Dear Christian, why don't you ...?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

... accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

If you decide not to read this thread, don't bother to comment.

(three stanza rule)

I'm not looking for: a summary of your doctoral thesis; a link to some peer-reviewed article; a witty one-liner; a funny picture; a video out-link; or for that matter anything but your honest thoughts as to why you don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

I know you could turn this on me and ask me why I do, but the truth is (if you read what stuff I have written on this forum - heaven forbid!)
In short: I'm still trying to make my mind up, about what level of confidence to give to the evidence which I understand, related to it, thus far.

I know for some of you: you've had a great education; parents who explained it to you; friends who lovingly helped; pastors, teachers, random anonymous internet people who maybe shone a light in your mind; your grandad, uncle, lover, girlfriend, boyfriend -- who explained it -- though for some of us, it's been a gradual, rigorous climb, both mentally and emotionally to get the biology to flow.

After all, it can be terribly droll stuff!

So?

~~~
image from: Charles Darwin: Story Behind The Origin of Species

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe in both. We were created by God, BUT at the same time there were certain traits that came about as a result of nateral selection.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dear Christian, why don't you accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

Dear Lewis, I do accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact ... and scientific facts can take a hike.

Just like it was a scientific fact at one time that Pluto was our ninth planet and Thalidomide was a pre-natal wonder drug, the theory of evolution is a scientific fact that I think can take a hike.

If it's Truth you want to hear, instead of facts, that's different.

Sincerely, AV1611VET

 

[Mr Strawberry]

the theory of evolution is a scientific fact that I think can take a hike.

The theory of evolution describes the fact of evolution. You should know that by this time. Reread the rest of your post in this light and you should see why your argument doesn't work.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If it's Truth you want to hear, instead of facts, that's different.

Then your definition of truth has nothing to do with reality, and means only what you personally desperately want to be true.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Because even scientists don't accept it as fact. That's why it's still called a theory. It seems to explain all the things which ARE facts. But, in itself, it is not factual, only a theory.

TBH, it cannot be sufficiently proven to a point of factuality; and, neither can the Scriptures. EITHER one must be accepted by faith.

So, in reality, there is little difference between those who believe the Bible and those who do not. The only difference is WHAT you choose to put your faith in.

 

[Oncedeceived]

... accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

If you decide not to read this thread, don't bother to comment.

(three stanza rule)

I'm not looking for: a summary of your doctoral thesis; a link to some peer-reviewed article; a witty one-liner; a funny picture; a video out-link; or for that matter anything but your honest thoughts as to why you don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

I know you could turn this on me and ask me why I do, but the truth is (if you read what stuff I have written on this forum - heaven forbid!)
In short: I'm still trying to make my mind up, about what level of confidence to give to the evidence which I understand, related to it, thus far.

I know for some of you: you've had a great education; parents who explained it to you; friends who lovingly helped; pastors, teachers, random anonymous internet people who maybe shone a light in your mind; your grandad, uncle, lover, girlfriend, boyfriend -- who explained it -- though for some of us, it's been a gradual, rigorous climb, both mentally and emotionally to get the biology to flow.

After all, it can be terribly droll stuff!

So?

~~~
image from: Charles Darwin: Story Behind The Origin of Species

Education in the US if you are to go into any of the Biological Sciences you become accepting of evolution and for me not being a Christian at that time made acceptance undisputed. I didn't have any problem with religion nor evolution as religion was not a part of my life.

When I became a full born again Christian I still just accepted what I had been taught and felt that it was not a problem either because I could accept both.

Now, I find myself, questioning why I just accepted what I was told about evolution. I did so due to the authority I gave to the evolutionary Scientists in their own fields. I wasn't in the research part of the Sciences and relied upon those who were.

Its about authority and the mistaken idea that Scientists remain unbiased and do adhere to scientific objectivity. I am finding that evolution has become so ingrained into the mindset of Science that objectivity is no longer a desired trait. One must not question evolution. Ever. Well I am no longer blinding myself nor resting on the authority of men and women that have their own agendas. I am glad for my education because it does give me an advantage in determining evolutionary claims and what is supporting them. So while I still believe that evolution as defined happens, I am deeply looking into old accepted evolutionary explanations about life forms and systems. So my advice to you is this, remember that nothing in Science should be a given. Nothing in Science should be off limits of discord or alternate causes. When something is appearing like dogma it is time to question it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I do accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact

Are you being honest? If not, please take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution describes the fact of evolution.

No kidding!?

Evolution is a fact -- a fact that can take a hike.

Pluto was a fact, Thalidomide was a fact, Phlogiston was a fact, Geocentrism was a fact ...

You should know that by this time.

Ya -- that's why I said it.

Reread the rest of your post in this light and you should see why your argument doesn't work.

Doesn't work for who? you or me?

 

[selfinflikted]

Because even scientists don't accept it as fact. That's why it's still called a theory. It seems to explain all the things which ARE facts. But, in itself, it is not factual, only a theory.

TBH, it cannot be sufficiently proven to a point of factuality; and, neither can the Scriptures. EITHER one must be accepted by faith.

So, in reality, there is little difference between those who believe the Bible and those who do not. The only difference is WHAT you choose to put your faith in.

False. The difference is the Bible MUST be believed on faith alone, while the ToE is either accepted or not (not "believed in") based on the evidence. IOW, one takes faith because there's no evidence, while the other has plenty of evidence on which to base acceptance (or not).

 

[AV1611VET]

Then your definition of truth has nothing to do with reality, and means only what you personally desperately want to be true.

Reality can take a hike, and that's "Truth" with a capital tee.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The theory of evolution describes the fact of evolution.

'....In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.'*

~~~
* From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences : Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No kidding!?

Evolution is a fact -- a fact that can take a hike.

Pluto was a fact, Thalidomide was a fact, Phlogiston was a fact, Geocentrism was a fact ...

Ya -- that's why I said it.

Pluto's existence is a fact, the existence of the drug thalidomide is a fact, phlogiston was a theory undermined by new facts, geocentrism was a theory blown apart by new facts. Are you beginning to see?

Doesn't work for who? you or me?

For anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you being honest?

Yes, I'm being honest.

What is "fact" one day can be discarded the next.

In my nine years here, I have asked these guys over and over and over if it is a fact that Pluto was, at one time, our ninth planet, and I can vaguely remember only one person answering that question YES.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pluto's existence is a fact,

Was it a fact at one time that Pluto was our ninth planet?

the existence of the drug thalidomide is a fact,

Was it a fact at one time that Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug?

phlogiston was a theory undermined by new facts,

Was it a fact at one time that Phlogiston existed?

geocentrism was a theory blown apart by new facts.

Was it a fact at one time that the sun orbited the earth?

 

[StephanieSomer]

False. The difference is the Bible MUST be believed on faith alone, while the ToE is either accepted or not (not "believed in") based on the evidence. IOW, one takes faith because there's no evidence, while the other has plenty of evidence on which to base acceptance (or not).

Faith isn't acceptance without evidence.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

'....In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.'*

~~~
* From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences : Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Yes, true, the theory of evolution is so solid that it is accepted as a fact, but AV1611VET is bypassing the detail that evolution itself is a fact "an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances" in order to reject it. That's why his post doesn't make sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Faith isn't acceptance without evidence.

I agree completely. There is massive evidence for design in nature.

 

[dysert]

I don't accept the ToE as a fact for at least three big reasons.

1. Assuming we're defining ToE as including common descent, this is contrary to Scripture which says that things were individually created and procreated after their own kind. There was not one created thing and then a bunch of procreated things spawned from it. Each animal was created; each plant was created; each human was created; etc. After the initial creation, subsequent generations followed after their own kind.
2. It doesn't make sense from a continual, ongoing processes. If, as evolutionists claim, fruit flies come from fruit flies, then what was the predecessor to the first fruit fly? They weren't around forever.
3. It is internally inconsistent. If fruit flies always come from fruit flies, and if there is a common ancestor for all living things, what was the ancestor for all the non-fruit flies?

I may be wrong in my understanding, but if I'm not, these three reasons alone are enough for me to reject ToE.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Was it a fact at one time that Pluto was our ninth planet?

It's a fact that it was given that classification, and the fact it was given that classification remains a fact, but reclassifying it changes nothing about Pluto, in the same way that reclassifying an organisms taxonomy changes nothing about the fact of evolution.

Was it a fact at one time that Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug?

Concentrate on the word "considered". See the difference between that and the fact that the drug exists.

Was it a fact at one time that Phlogiston existed?

No.

Was it a fact at one time that the sun orbited the earth?

No.