Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

Who is the arbiter of what is complete or incomplete?You question just shows that you don't even understand the TOE. You are arguing against something that only exists in your own mind.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Bad ICDESIGN.This is a cut and paste from another forum and that was a cut and paste too. Maybe you could have an original thought sometime
http://forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=104618The give away is the footnote. Neither you or the person you stole it from had the sense to remove.This seems to be the original article that the foot note is pointing to. I cannot find where the cut and paste came from but I will keep looking.
UltraDNS Client Redirection Service

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Found it.Cut and paste from Conservapedia. Then again Conservapedia might have swiped it from someone.
But you didn't get it from Conservapedia did you. You got it from the other forum I mentioned earlier. Want to know how I know?
At Conservapedia the foot note is 18. On the other forum the foot note is 2 just like your post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If you cut and paste something it is necessary to give credit. Anything else is dishonest.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I suggest you do so. It seems the guy you got it from is pretty clueless.

Are you going to even address what Crashfrog and Taq have said in response to you cut and paste assertion? First you cut and paste, then you do not even acknowledge who you stole it from. Then when you are shown that the paper doesn't even say what you claim it does you just want to drop it and move on.Defend your assertion or admit you do not even have a clue what the paper even said.

You have been found to be committing plagiarism. You presented the data as peer-reviewed and it was not. You completely misrepresented the data.When called on it all you can say is that you didn't do it on purpose and evolutionists are just as bad.You are truly a vile person. A truly honest person would admit to their faults and mistakes, but you completely refuse to take any responsibility. None of your arguments are honest, none of the ideas or thoughts you present are your own. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you have no shame. You seem to truly belief that anything is correct and right if you do it for the purpose of your god. Shame on you.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Did you read his post? Do you see how he still refuses to accept any responsibility? His argument is that other people are worse than him. He lies and has no remorse. If that is not the definition of a vile person I do not know what is.He was been told before about his cut and pastes. He refused to admit he stole it until he was confronted and even then refuses to admit to plagiarizing. Just a lame excuse about he didn't know better. Why are you insulting mechanics, plumbers and gardeners? Anyone that went through middle school in the US knows about plagiarism. Plagiarism is not something that is reserved for the lofty halls of academia. All I have is a lowly bachelors in history, I currently work construction. Am I incapable of understanding where the standards of scholarship apply?This is a fairly academic and scholarly forum. If a person does not understand rules of scholarship they probably shouldn't post here. Ignorance of rules is no excuse. When a person is called on plagiarism and then tries to turn things around and say his accusers are guilty of something else, that is truly vile.Edited by Theodoric, : punctuation

Nwr,
You are correct, my statement of calling him vile was over the line. I should have stated that I felt his behaviors in the thread were reprehensible but i should not have made a personal attack.His behavior in has disgusted me, but I should have maintained the high ground. Thank you for calling me out on it.

On an earlier post you stated that you understood the TOE. This comment clearly shows that you in fact do not understand the TOE.You should probably learn about the theory before you continue posting.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

How about showing one proof?Remember you said you could prove.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well I see you cannot since you refuse to do so. As I said in an earlier post. You claim to understand the TOE, but your posts and comments show that you clearly do not. You might want to research a little about science, the scientific method and proof. That would probably be a good start for you, but alas dogma trumps knowledge for you and your ilk doesn't it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent.'
So you can prove crystals are formed by some conscious effort?Ever hear of staying on topic?

I realize this is off topic, but when you introduce crap like this it is necessary to call you out on it.Please tell me what laws of physics the TOE goes against. It is very curious how you fundie creos are so against science that is contrary to your beliefs but are willing to accept ever other part of science. You have yet to introduce a rational argument or use reason. All you have presented is personal incredulity. You are unwilling to or unable to present any argument than "godidit". At least we have marbles. Your marble bag is empty. And if you cannot debate honestly, you should go home.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You have made claims that you are well versed in the TOE. We have known from your comments that this is not true. Now you show your total ignorance in even basic understanding of science. Here is a basic primer for you. I know you can read, but are you willing to try to understand?

quote:

---

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 layman’s 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 don’t 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 Hook’s 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.

​

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

​

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

​

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

​

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

​

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

​

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

​

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

​

* Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
* Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
* Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
* Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
* Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
* In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

​

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.

​

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

​

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

---

Source
Your most important take away from this is, theories do not grow up and become laws. A law and a theory are totally different things, but both are based on observable facts.As I said before, maybe you should quit posting until you learn a few things.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts