evolution???????

Question

so many people on here on R and S that evolution is fact. Well wikipedia still says its a theory, World Book edition 2004 says theory and the only thing that seems to say it is accepted as fact are scientist that say it is fact like gravity is. "It can't be disproven so it must be true." Sounds like evolution is the Atheists God. No one can disprove it so it must be real. it is a disambigous concept and that is fact

you people posting links are proving my point. just like the Christian you post biased web sites to show your point of view. notice I did not just quote wikipedia I also posted World Book. thats two encyclopedia. How many more do you think say the same thing.

well I also took two years of biology. ehat is your point. I know exactly what scientific theory is. Oh I have no religion. So What does the bible have to do with it.

Answer 1

I think people on both sides of the debate have some misconceptions about what the scientific method can and can't do.

What it can't do is prove anything. Gravity, Newton's Laws, Relativity, the standard model of cosmology (big bang), evolution by natural selection as the origin of species, and just about any other scientific theory you could name are not proven. Proof is for mathematicians. This is why that Hovind guy's challenge is so ridiculous. The best answer to it came in the form of a counterchallenge to prove that the universe is not the creation of a flying spaghetti monster.

So what can science do? We create theories and models that explain the available evidence. If lots of evidence supports them, we may start to call them "proven" or "fact", but they will always just be models and theories, however useful and longstanding they are. Eventually, even the best models get modified or superceded (like Newton's did by quantum mechanics and relativity). By this measure, evolution by natural selection is on extremely strong evidentiary ground. It is not the subject of any serious debate in the scientific community (some of the details are perhaps, but not the overall concept). There is no credible competing theory. None of the intelligent design arguments carry any weight whatsoever.

Answer 2

Get off your high horse and drink your milk.
Here are some facts for you:
Atheism does not necessarily connect with evolution. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a god. No more than that. To suggest that "evolution is the atheists' god" is infantile at best. That stupidity hardly warrants a serious response.
To automatically connect atheism with evolution or the big bang is folly.
Having said that, atheists usually do subscribe to scientific theory and there is nothing wrong with 'theory'. Space travel was a theory at one time. Now it is fact.
The theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution makes MUCH more sense than the blind belief in there being an imaginary friend, invisible and magical. God is not fact or even a believable theory. God is imaginary, fabricated by man as have been all the previous gods and goddesses. What is so difficult to accept about that 'fact'?

Answer 3

You really need to educate yourself. Your comment is clearly a very uneducated one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


Edit:

You don't know what you're talking about. You make claims but they don't stand to reason. I posit that you really haven't looked closely at Evolution cause if you did you'd know it was factual, since the facts are there for anyone to see. It's doesn't matter what "World Book edition 2004" says. They are just as ignorant and biased as religious people are by not actually taking the word of SCIENTIST, which must be what their doing because scientists are saying something other than what you're saying. Here's the problem. There's too much "I don't want to offend the religious people" going on in the world over Evolution and it is impairing scientists teaching of Evolution to the general public. One would think an encyclopedia would be immune to that, but it isn't. Just as the dictionary isn't immune to such things. Did you know that several dictionaries often carry synonyms with the words? Guess what many dictionaries say a synonym for "atheist" is. "Wicked". Why would it say that? Because, and I think it's Websters that does it, was originally written by a very biased Christian. This is the perfect example of how religious people get their own biased opinions on matters put into books, and you're falling for another one I have no doubt.

Evolution is FACT. Get used to it.

Answer 4

Not again.

Look... a scientific theory is NOT a guess. It isn't.

Think of it like musical theory. Music isn't a guess, is it?

In science, a scientific theory is the body of factual work pertaining to the subject.

I spent 2 years in biology in University. I KNOW what the word theory means.

By all the gods that may or may not exist AT LEAST GET THE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" RIGHT EVEN IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ELSE.

You cannot type the word "theory" into a search engine and get the correct definition when it applies to science. In science, you MUST type the words scientific theory.

Its like talking to a brick wall. You should be more intelligent than this.

Answer 5

In science, the word "theory" is not used as Creationists use it. "JUST" a theory. Creationists distort the definition of "Scientific theory" to suit their purposes. Evolution is not "just" a theory. It IS a theory. As used in science, the definition of "theory" is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory MUST be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.) A fact is something that is supported by unmistakable evidence.

Answer 6

Well there is a huge boby of evidence for it, including transitional fossils. Contrast this with the Bible or other religious book which have limited proof for them, generally only places but significant events such as the flood or exodus appear to be totally missing any proof whatsoever.

Atheists don;t believe in a supreme being of any sort. If evolution was proved wrong, we'd switch to the new theory.

Answer 7

Ignorance is a bliss right? Is gravity a fact? Yes? Then why is it still called the THEORY of relativity? You know why? Because the same way evolution is a fact, a theory must explain that fact.

Answer 8

Paul V....You need to get your facts straight before you post a website with information about Dr. Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer. The author is critiquing Hovind's statements and is stating what is wrong with his offer. So, maybe next time you should read the article all the way through before you try and debunk evolution. Can you read this Paul???

What Is Wrong With the "Offer"?

By every appearance of that opening, all that needs be done is to present some empirical scientific evidence for evolution and collect $250,000. But note the asterisk! It leads to the following footnote:

* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

That sound you hear is the scraping of goal posts being moved. It is true that, in its broadest possible sense, "evolution" can simply mean "change" and has been applied to such non-biological processes as star and planetary formation. Even cultural phenomena such as the metamorphosis of language and the development of political systems have been referred to in "evolutionary" terms. [8] Yet, in the United States today, in light of at least three-quarters of a century of conflict over the issue, "evolution" is almost universally understood, even among Hovind's own flock, it would be fair to say, to refer to "biological evolution" (perhaps, among creationists, with abiogenesis [9] thrown in).

However, Hovind is not simply using the term loosely but, instead, is trying to fashion an entirely new and idiosyncratic definition that links vastly dissimilar processes under a single rubric. He then insists, as will be seen, that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then none of them can be. It is rather like demanding that a political scientist defend the values of the People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea or admit that all "democratic republics" are unworkable tyrannies. Just because many things can go under the umbrella of one broad term does not make everything under the umbrella part and parcel of one unitary idea or process.

Answer 9

No offense, but people like you would go up to Einstein and try to argue with him about relativity. You're way out of your area of understanding, my friend. 'Theory' is a completely different term in science. Relativity, Quantum Physics, etc. are all SCIENTIFIC theories, as is evolution. Take some college-level science classes (that deal with evolution) at an above-average university and, if you get at least a B in them, come back and we'll all talk.

Answer 10

Gravity is an observed fact. It is described scientifically by the General Theory of Relativity (which we happen to know for a fact is flawed).

Evolution is an observed fact. It is described scientifically by the theory of natural selection.