Replies

This is starting to get puzzling.

I’ve asked several times for the proof of evolution and people have responded back with document references with things like new species of salamanders and flowers.

This time, I won't leave room for error. You requested a fact, not proof (at least from me. Here it is:

To: Gumlegs

uhhhhh ...... that was my point! It's a theory. No proof.

Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts.

I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period. Every so call "fact" supporting evolution relies on the viewer/reviewer to infer the result, not very good scientific practice.

124 posted on 06/27/2006 1:00:24 PM EDT by Russ_in_NC

Let us list the misconceptions in the above post alone:
1. “It’s a theory. No proof.”
Your use of English is so … imprecise … that it's difficult to respond. It is true that in science a theory, by definition, can't be proved. This does not mean there is no evidence to support the theory – good grief! – if there were no evidence, it wouldn't rise to the level of a theory. What a theory must have is facts supporting it, and no evidence that would disprove it. A scientific theory must also be capable of disproof.
2. " Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. "
Ummm … okay, but see your own sentence 3, below. 3. " They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts."
So in sentence 2 you state, "It doesn'st mean that they [theories] go into the realm of Proofs," and in the very next sentence you state, "They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts." You managed to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. Please note, this is not a criticism of your literary style. It's the sort of thing that has us questioning whether you know what you're talking about. For the record, no theory can be proved, and no theory becomes a "proof," at least in science.
4. " I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period."
That is what I responded to. You asked for a fact, not proof.

But the conversation went on. Here you are again, this time in post 133.

To: Gumlegs

Please read Websters New World Compact Dictionary, page 363, bottom right side of the page.

Proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something" It's the 1st definition of the word and copied verbatim. If you disagree, perhaps you should write Webster and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps before you accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about you should look up their proofs/definitions before you prove to everyone else reading your response that the exact opposite is true.

you wrote: "Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist." So the 26 years I've been working in the scientific field and being rewarded for those efforts, with several outstanding contribution awards, were all a fraud simply because you don't know the real definition of the word proof? Stop the presses, "Gumlegs" says anyone who require proof is not a real scientists.

I ask you for facts and like all evolutionist you answer the request by trying to divert the argument. For your small weak mind, the Clinton Democrats "IGNORED" facts. Evolutionist, such as yourself, rely on theories not facts. So let's stop and get off the personal attacks and actually get back to the point at hand and my original post.

Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution. Not something that can be inferred, fact. If its just a theory (as all the information available today so states) then the schools and evolutionist should stop referring to it as fact and call it a theory. It as plain and simple as that.

133 posted on 06/27/2006 2:05:49 PM EDT by Russ_in_NC

There's the request [bolding and font size mine]. See? "Fact" not "proof."

On this very thread, we've already answered your objection "It was just a new species of flower," with the perfectly reasonable response, "That's what evolution is, speciation." You tried the "show me a flower that mutates into … " what was it? A fungus? Algae? We pointed out that such an event is not only not predicted by the TOE, it would actually disprove it.

Speciation is one step. The process of Evolution takes more years than you're willing to admit ever existed. If you want to argue this on theological grounds, there's nothing to argue about. However, if you want to take on the science, you're going to have to do better.