proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

you didn't address any of it.

What part proved evolution?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do not ask of others that which you cannot do for your own position.

What did I claim I could prove, that I cannot prove?

But back to subject, can you prove evolution is more than theory? Or is that an admission you cannot?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What did I claim I could prove, that I cannot prove?

But back to subject, can you prove evolution is more than theory? Or is that an admission you cannot?

-_- a theory is the highest level of evidenced anything gets in science. It marks a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous testing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yet it seems like a non-controversial statement. Science doesn't determine fact, it attempts to observe and draw conclusions from facts, does it not?

Point blank...yes science, the observation of the natural, absolutely does determine fact.

But since no one can prove evolution, it make perfect sense the nonsensical direction this thread is headed now. Why didn't someone just say from the start, it's not physically possible to prove evolution?

I'll tell you why, because that isn't a fact and you all simply waited til you were forced to make/lean on the claim due to lack of ability to prove what can be proven if indeed it is a fact.

Merely a convenience so, stop it.

 

[Jimmy D]

What part proved evolution?

All of it is evidence for common descent, so don't be shy. If, as you seem to believe the "debate" centres around either evolution or creation, maybe you could explain how special creation offers a more accurate explanation of the observations I described? Maybe you could point out how and why I'm mistaken and the contents of my post aren't evidence of common descent?

Edit: lol, typed common design instead of common descent!

 

[Speedwell]

I like the line from Indiana Jones in "The Last Crusade" to explain this: "Archeology is the search for facts, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Science is most definitely in the business of determining facts. That is what we do as scientists, discover facts. But we also spend our time trying to invalidate facts and update facts and improve the accuracy of our facts. Facts are not immutable things. Truth is immutable. Reality is immutable. Facts are what we know presently about reality and truth, and they may be subject to amendment or outright rejection in light of new or revised evidence.

Yes, I see what you mean. My usage of "determine" is antiquated and unfamiliar. Science discerns facts; it does not create them.

 

[TBDude65]

-_- a theory is the highest level of evidenced anything gets in science. It marks a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous testing.

In addition to this, it also indicates that the theory is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and that predictions derived from it are more accurate when tested.

Evolution, for instance, is supported by: comparative taxonomy of species hypothesized to be closely related, genetics, the fossil record, closed laboratory experiments to isolate individual variables related to evolution (such as the Lenski Experiment), and field studies.

Any one of these areas of study regarding the theory of evolution has/had the potential to disprove it, and in the >150 years since evolution was first proposed by Darwin, none of these fields of study have ever provided any evidence contradicting it.

 

[TBDude65]

Yes, I see what you mean. My usage of "determine" is antiquated and unfamiliar. Science discerns facts; it does not create them.

There we go, yes. Science doesn't construct facts from some mysterious ether. Nor do we attempt to divine facts from thin air either. Science discovers facts through evidence-based inquiry and experimentation.

 

[Speedwell]

Point blank...yes science, the observation of the natural, absolutely does determine fact.

But since no one can prove evolution, it make perfect sense the nonsensical direction this thread is headed now. Why didn't someone just say from the start, it's not physically possible to prove evolution?

I'll tell you why, because that isn't a fact and you all simply waited til you were forced to make/lean on the claim due to lack of ability to prove what can be proven if indeed it is a fact.

Merely a convenience so, stop it.

I am still confused about exactly what it is that you are arguing against. Evolution is a fact: life has changed and diversified since it came into being. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an attmpt to explain that change and diversification. Are you arguing against the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution?

 

[TBDude65]

Point blank...yes science, the observation of the natural, absolutely does determine fact.

But since no one can prove evolution, it make perfect sense the nonsensical direction this thread is headed now. Why didn't someone just say from the start, it's not physically possible to prove evolution?

I'll tell you why, because that isn't a fact and you all simply waited til you were forced to make/lean on the claim due to lack of ability to prove what can be proven if indeed it is a fact.

Merely a convenience so, stop it.

"Why didn't someone just say from the start, it's not physically possible to prove evolution?"

Because that would be untrue. There is a plethora of evidence demonstrating the fact of evolution. I have even offered to help you test some of this evidence yourself instead of simply trusting the scientists who have already collected and published the evidence, but you didn't want that. You also don't want to read the scientific literature to learn about the fact of evolution. So what is it exactly you do want? What is your goal here?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is your background with respect to science? (this is one way of assessing whether or not the "you don't understand science" quip is accurate or not)

The ability to observe the natural? The way the question was asked that would be all I need. Actually the question is very unclear.

So you are now headed in the direction that if I haven't studied what proves evolution in one way or another (that is if it can be proven.,..you guys really need to get together on that one) I have no business making determinations about others "proof".

What if the government told us to keep out nose out of government because we are not a politician so we have no business concerning ourselves with what goes on in that area?

Huge cop out.

 

[Kenny'sID]

All of it is evidence for common descent, so don't be shy.

Are you not aware that doesn't do a thing to rule out a creator?

And you didn't address my question...you're going on about your so-called evidence, not the proof I asked for. Or are you on the "evolution cannot be proven" bandwagon others have recently hopped on?

 

[TBDude65]

The ability to observe the natural? The way the question was asked that would be all I need. Actually the question is very unclear.

So you are now headed in the direction that if I haven't studied what proves evolution in one way or another (that is if it can be proven.,..you guys really need to get together on that one) I have no business making determinations about others "proof".

What if the government told us to keep out nose out of government because we are not a politician so we have no business concerning ourselves with what goes on in that area?

Huge cop out.

So, no background in science then? That would clearly reinforce the observation that you truly do not understand science. Especially given the rest of the rant that seems to suggest that someone who is largely ignorant of science, can still be considered well versed enough to logically contradict scientific conclusions. This seems like a good case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The "ability to observe the natural" isn't any sort of indicator about whether or not you have a competent understanding of science (both as a method and as a body of knowledge attained via the scientific method).

 

[TBDude65]

Are you not aware that doesn't do a thing to rule out a creator?

And you didn't address my question...you're going on about your so-called evidence, not the proof I asked for. Or are you on the "evolution cannot be proven" bandwagon others have recently hopped on?

"Are you not aware that doesn't do a thing to rule out a creator?"

Evolution has nothing to do with religion in any way shape or form. The theory of evolution postulates precisely nothing about a "creator."

"And you didn't address my question...you're going on about your so-called evidence, not the proof I asked for. Or are you on the "evolution cannot be proven" bandwagon others have recently hopped on?"

Evidence that can be logically and causally linked to a conclusion, is proof of the conclusion. So I don't think the words "evidence" or "proof" are being used correctly or consistently by you.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you not aware that doesn't do a thing to rule out a creator?

I thought you were the one who believes that common descent rules out a creator.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is a fact

It is a theory, so where does that leave us...another "Says you, others would disagree." I'll be happy to leave it at that.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you not aware that doesn't do a thing to rule out a creator?

And you didn't address my question...you're going on about your so-called evidence, not the proof I asked for. Or are you on the "evolution cannot be proven" bandwagon others have recently hopped on?

 

[TBDude65]

It is a theory, so where does that leave us...another "Says you, others would disagree." I'll be happy to leave it at that.

Theory in science =/= theory in the colloquial sense

The shape of the Earth is a scientific theory. The Periodic Table is a scientific theory. When you get sick, doctors utilize the germ theory of disease.

 

[Speedwell]

It is a theory, so where does that leave us...another "Says you, others would disagree." I'll be happy to leave it at that.

So it's not the fact of life's change and diversification over time you are arguing against, but the theory, the scientific explanation for that change and diversification. Right?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution has nothing to do with religion in any way shape or form. The theory of evolution postulates precisely nothing about a "creator."

Meaning what for me? I'm not allowed to interject another possible explanation? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but we do things just like that here on a Christian website.

Is this another convenient rule designed to tie the opponents hands even tighter.

I mean if you all want a debate, fine but with all your rules excuses, and convenient changing of terminology, if we comply, you'll eventually be debating a brick wall because you have done away with disagreements by rule, not with proof.