The tip of the ice berg

[BPPLEE]

I would certainly expect to fall. But that doesn't prove gravity, it just demonstrates that something causes me to move in a certain direction. Could be gravity, could be a god pushing/pulling me, could be an as yet unknown force. There are a number of possible explanations, but the most plausible one is gravity.

Then we could have evolved or God could've created us or we could've evolved with God directing the process or there could've been progressive creationism

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are both good evidence. I think the fossil record is the best evidence. There should be more transitional fossils though. They are good evidence but not proof

Why do you keep talking about proof when science does not deal in proof?
Courts deal in proof, mathematics deals in proof.
Science deals in evidence and facts.

 

[BPPLEE]

Why do you keep talking about proof when science does not deal in proof?
Courts deal in proof, mathematics deals in proof.
Science deals in evidence and facts.

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. Facts demand proof. If you call it a fact you have to be able to prove it. As BB said it could've been this or it could've been that and this is just the best explanation . If that's so then it's not a fact

 

[TLK Valentine]

What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids.

Notice how they didn't "prove" any of that?

Your standards of evidence are a wee bit... inconsistent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. Facts demand proof. If you call it a fact you have to be able to prove it. As BB said it could've been this or it could've been that and this is just the best explanation

You do know that proof is a synonym for evidence when used colloquially right? So, if you want to use colloquial language, then evolution has proof.

What then?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then we could have evolved or God could've created us or we could've evolved with God directing the process or there could've been progressive creationism

Very good -- you know something is happening, but once you choose to shoehorn a god into the process, you can no longer show how or why it's happening... at least not scientifically.

That leaves you with theology... what do you know/believe/pretend to know/have been told to believe about God, and does that fit in with what you observe in the world around you?

 

[Astrid]

Saying that it is a fact implies proof I would think

I cant translate that, sorry.
It appears to be a sidestep.
Tty dealing with my challenge, or admit
the falsehood.

 

[ottawak]

Then we could have evolved or God could've created us or we could've evolved with God directing the process or there could've been progressive creationism

Right. How are you going to determine which one happened?

 

[Astrid]

Then we could have evolved or God could've created us or we could've evolved with God directing the process or there could've been progressive creationism

Lots of things could have happened but did not happen.
SENSIBLE prople try to go with what has not been disproved,
and dismiss ideas that have no evidence for them.

 

[ottawak]

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. Facts demand proof. If you call it a fact you have to be able to prove it.

Or just observe it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Right. How are you going to determine which one happened?

Even if I abandoned my faith and no longer believed in God it would be hard to believe that my ancestors didn't walk upright and lived as animals and even harder to believe that they evolved into humans with no one directing the process. As for determining how it happened can we trust the reasoning of a mind that evolved from the mind of a monkey? (To paraphrase Darwin)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even if I abandoned my faith and no longer believed in God it would be hard to believe that my ancestors didn't walk upright and lived as animals and even harder to believe that they evolved into humans with no one directing the process. As for determining how it happened can we trust the reasoning of a mind that evolved from the mind of a monkey? (To paraphrase Darwin)

That's very much an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[ottawak]

Even if I abandoned my faith and no longer believed in God it would be hard to believe that my ancestors didn't walk upright and lived as animals and even harder to believe that they evolved into humans with no one directing the process. As for determining how it happened can we trust the reasoning of a mind that evolved from the mind of a monkey? (To paraphrase Darwin)

Even the theory of evoution does not rule out God directing the process, if that's your beef.

 

[Astrid]

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. Facts demand proof. If you call it a fact you have to be able to prove it. As BB said it could've been this or it could've been that and this is just the best explanation . If that's so then it's not a fact

Researchers do DATA, not facts.
A test may yeild graphs and strings of
numbers.
The test should be repested a suitable number
of times to confirm their acvuracy.

Theres no "proof" and no " facts" in the numbers.
Numbers are not facts.

If you must demand " facts" the answer will be
something like -

"Its a fact that I used this equipment, and this is my dara

I think this has been explained before, many
times.

Why keep bringing it up?

 

[BPPLEE]

That's very much an argument from personal incredulity.

I can't argue with people who know more about evolution than I do. I was just explaining why it's hard for me to believe. I would say it takes faith but people who believe in evolution don't like that word or feel it attaches to them

 

[Astrid]

Even the theory of evoution does not rule out God directing the process, if that's your beef.

Of course it doesnt.
There is though an enormous body
of evidence that rules out the reasonable
possibility of certain beliefs about certain
events.
Flood, or Thor throwing lightning, say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can't argue with people who know more about evolution than I do. I was just explaining why it's hard for me to believe. I would say it takes faith but people who believe in evolution don't like that word or feel it attaches to them

Because faith is not a word that should be attached to science because no-one believes in evolution. People accept evolution because of the evidence for it.

 

[Astrid]

I can't argue with people who know more about evolution than I do. I was just explaining why it's hard for me to believe. I would say it takes faith but people who believe in evolution don't like that word or feel it attaches to them

I wonder why you kerp arguing then?

Understanding obviates the need for blind faith

 

[ottawak]

I can't argue with people who know more about evolution than I do. I was just explaining why it's hard for me to believe. I would say it takes faith but people who believe in evolution don't like that word or feel it attaches to them

It's not a question of faith but about finding the science convincing. And, of course, for theists their faith is directed elsewhere.

 

[Astrid]

Because faith is not a word that should be attached to science because no-one believes in evolution. People accept evolution because of the evidence for it.

I dont like the use of the word " faith" in this connrction.
For one, the equivocation debases Faith in god to thevlevel
of faith that the tv will turn on.
We could list more reasons, like that its totally inappropriate and
and a distraction from sensible dialog.