Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258515 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

SupaAFC

Norwich, UK

#110562 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
Tell topix atheists, are all these scientists, even Biologists wrong?, but you're right?
Or are they wrong because its me a Christian that post their conclusions?
<grin>
It is 99.9 percent likely that they have been quote-mined or have no actual degrees in biological science.

Also, for creationists to keep citing Michael Denton is profoundly dishonest. He has changed his views on evolution and has asked for his previous work to be removed from all creationist/anti evolution circles.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110563 Jul 5, 2012
Seriously, Boss. All you are doing is posting Creationist nonsense. These people have been taken out of context.

You're so scientifically illiterate that you have fallen for the creationist lies.
bossdrop wrote:
James A Shapiro Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology University of Chicago: "Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents."
He's talking about how cells determine which DNA mutates and which does not. It's an evolutionary process.
Paleontogist REFUTING ape to man evolution. REFUTING the credibility of the fossil records:
Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't. Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link
Your sources - and therefore you - are out and out lying here. Gould was a staunch defender of evolution and despised Creationism.

I saw him give a speech once, before he died. He said "Anyone who would believe in Creationism is thoughtless and stupid."

Seriously.

Besides this, you and I already went over these figures that you've never personally read. You don't understand the context in which they are saying what they're saying even remotely. You fail to understand that each one of them is presenting a case for their version of evolution - not a single one you have quoted is a Creationist. All know that the earth is very, very old, all know that evolution happened (although some are deceased now).

You can misquote and lie about biologists forever if you like. That won't change that you don't understand the first thing about science and it won't change, even slightly, the central position of evolution in the biological sciences.

This really is all you guys can do - you cannot build evidence for your own strange beliefs, so you just malign science and misrepresent scientists.

It's about the most disgusting religion I can imagine. No, that's not true. There have been cannibalistic and pedophile religions. Those are worse.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Sunderland, UK

#110565 Jul 5, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of crap.
Minnich described natural selection perfectly.
You previously claimed Minnich's work was not supportive of ID.
Now, you changed that, too, after I proved you wrong.
You say "Minnich is welcome to believe his work represents ID"
The suggestion here is that he only "believes" it. Like you know better than he what his work represents.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ineptness.
no he does no natural selection is, the nonrandom selection of randomly generated mutations, based upon the fitness of the organism carrying them. If a new gene appears in an organism as long as it benefits, the organism it will pass new gene down, eventually the DNA of two groups of organisms so different, they will not be able to produce, fertile offspring with each other this is the very definition of species, and speciation.
And before you say speciation has never been observed, 500 years ago house mice were introduced, to the foreign environment of the island Madeira, today there are Six populations of mice that cannot interbreed, this info was in nature god dammit, if IDers were scientific they would have kept tabs on the journals.
Oh and ID papers making a hypothesis and a ID paper being scientific, is one the same.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110566 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you need the site? the publication source is all you need. You want the site so you can disregard the Scientists own words, but focus on the website where it was found. Classic denial.
You think its out of context, because they disagree with your religion.
Boss, it is out of context.
You've never read those quotes in context - you've only ever read them in paragraph form, neatly arranged for you by some creationist liar for Jesus.
Hence you can't tell me what they were talking about and why they were saying what they said. Each and every one of those fine biologists was making a case for their particular interpretation of evolution - not a single one was a creationist. All of them know that natural selection happens. They simply disagree on how it happens and chose very strong language to express that.
No, you won't understand. You've never read their papers. I have. In presenting them this way you are every bit as dishonest as those who wrote the article you plagiarized.
God hates liars, Boss.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110567 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not a fact when it comes to your belief as it applies to the origination of the human being.
Why not? What amazing evidence do you have to offer us?
My beliefs are based on faith, I'm not wrong.
Buddhists have beliefs. Shintoists, too. Hindus, too. I guess you're all correct then?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110568 Jul 5, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. when two exceptionally smart people disagree, they can drive each other crazy because neither can 'get' the other ..
.. Buck & HFY should take the Myers-Briggs personality test at:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.a...
& post the results here ..
.. took it myself. Geez, I'm in trouble. Here are my results:
You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (28%)
You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (38%)
You have distinctive preference of Feeling over Thinking (75%)
You have distinctive preference of Perceiving over Judging (67%)
.. do you think HFY will still like me ??..
.. it would be neat if the regulars here took the test and posted their results, especially Buck & HFY. Am curious about your results ..
For Buck Crick:

Introvert(89%) iNtuitive(38%) iNtuitive Thinking(25%) Judging(67%)
You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (38%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
You have distinctive preference of Judging over Perceiving (67%)

Is that good?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110569 Jul 5, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This love-hate relationship between you and Buck is getting sappy.
:)
I have no comment at this time.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#110570 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Seriously, Boss. All you are doing is posting Creationist nonsense. These people have been taken out of context.
You're so scientifically illiterate that you have fallen for the creationist lies.
<quoted text>
He's talking about how cells determine which DNA mutates and which does not. It's an evolutionary process.
<quoted text>
Your sources - and therefore you - are out and out lying here. Gould was a staunch defender of evolution and despised Creationism.
I saw him give a speech once, before he died. He said "Anyone who would believe in Creationism is thoughtless and stupid."
Seriously.
Besides this, you and I already went over these figures that you've never personally read. You don't understand the context in which they are saying what they're saying even remotely. You fail to understand that each one of them is presenting a case for their version of evolution - not a single one you have quoted is a Creationist. All know that the earth is very, very old, all know that evolution happened (although some are deceased now).
You can misquote and lie about biologists forever if you like. That won't change that you don't understand the first thing about science and it won't change, even slightly, the central position of evolution in the biological sciences.
This really is all you guys can do - you cannot build evidence for your own strange beliefs, so you just malign science and misrepresent scientists.
It's about the most disgusting religion I can imagine. No, that's not true. There have been cannibalistic and pedophile religions. Those are worse.
Your religion, is the most vile and disgusting atheist.

All you have is Scientists don't mean what they say....scientists that disagree with you are frauds...people that find scientists that refute, can't comment because they are not scientists.

LOL.

Stick to your religion atheist, bothers me none. I enjoy seeing the lengths you will go to defend your religion after the facts refute your beliefs.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#110571 Jul 5, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, Dave.

Remember, you are talking to a guy (DS) who thinks a donut is an infinite length.
This from the poster boy for unintelligent design.

Did you make your "Why god is good" video yet?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110572 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Scientists that refute your beliefs, are fit to comment. And those are my sources.
The scientists you quoted do not refute evolution. Your religion is based on lies and through lies misrepresented what those fine scholars wrote.

You, Boss, are either a deceptive person or an incredibly naive one.

Here liar or naive person:

"The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change.... Hence if I have erred in ... having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power ... I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Stephen J. Gould.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_...

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#110573 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Boss, it is out of context.
You've never read those quotes in context - you've only ever read them in paragraph form, neatly arranged for you by some creationist liar for Jesus.
Hence you can't tell me what they were talking about and why they were saying what they said. Each and every one of those fine biologists was making a case for their particular interpretation of evolution - not a single one was a creationist. All of them know that natural selection happens. They simply disagree on how it happens and chose very strong language to express that.
No, you won't understand. You've never read their papers. I have. In presenting them this way you are every bit as dishonest as those who wrote the article you plagiarized.
God hates liars, Boss.
Stop lying to yourself then.

This is just excuses. You have not refuted what the scientists say, just put your spin on why they said it.

Those Scientists specifically refutes your belief that the human being originated by evolutionary processes. They refute that.

But of course, you can't refute them, because you have not the material to refute them.

So then all you do is put forth your spin and opinion in this post. YAWN, spare me atheist. Your opinion is worth as much as your religion.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110574 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Your religion, is the most vile and disgusting atheist.
All you have is Scientists don't mean what they say....scientists that disagree with you are frauds...people that find scientists that refute, can't comment because they are not scientists.
LOL.
Stick to your religion atheist, bothers me none. I enjoy seeing the lengths you will go to defend your religion after the facts refute your beliefs.
Here, liar, some more from Gould, whom you libeled against:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

So the person you are quoting and using to back up your lying religion is telling you that you are incorrect.

I've already given you this quote. You dishonestly posted the same stuff I've already shown you to be purposeful misquotes.

He, right above, calls you either 1) stupid or 2) liars.

Take your pick.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#110575 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Stop lying to yourself then.
This is just excuses. You have not refuted what the scientists say, just put your spin on why they said it.
Those Scientists specifically refutes your belief that the human being originated by evolutionary processes. They refute that.
But of course, you can't refute them, because you have not the material to refute them.
So then all you do is put forth your spin and opinion in this post. YAWN, spare me atheist. Your opinion is worth as much as your religion.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know"

Stupid or a liar Boss, which are you?

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#110576 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? What amazing evidence do you have to offer us?
<quoted text>
Buddhists have beliefs. Shintoists, too. Hindus, too. I guess you're all correct then?
I don't care what you believe as far as how the human being originated. what you believe is not my problem. Its when you present your beliefs as facts, that I have a problem with.

I know I'm right when it comes to who the real God is, its Jesus Christ. What the buddhists believe, or the shintos, is not my problem. I reject their beliefs. Faith is personal. its what I believe to be true concerning faith and Jesus Christ is all that matters.

I'm not here to change your beliefs. I'm here to argue against you thinking your beliefs are facts of science, its not. its truth to you, based on faith. if you can admit that, then my point would have been made.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110577 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no comment at this time.
???

Have you been kidnapped?

<kidding>

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Sunderland, UK

#110578 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Your religion, is the most vile and disgusting atheist.
All you have is Scientists don't mean what they say....scientists that disagree with you are frauds...people that find scientists that refute, can't comment because they are not scientists.
LOL.
Stick to your religion atheist, bothers me none. I enjoy seeing the lengths you will go to defend your religion after the facts refute your beliefs.
Can you even define religion bossdrop.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110579 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists you quoted do not refute evolution. Your religion is based on lies and through lies misrepresented what those fine scholars wrote.
You, Boss, are either a deceptive person or an incredibly naive one.
Here liar or naive person:
"The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change.... Hence if I have erred in ... having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power ... I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Stephen J. Gould.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_...
I accept the theory of evolution.

But I don't think it is the 'once and for all' answer.

Anon

Cleveland, OH

#110580 Jul 5, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>But you have no natural explanation for it. Only your fallback religious talking points that everything has to have a natural explanation.
You mind is too small and limited to compete with me atheist.
Wait a minute, you're actually saying a street performer has paranormal abilities? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that you absolutely believe Criss Angel's levitation illusion is real? Excuse me while I back away away from you slowly.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110581 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists you quoted do not refute evolution. Your religion is based on lies and through lies misrepresented what those fine scholars wrote.
You, Boss, are either a deceptive person or an incredibly naive one.
Here liar or naive person:
"The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change.... Hence if I have erred in ... having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power ... I havedogma of separate creations."
Stephen J. Gould.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_...
I accept the theory of evolution. But I don't think it is the 'once and for all' answer.

I reject creationism.

I am skeptical of all theories that are wide-ranging in scope.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#110582 Jul 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists you quoted do not refute evolution. Your religion is based on lies and through lies misrepresented what those fine scholars wrote.
You, Boss, are either a deceptive person or an incredibly naive one.
Here liar or naive person:
"The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural sele... having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power ... I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Stephen J. Gould.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_...
I will take from your own posting:
"Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."

So why do you present your beliefs that the human being originated from evolutionary processes as fact?

Are you thus Lying?

And if you do believe that, then tell us atheist, what percentage likelihood do you believe that the human being originated from evolutionary processes?, since you believe fact does not mean absolute certainty

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 5 min Doctor REALITY 95
Good Nite, my Fellow Dorkinsteins! 12 min Doctor REALITY 1
"O.J. hit me while he (BLEEPED!) me! 14 min Doctor REALITY 2
Black/White mindsets, relations, and fears in A... 29 min Doctor REALITY 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min Rosesz 699,379
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 30 min eggosaurus 995,032
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Lliar 71,504
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Dang Jersey Piney 447,390