted my assertion: "Fortunately, the entire "missing links/gaps" argument is irrelevant."
Your only reply was: "Like I said."
Again you quoted me: "As Richard Dawkins points out, even if fossils never existed, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. It can be observed in a test tube, both literally and figuratively speaking."
Again, your only reply was: "Like I said."
I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Could you try to articulate an intelligible reply?
(Incidentally, the correct grammar is, "As I said.")
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I'm not really sure what you two are arguing over, but I can make two points, one by the power vested in me by my Ph.D. in linguistics.
1) The initial letter in "Iasion" is a capital "i", not a capital "l". He has already said that.
2) There is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with the expression "Like I said". The word "like" is a perfectly good subordinating conjunction, as is "as", regardless of what your schoolmarm (or Strunk and White) may have told you.
Gday,
Thanks Copernicus
Here is my attempt to give a full picture of how 'theory' applies to evolution.
Two common uses of the word theory can be boiled down to :
1. explanation
2. speculation
A speculation theory can be right or wrong.
An explanation theory can also be right or wrong.
It is not always black and white - sometimes a theory can even have both meanings - by being a speculative explanation - such as the "Demonic Theory of Disease".
The Demonic Theory of Disease speculates that disease is explained by demons. This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons), and - it is a WRONG explanation.
But consider the more modern competing explanation for disease - the "Germ Theory of Disease". This particular explanation (theory) of disease is NOT speculation - it is based on observation. It's a fact.
The Demonic Theory (explanation) of Disease was speculation - and it was wrong. Demons were just a theory, and the theory turned out to be wrong.
The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease started out as speculation e.g. when Lister hypothesized germs were causing sepsis. He was spectacularly right - his theory (speculation) was correct. Now we have direct evidence for germs and their cause of disease, and so the Germ Theory (explanation) for Disease is considered a fact.
Typically such speculation early in the scientific process is refered to as a 'hypothesis', sometimes a 'conjecture'. Then the hypothesis is tested with a experiments. Lister tested his hypothesis by performing surgery under a fine spray of anti-septic (1867.)
Such tests will support or disprove the hypothesis - but strictly speaking never 'prove'. After directly observing germs causing disease in practice, our evidence for germs is so solid it's a fact(*). When we refer to the Germ Theory of Disease no-one says "aha! so germs are still just a THEORY!"
(*) Strictly speaking all facts are provisional, but once something has vast overwhelmign evidence, it's just called a 'fact'.
Now - evolution.
Sure enough Darwin started by proposing a speculative claim - a hypothesis, a conjecture.
Boiled down to the nubbin his hypothesis, his speculation, his conjecture was this :
Natural selection (descent with modification) explains the origin of all species on earth
So Darwin's theory (or explanation) was indeed speculation in his time - it had not been fully supported by evidence, not accepted by science. (Of course the actual facts of nature were true before science understood them.)
So - Darwin's explanation of evolution was originally speculation.
But quite quickly the evidence to support Darwin's hypothesis began to accumulate. Not just that but prior observations and experiments were put into sharp relief by Darwin's hypothetical explanation.
It became clear that Darwin was right - very very clear and obvious. Eventually the evidence was so great than Darwin's explanation was no longer considered speculation - it was considered a fact.
So it is indeed true that Darwin's hypothetical explanation started as speculation - is now considered as a factual explanation - because the evidence is so strong.
His hypothesis was confirmed as correct. The evidence is SO solid, it is as strong a fact as anything in biology. His hypothesis became accepted as a fact.
Nonetheless it is still a formal scientific explanation, it can still be called a THEORY - an explanation. In the same way that gravity can be called a theory - actually TWO theories, so scientists often talk about Newton's Theory of gravity and Einstein's Theory of gravity.
Generally - biologists don't refer to the "Theory of Evolution" unless they want to emphasize the theoretical aspect - usually it's just refered to as "evolution". Same as physicists refer to "gravity" or "electricity".
But creationists sieze on this word "theory" and spin out on word games about "speculation".
Iasion
Thanks Copernicus
Here is my attempt to give a full picture of how 'theory' applies to evolution.
Two common uses of the word theory can be boiled down to :
1. explanation
2. speculation
A speculation theory can be right or wrong.
An explanation theory can also be right or wrong.
It is not always black and white - sometimes a theory can even have both meanings - by being a speculative explanation - such as the "Demonic Theory of Disease".
The Demonic Theory of Disease speculates that disease is explained by demons. This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons), and - it is a WRONG explanation.
But consider the more modern competing explanation for disease - the "Germ Theory of Disease". This particular explanation (theory) of disease is NOT speculation - it is based on observation. It's a fact.
The Demonic Theory (explanation) of Disease was speculation - and it was wrong. Demons were just a theory, and the theory turned out to be wrong.
The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease started out as speculation e.g. when Lister hypothesized germs were causing sepsis. He was spectacularly right - his theory (speculation) was correct. Now we have direct evidence for germs and their cause of disease, and so the Germ Theory (explanation) for Disease is considered a fact.
Typically such speculation early in the scientific process is refered to as a 'hypothesis', sometimes a 'conjecture'. Then the hypothesis is tested with a experiments. Lister tested his hypothesis by performing surgery under a fine spray of anti-septic (1867.)
Such tests will support or disprove the hypothesis - but strictly speaking never 'prove'. After directly observing germs causing disease in practice, our evidence for germs is so solid it's a fact(*). When we refer to the Germ Theory of Disease no-one says "aha! so germs are still just a THEORY!"
(*) Strictly speaking all facts are provisional, but once something has vast overwhelmign evidence, it's just called a 'fact'.
Now - evolution.
Sure enough Darwin started by proposing a speculative claim - a hypothesis, a conjecture.
Boiled down to the nubbin his hypothesis, his speculation, his conjecture was this :
Natural selection (descent with modification) explains the origin of all species on earth
So Darwin's theory (or explanation) was indeed speculation in his time - it had not been fully supported by evidence, not accepted by science. (Of course the actual facts of nature were true before science understood them.)
So - Darwin's explanation of evolution was originally speculation.
But quite quickly the evidence to support Darwin's hypothesis began to accumulate. Not just that but prior observations and experiments were put into sharp relief by Darwin's hypothetical explanation.
It became clear that Darwin was right - very very clear and obvious. Eventually the evidence was so great than Darwin's explanation was no longer considered speculation - it was considered a fact.
So it is indeed true that Darwin's hypothetical explanation started as speculation - is now considered as a factual explanation - because the evidence is so strong.
His hypothesis was confirmed as correct. The evidence is SO solid, it is as strong a fact as anything in biology. His hypothesis became accepted as a fact.
Nonetheless it is still a formal scientific explanation, it can still be called a THEORY - an explanation. In the same way that gravity can be called a theory - actually TWO theories, so scientists often talk about Newton's Theory of gravity and Einstein's Theory of gravity.
Generally - biologists don't refer to the "Theory of Evolution" unless they want to emphasize the theoretical aspect - usually it's just refered to as "evolution". Same as physicists refer to "gravity" or "electricity".
But creationists sieze on this word "theory" and spin out on word games about "speculation".
Iasion
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
LOL you've never talked to a flat earther have you.
Copernicus,
While your credentials are impressive, your claim that "like I said" is grammatically correct, is certainly disputable.
Typing '"as' vs 'like'" in Google's search engine provides an overwhelming condemnation of your claim.
One example:
"'As I said' is correct--not 'Like I said.' The same goes for 'As it says'--not 'Like it says.'"
-http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2008/01/as-i-said-make.html
Another example:
"'When to Use Like, When to Use As
The proper way to differentiate between like and as is to use like when no verb follows. For example, Squiggly throws like a raccoon or It acted just like my computer. Notice that when I use like, the words that come after are generally simple. A raccoon and my computer are the objects of the preposition.
If the clause that comes next includes a verb, then you should use as. For example, Squiggly throws as if he were a raccoon or It acted just as I would expect my computer to behave. Notice that when I use as, the words that come after tend to be more complex....
Whether you abide by this rule or not probably depends on how much of a grammar stickler you are. It's common to hear sentences like this: It's like I'm sitting at my own computer. And as a result, many people don't know it's wrong. In one survey, 21 percent of professional writers and editors said they found such constructions acceptable in casual speech. On the other hand, only 6 percent thought the construction would be OK in formal writing (3)."
-http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/like-versus-as.aspx
While your credentials are impressive, your claim that "like I said" is grammatically correct, is certainly disputable.
Typing '"as' vs 'like'" in Google's search engine provides an overwhelming condemnation of your claim.
One example:
"'As I said' is correct--not 'Like I said.' The same goes for 'As it says'--not 'Like it says.'"
-http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2008/01/as-i-said-make.html
Another example:
"'When to Use Like, When to Use As
The proper way to differentiate between like and as is to use like when no verb follows. For example, Squiggly throws like a raccoon or It acted just like my computer. Notice that when I use like, the words that come after are generally simple. A raccoon and my computer are the objects of the preposition.
If the clause that comes next includes a verb, then you should use as. For example, Squiggly throws as if he were a raccoon or It acted just as I would expect my computer to behave. Notice that when I use as, the words that come after tend to be more complex....
Whether you abide by this rule or not probably depends on how much of a grammar stickler you are. It's common to hear sentences like this: It's like I'm sitting at my own computer. And as a result, many people don't know it's wrong. In one survey, 21 percent of professional writers and editors said they found such constructions acceptable in casual speech. On the other hand, only 6 percent thought the construction would be OK in formal writing (3)."
-http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/like-versus-as.aspx
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
I'll give you a word of caution also..cut and paste evidence is more supportive of a stance than your woffle. Evidence presented here has clearly outlined that evolutionary theory is very fallable. Woffle and degrading creationists, appears to be the only evidence you have put forward to substantiate that your theories are any more than woffle themselves.
This is the beauty of this thread.
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
..and it's been a while since I've spoken to peope that hope humans can still breed with chimps. Go figure..there are some fairly unstable people around here..granted.
So throwing up real science in the here and now is the best example you can scratch up for backing up your evolutionary theories.
There is definitely real science going on out there. The evolutionary sciences are not some of them.
That's why an apple always falls to the ground but knuclewalking ancestry is in the garbge bin. Get it?