Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Razz: Germ theory (the theory that many diseases are caused by micro organisms) has not been "proven" yet, and is "just a theory." I think you missunderstand what a theory is.
I don't know what this is referring to, I said nothing at all about germ theory, but that is okay.
Ron: Although there are somethings (like germ theory for example) that have so much going for them that they are treated as fact even though they are still a theory. The theory of evolution is another one of those things which although still a theory, it has so much evidence for it, and has held its own against falsifacation that many people treat it as fact.
It is those who teach evolution as fact that I take issue with.
No definitions have been created "to fit the purpose". When talking about science, we are using the standard meaning of the words as they relate to science. The fact that "most people" aren't aware of those (correct) meanings is irrelevant.
Nobody is suggesting that a theory is an absolute - that is a strawman of your creation. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Since evolution (in this context) is a scientific concept, the words 'theory' and 'fact' as applied to it are words as they relate to science. Evolution is thus a scientific theory; it is not a theory in the more general sense of the word (such as "I have a theory...Jeeves did it!").
Creation is not a fact, simply because creation implies a creator. We are here. THAT is the fact. Whether we were created by a creator or simply came into being as a result of natural processes is moot.
Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created. It is a scientific theory that relates to the development/change of biological entities.
One of the problems here is that you don't understand what evolution IS.
Evolution is the change of allelle frequencies within a gene pool. That this occurs is a fact, observed repeatedly and conceded even by creationist groups. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory about how and why evolution (remember, an observed fact) occurs. This theory has been sufficiently evidenced and validated that it can and is also referred to as a fact.
Evolution thus is both fact and theory.
Already addressed these arguements in other posts, just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you post.
Where is this so called evidence and why is is so well hidden from bloks like me?
It is hidden from "bloks" (blokes?) like you for the same reason tensor analysis is hidden from banana slugs.
__________________ "A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin
"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous
"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller
"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8
"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
I don't know what this is referring to, I said nothing at all about germ theory, but that is okay.
This is referring to the fact that if you reject evolution as a theory with enough scientific backing, the same holds for germ theory. The theories are arrived at by the same process. So if the process isn't right with evolution theory, why would it be right when germ theory is considered.
It is those who teach evolution as fact that I take issue with.
One of my favorite observations for evolution are ring species. This shows evolution as fact. When you type in speciation in the search function here, you should get at least two or three threads with observed instances of speciation, which also show evolution as fact.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
In another thread, razzelflabben has launched a critique of evolution. Since that thread has nothing to do with evolution at all, I decided to bring that discussion over here
Evolution is not perfect. No species has evolved to the point of perfection..
no species has evolved ,period, works better.
.As I have explained, the Paluxy river footprints are a known fraud. .
kind of like Piltdown man, Lamark, Abiogenisis eh ?.
If you know of another claim of dinosaur and human footprints together, could you tell us about it, please?.
And were they written by evolutionists? Can you tell us one or two that you have read? Because you seem to misunderstand some of the basics of evolution theory..
I have read Darwin, Gould, and heaps of others and it doesnt dissuad me.
Okay, you don't think evolution is true? Why not? What evidence do you have?..
just because you think {Ha} evolution
is true, doesn't make it fact. .[/quote]
Do you have any other explanation for the mammal-like reptiles, other than that they were transitionals between mammals and reptiles?.[/quote]they are really interesting fossil, no more. anyway mammal- like reptile is a bogus term use Therapsid instead .
But you have no other explanation for the fossil record, do you?
That's why science is self-correcting. .
And self-tripping.
Are you better at interpreting geologic evidence than scientists are?.
Who decides whos better? You?.
Who said we know everything? .
You dont say so, but you apparently think so..
But we do know that animals must have been progressing from microbes to modern animals throughout the ages..
When did this happen? I didnt get the memo..
Okay, as I asked before, does this mean that, when 99% of the people thought the earth was flat, that therefore the earth was flat?
Excuse me. There was never a time when it was probable that the earth was flat. It was always round. Humans just didn't know it.
It doesn't matter how many people believe something. Evolution is true based on the facts, not on the popular vote..
And these are?.
Please show me where I can find this mathematical study that proves evolution is unlikely.
Do you know any scientist who claims science to be infallible proof?
Excuse me. My son's kindergarten science class was more advanced than this. They learned that rockets go into outer space.
Our knowledge of evolution grows. .
more absurd every minute..
Do you know of any significant argument against evolution?.
it is called "Intelligent design".
Who claims that science is infallible?
I do not know if I am more intelligent than you. I know a little about evolutionary theory, and why it is completely accepted by science. Do you have any reason to think evolution is wrong?
Here is the problem, what animals have evolved into a new species and where is the proof. The scientific proof that we have witnessed evolving species is not in any of the resources at my disposal. There are theories about it, micro evolution (genetics), there are claims that do not prove what they claim to prove, etc. But no actual proof anywhere that I can find. Without those observations, it is still only theory. So where is the animal that we have watched become a new creature over time. Where is this so called evidence and why is is so well hidden from bloks like me?
In order to deal with this question, we are need to deal with two other questions:
1. What is evolution? How do you know it has occurred and you have observed it?
2. What is a species?
And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.
Whose answers to these questions do we accept?
Different groups and individuals, different dictionaries, offer different definitions. Some of these definitions are good, some bad, some just use different criteria.
Much of the creo-evo mutual incomprehension derives from the fact that each camp defines "evolution" and "species" differently. Using creationist definitions (even when transferred to ID) means that some instances of "evolution" as defined by science are disallowed by creationists as not being "evolution" by their criteria.
In order for us to understand each other, we need to get around this dilemma of one person offering an example of evolution based on one set of criteria, while the other person refuses to accept it as an example of evolution based on a different set of criteria.
So, my first question is: what are your personal responses to the questions above?
Second question: what are the sources you have based these responses on?
Third question: do you think, if you looked into a standard biology textbook, you would find it defining these terms in the same way you do?
Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?
I want to assure you that I am not seeking to duck your question or the defence of evolution in the sense of common descent. But I have often seen creationists (not so much IDers) reject what scientists consider clear evidence of evolution on the basis that it is "not evolution, only adaptation". I see you distinguish between "genetics" and "evolution"--and we will need to clarify what that distinction is.
My position is that if the micro-instances of evolution which we can easily document are merely "adaptation" or "genetics", then so is macro-evolution. So is common descent. For scientifically, there is no known difference in the processes which produce small evolutionary changes and those that produce speciation and differentiation on larger scales.
So, I believe it is important that we agree on the definitions we will use (and I have a bias in favour of using the standard scientific definitions) before we continue.
What do you say?
P. S. I have much to comment on in your other post too, but it will have to wait until this evening.
Piltdown man:
And evolutionists stopped using Piltdown man after they discovered it was false. I can't say the same for creationist groups when they discover something is false.
I think I can stop right there and say, Maybe you should do more reading and less typing. Oh and im still waiting for you to back up your statements in the other thread.
Because natural selection can only work for the good of that individual. Thus, natural selection is selfish. And isn't selfishness a part of evil?
[/i]
Well, they are. Even the new head of ICR, the son of Henry Morris, admits that they are.
But theories can be disproven. And creationism has been disproven. Also, by all reasonable standards, evolution has been proven to be true. I have a thread called "Evolution Proven". You are welcome to disagree there.
Theories are accepted as (provisionally) true when there is considerable supporting evidence for them. For instance, round earth is a theory. Any doubt in your mind it is "proven"?
Creationism is also a theory. Remember, it has been disproven.
Also remember that evolution is not atheism. DoubtingMerle is an atheist, but evolution will not prove his atheism. Instead, evolution is simply how (for a theist) God created .
In that case evolution was disproven by Louis Pasteur {True}and we can get on with our lives
Linear Mode
