is the Bible a history book?

[Druweid]

Atheists are not atheists because they always look for an alternative other than God... that is just silly.

Who said "always look for an alternative??" Please indicate the post where this is said.

-- Druweid

 

[0rion]

I don't think so! It is your insistence of my saying something that I did not. You imply something that was not stated or even thought of in my mind.

Perhaps, but nevertheless it equates to that. And by now, I think you realize that it does.

That is what you are saying that I said, but I never said such. It is up to you to realize that I did not say what you claim.

That's because your statement was made with a naive and limmited understanding, where in your view theistic evolutionists do not exist. With the idea that atheists look for ways and ideas to disprove God, rather than there being ideas that naturally discredit the fundamentalist view of certain religions and people just lose faith and become atheists because of that.

Whatever. There is nothing silly about coming to a logical conclusion that actually makes sense.

According to you:

Evolution = an explanation to creation other than God.

Yet, Theists and Atheists believe in Evolution.

What you would have is Christians looking into evolution because it is an explanation to creation other than God.

What you have is a contradiction. Something that contradicts itself is illogical, ridiculous, silly.

Like I said earlier, what you are purporting is irrelevant to anything that I had imagined in my mind. I did not make such a statement or even thought of it. I told you exactly what I thought upon posting.

Yes, it is okay... you may not have intended to say what you actually meant. I guess this would be okay for an apology.

BTW: Evolution is not a fact.

There are two things by the way:

1. The Fact of Evolution.
2. The Theory of Evolution.

#2 is not a fact, because it is a scientific model which tries to explain #1. Number 1, however, is a fact.

But isn't it odd though, that religious simpletons/laymen believe Evolution is not a fact, while scientists believe the contrary? Hmm... who to believe, who to believe...

 

[Druweid]

peaceful soul, it is okay to admit that you are wrong...

He is not wrong, so to say so would be just ... silly.

you are still saying that an atheist will not believe in evolution because of the evidence, but because it is an explanation that does not necessitate a god.

He never said that. You are deliberately misquoting him.

-- Druweid

 

[Druweid]

There are two things by the way:

1. The Fact of Evolution.
2. The Theory of Evolution.

#2 is not a fact, because it is a scientific model which tries to explain #1. Number 1, however, is a fact.

Mmmmmmmm, perhaps not. That's stretching just a bit much, imho. Mutation, natural selection, hybrids, and heritable variation are facts (to name a few). To extrapolate these into "evolution is a fact," is, at best, misleading. You're using one to give the other better credibility.

But isn't it odd though, that religious simpletons/laymen believe Evolution is not a fact, while scientists believe the contrary? Hmm... who to believe, who to believe...

Oh? Is this intended as an Ad Hominem or a flame?

-- Druweid

 

[0rion]

Oh boy... not this again.

I guess correcting people here stays as a grudge around these parts.

If there is such a thing as theistic evolution, which is the same exact theory of evolution, just to note that theists believe in it too... then why would it support only atheism?

Is that what he said? Let's look again:
Where does it say ONLY? Or are you intentionally changing what he said to make your argument feasible? (See: Strawman Argument)

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

Riddle me this Druweid...

how can Evolution support Atheism and Evolution support Theism at the same time? How can Evolution support the idea that there is no God and support the idea that there is a God?

Answer: Because Evolution supports neither.

Druweid, what you are doing is playing word games, thinking that one word not being capitalized will change the meaning and so forth...

You contradict yourself. See where YOU said "theory of evolution" above? If evolution is a theory (and presently, that's all it is), then even the best scientific minds in the world have not yet proven it to be true.

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

I mean, I guess since the theory of gravity is all that it is, a theory... I guess we will start floating into space now?

"This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science." - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm

 

[0rion]

Mmmmmmmm, perhaps not. That's stretching just a bit much, imho. Mutation, natural selection, hybrids, and heritable variation are facts (to name a few). To extrapolate these into "evolution is a fact," is, at best, misleading. You're using one to give the other better credibility.

In biology, evolution (what Darwin called "descent with modification"), is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution is the change of allele frequencies throught a population over time.

To say, mutation, natural selection, heritable variation is not part of the Fact of Evolution is misleading. And most people do this because they are not aware of it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

But isn't it odd though, that religious simpletons/laymen believe Evolution is not a fact, while scientists believe the contrary? Hmm... who to believe, who to believe...

Oh? Is this intended as an Ad Hominem or a flame?

Hmm... I am sorry in choosing the word simpleton.

Looking in the dictionary I see that simpleton does not have a positive/neutral meaning. I thought they both had similar meaning which was non-professionalism(layman). I apologize for correcting me, and I will hold no grudge.

But what I intended was that, non-professionals(laymen) believe that evolution is false (while evidence, which I presented above exists) - when professionals (scientists) believe otherwise.

 

[peaceful soul]

origianlly posted by 0rion

Perhaps, but nevertheless it equates to that. And by now, I think you realize that it does.

And since I have told you otherwise right from the start, it should surmize that I did not intend for it to be taken the way that you stated it. You simply inferred things. That is your problem - not mine. Had I agreed with your inferrences, then you would be on good footing to make the claims that you have.

That's because your statement was made with a naive and limmited understanding, where in your view theistic evolutionists do not exist. With the idea that atheists look for ways and ideas to disprove God, rather than there being ideas that naturally discredit the fundamentalist view of certain religions and people just lose faith and become atheists because of that.

I see that you are nowhere near where my mind was in my reasoning. You conjured all of this up yourself and expect for me to defend it and for what? I did not say it - you did. Do you have some type of complex with people mentioning atheism. Must you infer things and then try to defend it with a strawman?

According to you:

Evolution = an explanation to creation other than God.

Yet, Theists and Atheists believe in Evolution.

The first statement is what I reasoned and the second one is not what I said at all. I never even thought of that while I was writing. I was only seeing the first one. You implied the second one. All you had to do was to clarify if that was what I was saying rather than stating it as if I did and procede to break it apart - thus producing a strawman.

What you would have is Christians looking into evolution because it is an explanation to creation other than God.

All of which is irrelevant to what you accused me of?? People are allowed to believe anything they want. That does not impact anything significantly anyways. This further shows your flaw in understanding what I said.

What you have is a contradiction. Something that contradicts itself is illogical, ridiculous, silly.

What we really have here is a runnaway train, with you as the non-observant conductor who is not paying attention to the train as it heads down the track. Wake up, Orion!

Yes, it is okay... you may not have intended to say what you actually meant. I guess this would be okay for an apology.

The best thing for you to do is to recognize what I meant opposed to what you inferred. Had you actually accepted that I was not thinking like you were, then you would have no need to have continued to make claims that were not true.

There are two things by the way:

1. The Fact of Evolution.
2. The Theory of Evolution.

#2 is not a fact, because it is a scientific model which tries to explain #1. Number 1, however, is a fact.

I have no interest in making a converstation of out this since it was not the reason for my contention of posting. I simply wanted to clear up you inferences as being words out of my mouth.

But isn't it odd though, that religious simpletons/laymen believe Evolution is not a fact, while scientists believe the contrary? Hmm... who to believe, who to believe...

Are you appealing to authority?

I made a simple and reasonable conclusion that an atheist would accept evolution as a belief since naturally he or she would not endorse creationism or any other variation of it since it would force an atheist to admit that there is a god, which would be a contradiction to atheism. Therefore, it would be reasonable that one logical choice of atheist would be to accept evolution - not because it was simply the only alternative, rather because it did not include God as its center of reason. I did not say anything about theist or atheist not adopting evolution because they simply saw it as reasonable for their faith. You have muddied the water by trying to add claims that I never made. I am not interested in your provocation; so let's get the record straight. If you want to continue to insist, then I won't respond to your post. I feel that I am being bated into a discussion that has no true merit whatsoever since I indicated to you what I did not mean what you claimed from the outset of your misunderstanding. Is that clear?

 

[Druweid]

Oh boy... not this again.

Oh yes.

I guess correcting people here stays as a grudge around these parts.

Good guess.

how can Evolution support Atheism and Evolution support Theism at the same time?

I did not address this in my post.

Druweid, what you are doing is playing word games, thinking that one word not being capitalized will change the meaning and so forth...

There is no word game. I specifically showed where you added a word to what Exonoesis had said, effectively changing the meaning of what was originally intended.

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

I mean, I guess since the theory of gravity is all that it is, a theory... I guess we will start floating into space now?

Soooo, string theories, the theory of relativity, and just for kicks, theories on global warming are all really facts as well? Yes, gravity keeps us from floating into space, and the process of how that works is theoretical, but not every theory works like that. Sure, it's obvious life has changed, but there are numerous aspects still heavily debated insofar as exactly what those changes were. Unless you have a link that shows a firmly established DNA relationship of modern man to Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal, everything in this thread has spoken only of the theoretical aspects of evolution, not any factual aspects.

-- Druweid

 

[Druweid]

To say, mutation, natural selection, heritable variation is not part of the Fact of Evolution is misleading. And most people do this because they are not aware of it.

I did not say that these things are not part of evolution. However, while evolution is being spoken of in broad and general terms, using "facts of evolution" to say that "evolution is a fact" is a misleading argument.

But what I intended was that, non-professionals(laymen) believe that evolution is false (while evidence, which I presented above exists) - when professionals (scientists) believe otherwise.

Some evidence exists, some does not, thus, we have theories. I have no doubt that some evolutionist out there would beat me mercilously with a 15,000 year-old femur for saying it, but on the whole, despite many demonstrable aspects, evolution is a theory. If and when it's broken down to more specific areas, yes, then we can move from theories to facts.

-- Druweid

 

[0rion]

And since I have told you otherwise right from the start, it should surmize that I did not intend for it to be taken the way that you stated it.

I was trying to come down to an agreement with you...

The statement: evolution supports atheism is a false statement, it is a statement used for propaganda purposes and because of ignorance in the topic of evolution.

I said Perhaps because of your misinformation in evolution... but I said, it still equates to that which you claim didn't intend.

You simply inferred things. That is your problem - not mine. Had I agreed with your inferrences, then you would be on good footing to make the claims that you have.

I did not infer anything.

Evolution supports atheism is indeed a false statement.

I see that you are nowhere near where my mind was in my reasoning.

If you believe there is no such thing as gravity, I will not be able to read your mind and know this. And just because you belive there is no such thing as gravity, that will not make gravity to cease to exist.

Now, why did I say this? Because just because you think you didn't intend to mean what you actually meant, your statement will not change its meaning in the real world.

Just because you think you didn't intend to mean what you actually meant, that will not change what I or anyone else reads.

Just when I used the word simpleton, I thought it meant something else (I didn't intend my sentence to mean that)... that didn't stop Druweid from reading the actual meaning.

You conjured all of this up yourself and expect for me to defend it and for what?

Actually, no, that is what your statement actually means in the real world.

I did not say it - you did. Do you have some type of complex with people mentioning atheism. Must you infer things and then try to defend it with a strawman?

Evolution supports atheism.

The real world:
Theists & Atheists believe in Evolution.

If Evolution supports atheism , there wouldn't be any Theists Evolutionists.

According to you:

Evolution = an explanation to creation other than God.

Yet, Theists and Atheists believe in Evolution.

The first statement is what I reasoned and the second one is not what I said at all.

And the reason we are arguing is because of this, because you are uninformed of reality.

The second statement is what exists in reality. Evolution is not an explanation to creation other than God... if it were, there wouldn't be Theistic Evolutionists. I hope that now you are able to follow.

I never even thought of that while I was writing.

Yes, because I suppose that the only thing you know about evolution is the propaganda being said about it, not the actual thing. You didn't think that while you were writing that because I suppose you didn't think Christians would be associated with evolution?

So, just because you are not able to imagine that christians could be associated with evolution, please don't blame me for not reading your mind... also, I have been trying to correct you by showing you that there are theistic evolutionists. I am not saying that you said, or thought that there are theistic evolutionists... I am showing you that there are theistic evolutionists, and that your view is wrong.

I was only seeing the first one. You implied the second one.

I am not saying that you said, or thought that there are theistic evolutionists... I am showing you that there are theistic evolutionists, and that your view is wrong.

All you had to do was to clarify if that was what I was saying rather than stating it as if I did and procede to break it apart - thus producing a strawman.

Oh, now I have to read your mind...

I think I should proclaim to Druweid in that he should have read my mind when he corrected me for using the word simpleton. Druweid should have known I didn't mean that, right?

What you would have is Christians looking into evolution because it is an explanation to creation other than God.

All of which is irrelevant to what you accused me of?? People are allowed to believe anything they want. That does not impact anything significantly anyways. This further shows your flaw in understanding what I said.

I am sorry that you are not able to see this, but what I wrote there is a contradiction, an impossibility. And something that comes from your statement. A christian would believe that the reason why we are here is because of God, else he would not be a christian. Theistic Evolutionists believe in evolution because of the facts, but still believe in God. Evolution does not say anything about God existing or not existing - the religious people stirring propaganda about evolution are the ones that do.

What we really have here is a runnaway train, with you as the non-observant conductor who is not paying attention to the train as it heads down the track. Wake up, Orion!

Sorry that you are not aware of Logic and Discreet Math. But is what it boils down to... you are dividing evolution along with atheism. And when you do, your whole idea breaks apart because theistic evolutionists exist.

I have no interest in making a converstation of out this since it was not the reason for my contention of posting. I simply wanted to clear up you inferences as being words out of my mouth.

But the words out of your mouth meant something in the actual world. And the problem here was because of your lack of interest in the topic of evolution and not knowing what it was.

Are you appealing to authority?

No, not appealing to authority... and I don't think people who are in hospitals or are being treated by a doctor appeal to athority just because they didn't consult with their neighbor.

I made a simple and reasonable conclusion that an atheist would accept evolution as a belief since naturally he or she would not endorse creationism or any other variation of it since it would force an atheist to admit that there is a god, which would be a contradiction to atheism.

And a religious person would not hold the belief that God doesn't exist because he will be admitting that God does not exist, which is a contracition to what a religious person believes. Obvious.

But yet, religious people believe in Evolution, that's because Evolution is not something that equates to "there is no God".

Therefore, it would be reasonable that one logical choice of atheist would be to accept evolution - not because it was simply the only alternative, rather because it did not include God as its center of reason.

Let's say an ex-christian became an atheist because through years of being exposed with science (evolution), philosophy, etc... he questioned the existence of God. Now, this atheist, did he choose evolution because it is an explanation other than God, or did he believe in evolution before he was an atheist?

Atheists do not choose evolution because it is an alternative to God, because Theists also choose evolution for the same reason - which are the facts. I feel like a broken record now.

I did not say anything about theist or atheist not adopting evolution because they simply saw it as reasonable for their faith. You have muddied the water by trying to add claims that I never made. I am not interested in your provocation; so let's get the record straight. If you want to continue to insist, then I won't respond to your post. I feel that I am being bated into a discussion that has no true merit whatsoever since I indicated to you what I did not mean what you claimed from the outset of your misunderstanding. Is that clear?

Yes, I agree, this discussion is not going anywhere...

 

[peaceful soul]

I was trying to come down to an agreement with you...

The statement: evolution supports atheism is a false statement, it is a statement used for propaganda purposes and because of ignorance in the topic of evolution.

I said Perhaps because of your misinformation in evolution... but I said, it still equates to that which you claim didn't intend.



I did not infer anything.

Evolution supports atheism is indeed a false statement.



If you believe there is no such thing as gravity, I will not be able to read your mind and know this. And just because you belive there is no such thing as gravity, that will not make gravity to cease to exist.

Now, why did I say this? Because just because you think you didn't intend to mean what you actually meant, your statement will not change its meaning in the real world.

Just because you think you didn't intend to mean what you actually meant, that will not change what I or anyone else reads.

Just when I used the word simpleton, I thought it meant something else (I didn't intend my sentence to mean that)... that didn't stop Druweid from reading the actual meaning.



Actually, no, that is what your statement actually means in the real world.



Evolution supports atheism.

The real world:
Theists & Atheists believe in Evolution.

If Evolution supports atheism , there wouldn't be any Theists Evolutionists.



And the reason we are arguing is because of this, because you are uninformed of reality.

The second statement is what exists in reality. Evolution is not an explanation to creation other than God... if it were, there wouldn't be Theistic Evolutionists. I hope that now you are able to follow.



Yes, because I suppose that the only thing you know about evolution is the propaganda being said about it, not the actual thing. You didn't think that while you were writing that because I suppose you didn't think Christians would be associated with evolution?

So, just because you are not able to imagine that christians could be associated with evolution, please don't blame me for not reading your mind... also, I have been trying to correct you by showing you that there are theistic evolutionists. I am not saying that you said, or thought that there are theistic evolutionists... I am showing you that there are theistic evolutionists, and that your view is wrong.



I am not saying that you said, or thought that there are theistic evolutionists... I am showing you that there are theistic evolutionists, and that your view is wrong.



Oh, now I have to read your mind...

I think I should proclaim to Druweid in that he should have read my mind when he corrected me for using the word simpleton. Druweid should have known I didn't mean that, right?



I am sorry that you are not able to see this, but what I wrote there is a contradiction, an impossibility. And something that comes from your statement. A christian would believe that the reason why we are here is because of God, else he would not be a christian. Theistic Evolutionists believe in evolution because of the facts, but still believe in God. Evolution does not say anything about God existing or not existing - the religious people stirring propaganda about evolution are the ones that do.



Sorry that you are not aware of Logic and Discreet Math. But is what it boils down to... you are dividing evolution along with atheism. And when you do, your whole idea breaks apart because theistic evolutionists exist.



But the words out of your mouth meant something in the actual world. And the problem here was because of your lack of interest in the topic of evolution and not knowing what it was.



No, not appealing to authority... and I don't think people who are in hospitals or are being treated by a doctor appeal to athority just because they didn't consult with their neighbor.



And a religious person would not hold the belief that God doesn't exist because he will be admitting that God does not exist, which is a contracition to what a religious person believes. Obvious.

But yet, religious people believe in Evolution, that's because Evolution is not something that equates to "there is no God".



Let's say an ex-christian became an atheist because through years of being exposed with science (evolution), philosophy, etc... he questioned the existence of God. Now, this atheist, did he choose evolution because it is an explanation other than God, or did he believe in evolution before he was an atheist?

Atheists do not choose evolution because it is an alternative to God, because Theists also choose evolution for the same reason - which are the facts. I feel like a broken record now.



Yes, I agree, this discussion is not going anywhere...

This discussion is going nowhere simply because you don't want it to end.

Orion, let it rest. You have built a strawman and then tore it down. I did not say anything about which you accredited to me. I made one simple logical and reasonable statement and you had your hayday with it - even after I pointed out to you that what you inferred was not my intention or my angle of perception. I am not going to spend any more time defending a strawman argument you have presented. It is that simple! Let it be. I have nothing to defend.

 

[Druweid]

I think I should proclaim to Druweid in that he should have read my mind when he corrected me for using the word simpleton. Druweid should have known I didn't mean that, right?

I did not correct you. Nor did I assume your meaning, good or bad. I simply, and clearly, asked you what you meant.

-- Druweid

 

[imind]

I did not say that these things are not part of evolution. However, while evolution is being spoken of in broad and general terms, using "facts of evolution" to say that "evolution is a fact" is a misleading argument.
Some evidence exists, some does not, thus, we have theories. I have no doubt that some evolutionist out there would beat me mercilously with a 15,000 year-old femur for saying it, but on the whole, despite many demonstrable aspects, evolution is a theory. If and when it's broken down to more specific areas, yes, then we can move from theories to facts.

-- Druweid

theories do not graduate to become facts. this is not how science works. evolution is both fact and theory.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

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

and given the bible provides contradictory accounts of certain events, i would say its a horrible history book.

 

[Druweid]

theories do not graduate to become facts. this is not how science works. evolution is both fact and theory.

Also from the source you quote: "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what 'theory' means in informal usage and in a scientific context."

Link: Here.

Every reference to evolution on this thread (with one notable exception) has been broad, general, and in casual (not scientific) context.

-- Druweid

 

[0rion]

Oh yes.
Good guess.

Now I know how Galileo must have felt.

I did not address this in my post.

then why would it support only atheism.
then why would it support atheism.

if evolution supports atheism(notice, there is no only), then evolution would not support theism. But atheists and theists believe in evolution and that is because evolution does not support neither.

Now, if you are still going to continue, please site sources where it shows evolution supporting the atheistic idea that there is no God.

There is no word game. I specifically showed where you added a word to what Exonoesis had said, effectively changing the meaning of what was originally intended.

This?

then why would it support only atheism.
then why would it support atheism.

Soooo, string theories, the theory of relativity, and just for kicks, theories on global warming are all really facts as well?

I will repeat this again:

1. There is the Fact of Evolution (the observed phenomenon).
2. There is the Theory of Evolution.

1. There is the Fact of Gravity (the observed phenomenon).
2. Then there is the Theory that follows it.

A Theory, a scientific Theory, unlike theories layman make up (conspiracy theories, theories about how a tv show will turn up), are models that explain a fact/phenomena, and this model's purpose is so that scientists are able to predict with precision the outcome of that said phenomena.

What you are attacking is the Theory of Evolution, and saying it is not fact because of its name, Theory of Evolution. But I have stated that there are two things, Fact of Evolution and Theory of Evolution. What you are trying to do however, is to disprove the Fact of Evolution by trying to disprove The Theory of Evolution.

You are trying to disprove the phenomenon by disproving the model that explains it.

People back then use to attribute lighting to the God Zues. What you are doing is like trying to disprove the existence of lighting by showing that Zues does not exist.

I posted this link, it explains just that, and even better than I did.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Yes, gravity keeps us from floating into space, and the process of how that works is theoretical, but not every theory works like that. Sure, it's obvious life has changed, but there are numerous aspects still heavily debated insofar as exactly what those changes were. Unless you have a link that shows a firmly established DNA relationship of modern man to Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal, everything in this thread has spoken only of the theoretical aspects of evolution, not any factual aspects.

-- Druweid

Evolution is happening all around us

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=171

An image taken from there is explained here: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

But from what I see, it seems that you have an impression that evolution on deals with human evolution. Evolution is more than human evolution by the way.

 

[0rion]

I did not correct you. Nor did I assume your meaning, good or bad. I simply, and clearly, asked you what you meant.

-- Druweid

I know, I didn't say you assumed my meaning. You took my meaning as it actually was and it was my fault for not knowing the meaning of the word I was using. I was just trying to give an example to peaceful soul.

 

[0rion]

Also from the source you quote: "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what 'theory' means in informal usage and in a scientific context."

Link: Here.

Every reference to evolution on this thread (with one notable exception) has been broad, general, and in casual (not scientific) context.

-- Druweid

But there is no such thing as a broad, general and casual definition of evolution other then the layman's defenition which is used to tie evolution with atheism. But that is really not what evolution really is.

 

[Druweid]

Now I know how Galileo must have felt.

Popular?

then why would it support only atheism.
then why would it support atheism.

I refused to answer this the first time, why are you still asking?

This?

then why would it support only atheism.
then why would it support atheism.

Am I to believe that, to you, both of these sentences convey the exact same meaning?

I will repeat this again:

Of course, I had no doubt.

1. There is the Fact of Evolution (the observed phenomenon).
2. There is the Theory of Evolution.

1. There is the Fact of Gravity (the observed phenomenon).
2. Then there is the Theory that follows it.

I've already addressed this, and rather than address my answer, you're just restating the same flawed argument.

What you are attacking is the Theory of Evolution, and saying it is not fact because of its name, Theory of Evolution.

No, I'm saying evolution is a theory because the link you provided for me says "Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

But I have stated that there are two things, Fact of Evolution and Theory of Evolution. What you are trying to do however, is to disprove the Fact of Evolution by trying to disprove The Theory of Evolution.

Can you please indicate the post where I attempted to disprove the fact of evolution?

You are trying to disprove the phenomenon by disproving the model that explains it.

"Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

I posted this link, it explains just that, and even better than I did.

Yes, and thank you for posting that link, wherein it is quoted: "Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

-- Druweid

 

[0rion]

Am I to believe that, to you, both of these sentences convey the exact same meaning?

That is not the point.

If the word only is removed or not, both sentences would mean that evolution would not support theism.

Of course, I had no doubt.
I've already addressed this, and rather than address my answer, you're just restating the same flawed argument.

:wave of hand and it is refuted:

No, I'm saying evolution is a theory because the link you provided for me says "Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

You are saying evolution is a theory? Which one are you talking about, The Fact of Evolution is a theory?

What the link is saying that the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

And I don't know if you have realized how the sentence you are quoting ends, but it goes like this:

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong.

What you are doing is playing with words, Theory of Evolution is only a theory... which semantically, is true because Theory = Theory.

But the idea is totally wrong! You are not only tying the layman definition of theory with The Theory of Evolution with the word only making it sound low... it is also obscuring the existence of there being the Fact of Evolution.

Can you please indicate the post where I attempted to disprove the fact of evolution?
"Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

What about these :

Soooo, string theories, the theory of relativity, and just for kicks, theories on global warming are all really facts as well?

Mmmmmmmm, perhaps not. That's stretching just a bit much, imho. Mutation, natural selection, hybrids, and heritable variation are facts (to name a few). To extrapolate these into "evolution is a fact," is, at best, misleading. You're using one to give the other better credibility.

I mean, if what you say is true, that the only references here made are references to theoretical aspects of evolution - what theory do you think should take the place of the current theory of evolution that tries to explain the fact of evolution?

Also, when someone says, "Evolution is not a fact" ... what do you think that means?

The model that explains the Fact of evolution is not a fact? or the Fact of Evolution is not a fact?

If you want to say The Theory is not a fact, there is no point in stating it because that is a given, you just want to play with semantics and say that you meant to say, The Theory of Evolution is not a fact - not the other way around.

References made here deal with "Evolution not being a fact"... which is really not theoretical at all.

Yes, and thank you for posting that link, wherein it is quoted: "Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."

The idea that you are trying to convey is completely wrong. The Fact of Evolution will remain a fact nevertheless.

 

[imind]

Also from the source you quote: "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what 'theory' means in informal usage and in a scientific context."

Link: Here.

Every reference to evolution on this thread (with one notable exception) has been broad, general, and in casual (not scientific) context.

-- Druweid

you've completely misunderstood what was being said. it matters not what context the word 'evolution' is being spoken, its still fact. what matters is the context of the word 'theory'. in every day usage, the meaning of the word 'theory' is different from that of the scientific meaning. within science, 'theory' has a much stronger meaning.

to reiterate your own quote...

Also from the source you quote: "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what 'theory' means in informal usage and in a scientific context."

meaning that to dismiss evolution as mere 'theory', in the meaning of its everyday usage, is wrong.