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

:lol: I wonder who are this 1% who dont believe in gravity .gubrushadow

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

VisigothSaxon

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.

You just keep going around in circles and you aren't listening to anybody.

Whatever, I'm going to go get a KFC double down burger. Yeah, it will probably kill me, but it'll be worth it. :P

[QUOTE="gaming25"]"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.RationalAtheist

How? Please explain...

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

Hiduism and Buddhism are both older than Judaism.

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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

RationalAtheist

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.

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

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

Guybrush_3

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="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

how old is the earth?

mrbojangles25

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.

Furthermore carbondating is INCORRECT.. Scientists do not use carbon decay to judge the age of the earth.. The limit on it is around 60,000 years.. They use different elements with far longer length half lifes..

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

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

VisigothSaxon

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.

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

VisigothSaxon

Ok

Hi Hopeless

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

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?

redstorm72

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

You just keep going around in circles and you aren't listening to anybody.

Whatever, I'm going to go get a KFC double down burger. Yeah, it will probably kill me, but it'll be worth it. :P

I feel exaclty the same about you guys... Enjoy your burger.

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="gubrushadow"]:lol: I wonder who are this 1% who dont believe in gravity .xaos

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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.

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

That depends what exactly is to be proven. What was observed by Darwin are proof themselves, but proof of what? That's the real question.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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.

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

The way science is set up... Anything and everything can be proven or disproven at any moment.. You seriously can't compare the strict science system to it to the lax nonexistent system of provided by religion.

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

VisigothSaxon

Scientific facts have not and do not work like that. There is no such thing as scientific absolutism. Science is based on skeptical enquiry.

[QUOTE="salutations2YOU"][QUOTE="gubrushadow"] bumfluff.gubrushadow

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

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

bloodling

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

That depends what exactly is to be proven. What was observed by Darwin are proof themselves, but proof of what? That's the real question.

And that factor could change dramatically, to either side. Alright, on that note of reason I bid farewell.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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

VisigothSaxon

That depends what exactly is to be proven. What was observed by Darwin are proof themselves, but proof of what? That's the real question.

And that factor could change dramatically, to either side. Alright, on that note of reason I bid farewell.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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

fillini

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.

Sure, Evolution isthe change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

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.

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

The way science is set up... Anything and everything can be proven or disproven at any moment.. You seriously can't compare the strict science system to it to the lax nonexistent system of provided by religion.

Academic debates have nothing on this thread.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Gravity is a theory, the cell theory is a theory, so is the notion that matter is comprised of atoms.

It's quite easy to identify scientific illiterates like yourself who cannot even grasp the idea of a scientific theory. It's not used in the everyday definition similar to a guess or hint. A Theory in science is the highest form of truth you can attain.

VisigothSaxon

That makes it no better than the Theory of God brought forth by organized religion. Stop your bias assumptions, face the facts, a theory is theory. Like it or not, Evolution does not hold more truth than Religion, they are on the level playing ground of cannot be proven nor disproven.

You're kind of just helping his case here.

The difference between the theory of evolution and the 'theory of god' is the mountains of evidence in favour of one, and the absolute lack of evidence in favour of the other.

The word theory doesn't put evolution on a 'level playing ground' with belief in god. One is substantiated by hundreds of years of of research and evidence, and the other propped up by faith.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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.

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

Did you even watch this? It was posted earlier in the thread, and if you had, you would have avoided 10 pages of being wrong. :|

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is biggotry to say Religion has none...

VisigothSaxon

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.

By this logic nothing is a fact then. That means Magic Johnson could be gay granted we have evidence that he in fact slept with hundreds of women a year in the prime of his career.. He may still be gay its not fact!

Darwin's theory of evolution is, indeed, just a theory. In fact, it has already been "reworked" to adapt to new discoveries, mainly the discovery of DNA. Darwin theorized that evolution happened by natural selection: individuals from a species have various small variations between them and the ones with the "best" variations lived longer and reproduced more. He didn't know *how* these variations came to be however. When DNA was discovered, scientists finally figured it out: The variations appear as a result of genetic mutation. This is an example of how Darwin's theory was reworked.

What some people love to ignore however, is that the theory relates to how evolution works, NOT if evolution actually exists. Evolution itself has been observed various times and is fact. It is how it works that Darwin't theory tries to explain.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

gaming25

The way science is set up... Anything and everything can be proven or disproven at any moment.. You seriously can't compare the strict science system to it to the lax nonexistent system of provided by religion.

That he is trying to be supposedly critical of the theory of evolution that it lacks supposed evidence to make it fact.. Yet he doesn't do so with his own beliefs..

Exactly why I said Darwin's Theory has yet to become a fact. At this point now, it could be proven/disproven with some new discovery. At least you aren't bigoted like the rest of them, they are not even worth arguing with. It is just circles upon circles...

VisigothSaxon

No, new discoveries are constantly being made that all build further evidence supporting evolution.

Our own model of evolution and understanding about it has come on hugely since Darwin's days (and before).

We are all bigoted. I think the argument is semantic. Your understanding of an absolute biblical "fact" as a concrete immovable idea that won't change is rather an illusion, since religious thought has itself changed hugely though the ages. We know that discoveries change what we know, so we live in a period of relative understanding because we are making such positive scientific progress.

What some people love to ignore however, is that the theory relates to how evolution works, NOT if evolution actually exists. Evolution itself has been observed various times and is fact. It is how it works that Darwin't theory tries to explain.

Cataclism

yeah he continues to ignore this after being told repeatedly.

I just don't know how this keeps getting brought up. it is mindblowing that the word 'theory' can be so widely misunderstood and rather appalling that it dogs this board so goddamned persistently.quiglythegreat

My personal favorite is when I told him to stop and take a basic class on science.. To even know the meaning and points of both the Scientific theory and Theory of Evolution.. His response was that I was a bigot and ignorant.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]By assuming vestigials. "How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation." Are you kidding, I mean the difference between you thinking that humans spawned from a swamp and thinking that there have been small changes throughout time.xaos

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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

RationalAtheist

Scientific facts have not and do not work like that. There is no such thing as scientific absolutism. Science is based on skeptical enquiry.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]"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.

Why not use a few more words of elaboration. What has assuming vestigals to do with anything?

I not kidding. What is the difference?

I was saying that evolutionists assuming that body parts were vestigials has hindered medicine.gaming25

Please do elaborate.

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The way science is set up... Anything and everything can be proven or disproven at any moment.. You seriously can't compare the strict science system to it to the lax nonexistent system of provided by religion.

That he is trying to be supposedly critical of the theory of evolution that it lacks supposed evidence to make it fact.. Yet he doesn't do so with his own beliefs..

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="gaming25"]By assuming vestigials. "How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation." Are you kidding, I mean the difference between you thinking that humans spawned from a swamp and thinking that there have been small changes throughout time.gaming25

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

How? Please explain...

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

Why not use a few more words of elaboration. What has assuming vestigals to do with anything?

I not kidding. What is the difference?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="gaming25"]By assuming vestigials. "How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation." Are you kidding, I mean the difference between you thinking that humans spawned from a swamp and thinking that there have been small changes throughout time.gaming25

What the hell is an evolutionist?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

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

fillini

Scientific facts have not and do not work like that. There is no such thing as scientific absolutism. Science is based on skeptical enquiry.

Is sarcasism a fit of sarcasm?

You don't need faith to understand scientific models and theories, since they are justified with evidence, experiment, observation and peer review.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] By assuming vestigials. "How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation." Are you kidding, I mean the difference between you thinking that humans spawned from a swamp and thinking that there have been small changes throughout time.gaming25

Why not use a few more words of elaboration. What has assuming vestigals to do with anything?

I not kidding. What is the difference?

Nope. You explain all over again to me.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

No, I am saying the bible contains some historical truths...

So do many historical texts.. What makes the Bible any different from these?

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

What the hell is an evolutionist?

laughingman42

[QUOTE="gaming25"] I was saying that evolutionists assuming that body parts were vestigials has hindered medicine.HoolaHoopMan

Please do elaborate.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] Religion and science have 2 different systems, so I dont know where you are going with there.gaming25

That he is trying to be supposedly critical of the theory of evolution that it lacks supposed evidence to make it fact.. Yet he doesn't do so with his own beliefs..

How is that the case when he doesn't even know the basics of what a Scientific theory is and the Theory of Evolution is.. He couldn't even stop him self from making the ridiculous mistakes that people who could spend 10 minutes of reading what the theory entails wouldn't have made..

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="gaming25"]By assuming vestigials. "How many sorts of evolution are there? I only know of the one based on random mutation." Are you kidding, I mean the difference between you thinking that humans spawned from a swamp and thinking that there have been small changes throughout time.gaming25

Are you trying to say that you believe 1+1=2 but you don't believe that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=50 ?