Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

cont'd

But there are other MAJOR flaws and assumptions at play which evos take for granted and detractors rarely pick up with constant verve: Fallacies and clear non sequiturs

1) The Theory of Evolution non sequitur:

If MiE is true, then MaE is true
MiE is True
Thus MaE is true

Absurd isn’t it?

And this.

True for Species 1, then true for all species
Species 1 is true
Then all is true

2) Scientific Method non sequitur:

If OS is true, then HS is true
OS is true
Thus HS is true.

These are the fundamental fallacies that are taken for granted FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE and I constantly shake my head in disbelief.

So what does it all means?

‘mountains of evidence’ and ‘lots of proof’ statements derive from OS methods used upon MiE. And quite frankly, it is undeniable. However this is all evos tend to put forth and they rely on the non sequiturs to apply evidence from OS of MiE applies also to the HS of MaE and hence the Theory of Evolution (the whole of it) has massive evidence and is a fact! Think about it… that’s not scientific or honest.

Now there IS a lot of observable data (OS) for MiE, and in a short period of time. Dog breeding all occurs within the same kind/species. Darwin’s finches were the same… all within easily the last 150 years. It is indisputable. But it does not prove MaE.

In fact there is so little evidence for MaE. Think about it, if there is abundant evidence in the last 150 years for MiE, then logic can dictate (oops am I creating another non sequitur?) that more evidence must exist for MaE than the spurious thin and VERY soft evidence supposedly exists (and most are fraudulent!)

So next time a debate rages, look and see the initial premise of whether they are referring to MiE or MaE and/or attributing the correct scientific method to the right theory.

Originally posted by rawsom
So what's wrong in thinking that a factual explanation is a fact in itsef? There is rotation of earth and its circular orbit around the sun, or so the theory goes. That theory explains a lot, and what is explains is a fact in itself as well. What's so difficult in this?

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way.

Here's why:

Does Evolution the fact change? No.

Does Electricity the fact change? No.

Does Gravity the fact change? No.

----

Does a Theory change? Yes. Every time you add a fact to it.

Originally posted by Fundie
However this is all evos tend to put forth and they rely on the non sequiturs to apply evidence from OS of MiE applies also to the HS of MaE and hence the Theory of Evolution (the whole of it) has massive evidence and is a fact! Think about it… that’s not scientific or honest.

That's exactly why I made this thread. Great points!

I think it's important for people to understand a theory isn't a fact. Evolution isn't a theory either, it's what The Theory of Evolution explains.

Again, well said.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

If God created life and allowed for alterations along the way, why are there people vehemently trying to demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution is not a FACT?

What is the agenda of those yelling and screaming with their Webster's Dictionary and Wikipedia entries in hand? What are you afraid of? What will happen if Evolution is established as a fact? What will be different?

I really want to hear the answer to this.


Mike F

OK, the reason most creationists/Intelligent design advocates fail so horribly at defending their theories is that their proofs are irrelevant, and outdated. The 10,000 year old world theory was to combat evolution by saying that not enough time had passed for the diversity of species seen today to have evolved. It is an old, tired, and irrelevant argument. Most educated evolutionists, and creationists now agree on the age of the universe, and it is OLD. I believe that evolution is one of the mechanisms used by an intelligent designer.
On another note. A jewish astrophysicist got to thinking about time dilation, the age of the universe, the expansion of the universe. Knowing that for instance there are galaxies beyond the event horizon where the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light from our perspective that we will never see. Becausee the light emitted from them will never reach us becasue they are travelling away from us faster than light. Conversely If one had a front row seat to the big bang how old would the universe be from their perspective? Because time dilation increases with velocity, and the universe is expanding really really fast. He filled 42 pages with his calculations, had them checked for veracity by MIT, Cornell, and several other universities, and the result (drum roll please).
About 6 days, and 2 hours. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but don't discount ancient texts(like the bible) just because you think modern man is so much smarter than our predecesors. Much knowledge and history has been lost through the ages, and we are just beginning to rediscover some of it.

Originally posted by mmiichael


If God created life and allowed for alterations along the way, why are there people vehemently trying to demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution is not a FACT?

What is the agenda of those yelling and screaming with their Webster's Dictionary and Wikipedia entries in hand? What are you afraid of? What will happen if Evolution is established as a fact? What will be different?

I really want to hear the answer to this.


Mike F

I consider Evolution to be a fact.

"The Theory of Evolution" is not a fact. It is a THEORY that describes the FACT of Evolution.

That's what this whole thread is about. People are mixed up about the difference between "The Theory of Evolution" and "Evolution".

Evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution explains that fact (Evolution).

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I believe in a Creator.

I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution just not enough for me to give up my faith, that's all.

This is the biggest misconception I have heard you express. It is the idea that evolution and faith are exclusive of each other. This is simply untrue. Evolution and a faith in a creator can exist together. Why is it so crazy to believe that the process of evolution is something that God created? Because it is not in the Bible?

Look, if you believe in the literal stories in the Bible, you not only have to disbelieve evolution, you too have to disbelieve a number of sciences like plate tectonics, meteorology, and medicine. If you take all of the Bible literal, you should believe that storms, earthquakes,and disease are just the wrath of God and not explainable by science.

Evolution is a process. It is similar to the nitrogen cycle of decay or the water cycle that brings rain. It is not something that happened in the past, it is something that IS happening NOW and will continue to happen in the future.

This realization again, does not mean that you have to give up your faith. Instead perhaps, you should see it as yet one more glory that is God's genius or grand plan.

ok B.A.C

let try this with a few examples

if i say

i caught the plane just in time and flew to L.A.

airplane = plane (shortened relaxed usage)

theory of evolution = evolution (shortened relaxed usage)

so evolution can be used instead of the full length 'theory of evolution' this can also be shortened to an anacronym 'ToE'

things can be shortened and carry exactly the same meaning

'is not' becomes isn't
'airplane' becomes plane
'evolutionary development' becomes evo devo
'origin of species by natural selection' becomes origins
'theory of evolution' becomes evolution

with me thus far?

---------------------------------------

ill asume the answers yes and move on to contextual meanings

same example

i caught the plane just in time and flew to L.A.

a) am i saying i boarded an aeroplane and used the still correct shortened variant?

or am i saying

b)i caught a piece of carpentry equipment just in time and traveled to L.A. threw the air on it?

now im pretty sure here everyone i going for option a) unless they are aiming for cheap lulz

depending on the context usage

plane can mean

a heavier then air mode of travel that flys and uses wings to provide lift

a piece of carpentry equipment used to smooth wood

a flat surface in geometry that travels in relation to a fixed point

the context it is used gives it its desired meaning


evolution is a fact (contextual meaning is the observed change/s within a population over time)

evolution is a theory (contextually referencing the correct and usable shortened form of thoery of evolution)


the last one in a sentance would appear somthing like

evolution is a thoery that explains observed changes in the frequency of alleles over time within breeding populations


the problem would occur if someone was silly enough to state emfatically

"the theory of evolution is a fact" as they are crossing contexts

or if the were bieng ambiguouse with usage, for instance

evolution is a fact, evolution decribes changes within bredding populations over time

both of those are incorrect one mixes contexts the other is ambiguous enough to be decieving to anyone with little knowledge of the subject

in a similar fashion to the infamous "evolution is only a theory" it relies on the ambiguity between

theory "and idea i had sat on the jon" and scientific thoery "a viable accurate tested explenation of the available facts that can be used to make acurate preictions about past present or future events as yet unknown"

so it would be instances of context merging or ambiguity that would be the issue not the use of the word evolution

which is why time and time again we have stated

evolution is fact
evolution is thoery

but not at the same time or in the same context,

becasue we are differenciatiing between them, now go back and check the science links you gave ..and i mean the science ones not the ones we flagged as creationist mumbojumbo like the dishonesty intitute links and see how they obviously explain both how it is fact and thoery but in differing contexts

so if you have sources from scientific institutes that are ambigeous or cross contexts then you may be on to somthing

if the differenciate then they are using the word corretly in differeing contexts and making the neceary effort to differenciate between contexts

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I consider Evolution to be a fact.

"The Theory of Evolution" is not a fact. It is a THEORY that describes the FACT of Evolution.

That's what this whole thread is about. People are mixed up about the difference between "The Theory of Evolution" and "Evolution".

Evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution explains that fact (Evolution).

I agree with you that this thread has gotten off track. I have a question about your position.

Gravity, as you mentioned is an observable fact. The theory of Gravity, the idea that bodies of mass attract each other, is the explanation. In the case of evolution, evolution, a process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next, is the fact (something that you agree with).

This leaves me to assume that your disagreement is with the explanation, or theory of, evolution, the idea that this process is a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and natural selection.

If I am understanding your position correctly, you believe the process of evolution is occurring, however you disagree that it is due to variation, reproduction, and natural selection.

Here is my question; What other explanation, or theory, do you propose to explain the process of evolution?

On a side note. IMO you do believe in evolution, you are just having a hard time reconciling it with your faith and what you have been taught.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I believe in a Creator.

I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution just not enough for me to give up my faith, that's all.

ummmm .... welcome to the wonderful world of theistic evolution

its like wash and go shampoo ... its conditioner and shampoo in the same bottle

its science an god did it that way

not god did it and science is wrong ...the creationsim/id viewpoint

creationism and ID both rely on a god that is inept, he is incapable of forming a natural system that leads to all the complex wonderful things you see around you, he cant make evolution work properly to bring us into being so has to come down and specially make things by hand becasue he is incapable of making natural processes that work. he had to hand make eyes far to complex for him to do other wise, humans yepp the same, immune sytems he ant make those work without constant hands on tinkering

its like a comupter programmer that cant write a calculator program so has to try and do the maths on his fingers

... not a very inspiring god .. more an inept 1/2 assed maintenane guy


ken miller.. very famous theistic evolutionist


check out Donexodus's channel on youtube hes a biological cientist and a theistic evolutionist

www.youtube.com...

he has 91 varied videos most on evolution, a couple of hi video series are

Creationism's Damage to Christianity I/II
Creationism Dishonesty and Immorality I/II
Putting Creationism Into Perspective I/II
Why I Believe in God I/II

and also hosts copies of

God, Darwin, and Design
Evolution and God are compatible

you will see many of his videos used around here on ATS

father George coin on religeon and science

its a 7 part interview with Dawkins the full interview can be found here
www.youtube.com...

some written links by others

www.theistic-evolution.com...
[/url]

www.geocities.com...

if you think evolution mean dumpping god then your mistaken,

atheism = atheism
theism=theism
evolution = evolution

its really that simple

saying evolution = athiesm as a wrong as saying thoery is fact... probably more so

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


Again, this thread is "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution is a fact".

"The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. The words "Theory" and "Fact" cannot be used interchangeably. No matter what the context is, a Theory is NEVER a Fact. It doesn't matter what "Theory" I am talking about. It doesn't matter if I think the theory is correct. It will NEVER be fact. Fact's don't change. Theories do. That's all my point is. This isn't the thread where we argue evolution vs. creationism.

reply to post by noobfun


Who said Evolution means I'm dumping God? Evolution is a fact. What are you trying to convince me of?

Again this thread is about "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact"

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

Again, this thread is "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution is a fact".

"The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. The words "Theory" and "Fact" cannot be used interchangeably. No matter what the context is, a Theory is NEVER a Fact. It doesn't matter what "Theory" I am talking about. It doesn't matter if I think the theory is correct. It will NEVER be fact. Fact's don't change. Theories do. That's all my point is. This isn't the thread where we argue evolution vs. creationism.

Actually, there are some theories that don't change. Maxwell's theories are one, and are considered "closed" in scientific community. Another closed subject is classical optics. Theories on those subject are not expected to change anymore.

There is a ton of new information attainable in the form of new innovations based on old theories, and a lot of those are such that they are so thoroughly verified that there propably won't be any new finfings. I'm well aware that there are also theories that are clearly not mature enough to be done with, but that's another matter.

So, as you base your claim to the fact that theories do change, you will lose your argument in all subjects where theories do not change anymore.

This whole thread is about semantics anyway. I don't CARE if somebody says that theory of evolution is a fact, i know that they by that mean evolution, not theory itself. You should realize that too instead of getting stuck on infinite loop in your thoughts.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by noobfun

 

Who said Evolution means I'm dumping God? Evolution is a fact. What are you trying to convince me of?

Again this thread is about "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact"

if i respond to posts you or anyone else makes that not going off topic that going with the evolving path of the thread

if i suddenly started talking about obama's suits or aliens viited me last night that would be off topic, topics naturally meander due to peoples comment and further dicussion of them

read the comment you made, your not convinced enough of evolution to leave your faith ... well as your faith should be in god/jesus not in the bible bieng a literalistic exact explenation then leaving your faith would be leaving god/jesus behind ......

thats why accepting the science doent equate to leaving your faith unless your faith is a book

i shall await your repone to my earlier post .. and plese dont just white wash it with the tired old fact isnt theory nonsense and explore the context of the language usage for the word evolution

and why must i convince you of anything? im preuming your mart enough to make your own mind up and explore other possabilities, if your incapable of exploring other peoples view points your in the wrong place

[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


I believe Evolution is a fact.

You believe Evolution is a theory and a fact, depending on the context.

OK, lets go with what you believe for a minute.

Let's talk about Evolution.

Are you talking about the theory or the fact? Answer that. Then we can continue. Let's put it in context as you say.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by noobfun

 

I believe Evolution is a fact.

You believe Evolution is a theory and a fact, depending on the context.

OK, lets go with what you believe for a minute.

Let's talk about Evolution.

Are you talking about the theory or the fact? Answer that. Then we can continue. Let's put it in context.

theory or fact in reference to what? theistic evolution?

is it an explenation or somthing thats been observed and tested?

the context is there the quetion now is can you differenicate the differing contexts and spot which one is bieng used



[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by noobfun

 

I believe Evolution is a fact.

You believe Evolution is a theory and a fact, depending on the context.

OK, lets go with what you believe for a minute.

Let's talk about Evolution.

Are you talking about the theory or the fact? Answer that. Then we can continue. Let's put it in context.

theory or fact in reference to what? theistic evolution?

is it an explenation or somthing thats been observed and tested?

the context is there the quetion now is can you differenicate the differing contexts and spot which one is bieng used



[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

You seem to be sidestepping my question. It's a very simple question.

If you want to discuss Evolution with me tell me if you are speaking of the theory or the fact. I need it explained to me.

You just asked the same thing:

Originally posted by noobfun
theory or fact in reference to what? theistic evolution?

Theory or fact?

Lets keep it all in context. Simpler for me that way. I'm not that bright.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. It's a very simple question.

nope not side stepping

asking for clarrification,

you asked me am i speaking about fact or theory ... in which response? the theistic evolution based post? the longer post above exploring contextual usage of it?

theres two possabilities of discussion, the context of one may not be the same context as the other .... asking for clarrification is the senible choice rather then answer the question in relation to the wrong post and add to any confusion

asking 'is it blue?' is a simple question as long as we both know which IT your refering to

so which IT are you aking about? the theistic evolution post or the contextual usage of the word evolution post?

we both need to know the context and which topic to discuss somthing




[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. It's a very simple question.

nope not side stepping

asking for clarrification,

you asked me am i speaking about fact or theory ... in which response? the theistic evolution based post? the longer post above exploring contextual usage of it?

asking 'is it blue?' is a simple question as long as we both know which IT your refering to

so which IT are you aking about? the theistic evolution post or the contextual usage of the word evolution post?

we both need to know the context and which topic to discuss somthing

I'm talking about ANY discussion about Evolution. I'll need it put in it's proper context. Theory or fact? Any discussion about it.

You asked the same thing:

Originally posted by noobfun
theory or fact in reference to what? theistic evolution?

It's a simple question. Let's discuss ANY type of Evolution. No problem. Theory or fact?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm talking about ANY discussion about Evolution. I'll need it put in it's proper context. Theory or fact? Any discussion about it.

missing the contextual use then

thats why im asking for specific examples

some could be about only the fact, some could be about the thoery, some could be about both and distinguish between the two

any just wont do, context needs detail

if i ask you does a plane fly? and you say yes .. your wrong im talking about the carpentry tool ..... see why context is required to give meaning to the word

if i ask do planes have motors? the answer to both is yes, airplanes make use of motors, electric planes(the carpentry tool) also make use of motors, but no the flat planes of geometry are just a line and have no motor

context needs detail so give me an example and we can discuss the context of its usage, other wise your playing pointless word games and we can play them all day if you like

id rather we used our time and replies more constructivly though how about you?

[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]