Georgia's giant leap backwards

chcr said:
No. Evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

Since when?

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Click to expand...

Source
 
gonz there has been some evidence of evolution hence those who ascribe to that theory consider it a fact
 
Gonz said:
Since when?
Source
Click to expand...
May 1981
Click to expand...
Sorry Gonz, DNA similarities are proof of evolution. The fossil record is clear. Since the human Genome project got going in the early nineties, more proof appears daily. You can choose not to accept it, but the proof is there regardless of what anyone says. You can quote creationists or fence sitters until doomsday, this will not alter the fact that we are an evolved species. No supernatural interference required.

The problem you have on the net is that the science community generally understands evolution to be a fact, and couldn't care less whether or not you believe it. The facts speak for themselves. Creationists, on the other hand, have no credible evidence so all they can do is cast doubt and bandy about half truths and outright lies that sound scientifically plausible. If you want to accept that, it's not my business. Evolutoin will remain a fact, and I will continue to know it.

Now, go ahead and prove to me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :p

BTW, did you completely miss the point of that article?
how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Click to expand...
Since 1981 we have come to a better understanding of the mechanisms.
 
I didnt know it was considered fact. I was taught that it was only a theory tho most scientists go by it. Chic what is the source for that article and is it reliable?
 
"Since when" was a genuine question. I believe, fully, in the theory of evolution. It makes sense & it makes pieces of the puzzle fit.

It may be accepted as fact but it isn't proven. There are enough brilliant minds out there to destroy the theory. It's a maddening circle.

Prove to me the earth is olderer than a day.
 
considering the fossils, erosion, ocean beds and caves isnt that proof enough? if not think of all the life forms that are years old at all. let alone a day.
 
Gonz said:
"Since when" was a genuine question. I believe, fully, in the theory of evolution. It makes sense & it makes pieces of the puzzle fit.

It may be accepted as fact but it isn't proven. There are enough brilliant minds out there to destroy the theory. It's a maddening circle.

Prove to me the earth is olderer than a day.
Click to expand...

Once again, reread the article that you posted. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution involves the method. Since we don't live millions of years, we can't watch it happen.

Prove to you the earth is olderer than a day? Shucks, I guess you got me. Geezus created the whole thing yesterday just for your amusement. Only you exist.

Do you understand how radioactive dating works? Do you understand how archeologists construct a timeline?

freako104 said:
considering the fossils, erosion, ocean beds and caves isnt that proof enough? if not think of all the life forms that are years old at all. let alone a day.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.:)
 
Gonz said:
I did read it & this is what I am trying to point out
Click to expand...

Of course. This is where the creationists get the fuel for their fire. Evolution is a fact.

Although he did leave out the word "necessarily." Since we don't live millions of years and therefore can't watch it happen, we can in no way state with "absolute certainty." This does not stop it from being a fact.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Click to expand...

Perverse is a good word for it. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand what a "fact" is.
 
Yes it is....no it's not....yes it is....no it's not...

We can do this all night. I support evolution but I do not think it has become fact. There are still scholars who dispute it & they are not all religious fanatics.
 
there are scholars who debate everything and dont make bold statements to sya one is true. something I learned in all my science and psych courses as well as philosophy was that theories cannot be proven only disproven. they dont try to prove they try to defend it by disproving the other. I say it is evolution how we got here. I was taught that in my school and by my parents.
 
"The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavour to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."

This is because knowledge and discovery are not static. You start with observations (fact), and you develop theories to explain them. These theories are constantly and rigorously tested and modified based on new observations in order to best explain whatever phenomenon they are defining. Evolution is a scientific theory based on repeated observations and reproducible experimentation.

Creationism is a religious mythology base on a single sacred text written 2000 years ago. It is static and unchanging because it is a story, not a theory. But mythology does not have to be factual. It's purpose is to create a foundation for culturally specific morals. In the past, it served to answer the unanswerable questions and quell our fears of the unknown; "where do we come from?", "where do we go when we die?" . We have debates like this because Christianity is base on a dogma that was pretty much written in stone millennia ago. We have come a long way since then, and have found the answers to our unanswerable questions. This does not invalidate the Christian belief system. It just points out the pitfalls of static written dogma. In cultures where spirituality is pased down orally, you tend to find that the religion evolves and is added to as time passes, keeping its lessons current with the times. After all, the bible is just a limited human interpretation of God's true will, is it not? We have grown and changed, why can't it?

Religion is faith. Science is fact. One is not more valid than the other; they are completely different entities.
 
the story of creationism is the theory.



science is based on observation and getting the knowledge you can from the observation.



1.Theory
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Observe
5.Record
6.Analyse



that is the scientific method. I think it works better than blind faith since I think you actually try to prove or as i said disprove other theories.
 
the theory is that we are here and we are special that God made us. a theory is no more than an idea or belief
 
freako104 said:
the theory is that we are here and we are special that God made us. a theory is no more than an idea or belief
Click to expand...

"The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature."

"Definitions:

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

If you are talking science, which I assume you are, your definition of theory doesn't meet the criteria. Apples and oranges.

The belief in creation is based on religious faith.

The theory of evolution is based on reproducible fact.

I will repeat, I am not saying one is better or more valid; I am saying they are completely different creatures.
 
i agreed that neither one was more valid. but both are ideas. both are beliefs. one has more to back it up I feel(evolution) the other as I said was blind faith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top