How is it that creationists cannot accept evolution as fact

[xNIHILISTx]

When they accept other scientific theories such as:

• Theory of relativity
• cell theory
• atomic theory
• plate tectonic theory
• germ theory
• etc.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and fact.

 

[GarrickBrewer]

first of all a theory is not a fact, it means it can have little to a lot of evidence, but the fact its a theory means it hasnt been proved. and we beleive in all the things that you mentioned, we dont just throw science out the window because we are christian. We just disagree with a couple things. As for evolution i am person an inteligent design person, meaning that evolution did happen, but god controlled it so it would eventualy lead to man.

 

[drich0150]

When they accept other scientific theories such as:

• Theory of relativity
• cell theory
• atomic theory
• plate tectonic theory
• germ theory
• etc.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and fact.

A Fact is a statement that either be proved or disproved. Fact has nothing in of itself to do with truth. Some facts are true and others are not. Otherwise no innocent man would ever be jailed and no guilt man would ever go free.

Accepting evolution as "fact" is a non issue. Accepting Evolution as truth takes a measure of faith. The same measure as it takes to believe in God.

 

[NNSV]

When they accept other scientific theories such as:

• Theory of relativity
• cell theory
• atomic theory
• plate tectonic theory
• germ theory
• etc.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and fact.

Isn't it obvious? Creationists aren't as intelligent as evolutionists, or any thinking person.


Now that I have said that, will the thread die, or will it go on for 50 more pages? Hmmmm...

 

[mdseverin]

When they accept other scientific theories such as:

• Theory of relativity
• cell theory
• atomic theory
• plate tectonic theory
• germ theory
• etc.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and fact.

Define a creationist? Is it someone that belives in a Young Earth, or just anyone that believes God created the world? I do not believe in the Young Earth view, but I do believe God created everything. Most mainline denominations take a theistic evolution belief.

Evolution is just a theory, it is not a proven fact. No scientist would say it's is 100% fact.

 

[xNIHILISTx]

first of all a theory is not a fact,

True, never said it was. A theory encompasses facts and laws.

it means it can have little to a lot of evidence,

A theory with little evidence is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis.

but the fact its a theory means it hasnt been proved.

Evolution has a vast amount of evidence supporting it and it has been through hundreds of years of testing, research and observation with no evidence suggesting that the theory is wrong. Almost every scientist will tell you that is has been proven, and that it is fact, and will treat it as such.

 

[xNIHILISTx]

A Fact is a statement that either be proved or disproved. Fact has nothing in of itself to do with truth. Some facts are true and others are not.

I don't know where you get your definition of fact from. A fact is something that is actual or true.

Otherwise no innocent man would ever be jailed and no guilt man would ever go free.

This doesn't make facts untrue, it just means that the hypothesis based on the facts is untrue.

Accepting evolution as "fact" is a non issue. Accepting Evolution as truth takes a measure of faith. The same measure as it takes to believe in God.

Faith is a belief without proof. Accepting evolution as truth takes no faith.

 

[xNIHILISTx]

Define a creationist?

Well, for this particular question, I was only addressing creationists that do not accept evolution as fact.

Evolution is just a theory, it is not a proven fact.

Your idea of a theory is actually a hypothesis.
"A hypothesis is a theory or law that retains the suggestion that it may not be universally true" *

Evolution is a scientific theory.
"A description of nature that encompasses more than one law but has not achieved the uncontrovertible status of a law is sometimes called a theory." *

The main difference between a law and a theory is that a law explains only what happens while a theory explains what happens and why. Also, a theory can be disproven if there is evidence to dispute it.

No scientist would say it's is 100% fact.

You are greatly mistaken.

*I used the Oxford Dictionary of Science as to not give biased definitions in my favor.

 

[Birthew]

Evolution proof: ostriches, why would God give them wings if they can't fly?

 

[drich0150]

Evolution proof: ostriches, why would God give them wings if they can't fly?

what birds are created without wings?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

When they accept other scientific theories such as:

• Theory of relativity
• cell theory
• atomic theory
• plate tectonic theory
• germ theory
• etc.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and fact.

Simple. Blind devotion to a concept of inerrance(sp?) that turns denial of facts into a moral crusade.

 

[Drayzon]

The reason we do not believe in evolution is the same reason why you do not believe in creation.

Enouh said, however I wanted to state that when you say evolution theory is fact, which meaning are you using. Are you using it empirically or in the way that it cannot be oberved?

 

[WeakButHopeful]

Look, this is the kind of a discussion that intelligent people who had an honest interest in seeing each other's points of view would get together in a room and discuss face to face. I don't think the Web is a great place for complex discussions because something gets lost in the volume of replies (IMHO).

I happen to be a pretty far out from the mainstream kind of Christian, and I like to think I am somewhat well read and have a good (not great) background in science. I think it's important not to set up straw men just to knock them down (on either side).

Perhaps an analogy would help (???). Is global warming a fact? Hmmm. Well, there's lots of geologic and other evidence going back thousands of years, but not so much long trend lines available for statistical analysis in recent years. There's also the complex question of what you mean by "global warming" (caused by man, cyclical phenomenon or caused by non-cyclic but natural causes). There's also the hysterical aspect (but if we wait until we're sure it will be too late!) and the "let me get some funding for my global warming study so I can feed my family" problem.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton more evidence for evolution than global warming. But my point is that complex questions deserve careful and reasoned treatment, because the devil's in the details and not every body who disagrees (on either side) is stupid.

My 2 (or 20) cents.

 

[drich0150]

I don't know where you get your definition of fact from. A fact is something that is actual or true.

Websters dictionary (1974 edition)

This doesn't make facts untrue, it just means that the hypothesis based on the facts is untrue.

In the Casey Anthony trial the defense presented "facts" that pointed to the accidental drowning of Kayley. These "facts" according to the prosecution were not true, yet they remain facts.

Faith is a belief without proof. Accepting evolution as truth takes no faith.

Faith is a confidence or trust in a person or thing. It doesn't have to have anything to do with "proof."

 

[xNIHILISTx]

Websters dictionary (1974 edition)

I checked both my Merriam Webster Dictionary (1994) and my New Webster's Dictionary(2005) and neither of them say what you wrote. In fact, they use the words actual, reality, and truth. Same goes for wikipedia, dictionary.com, and merriam-webster.com

In the Casey Anthony trial the defense presented "facts" that pointed to the accidental drowning of Kayley. These "facts" according to the prosecution were not true, yet they remain facts.

Either they are facts, or they aren't. If a fact is untrue, it isn't a fact. It's a lie. Even if I am mistaken on my idea of a fact, evolution remains a scientific fact, which means that it is an objective and verifiable position for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Faith is a confidence or trust in a person or thing. It doesn't have to have anything to do with "proof."

We can agree to disagree on this.

 

[GarrickBrewer]

Faith is a belief without proof. Accepting evolution as truth takes no faith.

Spend some time in a church, and i mean a church filled with people that have a firey passion for God and you will see proof. Follow a minister as he prays for the sick and you will find proof, ask people how Jesus has changed their life and you will find proof, ask a christian if they have ever seen a miracle and you will find proof.

 

[drich0150]

I checked both my Merriam Webster Dictionary (1994) and my New Webster's Dictionary(2005) and neither of them say what you wrote. In fact, they use the words actual, reality, and truth. Same goes for wikipedia, dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster.com

Your first example of selective reasoning. In that you pick out a portion of a definition and ignore what does not compliment your argument.

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
(The Merriam-Webster definition that must have been accidentally been omitted in your copy.)

Note the definition does not say it,parallels reality. The good folks at Merriam Webster qualified this definition with the word "objective" Care to look that one up? Or can we agree that an objective is a goal? As in a goal to obtain or present/represent reality. Having a goal, is not synonymous with obtaining the goal. That is why it is defined as having the objective, and not recorded as having paralleled reality.

Therefore the 1974 definition is still valid. in that A Fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved. (so long as the objective goal of the fact was to represent reality)

Either they are facts, or they aren't. If a fact is untrue, it isn't a fact. It's a lie. Even if I am mistaken on my idea of a fact, evolution remains a scientific fact, which means that it is an objective and verifiable position for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Again this understanding is based on your unwillingness to open your mind to what you have closed yourself off to. (selective reasoning)

We can agree to disagree on this.[/

So I am assuming you looked up the Word "Faith" to try and school me yet again, but saw my definition staring back at you, and you decided to "agree to disagree" on the off chance that I got lucky, and didn't look up the word?

Or did you really not look up the only other word in dispute here?

 

[xNIHILISTx]

If you do not want to have a civilized debate without strawman or ad hominem arguments, I will stop now.

 

[drich0150]

If you do not want to have a civilized debate without straw man or ad hominem arguments, I will stop now.

Wow this is a first! I have nothing but respect for you. It takes a lot to recuse yourself from a conversation because you might have a tendency for ad hominem comments, or a because you lead with straw men.

thank you for the level of integrity you bring to this forum!

 

[xNIHILISTx]

If anyone else wants to respectfully debate, I would be happy to.