Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[bullietdodger]

Are you suggesting that life in the past was not very different than life today? What part of the facts of evolutoin do you think is in doubt by any serious part of the scientific community?

Media? Why is that your threshold for validity?


There is 100% consensus in any involved field by any respected scientists in that field that life in the past was much different than life today and that this change occured over time as populations diversified. This is not disputed and is easily evidenced and observed.

You seem to not understand how the term fact and theory are used and are related especially how it is used in science terminology.

What fact of evolution do you think is in dispute within the scientific community? What serious discussion can you point to that shows this dispute? Anything other than religiously motivated ministries?

Media would be important because if evolution was fact media would have spread the word saying that evolution was proven fact.

As for "respected" scientists, would that be those scientists who are evolutionists? Your 100% consensus is a lie. Robin Collins PHD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PHD, Jay Welsey Richards PHD, and Michael J. Behe, PHD are all respected and they all think the evolution is a bunch of whooe. If you make a claim like you 100%, you better make sure it's correct.

Now again, there has not been presented solid, conclusive evidence to give evolution such a title as fact. If you say it is fact, you better back that claim up.

 

[franks1965]

The Earth revolving around the sun is actually just a theory as well. Most people don't have a problem with that one.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Robin Collins PHD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PHD, Jay Welsey Richards PHD, and Michael J. Behe, PHD are all respected and they all think the evolution is a bunch of whooe.

You mean this Robin Collins? He wrote a nice essay in a book I own called Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It's called "Evolution and Original Sin", and in it he explains how he reconciles his acceptance of evolution with the doctrine of Original Sin. While Collins is more charitable about ID than most TEs, he focuses on ID in the sense of the universe as a whole being fine-tuned. He most definitely does not call evolution "whooe".

 

[notto]

Now again, there has not been presented solid, conclusive evidence to give evolution such a title as fact. If you say it is fact, you better back that claim up.

You still don't understand that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Do you doubt that life in the past was much different than life today and that it changed over time?

Do you doubt that this change took millions of years?

This is the fact of evolution. It happened. There are no respected scientists without a religious bent who doubt this.

As far as evidence, you know all those bones of extinct animals that are no longer around? That would be evidence that life in the past is much different than life today. Add to that that we do not find fossils of many currently living species and it pretty much raps it up. Evolution happened.

 

[notto]

Robin Collins PHD (Philosophy/Physics)
Guillermo Gonzalez, PHD (astronomy)
Jay Welsey Richards PHD (Philosophy)
and Michael J. Behe, PHD liturgy

So, we have two philosophers, an astronomer, and Behe? Not really a group to put the question of biological evolution to (although it does sound like the start of a good joke if the walk into a bar). My guess is that these folks may have a problem with the theory of evolution but not the fact of evolution. 3 out of 4 of them most likely accept that life changed over millions of years and accept speciation. Perhaps you could point out where they say the fact of evolution are not true.

I will restate my claim. You have failed to refute it.

There is 100% consensus in any involved field by any respected scientists in that field that life in the past was much different than life today and that this change occured over time as populations diversified. This is not disputed and is easily evidenced and observed.

 

[LoG]

You still don't understand that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Notto, it appears that it is you who doesn't understand. A limited evolving of species has been proven fact. I stress limited. Macro evolution on the other hand hasn't been proven.

Just because some evolving is possible does not mean that it DID happen that way. What we have at best is an interpretation of circumstantial evidence. In a court of law they would not be able to convict a man with the type of evidence and it's interpretation that exists for the Theory of Evolution. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is not a fact.

That there are some supposedly respectable scientists claiming it is a fact is questionable. Are you certain that any of these scientists are totally unbiased and would switch over to the creationist view if the evidence led them there? From what I have read from various sources, those in the field who started to question Evolution were ostracised, fired, belittled or were no longer given money to continue their research. I find strong evidence for an unnatural bias that does not allow most scientists to report the truth as they actually see it in their studies.

You are really reaching in your claim that it is fact based on the word of "reputable scientists"

 

[notto]

That there are some supposedly respectable scientists claiming it is a fact is questionable.

Name a respectable scientist in the field of biology that does not accept as fact that life in the past was much different than life is today and that populations have changed over time to generate the diversity we see today. This is understood and accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by any respected scientist in the field of biology.

That is the fact of evolution. Evolution has happened. The theory of evolution works to understand the mechanisms involved that explain HOW it happened.

Until you understand this, you don't understand what people mean when they say that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

As for your other claims about researchers, my guess is that they doubted the conclusions of the theory of evolution (like Intelligent Design proponents) but not the fact that biodiversity has evolved (the fact of evolution).

Name some names. Explain why they are respected in their field and what work they have done in biology. Explain their objective doubts about the fact of evolution and what they have done to come to that conclusion objectively. Lets see it.

 

[bullietdodger]

You still don't understand that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I think you are having trouble understanding the term fact.

Merriam-Webster defines fact as: something that has actual existence.

You nor the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to fit this definition, that being fact.

Do you doubt that life in the past was much different than life today and that it changed over time?

Please clarify. If you mean physically and biology wise, please specify.

Do you doubt that this change took millions of years?

Yes.

This is the fact of evolution. It happened. There are no respected scientists without a religious bent who doubt this.

I suppose that you were there at the beginning of creation? It is impossible to prove and evolution beginning. No human being was at the beginning of time or creation.

As far as evidence, you know all those bones of extinct animals that are no longer around? That would be evidence that life in the past is much different than life today. Add to that that we do not find fossils of many currently living species and it pretty much raps it up. Evolution happened.

This still doesn't prove evolution.
Where is your solid evidence for evolution? You still have not produced solid evidence. Also, are you a scientist? What expertise do you have on the subject? Or is what you think all based on the bias of evolutionists?

 

[bullietdodger]

There is 100% consensus in any involved field by any respected scientists in that field that life in the past was much different than life today and that this change occured over time as populations diversified. This is not disputed and is easily evidenced and observed.

Then give me every single name of scientists that are involve in the sciences which you think are involved. Tell me if they believe in evolution or not.

By the way, you can't really leave out the other sciences, because the other sciences would and do effect biology.

 

[notto]

I think you are having trouble understanding the term fact.

Merriam-Webster defines fact as: something that has actual existence.

Yep, and the evidence shows us that evolution has happened.

You nor the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to fit this definition, that being fact.

Yes they have. To the objective scientific community (and the majority of the modern world), evolution happening is accepted as fact. Life in the past was much different than life today. This change happened over millions of years. A young earth has been falsified and the physical evidence shows us that life forms gradually changed and speciated over time. It doesn't get to be any more of a fact than that.

Please clarify. If you mean physically and biology wise, please specify.

There are species of animals alive today that were not alive millions of years ago and there were species alive millions of years ago that are not alive today. The diversity of life has changed and was much different in the past than it is today. This is the fact of evolution. Evolution of life has happened.
[/quote]
Yes.

I suppose that you were there at the beginning of creation? It is impossible to prove and evolution beginning. No human being was at the beginning of time or creation.

Doesn't matter. That is not required to determine as fact and beyond a resonable doubt that evolution has happened and is a fact. Every single independent line of evidence points to that.

You seem to not only be confused about how something can be both a fact and a theory, but about ways we can determine if something is a fact. Observation of evidence of an event or phenomena is all we need.

Based on your reasoning, there are a lot of murderers who should be set free because apparently it is not a fact that they murdered anyone because even though the were found with the bloody knife and convicted on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, because there were no witnesses, the murder did not happen.

The murder is a fact, as the evidence shows, regardless of if it was directly witnessed.

This still doesn't prove evolution.
Where is your solid evidence for evolution? You still have not produced solid evidence. Also, are you a scientist? What expertise do you have on the subject? Or is what you think all based on the bias of evolutionists?

I asked you what parts you doubt and if you have looked at the evidence already presented in this thread. Have you?

What I think is based on careful review of scientific materials produced and peer reviewed by actual scientists including biologists and geologists.

What is your experience? What have you read about evolution? Was it written by a biologist or a geologist? So far you mentioned a few philosophers, astronomers, and physicists. Evolution deals with biology so you should read materials prepared by biologists. If not, why would you think the material you are using are reliable on the subject?

 

[gluadys]

I think you are having trouble understanding the term fact.

Merriam-Webster defines fact as: something that has actual existence.

You nor the scientific community has presented conclusive evidence to fit this definition, that being fact.

That you are unaware of the evidence or choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

Evolution is a fact.

There is much more evidence than one can present in a short message. But to get you started, I suggest reading The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.

 

[bullietdodger]

Yep, and the evidence shows us that evolution has happened.

Yes they have. To the objective scientific community (and the majority of the modern world), evolution happening is accepted as fact. Life in the past was much different than life today.


There are species of animals alive today that were not alive millions of years ago and there were species alive millions of years ago that are not alive today. The diversity of life has changed and was much different in the past than it is today. This is the fact of evolution. Evolution of life has happened.
Yes.

Doesn't matter. That is not required to determine as fact and beyond a resonable doubt that evolution has happened and is a fact. Every single independent line of evidence points to that.

You seem to not only be confused about how something can be both a fact and a theory, but about ways we can determine if something is a fact. Observation of evidence is all we can see.

Based on your reasoning, there are a lot of murderers who should be set free because apparently it is not a fact that they murdered anyone because even though the were found with the bloody knife and convicted on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, because there were no witnesses, the murder did not happen.

The murder is a fact, as the evidence shows, regardless of if it was directly witnessed.

This still doesn't prove evolution.
Where is your solid evidence for evolution? You still have not produced solid evidence. Also, are you a scientist? What expertise do you have on the subject? Or is what you think all based on the bias of evolutionists?

It's like speaking to a brick wall.
You have not given any evidence to support your calm of evolution to be fact. You have not produced any media coverage of the scientific community proving evolution. I would think that such a claim of evolution being fact would be world wide news. Where are the names your 100% concensus?

If you fail to produce and of these things then there will be no point to continue this conversation. So come with the evidence or don't bother replying.

 

[notto]

This still doesn't prove evolution.
Where is your solid evidence for evolution? You still have not produced solid evidence. Also, are you a scientist? What expertise do you have on the subject? Or is what you think all based on the bias of evolutionists?

It's like speaking to a brick wall.

Have you reviewed the evidence already presented in this thread? Do you have questions about it? What part of the evidence do you not accept?

Don't claim that evidence has not been provided. This thread is ripe with it. You might have to make an effort and read it but don't start to claim that it has not been provided without doing so.

As far as looking in the media for claims that evolution has happened. That is like looking for claims that water is wet. It is self evident to anyone but creationists so it is not really news that needs reporting. The fact of evolution has been evident for over 100 years base on geological evidence that is that old as well. It is the theory of evolution that is still being worked out through the fields of biology, genetics, and paeleontology.

 

[bullietdodger]

That you are unaware of the evidence or choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

Evolution is a fact.

There is much more evidence than one can present in a short message. But to get you started, I suggest reading The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.

The put up the evidence. I have not seen any evidence from any TEs on this forum to show evolution as fact. YOu can't claim fact if you don't have the evidence to support such a claim.

 

[notto]

The put up the evidence. I have not seen any evidence from any TEs on this forum to show evolution as fact. YOu can't claim fact if you don't have the evidence to support such a claim.

Life in the past was much different than life today.
There are species alive today that were not alive in the past.
There were species alive in the past that are not alive today.

Do you agree or disagree with these 3 statements of fact.

 

[bullietdodger]

notto,

kindly point out the evidence presented on this thread again and I will reread them. But you also have to look for any form of media that will confirm that the scientific community has proven evolution to be fact. It shouldn't be to hard to find as such a claim would be big news. The internet may be a useful tool to get started with.

 

[bullietdodger]

There are species alive today that were not alive in the past.

Where to you get this from? Is it possible that these so called species that didn't exist before just weren't discovered before? Remember we have not seen every inch of this planet yet. If a tree falls in a forest with no living creature around, does the tree make a sound? Get my point?

 

[notto]

notto,

kindly point out the evidence presented on this thread again and I will reread them. But you also have to look for any form of media that will confirm that the scientific community has proven evolution to be fact. It shouldn't be to hard to find as such a claim would be big news. The internet may be a useful tool to get started with.

Sorry but you will have to do your own homework. If you have specific questions, please ask but simply asking for what you are doing here is near impossible and is a lengthy discussion. Read the thread to follow it and the evidence that was presented.

From the sounds of it, you should read a good book on what evolution is and isn't, what science is and isn't, and what a scientific theory is and how it describes and explains facts and observations.

"Were you there" is not an intellectually honest nor particularly stimulating or insightful rebuttal of 150 years of research, collection of data, and scientific work.

 

[notto]

Where to you get this from? Is it possible that these so called species that didn't exist before just weren't discovered before? Remember we have not seen every inch of this planet yet. If a tree falls in a forest with no living creature around, does the tree make a sound? Get my point?

I get your point but it is not based in reality.

There were no humans or even large mammals alive during the time of the dinosaurs. This is a confirmed fact and beyond a reasonable doubt by any stretch of the imagination.

We have also seen new species come about and have very solid evidence of recent speciation so no, it is not possible that these species were not discovered before. They did not exist before and the evidence and observation (both direct and indirect) tells us that.

Where do I get it from? 150 years of vigorous scientific research.

You are moving the goalposts from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'there might be an invisible dragon under my bed'.

You are grasping at straws and seem to be unfamiliar with the evidence we do have yet you denounce it as if it doesn't exist. You seem to be demontrating that no matter what evidence you would be shown (or review in this thread) that you will simply ignore it and again move the goalposts.

It would be like me claiming that all the history books could be wrong because nobody alive today was there to see things happen first hand. It is simply unreasonable.

 

[lismore]

That you are unaware of the evidence or choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

Evolution is a fact.

There is much more evidence than one can present in a short message. But to get you started, I suggest reading The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.

Oh please go away and hide all this evidence that only gluadys can see

Evolution is a fable