Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

Evolution: Theory or Fact?

Sigh.

Posted by Lillymon on 2004-08-16 18:00:15

A 'theory with no evidence to back it up' is a contradiction in terms by scientific rules. A scientific theory must have evidence to back it up. An idea that fits with the facts but has no or little evidence is a hypothesis. Creationism just about qualifies as a hypothesis.

Also, evolution can't be defined as 'fact'. A piece of evidence may turn up at any time that goes against the whole theory and brings the whole thing crashing down, though the possibility of that is remote and getting even more remote with new evidence supporting evolution. I expect the possibility to become truely astronomical in my lifetime.

To finish up here, while evolution has changed somewhat since Charles Darwin first proposed it, the core idea has only been strengthened and support among those who have studied the evidence is near absolute. About 95% of scientists support evolution, growing to over 99% when it come to biologists. Something with all that support must have at least some evidence behind it...

Posted by GoodDogSD on 2004-08-21 06:17:11

I agree completely. The scientific community is more than willing to discard any aspect of evolution when confronted by sufficient evidence (although I also agree that such evidence will probably never be found). On the other hand, no matter how overwhelming the evidence is in support of evolution, creationists will never discard their belief that the universe was created by God. They are completely blinded by their faith.

Posted by MattShez on 2004-10-03 01:51:49

NOTHING is 100% absolute, we could just be somebody's dream.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157002118X/qid=1096766584/sr=8-15/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i15_xgl14/104-2978476-2614305?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The Case against Evolution is what this book is called. It contain very powerful information to the opposite of it.

Book Description Almost daily we are innundated by the media and schools with the Theory of Evolution. While it may seem to be a proven fact, actually the theory is built on conjecture and leaps of logic. While it was felt that recent scientific techniques would prove the theory, in fact, the opposite has happened. The Theory of Evolution is built on a foundation of sand, and few credible scientists still believe it. Learn the other side of the story with this interesting discourse of the many problems afflicting the Theory of Evolution, and also, discover the only explanation of cosmic origins that makes sense.

I suggest YOU read this if you think Evolution is 100% fact.

Also when the Big Bang happened, there was these chances of trillions by trillions by trillions, and if ONE was taking from the trillion Life wouldn't have been created. How can materialist scientists NOT mention God when these odds are stacked against them?

They choose not to believe (yes BELIEF people) in God, see the people have been brainwashed so much that they think all this stuff is already proven fact, when it is far, and I mean FAR from that.

Posted by Lillymon on 2004-10-04 11:21:50

NOTHING is 100% absolute, we could just be somebody's dream.

Of course that's possible. There's no way to tell, and it probably wouldn't matter much if it was true though.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157002118X/qid=1096766584/sr=8-15/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i15_xgl14/104-2978476-2614305?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The Case against Evolution is what this book is called. It contain very powerful information to the opposite of it.

I haven't read it, but I'm almost certain the evidence in it can be refuted. Since I have better things to waste my limited money on, can you give me any online sites that use similar evidence to what is in that book?

Book Description Almost daily we are innundated by the media and schools with the Theory of Evolution. While it may seem to be a proven fact, actually the theory is built on conjecture and leaps of logic. While it was felt that recent scientific techniques would prove the theory, in fact, the opposite has happened. The Theory of Evolution is built on a foundation of sand, and few credible scientists still believe it. Learn the other side of the story with this interesting discourse of the many problems afflicting the Theory of Evolution, and also, discover the only explanation of cosmic origins that makes sense.

Pay attention to the part I highlighted. Opinion polls among scientists have shown approximately 95% believe in either theistic (God-guided) or naturalistic (atheist/agnostic/deist) evolution. This rises close to 99% among biologists. Is the book actually trying to say that a massive proportion of scientists and biolgists are not 'credible'?

I suggest YOU read this if you think Evolution is 100% fact.

With Einstein and the emergence of general relativity, it has been shown that very little in science is '100% fact'. Mostly, there is only a number of possibilities, some more favoured than others. I see evolution as havinga a chance in excess of 99% of being true.

There's a saying in science. "Proof is mathematics and alcohol."

Also when the Big Bang happened, there was these chances of trillions by trillions by trillions, and if ONE was taking from the trillion Life wouldn't have been created. How can materialist scientists NOT mention God when these odds are stacked against them?

True, the odds of life ending up as it is were miniscule. Tiny, almost insignifigant changes could've made the universe different in many way. Maybe causing our sun to never form, making it so humanity never existed.

But one path had to be taken. There were many, all equally probable. As we can see, this is the one the universe took. Hugely improbable things do happen. If they didn't, no one would be struck by lightning or win the lottery.

You've proven nothing except saying how incredibly improbable things look. Which is understandable.

They choose not to believe (yes BELIEF people) in God, see the people have been brainwashed so much that they think all this stuff is already proven fact, when it is far, and I mean FAR from that.

Well some of evolution is fact. There are two parts to it.

Microevolution and the law of evolution. Yes, the law of evolution. Changes in the gene pool, if it didn't exist, selective breeding wouldn't work. As we can all see, it does. That is fact. Microevolution has also been observed. It is fact.

Macroevolution and the theory of evolution. This is where things get hazy. Macroevolution happens so slowly, that no one could hope to observe it. Doing so will require thousands of years of research. But we can look into the fossil record, observe microevolution and see other evidence like how genetic algorithms (based on the theory of evolution work). Based on this, we attempt to extrapolate what would happen if microevolution were to progress further. We end up with macroevolution.

If you want a good site to look at to favour evolution, I recommened you visit these two. The second one in particular, but the whole site is a veritable goldmine. Also, unlike your book, it's free! What do you have to lose by taking a read?

http://www.ebonmusings.org/index.htm http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html

Posted by Stu2000 on 2004-10-05 15:00:45

========== In Reply To ========== few credible scientists still believe it

As a scientist, I can safely say that amongst my colleagues none believe the world was created in six days. And calling all of us incredible is just plain offensive.

Almost daily we are innundated by the media and schools with the Theory of Evolution. While it may seem to be a proven fact, actually the theory is built on conjecture and leaps of logic.

And Creationism is based on a Babylonian creation myth over 3000 years old. What "leaps of logic" are you referring to?

Also when the Big Bang happened, there was these chances of trillions by trillions by trillions, and if ONE was taking from the trillion Life wouldn't have been created. How can materialist scientists NOT mention God when these odds are stacked against them?

Who knows how many times universes have been created without Life? There could be trillions of universes (multiverses?) before ours, none with life. Anyhow, from what I remember at university self-organised criticality explains basically that if life can happen, it will.

They choose not to believe (yes BELIEF people) in God, see the people have been brainwashed so much that they think all this stuff is already proven fact, when it is far, and I mean FAR from that.

I'm not sure about "proven fact", but it's currently our best theory as to why we are the way we are.

Lillymon , those links were really interesting. Thanks for posting them!