(February 16, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Huggy, it doesn't seem like you actually have a coherent grasp of what you believe.  Saying things like, 'the way science spins it,' and 'the scientific version of,' only highlights your ignorance.   There does not exist multiple, equally plausible versions of the theory of evolution for people to pick and choose from depending on what sounds good to them.  There is only the correct description which arose from the scientific method, and is supported by evidence.  If your personal interpretation differs, then you are simply wrong.

*emphasis mine*

Key word being "THEORY".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Quote:Full Definition of theory

plural the·o·ries

   1:  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
   2:  abstract thought :  speculation
   3:  the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
   4 a :  a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
      b :  an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
   5:  a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
   6 a :  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
      b :  an unproved assumption :  conjecture
      c :  a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

(February 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: There is only the correct description which arose from the scientific method, and is supported by evidence.  If your personal interpretation differs, then you are simply wrong.

Evolution (the scientific version) has never been subjected to the scientific method, because that would require it to actually be OBSERVED. Point me to the experiment showing an ape evolving to a human.

Wow, Huggy, usually when you play the dictionary game it's to obfuscate, but this is just outright, blatant dishonesty. How did you manage to quote the dictionary, highlight certain uses of the word 'theory', and still manage to pretend that the relevant use of the word isn't there?

As far as evolution not being observed? Oh, wait . . . you're one of those who accept "micro-evoluton" but deny that "macro-evolution" takes place, right? You realize that these are terms made up by the creationist crowd for rhetorical talking points, and that these terms aren't really in use among scientists, right?

No, of course not. Or rather, you do know that because it's been explained at AF probably hundreds of times by now, but you don't care because you'd rather win an argument dishonestly (or at least derail it) than be correct about something at the expense of your faith. In other words, when it comes to you it's same-old same-old.

(February 16, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Key word being "THEORY".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory




Evolution (the scientific version) has never been subjected to the scientific method, because that would require it to actually be OBSERVED. Point me to the experiment showing an ape evolving to a human.

Wow, Huggy, usually when you play the dictionary game it's to obfuscate, but this is just outright, blatant dishonesty. How did you manage to quote the dictionary, highlight certain uses of the word 'theory', and still manage to pretend that the relevant use of the word isn't there?

As far as evolution not being observed? Oh, wait . . . you're one of those who accept "micro-evoluton" but deny that "macro-evolution" takes place, right? You realize that these are terms made up by the creationist crowd for rhetorical talking points, and that these terms aren't really in use among scientists, right?

No, of course not. Or rather, you do know that because it's been explained at AF probably hundreds of times by now, but you don't care because you'd rather win an argument dishonestly (or at least derail it) than be correct about something at the expense of your faith. In other words, when it comes to you it's same-old same-old.

I know the frustration. I'm STILL waiting for him to explain how freshwater fish survived Noah's flood.

(February 16, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You don't deserve this, but here:

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...out-cells/

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-early-earth...d-rna.html

And please, by no means consider this an acceptance of the burden of proof for anything.  I am providing you with links to scientific research that exists (that you could have EASILY found on your own).

None of those articles claim that LIFE has been successfully replicated in a lab.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Quote:Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.
“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components.

an RNA molecule does not = life.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  You make a god-claim, the burden of proof is yours.  End of story.

We're not talking about God, were talking about Life being created in a lab (your claim), to which you have yet to provide evidence for.

Huggy, you're right. My choice of words was imprecise, and I'll own that. No one has yet to synthesize a protocell in the lab. This in no way undermines my point to you, however. What I should have said was necessary components for abiogenesis have been replicated (both synthetically, and purely by accident) in the lab, and such findings cannot be ignored.

There was a time when scientists could hardly imagine how life emerged from non-life, and now we have scientific evidence of metabolic pathways for glucose metabolism arising spontaneously! The possible mechanisms by which life emerged naturally from non-life have been opened up to us in a tangible way. Because of science. It's a beautiful example of the way science chips slowly away at mystery and superstition. Try following the evidence where it leads you for once, instead of clinging desperately to your fairy tale.

It's still an argument from ignorance; one that is shrinking before your eyes.

(February 12, 2016 at 12:30 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

Neither does creationism.

(February 13, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The point I was making to the op is that creationism and evolution are totally different things.

You're right. One is a viable explanation of the vast variety we see in life. The other is a bronze age fairy tale.

(February 16, 2016 at 11:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 8:37 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: So, that makes a lot of sense, If you're stupid..............

Actually no,

It makes perfect mathematical sense, the human race had to start somewhere.

You seem to think a huge population of humans Just appeared out of nowhere.  Now that's a special kind of stupid.

(emphasis is mine)

Still building your straw man army, eh Huggies?

(February 16, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Huggy, it doesn't seem like you actually have a coherent grasp of what you believe.  Saying things like, 'the way science spins it,' and 'the scientific version of,' only highlights your ignorance.   There does not exist multiple, equally plausible versions of the theory of evolution for people to pick and choose from depending on what sounds good to them.  There is only the correct description which arose from the scientific method, and is supported by evidence.  If your personal interpretation differs, then you are simply wrong.

*emphasis mine*

Key word being "THEORY".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Quote:Full Definition of theory

plural the·o·ries

   1:  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
   2:  abstract thought :  speculation
   3:  the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
   4 a :  a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
      b :  an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
   5:  a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
   6 a :  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
      b :  an unproved assumption :  conjecture
      c :  a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

(my emphasis bolded in red)

Huggies, I see you skipped over the definition that best describes a scientific theory to cherry pick the ones that you think support your bullshit. Bravo.

Do you even understand what science is or what the scientific method is used for? Somehow, I really doubt it.

Lol, Huggy never changes. I opened up this page and saw him quoting a dictionary and literally laughed out loud.

Y'all gotta learn.

(February 17, 2016 at 1:13 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Key word being "THEORY".

Quote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Full Definition of theory

plural the·o·ries

   1:  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
   2:  abstract thought :  speculation
   3:  the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
   4 a :  a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
      b :  an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
   5:  a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
   6 a :  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
      b :  an unproved assumption :  conjecture
      c :  a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

(my emphasis bolded in red)

Huggies, I see you skipped over the definition that best describes a scientific theory to cherry pick the ones that you think support your bullshit. Bravo.

Do you even understand what science is or what the scientific method is used for? Somehow, I really doubt it.

You don't realize that it's still saying the same thing?

Quote:1:  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

That's why a hypothesis is defined as an educated GUESS.

Say someone saw you arguing with your neighbor and the next day he was found stabbed to death with a knife from your kitchen. Those two facts could be used to THEORIZE that YOU stabbed your neighbor, in no way does that make it the truth.

When someone has dogma first and reality second, you cannot have a sensible conversation with them. They will assume that it's reality that's at fault if the two contradict, and will say any complete shit to convince themselves of this.

Take equivocating "theory" (scientific) and "theory" (informal). I've been here long enough to see the difference explained hundreds of times. And again, in this thread. Huggy will not learn, if learning means admitting he might be wrong.