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

[whois]

No, not the link, the poster discussing it.

i see.
maybe you missed post 47.

in other news, what do you have to say about the cite i posted in regards to the discontinuous phyla distribution in the record?

is there anything you contest about it?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

i see.
maybe you missed post 47.

in other news, what do you have to say about the cite i posted in regards to the discontinuous phyla distribution in the record?

is there anything you contest about it?

Haven't read it, old boy. I only stopped by to tell you that you were more likely to be ignored than reported.

 

[dad]

No I think you should look it up for yourself, if you do the work you will feel the benefit.

? You thought we could look up how some first lifeform did anything ever, let alone for today?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Haven't read it, old boy. I only stopped by to tell you that you were more likely to be ignored than reported.

I think he might want to be reported, cause he sure tries hard enough to get a report card.

 

[dysert]

In addition to my Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7875057-2/#post67335719), which seems to put the nails in evolution's coffin, I thought of another reason why evolution can't be right:

4. Stuff we like to eat is bad for us whereas stuff that's good for us tastes yucky

;-)

 

[sandybay]

In addition to my Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7875057-2/#post67335719), which seems to put the nails in evolution's coffin, I thought of another reason why evolution can't be right:

4. Stuff we like to eat is bad for us whereas stuff that's good for us tastes yucky

It's strange how we think, it seems the less evidence some people have the greater their confidence and the more evidence some have the more their confidence is drained.

When we don't know anything we don't know how little we know but the more we know the more we realise how much we have to learn.

Religions are loved because they allow the completely ignorant to believe that they have nothing more to learn.

As they say, there is nowt as strange as folk.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In addition to my Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7875057-2/#post67335719), which seems to put the nails in evolution's coffin, I thought of another reason why evolution can't be right:

4. Stuff we like to eat is bad for us whereas stuff that's good for us tastes yucky

;-)

A nice big juicy, fatty steak is apparently good for us, whereas icky tasting pasta, rice, potato and wheat is bad for us. (ever eaten them without any spices or sauces, or oven baking?)*

* Wheat Is A Cause of Many Diseases, I: Leaky Gut - Perfect Health Diet | Perfect Health Diet

 

[abysmul]

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

http://theos.in/science/charles-darwin-story-behind-the-origin-of-species/

I find that amusing.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I find that amusing.

And rightly you should, for it seems as if that would be termed a contradiction in terms of strict dictionary definitions of the meanings of 'theory' and 'fact'.

Correct?

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'theory':

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'fact':

A thing that is known or proved to be true: the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas [mass noun]: a body of fact

Source:
Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar

Yet there is a word we missed:

What is the meaning of the word 'scientific' :

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'scientific'

Based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science: the scientific study of earthquakes

But what is a scientific fact?

'....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.'*

So, do you not think that the theory of evolution might be called a scientific fact? If not, why not?

~~~
* Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[crjmurray]

In addition to my Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7875057-2/#post67335719), which seems to put the nails in evolution's coffin, I thought of another reason why evolution can't be right:

4. Stuff we like to eat is bad for us whereas stuff that's good for us tastes yucky

;-)

Is this a troll?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Is this a troll?

Ever since learning about Landover Baptist I wonder if people from there come here on slow days. Or maybe they're just wanting more acclaim on FSTDT or for the chance at their post being dramatized on RAR CF.

 

[JacksBratt]

... 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

My first, academic explanation.....


As I have heard here time and time again....."Science proves nothing".

A fact is a proven truth.

If Science cannot prove anything, then it cannot have any facts.

If it cannot have any facts then a scientific "theory" cannot be proven or a fact.


Evolution is not a scientific fact if science proves nothing and therefore has no facts.


nounThe definition of a fact is something that is true or something that has occurred or has been proven correct.

My personal reason that I don't believe evolution to be a fact is:

God said He formed man with His own hands and breathed life into his nostrils...Then made woman from this man's rib.

I personally believe that this is the true facts of the creation of man and not a "parable" or "metaphor".

Secondly, I truly believe that there is a lot of archeological evidence that supports the biblical account, right up to the existence of Giants, Nephilim,
all the biblical characters and a spirit world beyond our dimension.

I believe that there is also evidence of the people of this earth having a far different world that they lived in before the flood and that the technology was far beyond what we have today.

I believe that the evidence is there, has been uncovered and promptly covered up and hidden.

We are not alone in this universe. The others are not from other planets but other dimensions and all and I mean all will choose their leader and lord. Some will choose God and the others will be deceived and follow Satan.

 

[Queller]

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.

The fact of evolution is that species change over time.

The theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution happens.

TBH, it cannot be sufficiently proven to a point of factuality;

No theory ever becomes a fact. Theories explain facts, they don't become them.

and, neither can the Scriptures. EITHER one must be accepted by faith.

I thought faith was the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We can see the fossil record and we can see species changing over time. Why does it take faith to believe those things?

 

[Queller]

you know, i can breed rabbits 24/7 knowing a little about mendel and his laws and never needing any "evolution theory".

Whether you know about it or not, if you are selective breeding for certain genetic traits, then you are using the principles of evolutionary theory.

to cast this theory in stone is wrong on so many levels.

No theory is ever set in stone.

man getting here by a series of slow gradual steps is simply wrong.
the evidence is coming from everywhere.

Care to share some?

of course that means the world will end tomorrow and that everybody better get all crazy about it.

it's funny, "we can't trust science because it always changes"
belch, evolution needs to change, " I WILL DIE FIRST ! ! ! !".

???

 

[dad]

The fact of evolution is that species change over time.

Change from what starting at what over how much time is the issue.

The theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution happens.

No. It invents creation fables for which are no evidence, and it abuses the evidences we do have.

We can see the fossil record and we can see species changing over time.

What you do not see in the fossil record tells us more than what you do see, and of what you do see, you have it wrong anyhow.

 

[Oafman]

As I have heard here time and time again....."Science proves nothing".

A fact is a proven truth.

If Science cannot prove anything, then it cannot have any facts.

This is an affront to logic.

 

[High Fidelity]

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.



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



No.



No.

I think the point he's trying to make is that you can call something fact as long as you like but you can't speak about everything in absolutes -- especially given the nature of science, the understanding of what was previous purported as fact can change. That's just the nature of science. Observations can be wrong and newer observations can nullify previous observations.

So, that in mind, forgive us for not taking 'scientific fact' as an absolute when, in reality, the fluidity of the definition in science should breed a perpetual scepticism within ourselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the point he's trying to make is that you can call something fact as long as you like but you can't speak about everything in absolutes -- especially given the nature of science, the understanding of what was previous purported as fact can change. That's just the nature of science. Observations can be wrong and newer observations can nullify previous observations.

So, that in mind, forgive us for not taking 'scientific fact' as an absolute when, in reality, the fluidity of the definition in science should breed a perpetual scepticism within ourselves.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think the point he's trying to make is that you can call something fact as long as you like but you can't speak about everything in absolutes -- especially given the nature of science, the understanding of what was previous purported as fact can change. That's just the nature of science. Observations can be wrong and newer observations can nullify previous observations.

The theory changes, the facts don't. It is true that sometimes, as in the case of evolution, the theory is so overwhelmingly well supported by evidence that it is accepted as a fact, but even then we know that the theory will be modified in the future. The fact of evolution, however, will not change.

So, that in mind, forgive us for not taking 'scientific fact' as an absolute when, in reality, the fluidity of the definition in science should breed a perpetual scepticism within ourselves.

It usually makes it easier to give the example that the theory of gravity is an explanation for the fact of gravity. Gravity won't change, it is a fact, but our theories explaining it almost certainly will. You see?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

... 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

I'm actually stunned after reading the link. What Darwin did was to 'state the obvious' then others worked his thesis backward to the supposed beginnings of organic life. Everything in his 'outline' is certainly true, but doesn't require a theory contrary to divine creation. Go through his outline one by one and you'll see that the vaunted Theory Of Evolution isn't needed.

However I will agree on this point, that the survival of the fittest is indeed "natural selection". What could be more obvious. But it doesn't require the fabrication of a godless theory.