Marjorie Greene knows covid-19 is a bioweapon because evolution doesn't exist

CrakHoBarbie

Active member
Sorry, But in true science, it can only be fact or theory. No hybrid realities allowed. Please, leave that deceitful weaving process to politicians.
Theories and laws are distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact. However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported. For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact.
 

CrakHoBarbie

Active member
You're here and not a monkey
I was referencing the theory of whether God exists or does not exist. Which of those "theories" has more physical evidence to support it? You must have an answer. After all, you implied that I was either going to hell for my beliefs or I was already in hell. Support your theory.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Theories and laws are distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact. However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported. For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact.
I don't recall bringing Hypothesis into the discussion. Hypothesis is a conjecture needing no facts whatsoever in it's creation. Once facts inter to support it, then it becomes a Theory.

You have a theory that it is a fact. Or some arguable combination of fact and theory.
Science does not work that way.
Propaganda does.

It is a fact that evolution is a theory.
It is also a fact that Marjorie Green appears to be a nut case. And preaches her beliefs as facts. They aren't.
I don't think anyone here argued with your original "thesis."

And yet, you create discord.

Plain and simple, Theories are not facts. Once proven as facts, they are no longer "theories."
You believe goblestock.
And sadly, you preach it

BTW, M1west never refereed to a God. Once again you inject something no one said, as a term to make your argument.
 
Last edited:

CrakHoBarbie

Active member
I don't recall bringing Hypothesis into the discussion. Hypothesis is a conjecture needing no facts whatsoever in it's creation. Once facts inter to support it, then it becomes a Theory.

You have a theory that it is a fact. Or some arguable combination of fact and theory.
Science does not work that way.
Propaganda does.

It is a fact that evolution is a theory.
It is also a fact that Marjorie Green appears to be a nut case. And preaches her beliefs as facts. They aren't.
I don't think anyone here argued with your original "thesis."

And yet, you create discord.

Plain and simple, Theories are not facts. Once proven as facts, they are no longer "theories."
You believe goblestock.
And sadly, you preach it

BTW, M1west never refereed to a God. Once again you inject something no one said, as a term to make your argument.
A fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable observation and theory refers to the relationship between facts. Facts or empirically verifiable observations could never have produced without theories. Thus, evolution is both a theory and a fact. You can argue the point till you turn blue, you'll still be wrong.
 

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I was referencing the theory of whether God exists or does not exist. Which of those "theories" has more physical evidence to support it? You must have an answer. After all, you implied that I was either going to hell for my beliefs or I was already in hell. Support your theory.
Read the Bible, all the answers you seek are in it.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
A fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable observation and theory refers to the relationship between facts. Facts or empirically verifiable observations could never have produced without theories. Thus, evolution is both a theory and a fact. You can argue the point till you turn blue, you'll still be wrong.
No one is arguing with your definitions of fact and theory. I am taking pause at your ability to combine them as a proof evolution as fact. They two distinctly deferent terms.

The study of evolutionary theory is a Science. Science is not fact but a search for fact.

Science is the observation of the real world. Such observations allow for thesis and then theory, and then fact.

For instance, We observe that a bird can fly. We observe that is does so by flapping it's wings. Therefore we can theorize that flight is possible via the flap[ping of wings. Assuming everyone in the investigation accepts that Theory, we have a consensus by that community of the Theory.

An entire science could then be used to apply this theory to manned flight. And such was done. To ultimate failure.

The fact is that flight is possible via the SHAPE of the wings.

The secondary fact observed from further, and careful, open minded research of the initial thesis/theory is that flapping the wings provides propulsion.

There are plenty of facts in the science of evolution to support credibility of the Theory. But not to conclude it uncontrovertibly as Fact.

For example let us start at the very beginning. What initiated the first biochemical reaction of sustainable and self replicating "Life ???"

Speaking of beginnings,,,; I would remind all that for decades, the BIG BANG theory was settled science. It is no more. Newly discovered "facts" raise questions.

The search for the truth goes on.
 
Last edited:
Top