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

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Argue Amongst yourselves I am done here. I have been attacked and insulted 1 to many times, just because you don't like what I have to say.

I accept Darwin's Evolution as Theory, I will not accept it as fact until it is proven to be fact.

VisigothSaxon

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...

No you don't, you can keep on claiming you do. But the past posts in this topic completely contradicts this claim.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]you asked for evidence, and that link has evidence. there is no pleasing you.

VisigothSaxon

Nothing ever will. He blinds himself to the blantantly obvious truth laid before him.

Oh, it is truth now... I find that hard to believe, considering it is not agreed to be fact nor truth, just a theory. I accept the fact that it is a theory, nothing more.

It's a theory based on facts. Facts which you refuse to accept.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Argue Amongst yourselves I am done here. I have been attacked and insulted 1 to many times, just because you don't like what I have to say.

I accept Darwin's Evolution as Theory, I will not accept it as fact until it is proven to be fact.

VisigothSaxon

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

Filthybastrd

I was about to post a response but Wasdie here just hit the nail from a better angle than I can in english. Read what I just quoted, it says what needs to be said in response to this thread.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

sSubZerOo

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...

No you don't, you can keep on claiming you do. But the past posts in this topic completely contradicts this claim.

Nope, or God/Religion would be disproven... I mean come on now.

Bible contains both religous info and historical info. No one is sure if the religious info is correct, I won't say anymore...

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

chrisrooR

I was about to post a response but Wasdie here just hit the nail from a better angle than I can in english. Read what I just quoted, it says what needs to be said in response to this thread.

I did, people just don't read...

Still waiting for Gabu and bumfluff.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Argue Amongst yourselves I am done here. I have been attacked and insulted 1 to many times, just because you don't like what I have to say.

I accept Darwin's Evolution as Theory, I will not accept it as fact until it is proven to be fact.

VisigothSaxon

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That doesn't stop people from trying to prove/disprove it. There should be no arguement here, you guys just are offenede and upset Darwin's Theory is not Fact.

markop2003

OKAY, How old would he APPEAR to be? Like to actually walk and talk with God? please don't make memake it a A B or C question.fillini

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That doesn't stop people from trying to prove/disprove it. There should be no arguement here, you guys just are offenede and upset Darwin's Theory is not Fact.

VisigothSaxon

No we are upset because you don't even know the basics to science in general.. Yet act like you do.. When you clearly don't.. How bout this before you even make any more supposed "criticisms" on the subject.. You actually take a class on science 101.. So you can even understand what a Scientific Theory, Law and other such things even are.. Then you can start by reading what Theory of Evolution even entails.... Come back then.. Until then there is no point in argueing because you clearly don't even know the basics of either subject..

How about you learn to speak without ignorance and biggotry?

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Argue Amongst yourselves I am done here. I have been attacked and insulted 1 to many times, just because you don't like what I have to say.

I accept Darwin's Evolution as Theory, I will not accept it as fact until it is proven to be fact.

VisigothSaxon

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

bumfluff.gubrushadow

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Bible contains both religous info and historical info. No one is sure if the religious info is correct, I won't say anymore...

markop2003

Not really I stated this from the start. Religion/God has yet to be proven/disproven. I am not afraid of this you guys clearly are...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...

VisigothSaxon

No you don't, you can keep on claiming you do. But the past posts in this topic completely contradicts this claim.

Nope, or God/Religion would be disproven... I mean come on now.

God is apart of the metaphysical.. Its nature alone means its outside the scope of the natural world which science measure.. So yet again no you don't.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

:roll:

After all this, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is eh?

redstorm72

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

"Why not just base belief on evidence?" Because it would then be called just evidence. Faith is more than that. "What has my sig got to do with the timelessness of the bible? Many religious texts and entire religions and Gods pre-dated the bible. Of course its different from other religions - they're all different!" And you are wrong again. There is no religious text that pre dates the Bible. Feel free to look it up, I know that comes as a shock to you.gaming25

You say I don't know what faith is, but then you can't describe it! "It's more than that...."

Try early Chinese religions, Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions for starters, if you're looking for olde-worlde faiths. They pre-date the Torah by several thousand years.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No you don't, you can keep on claiming you do. But the past posts in this topic completely contradicts this claim.

sSubZerOo

Nope, or God/Religion would be disproven... I mean come on now.

God is apart of the metaphysical.. Its nature alone means its outside the scope of the natural world which science measure.. So yet again no you don't.

Hmm, you would think Scientists would not bother trying to disprove it then huh?

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]you asked for evidence, and that link has evidence. there is no pleasing you.

VisigothSaxon

Nothing ever will. He blinds himself to the blantantly obvious truth laid before him.

Oh, it is truth now... I find that hard to believe, considering it is not agreed to be fact nor truth, just a theory. I accept the fact that it is a theory, nothing more.

but you do not accept the definition of scientific theory. Otherwise you wouldn't say "merely a theory."

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I'm not mocking it. Rationality/irrationality is not an insult. its a method for understanding things. Please don't feel insulted.

Why does religion offer to cure people like it used to before medicine came along?

Maybe it did? Maybe Jesus had a astounding knowledge of herbs and so on and he used that to help him perform miracles throughout his life. I mean who knows, so much is unknown and unproven. I feel insulted, everyone here insults me and puts words in my mouth. I have not tried to insult you guys, I just want a non bias answer, something I know I won't get.

I'm talking about the 2000 years since then.

You have every right to feel insulted, although I hope it wasn't me that did it. Remember that you started this thread.

Why don't you accept that you have an answer. Evolution is a theory - a model of our understanding that has much supporting evidence and has enabled further discovery, especially in medicine.

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

Wasdie

Please respond to this post visigoth.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

VisigothSaxon

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That doesn't stop people from trying to prove/disprove it. There should be no arguement here, you guys just are offenede and upset Darwin's Theory is not Fact.

VisigothSaxon

No we are upset because you don't even know the basics to science in general.. Yet act like you do.. When you clearly don't.. How bout this before you even make any more supposed "criticisms" on the subject.. You actually take a class on science 101.. So you can even understand what a Scientific Theory, Law and other such things even are.. Then you can start by reading what Theory of Evolution even entails.... Come back then.. Until then there is no point in argueing because you clearly don't even know the basics of either subject..

How about you learn to speak without ignorance and biggotry?

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is your opinion, I would say quite the opposite. Because both are not proven there would be no way of knowing.

VisigothSaxon

Eh, I am not sure about this, but I am not sure how that would even apply to the Bible? I mean lets be honest the Bible was a religous text that gives many explanations, but it did not set out to answer everything.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

VisigothSaxon

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

VisigothSaxon

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] bumfluff.salutations2YOU

Hmm, you would think Scientists would not bother trying to disprove it then huh?

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

Nothing ever will. He blinds himself to the blantantly obvious truth laid before him.

Guybrush_3

Oh, it is truth now... I find that hard to believe, considering it is not agreed to be fact nor truth, just a theory. I accept the fact that it is a theory, nothing more.

but you do not accept the definition of scientific theory. Otherwise you wouldn't say "merely a theory."

I do, I know evidence surrounds it, that does not make the theory itself a fact.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]"Why not just base belief on evidence?" Because it would then be called just evidence. Faith is more than that. "What has my sig got to do with the timelessness of the bible? Many religious texts and entire religions and Gods pre-dated the bible. Of course its different from other religions - they're all different!" And you are wrong again. There is no religious text that pre dates the Bible. Feel free to look it up, I know that comes as a shock to you.RationalAtheist

You say I don't know what faith is, but then you can't describe it! "It's more than that...."

Try early Chinese religions, Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions for starters, if you're looking for olde-worlde faiths. They pre-date the Torah by several thousand years.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, but it does not make it more than God/Religion...There is evidence surrounding God and Religion as well...

VisigothSaxon

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

Oh wow, now you've resorted to calling me a bigot? Isn't one of the main points of religion to have "faith" in something without evidence?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Maybe it did? Maybe Jesus had a astounding knowledge of herbs and so on and he used that to help him perform miracles throughout his life. I mean who knows, so much is unknown and unproven. I feel insulted, everyone here insults me and puts words in my mouth. I have not tried to insult you guys, I just want a non bias answer, something I know I won't get.

gaming25

I'm talking about the 2000 years since then.

You have every right to feel insulted, although I hope it wasn't me that did it. Remember that you started this thread.

Why don't you accept that you have an answer. Evolution is a theory - a model of our understanding that has much supporting evidence and has enabled further discovery, especially in medicine.

How has it hindered medicine exactly? If anything it has advanced medicine with our understanding of how viruses work and so on..

"A model of our understanding that has much supporting evidence and has enabled further discovery, especially in medicine." Dont get ahead of yourself. Evolution has also hindered medicine as well. And evolution in some forms doesnt necessarily disprove God so lets be clear on what type of evolution you are talking about.gaming25

How? Please explain...

How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

chrisrooR

Please respond to this post visigoth.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

To me, God, why?

God answers way more questions of the universe. Darwin's Theory does not provide the same level of answers and does not connect the dots of mystery like God does.

VisigothSaxon

how old is the earth?

As old as the Scientists say, considering they do Carbon Dating. Much older than you would expect me to say. I have nothing against Science, and I encourage Science to investigate Religion.

but isnt carbon dating a theory supported by facts?

oh sweet god, I am turning into the Atheist Crushmaster...asking questions upon questions until I think I have trapped someone. Im gonna stop now lol.

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

VisigothSaxon

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]"Why not just base belief on evidence?" Because it would then be called just evidence. Faith is more than that. "What has my sig got to do with the timelessness of the bible? Many religious texts and entire religions and Gods pre-dated the bible. Of course its different from other religions - they're all different!" And you are wrong again. There is no religious text that pre dates the Bible. Feel free to look it up, I know that comes as a shock to you.gaming25

You say I don't know what faith is, but then you can't describe it! "It's more than that...."

Try early Chinese religions, Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions for starters, if you're looking for olde-worlde faiths. They pre-date the Torah by several thousand years.

Hiduism and Buddhism are both older than Judaism.

The law gravity IS a Law. fillini

God answers way more questions of the universe. VisigothSaxon

It takes faith to believe ANYTHING. How do you know scientists aren't wrong or lying about evolution? You don't, but you choose to believe it anyway. That is faith.harashawn

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

I've already said that a scientific theory has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, while religion has none (other than the holy texts which they are based on).

redstorm72

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

Oh wow, now you've resorted to calling me a bigot? Isn't one of the main points of religion to have "faith" in something without evidence?

It can have evidence supporting it without being proven fact, like Darwin's theory.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

gubrushadow

Please respond to this post visigoth.

[QUOTE="ariz3260"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Eh, I guess, the world will never know.

Hi Snipes

Have you guys ever seen a picture of snipes? I am sure most of you know what I look like...

I do, I know evidence surrounds it, that does not make the theory itself a fact.

VisigothSaxon

That depends what you mean by fact and what you include in the theory.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

markop2003

I already talked about the Historical Evidence. Namely the fact that many portions of the bible are historically proven to the extent that yes this happened, people have yet to figure out how or why it happened.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Oh, it is truth now... I find that hard to believe, considering it is not agreed to be fact nor truth, just a theory. I accept the fact that it is a theory, nothing more.

VisigothSaxon

but you do not accept the definition of scientific theory. Otherwise you wouldn't say "merely a theory."

I do, I know evidence surrounds it, that does not make the theory itself a fact.

that is because an explanation by definition cannot be a fact. You are creating a false dichotomy. It is a fact that evolution has occurred over millions of years on earth. The theory of evolution explains how it happened.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.

The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.

The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.

"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.

chrisrooR

Please respond to this post visigoth.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

I do, I know evidence surrounds it, that does not make the theory itself a fact.

bloodling

That depends what you mean by fact and what you include in the theory.

Fact meaning it is proven and therefore cannot be disproven. A theory is not proven/disproven.

It can have evidence supporting it without being proven fact, like Darwin's theory.

VisigothSaxon

No, the supporting evidence make it a "fact du jour". These are facts, based on what we've deduced from what we've discovered. New discoveries and theories may change these facts.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-bible-say-anything-about-astronomy

Eh, the scholars back then were smart in their own right...

VisigothSaxon