Evolution; Theory or Fact

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#1 Apr 22, 2012
Is evolution (macro) a theory or a fact? Evolutionist will treat it as fact, but then it is the "theory of evolution". If indeed it is a fact why is it called a theory? If it is a theory why is it called a fact? Some will say it is not treated as a fact, but if it is not a fact why do they teach it as a fact in public schools? A fact is something that is undeniably true. People may debate about it but to a clear thinking man it is obvious that it is true. Evolution is not undeniably true. There have been problems posed that cannot be unexplained away. Such as blood cells found in fossiles "millions of years old. Or carvings that show accurate reprentations of dinasaurs. There are alternate theory as to how life came to exist. Such as Buddism, Christianity, Islam. Evolution is not undeniably true therefore evolution is not a fact. It may be true but it is not the only option to a clear thinking man. So we have established then that evolution is not a fact. So evolution then must be a theory. If evolution is not a fact then why is it portrayed as such?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#2 Apr 22, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Is evolution (macro) a theory or a fact? Evolutionist will treat it as fact, but then it is the "theory of evolution". If indeed it is a fact why is it called a theory? If it is a theory why is it called a fact? Some will say it is not treated as a fact, but if it is not a fact why do they teach it as a fact in public schools? A fact is something that is undeniably true. People may debate about it but to a clear thinking man it is obvious that it is true. Evolution is not undeniably true. There have been problems posed that cannot be unexplained away. Such as blood cells found in fossiles "millions of years old. Or carvings that show accurate reprentations of dinasaurs. There are alternate theory as to how life came to exist. Such as Buddism, Christianity, Islam. Evolution is not undeniably true therefore evolution is not a fact. It may be true but it is not the only option to a clear thinking man. So we have established then that evolution is not a fact. So evolution then must be a theory. If evolution is not a fact then why is it portrayed as such?
Stupid fundie game number one thirty four:

134) Evolution sounds reasonable but I have a few questions.

Fundies are as stupid as it gets.
leMango

Naperville, IL

#3 Apr 22, 2012
*lesigh*

A scientific theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theor... ) has a very specific definition that doesn't equate to the colloquial use of the "theory." The way you use it, Joshua, carries the implication that a scientific theory is little more than a hypothesis or conjecture, whereas a scientific theory is more akin to an axiom or explanatory model of a phenomenon that is not directly observable, but has been supported by ample, peer reviewed evidence.

For instance, gravity is considered a theory by science. The germ theory of disease is as its name suggests. Atomic theory, or what atoms look like, also fits the bill. Plate tectonics are also theory. So are quantum mechanics and the general and special theories of relativity.

These "theories" share a couple qualities; they have all been found, through rigorous scientific investigation, to be the best, most unassailable models explaining the behavior of the phenomenon they pertain to. They all are also not directly observable and a few, such as gravity and quantum mechanics, and they have all lead to technological developments in the fields that they pertain to. Most of them, like evolution, also have refinements that have been made and will continue to be made without discrediting the entire theory itself.

So, Joshua, if you're going to try and prove creation, do a couple things. First, don't take exception to the term "theory"; it should be amply clear from the above paragraphs that there is no problem with the term in a scientific sense. Secondly, actually try to prove creationism. So many fundies here use so much of their time to try and discredit evolution that they forget to provide any evidence whatsoever for creation. They seem to forget that even if another idea is disproved, theirs is not valid until they can produce evidence of its likelihood.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Apr 23, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Is evolution (macro) a theory or a fact? Evolutionist will treat it as fact, but then it is the "theory of evolution". If indeed it is a fact why is it called a theory? If it is a theory why is it called a fact? Some will say it is not treated as a fact, but if it is not a fact why do they teach it as a fact in public schools? A fact is something that is undeniably true. People may debate about it but to a clear thinking man it is obvious that it is true. Evolution is not undeniably true.
Gravity is undeniably true, yet we only have theories to explain it. The problem you're having here is not using the word 'theory' as it pertains to a scientific context. Colloquial (every day) usage of the word usually means "wild guess", but a good dictionary will provide you with the correct scientific definition.
Joshua wrote:
There have been problems posed that cannot be unexplained away. Such as blood cells found in fossiles "millions of years old.
False, there have been protien remnants, not viable blood cells. The problem here you've posed is not for evolution (biology) but one for physics and chemistry. Since both these undisputably point to an Earth billions of years old, it is far more likely that the remnants could last (trapped and preserved in fossilized bone) longer than previously expected, rather than all physics in its entirety is completely and utterly and totally wrong.
Joshua wrote:
Or carvings that show accurate reprentations of dinasaurs.
False.
Joshua wrote:
There are alternate theory as to how life came to exist. Such as Buddism, Christianity, Islam.
They aren't scientific theories. They are religions. Again, I recommend a good dictionary.
Joshua wrote:
Evolution is not undeniably true therefore evolution is not a fact.
Change in allele frequency over time is undeniably true and is therefore a fact. Scientific theories are based on facts. They explain facts. That's what the theory of evolution does. There is no other theory able to do the same.
Joshua wrote:
It may be true but it is not the only option to a clear thinking man.
As no other viable scientific options have been presented, the only rational conclusion is that your thinking is unclear. It IS the only SCIENTIFIC option.
Joshua wrote:
So we have established then that evolution is not a fact. So evolution then must be a theory. If evolution is not a fact then why is it portrayed as such?
We have established that evolution is both a theory and a fact. Just like gravity.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#5 Apr 23, 2012
The Dude you said "Gravity is undeniably true, yet we only have theories to explain it. The problem you're having here is not using the word 'theory' as it pertains to a scientific context. Colloquial (every day) usage of the word usually means "wild guess", but a good dictionary will provide you with the correct scientific definition." That is true. That also does not matter. Those theorys are explaing gravity they are not facts. It is gravity that is a fact. Gravity is there. We know it is there. We may not know why it is there are how it works but gravity is a fact. The theorys that explain gravity are not facts. They are theorys about what may be. Evolution (macro) is like one of those theorys. It tries to explain the fact that we are here. That we are here is a fact. How we got here is a matter of speculation. You secound point was that they did not find blood cells in dinasaur bones but protien remenents. Does it matter? Even those protein remenents should not be there according to the age given to those fossils. You also said that there are no carvings that resemble dinasaurs. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/ . If that is not enough google "Dinasaur carvings in babaloyn"
You said that buddism, chrstianity, and islam are al not scientific theorys. You are correct. But they each to preset a postulate of how we are here.
Evolution is not like gravity it is not a undeniable fact. Evolution is like a theory that explains gravity, a theory but not a fact.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#6 Apr 23, 2012
Joshua wrote:
That is true. That also does not matter. Those theorys are explaing gravity they are not facts. It is gravity that is a fact. Gravity is there. We know it is there. We may not know why it is there are how it works but gravity is a fact.
And evolution is a fact. We teach the theory of gravity in schools and we teach the theory of evolution in schools. If you have no problem teaching one, you should have no problem teaching the other, despite both of them being theories.

Theories are based on facts. They explain facts.'Theory' is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER (contrary to popular belief) get "promoted" to become "laws".
Joshua wrote:
The theorys that explain gravity are not facts. They are theorys about what may be. Evolution (macro) is like one of those theorys. It tries to explain the fact that we are here. That we are here is a fact. How we got here is a matter of speculation.
When we have scientific theories that accurately describe observable phenomena, they become far more than mere "speculation".
Joshua wrote:
You secound point was that they did not find blood cells in dinasaur bones but protien remenents. Does it matter?
Evidence matters, yes. Not to creationists of course but I digress.
Joshua wrote:
Even those protein remenents should not be there according to the age given to those fossils.
They were collagen protein fragments, not viable organic blood vessels. Proteins are pretty stable and are still recognizable even after much degradation. It no more demonstrates a young Earth than insects trapped in amber does.

What's more, your alternative "explanation" destroys all life in multiple different ways, which is in turn fixed with magic. Even if all science WAS incorrect as you claim, you can't claim your story is better when it's not even scientific. In fact by the same token, you can't really complain that science is not scientific when you propose a magical myth to replace it.
Joshua wrote:
You also said that there are no carvings that resemble dinasaurs. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/ . If that is not enough google "Dinasaur carvings in babaloyn"
Or even better, you could present a cave painting along with an image of a dinosaur as well as its skeleton, and present a detailed comparative anatomy analysis between all three, as well as definitive evidence of one of those fossils found in modern geological strata along with modern hominids.
Joshua wrote:
You said that buddism, chrstianity, and islam are al not scientific theorys. You are correct. But they each to preset a postulate of how we are here.
As is every other religion. But none are relevant to science.
Joshua wrote:
Evolution is not like gravity it is not a undeniable fact. Evolution is like a theory that explains gravity, a theory but not a fact.
Evolution is as much an undeniable fact as gravity. In fact in the last century, the theory of gravity was replaced by another theory that does the job better. Evolution hasn't, because no better alternative has been proposed.

Speaking of facts, here's another: You simply reject evolution because you were raised to believe Goddidit with magic. You don't know anything about science, you don't care about science. Otherwise you would not be claiming science is wrong because magic. There is NO scientific debate over evolution's validity, hasn't been for a century. The motives for opposing evolution are religio/political. Nothing more to it than that.
LowellGuy

United States

#7 Apr 23, 2012
Joshua wrote:
The Dude you said "Gravity is undeniably true, yet we only have theories to explain it. The problem you're having here is not using the word 'theory' as it pertains to a scientific context. Colloquial (every day) usage of the word usually means "wild guess", but a good dictionary will provide you with the correct scientific definition." That is true. That also does not matter. Those theorys are explaing gravity they are not facts. It is gravity that is a fact. Gravity is there. We know it is there. We may not know why it is there are how it works but gravity is a fact. The theorys that explain gravity are not facts. They are theorys about what may be. Evolution (macro) is like one of those theorys. It tries to explain the fact that we are here. That we are here is a fact. How we got here is a matter of speculation. You secound point was that they did not find blood cells in dinasaur bones but protien remenents. Does it matter? Even those protein remenents should not be there according to the age given to those fossils. You also said that there are no carvings that resemble dinasaurs. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/ . If that is not enough google "Dinasaur carvings in babaloyn"
You said that buddism, chrstianity, and islam are al not scientific theorys. You are correct. But they each to preset a postulate of how we are here.
Evolution is not like gravity it is not a undeniable fact. Evolution is like a theory that explains gravity, a theory but not a fact.
Evolution is a natural phenomenon that has been observed. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the natural phenomenon we call evolution. You are correct in saying explanations are not facts. Explanations explain facts. Facts simply are. One requires thought and evidence to support it, the other doesn't. If you can explain a fact, that is much more impressive than merely observing that fact, don't you agree?
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#8 Apr 24, 2012
LowellGuy, What you are refering to is micro evolution. Micro evolution IS a natural phenomanon. It is macro evolution that is not fact.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#9 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
LowellGuy, What you are refering to is micro evolution. Micro evolution IS a natural phenomanon. It is macro evolution that is not fact.
Please provide a couple of examples of Microevolution and offer a possible mechanism. Thanks.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#10 Apr 24, 2012
Wolf to Dog. Human growth patterns. White moth to sotty moth. Change in finches.

Possible mechanism. Natural adaption, mutation.

None of the above changes have changed the species of the animals the most dramatic change (Wolf to dog) only provided a sub-species. The Genus and Specis stayed the same.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Wolf to Dog. Human growth patterns. White moth to sotty moth. Change in finches.
Possible mechanism. Natural adaption, mutation.
None of the above changes have changed the species of the animals the most dramatic change (Wolf to dog) only provided a sub-species. The Genus and Specis stayed the same.
I'm afraid not. Amongst the canines and their cousins there are numerous species. There are wolves, jackals, coyotes, foxes, dingos. What you will find is that only some of these can interbreed with each other while some can't. If they can't then speciation has occurred.

There is no barrier to prevent natural selection and mutation from accumulating to speciation (or "macro"-evolution) over time. This is the main reason why many creationists find Young Earth Creationism so appealing since 6,000 years would be an effective barrier. The problem is here is that pretending the Earth is young means rejecting not only biology, but also chemistry and physics. In short, all science.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#12 Apr 24, 2012
The specicic one I mentioned is wolf to dog. If you look up the genus and species of a Grey wolf (Canis lupus) and that of a dog (Canis lupis familiaris) you can see that there genus and species are the same. The domestic dog is a sub-species of the grey wolf. The reason creationist beileve in a young earth is becuase if you compile a time line of biblacal events they add up to around 6,000 years. If the world is so old why can evolutionist find no "missing links". The reason is that there are no missing links. There are no links at all. Could you please explain how accepting a youg earth is rejection of all science? If that statement was true would it also be true that no young earth beilevers are scientists? And as to a non existent barrier www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.sht...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#13 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
The specicic one I mentioned is wolf to dog. If you look up the genus and species of a Grey wolf (Canis lupus) and that of a dog (Canis lupis familiaris) you can see that there genus and species are the same. The domestic dog is a sub-species of the grey wolf. The reason creationist beileve in a young earth is becuase if you compile a time line of biblacal events they add up to around 6,000 years. If the world is so old why can evolutionist find no "missing links". The reason is that there are no missing links. There are no links at all. Could you please explain how accepting a youg earth is rejection of all science? If that statement was true would it also be true that no young earth beilevers are scientists? And as to a non existent barrier www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.sht...
Yet we know -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that there were humans living on virtually every corner of the earth, with complex civilizations in some cases, three times longer than your supposed 'creation date' of 6000 years ago.

If you are TRUELY interested in science, there is no need to abandon your faith in God. I can point you to several websites that use science to deepen their faith.

Check out Biologos

BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.”[Col 1:17]

http://biologos.org/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
The specicic one I mentioned is wolf to dog. If you look up the genus and species of a Grey wolf (Canis lupus) and that of a dog (Canis lupis familiaris) you can see that there genus and species are the same. The domestic dog is a sub-species of the grey wolf.
Which does not address what I pointed out. I know you were talking specifically about wolves to dogs. I gave you their cousins.
Joshua wrote:
The reason creationist beileve in a young earth is becuase if you compile a time line of biblacal events they add up to around 6,000 years.
Yes, but there are some problems: First they assume the Bible is true. All references to magic are taken at face value and can't be scientifically verified. Herod was a genuine historical figure, but there's no evidence to support him wiping out all the babies. And Noah's flood for example is quite simply false. Again, unless one uses magic to rescue the Bible's claims.

The other problem that Bishop Ussher made is that he assumed the Biblical stories are consecutive, with no periods of history inbetween. There is no reason to assume this, but it does show that he did start out with his conclusion and attempted to rationalize it rather than look for evidence.
Joshua wrote:
If the world is so old why can evolutionist find no "missing links". The reason is that there are no missing links. There are no links at all.
Actually there are many. Creationists simply ignore them. The "missing link" argument has been irrelevant for over a century.

For example, the theory of evolution predicted a continuum of fossil hominids before they were found. It also predicted the dino-bird connection before they found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.
Joshua wrote:
Could you please explain how accepting a youg earth is rejection of all science?
Because it was chemistry and physics that demonstrated the Earth was VERY old, BEFORE evolution became a major thing in 1859. So creationists believe that even the non-biological sciences like chemistry and physics are not only part of the evolutionist conspiracy, but also that it's a time-travelling conspiracy.

It's not evolution that dates rocks. It's physics, geology, and measuring chemical processes.
Joshua wrote:
If that statement was true would it also be true that no young earth beilevers are scientists?
There are creationists who are scientists. However there are no creation scientists. There is no "scientific theory" of creationism, there is no "creation research" program, and there are no "creation scientists". This probably has something to do with the fact that magic does not adhere to the scientific method.
Joshua wrote:
And as to a non existent barrier www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.sht...
Problem: creationists lie for Jesus. They know you don't have a clue about science, and they know you won't check. For example, there are jungle squirrels that do not have wings but are capable of gliding. They also don't have much difficulty with walking. That's point one taken care of.

Point two requires another lie:
Eddie Snipes wrote:
Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.
This is a blatant contradiction. Despite his claims, mutations CAN AND DO add to the genome. Or change it. Or take bases away. All observed in the lab. Eddie denies reality to sell you a broken fish.

Now I ask again, isn't it dishonest of you to claim that evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong when your alternative is MAGIC?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Apr 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>There are creationists who are scientists. However there are no creation scientists. There is no "scientific theory" of creationism, there is no "creation research" program, and there are no "creation scientists". This probably has something to do with the fact that magic does not adhere to the scientific method.
And the word I was looking for was 'compartmentalization'.
LowellGuy

United States

#16 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
LowellGuy, What you are refering to is micro evolution. Micro evolution IS a natural phenomanon. It is macro evolution that is not fact.
Define "macroevolution."
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#17 Apr 24, 2012
Macro Evolution: A change over time that causes one species to evolve into another.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#18 Apr 24, 2012
Dogs did not evolve from from the grey wolfs cousins.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#19 Apr 24, 2012
There is evidance to a magor catastrophic event that happened around 5000 years ago. From the rock layer it appears to be a flood. Also there are legends from just about every old relion from America to Japan that deal with a world wide flood that wiped out every being but a family who loaded up all the animals on a boat and road out the flood.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#20 Apr 24, 2012
There is not a single event that is not possible. The Bible is completly true. If you can show me 1 contradiction or mistake in the Bible I would be very suprised. Meanwhile Darwins Orgin of species is filled with mistakes such as his lack of an understanding of heredity, leads him to bizarre conclusions concerning instances of ‘atavism’ or ‘reversion’ in which offspring will exhibit the traits of ancestors several generations removed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min dirtclod 117,398
Darwin on the rocks 57 min DanFromSmithville 164
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 657
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Dogen 174,462
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 4 hr The Dude 14
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr polymath257 137,376
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE