Darwins Theory of Evolution is not Fact, it is merely Theory

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

Guybrush_3

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly.

Maybe parts of it, but it is still known as theory not fact.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Sure there is, he could and he couldn't exist. IE it is still a theory, just like evolution, it cannot be proven no disproven, accept it.

VisigothSaxon

Do you understand the concept of falsifiability? Or better yet are you even aware of the scientific method? God simply doesn't allow for scientific inquiry.

God could be proven/disproven just like Evolution.

For those of you who think ancient people and the scholars who wrote the bible were not intelligent and knowing in their own right,Read This

There are some gaps in the fossil record, hence the whole missing link thing. Anyone know the exact progression of ancestor to man?

I think it goes something like H. Habilis -> H. Ergaster -> Liberals -> H. Erectus -> H. Heidelbergensis -> H. Sapien.

But there are some significant gaps in that progression.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]Yes , yes , yes , YES! It's a "theory" (so as everything else) but finally someone accepts that it could be disproven in future , or maybe not , who knows ?gubrushadow

Exactly who knows what will be proven/disproven in the future. I don't get what these people are afraid of, I guess you guys doubt the Theory of Evolution then, if you get so defensive over it. I don't get defensive over the fact that Religion and God is not proven, I accept that fact and it does not bother me by any means.

What does bother me is ignorance...

I know, I was agreeing with you. Just because I qoute you doesn't mean I am fighting with you. :D I am sorry if I confused you, thanks for you post btw.

you cannot definatively prove that anything exists outside what i understand to be my mind.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Sure there is, he could and he couldn't exist. IE it is still a theory, just like evolution, it cannot be proven no disproven, accept it.

VisigothSaxon

Do you understand the concept of falsifiability? Or better yet are you even aware of the scientific method? God simply doesn't allow for scientific inquiry.

God could be proven/disproven just like Evolution.

For those of you who think ancient people and the scholars who wrote the bible were not intelligent and knowing in their own right,Read This

......................... No god can't be proven.. Hence why we can't make a claim to disprove it.. God is not a scientific understanding.. He/she is part of the metaphysics that belongs in philosophy and religious debate, NOT scientific debate.. So yet again.. No you don't understand what so ever what falsifiability is.

There are some gaps in the fossil record, hence the whole missing link thing. Anyone know the exact progression of ancestor to man?

I think it goes something like H. Habilis -> H. Ergaster -> Liberals -> H. Erectus -> H. Heidelbergensis -> H. Sapien.

But there are some significant gaps in that progression.

sonicare

Vaguely, It has been awhile.

The Bible is comprised of Historical Facts... See what I mean...

VisigothSaxon

Historical facts are not scientific facts. I can't argue with the statement that the Old Testament doesn't contain a lot of historical documentary about the time which is often supported by other writings from other societies.

However history and science are two completely different worlds. History has facts that can only be challenged if there are other accounts written by other societies at the same time that have contradictory statements to those you have read in your original source OR what has been written in your original source contradicts basic nature that is 100% observable, especially if it is the only documentation of said event.

For example when a meteorite falls from the heavens and many cultures see it, they will all interpret it differently. Some will see it as a sign from their gods, others will see it as a sign from the spirits... so on and so forth. All accounts will read very contradictoryto logic and our current knowledge of the world. At this point we can take all of the observations and cross reference them with our knowledge and determine that this was in fact a meteorite that fell from the sky.

However when a specific writing tells of some supernatural event that cannot be described by any current source or a group of sources from the same society and beliefs, we now have to be very skeptical of what actually happened as all of them will skew the events one way and will most likely exaggerate them to a major degree.

Nearly every single, ancient religious text is filled with these moments. Not just one in particular. The Mayans, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Romans, early Christians, and then modern Christan texts are all filled with these sorts of accounts.

The first thing you've got wrong is that it isn't Darwin's theory. He only posited natural selection and hypothesized something akin to evolution. Only after many years of further research was evolution actually discovered. The second thing you've got wrong is the incredibly over-used misconception that "theory" in science is the same as the colloquial usage. In science, something that is "theory" is more than mere "fact," it is an explanation of many hundreds of thousands of facts. It goes beyond the definition of "fact" (which is an objectively observable truth) and becomes something that is so "right" that it is almost impossible to refute (but still possible, which doesn't in any way undermine its reliability).

This is a boring argument. The least you could do is come up with something original, or at least creative. Evolution is a very solid theory. so much so that it is beyond "fact" and has become a universal truth about the development of life on Earth. If you deny it, then stop taking advantage of modern medicine... because genetics is rooted in evolution, and almost all modern medical advances rely on evolution being right. If evolution isn't right, then medicine wouldn't work.

[QUOTE="FMAB_GTO"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Jesus people THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "Theory" and "Scientific theory".. Evolution.. Scientific theory is the highest title the science community gives to it.. Within the community evolution is seen as a fact.. It did happen, there is entirely too much evidence and no counter evidence to go against it.. What is being argued is how and why it happened.

sSubZerOo

Which makes me lose faith with the public education system.. Its kind of the first things they teach you when you start taking basic science in middle school and high school.

Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... Darth-Caedus

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

Please watch this TC.

There are some gaps in the fossil record, hence the whole missing link thing. Anyone know the exact progression of ancestor to man?

I think it goes something like H. Habilis -> H. Ergaster -> Liberals -> H. Erectus -> H. Heidelbergensis -> H. Sapien.

But there are some significant gaps in that progression.

sonicare

We have actually found numerous skeletons.. There will always be "gaps" because your trying to scrunch down hundreds of thousands to millions of years of evolution..

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... VisigothSaxon

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

.................. Lets go see.. Monkey's today we didn't evolve from.. How bout this.. Before you start being critical of it, you actually know the basics of it?.. Just a thought.

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... VisigothSaxon

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

Evolution has been directly observed in laboratories in a number of different ways by now, where the frequency of alleles changes in a population for subsequent generations with various insects and microorganisms.

Whether or not one wants to call this "microevolution", and deny the mountainous piles of evidence for what you would apparently call "macroevolution" (I use quotations because while those are scientific terms, the way creationists use them is different from their scientific meaning), those observations have, in fact, occured and have been recorded.

Please watch this TC.

Installing

Except you guys are the ones showing ignorance. I accept what science has proven and I accept biology. You sir judge me wrong.

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... VisigothSaxon

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FMAB_GTO"] Hmmmm........ was that offensive to you my dear DEAR friend ? well we could always learn from each others , I never new there was a difference so thanks :D.FMAB_GTO

Which makes me lose faith with the public education system.. Its kind of the first things they teach you when you start taking basic science in middle school and high school.

What does Darwin's theory of evolution have anything to do with knowing what a scientific theory is? Thats kind of a cornerstone to how we catalogue and explain scientific phenemnons.

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

VisigothSaxon

Disproof is a logical fallacy. Evolution is a theory, since evolution as a hypothesis has been proven as a "fact du jour" (or fact or the day) by the scientific community - independently and regardless of personal bias. This is because the scientific method accepts the relative nature of knowledge and thusly bases it's "models of understanding" (such as evolution) on the (massive) amount of evidence that supports it.

Gravity is also a good case in point too. The theory of gravity has been revised significantly in the last 100 years. Although Newton's original model still holds true for most casses, the extent of knowledge about the nature of gravity is far more now than it was then. Yet still there is so much for scientists still to discover!

I think the difference between religion and science is that science asks the questions, while never being satisfied that the sanswer is correct (due to the rational, deductive, open framework that is the scientific method. Whereas religions think they already know the answers to those questions and refuse to investigate alternative possibilities.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... chrisrooR

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

I know, why would there still be apes...

You know, it's funny. This isn't even a Religion Thread.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Just because there is a lot of research and people behind it does not make it fact. I am sorry, but if we are playing that game, religion wins because of the Bible. How much older is the Bible, how many people took part in it compared to the number of people alive at the time, imagine the effort and thought that was put into it. As far as I am concerned Darwin's Theory is no closer to fact than the Bible and God, why, because they cannot be proven nor disproven.

I still don't get why people fight this there is no such thing as close to fact, it is either fact or it isn't. Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't fact, what is so troubling about that?

Wasdie

Again read what I said. Gravity isn't a fact. The chemical composition of the air you're breathing isn't a fact. Hell the very science that I'm using right now to communicate to you isn't a fact. They are all just theories that seem to work very well in our current world.

You're right that evolution isn't a fact, but that doesn't make any other laws and theories we generally accept to be right invalid because we can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that they will always work in every since comprehendsible scenario.

We can't prove there isn't a God directly, but we have massive amounts of evidence supporting theories that contradict nearly everything written about the physical world in the Bible. Eventually you just have to start looking at what we know and what we don't know, the evidence we have and what we don't have, and making logical decision on which to believe or not.

If you choose to believe the side with absolutely no evidence outside of the writings of old dead men, then that is your choice. Don't be alarmed when the people who choose to believe the other side come back with tons of evidence supporting theirs. At that point you have to either put up or shut up.

So God can't be proved or disproved, yet you talk as if you KNOW he doesn't exist.

I guess you should also not be surprised if someday something happens that proves He does exist. It can go both ways.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

VisigothSaxon

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly.

Maybe parts of it, but it is still known as theory not fact.

ok I will repeat this one last time and then after that I will ignore you unless you show that you understand this. Scientific theories are explanations. Do you know what an explanation is? here let me help. An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, and consequences of those facts. A few examples of the facts that evolution has explained. Animals change over millions of years due to natural selection, Punctuated equilibrium has occurred, etc. Those statements are undeniable facts, and a theory is the pinnacle of scientific explanation.

[QUOTE="Installing"]

Please watch this TC.

VisigothSaxon

Except you guys are the ones showing ignorance. I accept what science has proven and I accept biology. You sir judge me wrong.

Sure doesn't seem that way when you don't have a clue what a scientific theory is, or even the basics of the theory of evolution to begin with.. We did not evolve from monkey's, including the ones of today.. Nor does evolution ever mean that we expect the primates of the planet to some how evolve to human like. Thats not how evolution works.

It is about 1% away from being fact. It basically is, to argue that the theory is wrong is like saying you don't believe in humans going to space because you aren't an astronaut. It is pretty much what you should consider "fact". Just like the guy that said gravity is only about 99% true because it is not fully understood. Evolution isn't just some joke someone made up. We just don't know how long exactly it really takes or how it really works with our dna, but you can't argue real evidence.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

RationalAtheist

Disproof is a logical fallacy. Evolution is a theory, since evolution as a hypothesis has been proven as a "fact du jour" (or fact or the day) by the scientific community - independently and regardless of personal bias. This is because the scientific method accepts the relative nature of knowledge and thusly bases it's "models of understanding" (such as evolution) on the (massive) amount of evidence that supports it.

Gravity is also a good case in point too. The theory of gravity has been revised significantly in the last 100 years. Although Newton's original model still holds true for most casses, the extent of knowledge about the nature of gravity is far more now than it was then. Yet still there is so much for scientists still to discover!

I think the difference between religion and science is that science asks the questions, while never being satisfied that the sanswer is correct (due to the rational, deductive, open framework that is the scientific method. Whereas religions think they already know the answers to those questions and refuse to investigate alternative possibilities.

We can both agree though that Religion is heavily investigated and always trying do be disproven. Look at how extensively the bible is put under the microscope and yet it has not been proven/disproven just like evolution. Stop being ignorant people, I can accept the fact that both Evolution and Religion are not fact, why can't you? A Scientific Theory is still not a fact and stop using that argument.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

There are some gaps in the fossil record, hence the whole missing link thing. Anyone know the exact progression of ancestor to man?

I think it goes something like H. Habilis -> H. Ergaster -> Liberals -> H. Erectus -> H. Heidelbergensis -> H. Sapien.

But there are some significant gaps in that progression.

We have actually found numerous skeletons.. There will always be "gaps" because your trying to scrunch down hundreds of thousands to millions of years of evolution..

I know, why would there still be apes...

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... VisigothSaxon

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

Holy S*** we came from a common ancestor.

I know, why would there still be apes...

VisigothSaxon

Speciation occurs when populations are split. For some basic evidence for this, please refer to Australian Marsupials.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="Installing"]

Please watch this TC.

sSubZerOo

Except you guys are the ones showing ignorance. I accept what science has proven and I accept biology. You sir judge me wrong.

Sure doesn't seem that way when you don't have a clue what a scientific theory is, or even the basics of the theory of evolution to begin with.. We did not evolve from monkey's, including the ones of today.. Nor does evolution ever mean that we expect the primates of the planet to some how evolve to human like. Thats not how evolution works.

I know what a scientific theory is, it revolves around evidence, but in the end of the day it is not fact. Stop acting like science is so better than religion, your I find your bias astounding. You only hear what you want to hear, if you didn't this wouldn't be an arguement.

guys i think VigisothSaxon is trolling :( there's no other possible explanation for the stupidity

A Scientific Theory is still not a fact and stop using that argument.

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Yes, it is a theory...a theory with tons of evidence supporting it and not a single piece of evidence contradicting it... VisigothSaxon

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I am sure there is plenty of evidence contradicting it. Wouldn't apes still be evolving into humans then, if we evolved from apes. Would there even be apes if we evolved from apes. And yes I know how similar man is to ape, that does not mean we evolved from them.

VisigothSaxon

I know, why would there still be apes...

Thats it, I'm having a stroke right now.. These apes are never going to human beings.. They are going down a seperate path of evolution.. The primates of today and humans share a common ancestors countless generations back that branched out.. You claim you know what the theory of evolution is.. Yet you have made some of the most common and obvious mistakes out there.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I know, why would there still be apes...

RationalAtheist

Speciation occurs when populations are split. For some basic evidence for this, please refer to Australian Marsupials.

I don't know, apes are all over the place and in areas with humans. You would think if there are native human's there, there wouldn't be apes.

guys i think VigisothSaxon is trolling :( there's no other possible explanation for the stupidity

needled24-7

Or you are, if Evolution is Fact, then give me the evidence, if not then move on.

There is no such thing as fact, only theory, because everything is just a figment of my imagination.

Now, I just have to figure out why these figments are arguing.

[QUOTE="FMAB_GTO"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which makes me lose faith with the public education system.. Its kind of the first things they teach you when you start taking basic science in middle school and high school.

sSubZerOo

What does Darwin's theory of evolution have anything to do with knowing what a scientific theory is? Thats kind of a cornerstone to how we catalogue and explain scientific phenemnons.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Except you guys are the ones showing ignorance. I accept what science has proven and I accept biology. You sir judge me wrong.

VisigothSaxon

Sure doesn't seem that way when you don't have a clue what a scientific theory is, or even the basics of the theory of evolution to begin with.. We did not evolve from monkey's, including the ones of today.. Nor does evolution ever mean that we expect the primates of the planet to some how evolve to human like. Thats not how evolution works.

I know what a scientific theory is, it revolves around evidence, but in the end of the day it is not fact. Stop acting like science is so better than religion, your I find your bias astounding. You only hear what you want to hear, if you didn't this wouldn't be an arguement.

It is the CLOSEST THING TO FACT THERE WILL EVER BE in the sicence community.. YES science IS better because it constantly IMPROVES and there is no bias when it comes to things dealing with the physical world NOT the metaphyiscal.

I don't know, apes are all over the place and in areas with humans. You would think if there are native human's there, there wouldn't be apes.

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] *facepalm* No, the process of evolution is EXTREMELY gradual.sSubZerOo

I know, why would there still be apes...

Thats it, I'm having a stroke right now.. These apes are never going to human beings.. They are going down a seperate path of evolution.. The primates of today and humans share a common ancestors countless generations back that branched out.. You claim you know what the theory of evolution is.. Yet you have made some of the most common and obvious mistakes out there.

Well Evolution is not my favorite subject, so of course I will make common mistakes. Although I know enough to agree that it is a Theory and has yet to become a fact.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I know, why would there still be apes...

VisigothSaxon

Speciation occurs when populations are split. For some basic evidence for this, please refer to Australian Marsupials.

I don't know, apes are all over the place and in areas with humans. You would think if there are native human's there, there wouldn't be apes.

*notes your failure to understand basic concepts of evolution* We share a common ancestor with modern apes. The ones you see on earth today did not exist millions of years ago.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

There are some gaps in the fossil record, hence the whole missing link thing. Anyone know the exact progression of ancestor to man?

I think it goes something like H. Habilis -> H. Ergaster -> Liberals -> H. Erectus -> H. Heidelbergensis -> H. Sapien.

But there are some significant gaps in that progression.

sonicare

We have actually found numerous skeletons.. There will always be "gaps" because your trying to scrunch down hundreds of thousands to millions of years of evolution..

I am not questioning whether you believe or not believe.. Its just this kind of criticism is often over used when in fact we have found countless links.. But the fact of the matter is we are trying ot map millions of years of evoultion.. There will always be gaps..

Stop acting like science is so better than religion, your I find your bias astounding. You only hear what you want to hear, if you didn't this wouldn't be an arguement.

VisigothSaxon

Science is responsible for you being able to spout this garbage across the internet right now. It's also responsible for nearly everything in your life, from medicine, to electricity, to every household item you own or use.

i would say that puts it a few pegs above a book written by bronze age primitive desert dwellers.