Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Believe is only something for things you can't know. Like you have to believe in a creator because there is no evidence so it's the opposite of knowing.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution so I don't have to believe because I know.

I can repeat myself endlessly it's not difficult at all.

Ok, let's go deeper.

If you know evolution is a fact why is it then a theory?

And are the evidence really based on facts or just an interpretation?

For example, since there's no clear evidence of a fish gradually turning into an amphibian, how do you know it happened?

I am curious why you seem to be so obsessed that one human thinks evolution is fact. There are lots of people that think theories are fact, even some scientists. I say let people think what they want to think unless you can prove evolution of fish to amphibian is not at all possible.

a reply to: edmc^2

Look I am no biologist, I could go on about lungfish and certain fins developing into limbs where we got records of, but to me that's not really the point,
because
if the alternative is a creator, of which there are zero fossil records, it's just not a question at all.

Billions of fossiles, observed evolution in every living thing from virus to elephant
vs
a fairy tale

It's absurd to even compare creation with evolution.
Because
Plenty of evidence (evolution)
vs
ZERO (creation)

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Believe is only something for things you can't know. Like you have to believe in a creator because there is no evidence so it's the opposite of knowing.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution so I don't have to believe because I know.

I can repeat myself endlessly it's not difficult at all.

Ok, let's go deeper.

If you know evolution is a fact why is it then a theory?

And are the evidence really based on facts or just an interpretation?

For example, since there's no clear evidence of a fish gradually turning into an amphibian, how do you know it happened?

I am curious why you seem to be so obsessed that one human thinks evolution is fact. There are lots of people that think theories are fact, even some scientists. I say let people think what they want to think unless you can prove evolution of fish to amphibian is not at all possible.

Cuz, there's a big difference between a theory and a fact.

Theories can be interpreted in many ways, but fact is fact.

Evolution is a theory but water is wet - a fact. 1+1 = 2 is a fact.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Look I am no biologist, I could go on about lungfish and certain fins developing into limbs where we got records of, but to me that's not really the point,
because
if the alternative is a creator, of which there are zero fossil records, it's just not a question at all.

Billions of fossiles, observed evolution in every living thing from virus to elephant
vs
a fairy tale

It's absurd to even compare creation with evolution.
Because
Plenty of evidence (evolution)
vs
ZERO (creation)

First off, I'm not comparing evolution with creation. I'm just trying to figure out why evolutionists can't or refuse to use the word "believe" when it comes to evolution.

As for the fossil records, since they happened "millions" of years ago, is the conclusion based on interpretation or "belief'?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

Perplexing question or is it a play on the word? Or is it true? A conundrum perhaps?

What say you?

For my part, I believe they don’t. BUT I also believe they think it as fact.

And to them, I believe, to think that it is a fact is more than enough, because to admit that they do, i.e. believe in it, is tantamount to having faith. And that’s a taboo. It’s like believing in evolution is an act of “faith” (as though it is not).

But why does this matter?

It matters for the fact that it shows the depth of one’s conviction on the matter. Hence on this fact, they are not really fully convinced of its truthfulness but just think of it as such.

But let’s put it to the test.

Do you (evolutionists) BELIEVE in evolution?

Are you uncomfortable with that word, if so, what word or vocabulary do you want to use to define your “belief” in evolution?

Proponents of creation, what say you?

Any ideas why they are so scared of the word BELIEVE when it comes to evolution?

Ummm...perhaps the word your looking for is gnosis...science has knowledge pertaining to theory...yet can't claim fact as truth and remain scientific...

It's no different than a skeptical approach to conspiracy...

None of us on this site can claim truth and fact regarding any of the myriad considerations communicated as OP or response to OP...

We merely parrot opinion and foist perspective as fact...

None of us really know if any truth resides in any form of media we choose to opine about...


It sure is fun speculating here daily though...

YouSir

Sure, gnosis, but that word deals more in the spiritual matters. Not physical, as in biological evolution.

gno·sis
[ˈnōsəs]
NOUN
knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Ummm...actually...I was using the original Greek definition of gnosis

Gnosis (-g·no·sis): From Greek γνῶσις. Knowledge.

YouSir

a reply to: edmc^2

Facts require no faith.

Good science is never complete though, kids are still doing experiments in school that have been repeated millions of times. The mathematical chance of the outcomes being different get slimmer with every experiment.

As it stands evolution is a thoroughly researched area in science, we can talk of facts within it because we can reason with mathematics that outcomes allude to random mutations created by usually external factors. Our research into genetics goes hand in hand with evolution.

There's good research to show that contamination can create changes, the same way that white blood cells learn how to attack foreign bodies within the body. We're currently using this research in frontline medicine... We're"programming" viruses to combat diseases, disorders and even cancer.

Now ask yourself are we playing god? Or are we just applying principles learned from science to combat evolutionary issues?

Faith doesn't make science work.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

Perplexing question or is it a play on the word? Or is it true? A conundrum perhaps?

What say you?

For my part, I believe they don’t. BUT I also believe they think it as fact.

And to them, I believe, to think that it is a fact is more than enough, because to admit that they do, i.e. believe in it, is tantamount to having faith. And that’s a taboo. It’s like believing in evolution is an act of “faith” (as though it is not).

But why does this matter?

It matters for the fact that it shows the depth of one’s conviction on the matter. Hence on this fact, they are not really fully convinced of its truthfulness but just think of it as such.

But let’s put it to the test.

Do you (evolutionists) BELIEVE in evolution?

Are you uncomfortable with that word, if so, what word or vocabulary do you want to use to define your “belief” in evolution?

Proponents of creation, what say you?

Any ideas why they are so scared of the word BELIEVE when it comes to evolution?

Ummm...perhaps the word your looking for is gnosis...science has knowledge pertaining to theory...yet can't claim fact as truth and remain scientific...

It's no different than a skeptical approach to conspiracy...

None of us on this site can claim truth and fact regarding any of the myriad considerations communicated as OP or response to OP...

We merely parrot opinion and foist perspective as fact...

None of us really know if any truth resides in any form of media we choose to opine about...


It sure is fun speculating here daily though...

YouSir

Sure, gnosis, but that word deals more in the spiritual matters. Not physical, as in biological evolution.

gno·sis
[ˈnōsəs]
NOUN
knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Ummm...actually...I was using the original Greek definition of gnosis

Gnosis (-g·no·sis): From Greek γνῶσις. Knowledge.

YouSir

Ok, if you say so. But what comes after knowing?

Is that the end of it?

One can know something but it's totally a different matter to believe it.

a reply to: edmc^2

Oh so if just the word "theory" is a problem for you no problem it means:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an account or explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for the known facts.

That's what the word theory in science means.
There are plenty:
Information theory
Game theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Quantum theory
...

a reply to: edmc^2

Interpretation of evidence is not the same as belief. It's a conclusion. Big difference

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh so if just the word "theory" is a problem for you no problem it means:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an account or explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for the known facts.

That's what the word theory in science means.
There are plenty:
Information theory
Game theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Quantum theory
...

No, it's not a problem. My point is, theory can be interpreted in many ways - until it is confirmed to be factual. Then it becomes a fact.

Hence evolution theory is based on interpretation.

How you interpret the data is dependent on what you believe is a fact. You pursue that belief until proven to be a fact.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Interpretation of evidence is not the same as belief. It's a conclusion. Big difference

How so?

Tell me this then, since the fossil record happened "millions of years" ago and we were not there to witness it happened, is your conclusion then based on facts or belief?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh so if just the word "theory" is a problem for you no problem it means:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an account or explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for the known facts.

That's what the word theory in science means.
There are plenty:
Information theory
Game theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Quantum theory
...

No, it's not a problem. My point is, theory can be interpreted in many ways - until it is confirmed to be factual. Then it becomes a fact.

Hence evolution theory is based on interpretation.

How you interpret the data is dependent on what you believe is a fact. You pursue that belief until proven to be a fact.

Did you even read what I wrote?
Try again

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh so if just the word "theory" is a problem for you no problem it means:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an account or explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for the known facts.

That's what the word theory in science means.
There are plenty:
Information theory
Game theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Quantum theory
...

a reply to: edmc^2

The fossil records still exist, that's why they're called "record"

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh so if just the word "theory" is a problem for you no problem it means:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an account or explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for the known facts.

That's what the word theory in science means.
There are plenty:
Information theory
Game theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Quantum theory
...

No, it's not a problem. My point is, theory can be interpreted in many ways - until it is confirmed to be factual. Then it becomes a fact.

Hence evolution theory is based on interpretation.

How you interpret the data is dependent on what you believe is a fact. You pursue that belief until proven to be a fact.

Did you even read what I wrote?

yes, I did. I think we're saying the same thing. Just pointing out it's not a problem to me.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

The fossil records still exist, that's why they're called "record"

No denial there. But, how it's being interpreted, that is the question.

Is it based on facts of belief?

In any case, I think I have enough data.

Ciao.

a reply to: edmc^2

A theory in science is confirmed by observation and experiments. It can be interpreted in only one way.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

Perplexing question or is it a play on the word? Or is it true? A conundrum perhaps?

What say you?

For my part, I believe they don’t. BUT I also believe they think it as fact.

And to them, I believe, to think that it is a fact is more than enough, because to admit that they do, i.e. believe in it, is tantamount to having faith. And that’s a taboo. It’s like believing in evolution is an act of “faith” (as though it is not).

But why does this matter?

It matters for the fact that it shows the depth of one’s conviction on the matter. Hence on this fact, they are not really fully convinced of its truthfulness but just think of it as such.

But let’s put it to the test.

Do you (evolutionists) BELIEVE in evolution?

Are you uncomfortable with that word, if so, what word or vocabulary do you want to use to define your “belief” in evolution?

Proponents of creation, what say you?

Any ideas why they are so scared of the word BELIEVE when it comes to evolution?

Ummm...perhaps the word your looking for is gnosis...science has knowledge pertaining to theory...yet can't claim fact as truth and remain scientific...

It's no different than a skeptical approach to conspiracy...

None of us on this site can claim truth and fact regarding any of the myriad considerations communicated as OP or response to OP...

We merely parrot opinion and foist perspective as fact...

None of us really know if any truth resides in any form of media we choose to opine about...


It sure is fun speculating here daily though...

YouSir

Sure, gnosis, but that word deals more in the spiritual matters. Not physical, as in biological evolution.

gno·sis
[ˈnōsəs]
NOUN
knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Ummm...actually...I was using the original Greek definition of gnosis

Gnosis (-g·no·sis): From Greek γνῶσις. Knowledge.

YouSir

Ok, if you say so. But what comes after knowing?

Is that the end of it?

One can know something but it's totally a different matter to believe it.

Ummm...belief is an unsure state of mind...An example of "I think such may be so"...It actually has less to do with fact or knowledge...than faith...

Gnosis or knowing is the evolution of belief...where theory and imagination evolve into knowing...

Which...still isn't to state that one can claim such knowledge or fact...





YouSir

a reply to: edmc^2

I think you want to fiddle around with words, more than discuss topics of substance so I'll see myself out and keep the peace...

a reply to: YouSir

I think to know something is literally to know that something is so (true, exists). To think something is the opposite, not knowing for sure.

In any sense of what I know lol

These are always the saddest threads.
The OP goes into it knowing full well that his ‘faith’ cannot be shaken.

This thread seems to be nothing but semantics and trolling.