When people speak of the 'fact of evolution'...?

Question

are they not referring to such things as the observed changes in populations of organisms over time? And are not such changes referred to as microevolution, which as far as I understand do not in any way contradict the creationist view that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and began the human race through Adam and Eve....but is there an aspect of what is referred to as the 'fact of evolution' (not the overall theory of evolution) that contradicts the general creationist viewpoint (or a Biblical description of Creation)? If so, what?

Answer 1

When people assume that evolution is a fact they are mislead. The main reason that the theory of evolution is seen as a fact is the result of a one-sided effort of the media to „educate“ the public and suggesting that science has shown that evolution is true without any doubt and that those still resisting to believe it and believing in creation by God are either stupid, ignorant or uneducated.

Just look at the facts:

a)More than 60% of the US population do not believe in evolution from „simple“ life forms to „higher“ or „complex“ animals.

b)If macro evolution would have solid evidence then it would not be rejected by so many people

c)Naturalistic start of life and macro-evolution by coincidence over millions of years is a belief system – in the same way as the theory of creation is a belief system. The difference is only that it is based on the pseudo religion of „scientific atheism“.

d)The „facts“ or „evidence“ that some scientists base their claim on that evolution is s fact, are only interpretations of findings on preconceived ideas:

e)Dating of geologic layers, guesswork when assembling fossilized bones, „calibrating“ nuclear isotope decay clocks with assumptions of so many parameters of an assumed environment many millions of years ago, so the observed result fit or „prove“ the preconceived idea.

f)There is overwhelming evidence in science results of recent DNA and genetic research that shows the wealth of information, coding, copying, repairing, decoding and adaptation being programmed into all forms of life. The scientific branch of information science has shown that no useful information can be generated by random noise. No useful information can be transmitted from transmitter to receiver without a previously agreed set of encoding – code transmission – code reception – decoding. Information is neither matter nor energy and can not be generated by matter and energy. Those established facts are undeniable evidence against spontaneous creation of life or spontaneous “upward evolution” across the boundaries of families of living beings.

g)Humbly declaring that macro evolution is a weak theory, and only a model that tries to accommodate the observable facts into an atheistic belief system would be a step forward in science – because it would allow to interpret observable facts with a multitude of background – not only with the “pseudo-religious” atheistic one.

Answer 2

Good question. There is a lot of evidence to support evolution, but that doesn't mean that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. I feel like there is a war being waged between religious minded people and scientifically minded people, and there are a few people in between, like me, that can see the battle from both points of view, but would rather stay out.
Scientifically, I can appreciate the beauty of the scientific method, and the need for solid evidence in order to form conclusions. I feel that religious people often discount the brilliant individuals that have contributed so much to the field of knowledge. Looking back at history, it's appalling how much damage was done to the progress of technology by the uneducated masses in the name of religion.
On the other hand, it’s surprising that so many scientists discount all but one method to find truth. There is a vast amount of historical evidence and testimony to support religious beliefs, but you will never hear them quoted by scientists. The area that most scientists are lacking is that some knowledge can’t be shared. It must be learned through diligently seeking and through personal experiences. The Bible teaches that a wicked generation seeks a sign and it shall not be given. That’s not because a righteous generation doesn’t need a sign, but the evidence comes to those that diligently seek for righteousness.

Answer 3

Well, you may not be able to use evolution to disprove creationism. But, it's not because evolution didn't happen. It's because creationism is a faith based belief.

To me it seems far more likely that evolution took place than the biblical creationism scenario.

How do you explain there being millions of species of animals? The majority are not mentioned in the Bible. Seems to me that the people writing it didn't know those species existed. What about dinosaurs? Where do they fit into the bible or creationism?

Answer 4

There is not one fact supporting macro evolution (the belief that one species of being changes into another).Science and religion are at odds only with the natural/materialist atheist because they refuse to understand, or at least to accept, the truth. That is that natural phenomena do not require a naturalistic origin or explanation. There is no such requirement in scientific thought. Originally the most brilliant scientific minds understood this truth and willingly accepted it. Those that then require that the earth, life, and the entire cosmos have a naturalist origin are then going to be pitted against the religious who say that these things cannot be explained naturally. Even though there is no testability in the assumptions of macro evolution nor the "big bang" theory, the naturalistic/materialist mindset clings to it faithfully.

edit: People are fallible; God is not. Not one thing in the Bible can be proved to be scientifically inaccurate. Those "religious" people that ignored good science are indeed only people and can make mistakes. Much of what is the basis of scientific advances today can be attributed to scientists that were believers, not non-believers.

Answer 5

Evolutionary biologists do not use the term, " microevolution. " There is evolution, the change in allele frequency in populations over time, the fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains this fact and gives the mechanism for it. The creationist explanation for anything is incoherent on the face of it. It does not need the theory of evolution to refute, as it is myth. Geology alone destroys creationist myth. Go here and learn

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 6

Several of these answers confuse the fact of evolution and the "theory of evolution".

There is a fact of gravity and there have been theories of gravity, there is a fact of combustion and there have been theories of combustion. There is a fact of evolution and there have been theories of evolution. Whether the theories are correct , incorrect or whether they exist at all is of no importance to the facts. They exist independently of any theories.

Evolution as a fact was noticed in the 18th century, decades before Charles Darwin was born. It became clear that something of the kind was going on after Linnaeus published his system of classification. Grandfather Erasmus Darwin suggested that evolution proceeded by inheritance of acquired characteristics. That idea was more clearly expressed by a French natural philosopher called Lamarck around the same time or a little later.

"Microevolution" is a term invented by some creationists because they cannot deny that evolution has been observed in the wild. But there is no ACTUAL distinction between "microevolution" and any other "form of evolution".

There is absolutely no truth in the assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old. While this figure was calculated by Bishop Ussher and printed in the King James Bible, Orthodox Christian and some Jewish scholars calculate ages varying by thousands of years from the same documentary material. Considering that the ages given for the Patriarchs are very clear, this variation between one set of scholars and another is remarkable.

In several calculations, including that of Ussher, it is clear that Noah's flood must have happened a century or more after the three great pyramids at Gizeh were built, but there is no indication of the extinction of Egyptian civilisation. The dates of these pyramids can be calculated to within about 40 years from a list of kings originally compiled by the Egyptian priest Manetho more than 2000 years ago and subsequently found to be accurate. There are other methods that support the king list estimate.

The age of the Earth has been estimated, even in the 19th century as being at least hundreds of millions of years. More recently dating using several different radioactive isotopes (none of them being carbon 14) on multiple samples from several sites in three or four continents shows that very old rocks near the surface of the Earth have ages of 3.5 thousand million years or more. In Australia, some of these old rocks have been found to contain zircon crystals which are more than 4000 million years old. Moon rocks and meteorites show ages of 4500 million years. The present estimate is 4.54 thousand million with an uncertainty of about 140 million years. Thats about a 3% error, rather less that the 40% or so in differences between the Biblical ages calculated by Ussher, Jewish scholars and the Orthodox Church.

Answer 7

Please provide references to the information you have. the·o·ry noun ?th?-?-r?, ?thir-? pluralthe·o·ries Definition of thought a million : the prognosis of a sequence of information of their relation to a minimum of one yet another 2 : precis thought : hypothesis 3 : the final or precis innovations of a physique of actuality, a technological know-how, or an artwork 4 a: a theory, coverage, or technique proposed or observed with the aid of fact the muse of action b: an appropriate or hypothetical set of information, innovations, or circumstances —popular interior the word in thought 5 : a attainable or scientifically perfect standard concept or physique of innovations presented to describe phenomena 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or study b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a physique of theorems providing a concise systematic view of a project

Answer 8

First off..I don't know anyone who calls it the "Fact" of evolution...It's the "theory" of evolution. Y'all got to understand what a theory is and look at your understanding of "fact" in general.
A theory is a set of asumptions that explains the mechanics of how things work.. Good theory's have many "facts" ,proven and/or observable evidence that support their assumptions.The previous ansew refers to historicle evidence that scientist refuse to acknowledge supporting the creationists. Historicle evidnece is not good enough because often it is just some one's word written on paper. In court they call that hearsy or circumstantial evidence and it does not weigh as much as concrete evedence. like an actual dead body. The facts scientists are interested in must be provable on the spot' not just because so an so said that some one tole him that some one saw...You get the picture.
Bad theorys have few or even no "facts" to support their assumtions. The "Theory of Evolution" is a good theory with many proven "facts tosupportit'sasumptions.The "Creationist Theory" is a very bad theory as about the only fact it has going for it is the Bible says it's so..
Now, if you believe in the bible word for word, I guess that is enough, but most rational people will look at the two side by side and see that their is really NO Contest. Evolution wins hands down.
You could weave the Theory of Evolution into a kind of creationist point of veiw by saying something like god created the mechanics to make evolution work, but that 6000 year time line ABSOLUTLY will not work for evolution. Imposible to meld the two together using that time line. As some one else pointed out..Their is just way too much evidnece/facts to discredit the 6000 years. The facts contradict that. Take that out and I could live with some version of that. I would'nt believe it nor would I alow it to be taught in Public schools. But you can have it with out and argument from me.

Answer 9

The term fact is generally not used to describe to overarching process, but demonstrable components. Micro-evolution describes shifts in allelic distribution, but since de novo mutations have been observed, evolution beyond micro-evolution has been observed. Since humans are more closely related to chimps genetically than chimps are related to orangutans, Biblical Creationism has no validity.

Answer 10

The evidence is so overwhelming that it is not needed to call it any thing else. People try to discredit evolution and it keeps getting reinforced.