Evolutionist ...?

Question

is not being able to 'disprove', prof in its self?
If so why is the THEORY evolution pursued and defended as LAW! It sounds almost as suppositions to prove suppositions, and all based on circumstantial evidence. As if the argument existed before the facts. Should it not be the opposite?

Mario, which creation theory in particular? There are multiple!

LabGrrl, in my experience not only is it treated as such, but even as a religion at times, but some!

Honest.... you have this lab data accessible, have done the research for your self, or you just take it for granted like the rest of the 'educated'.

Dream, when they stop generalizing 'Christians', then I will stop generalizing scientific houses.

Levi, don't presume to tell me what I understand and what I don't, from a little question. I know more about theories that you can possibly guess, because you don't know me!!!
But my question still stands. Theory = hypothesis (educated guess) that has not been proven wrong (trying to be as simple in my definition as I can). Does this constitute prof? And my friend, there are natural LAWS and they have been proven!

Dreamstuff, you sound like a preacher. “if you don't believe, the love of the father is not in you”

I want everyone to note the general 'pharisee' disposition of the evolution supporters in here! Note because I question (mind you) evolution, I have no intelligence or capacity for serious thought, Darwin forbid I could have an opinion on science. Now here is a example of scientific thinking at its best. I wonder how on earth they keep objective in there endeavors.

Now, I had the same argument with some Religious inclined individuals, and in defense they did not answer my question, which was strait forward, but proceeded to tell me how unintelligent I was to question the general belief of their deity. It is almost amazing that I find my self in a forum of pro-calmed scientist, not addressing what I asked, but just defending a theory by telling me how 'stupid' and naive I am. Funny how similar, but I think you already answered my question just by doing what you are doing? My question was addressing your general attitude toward the theory, not the theory its self! I will not return the favor and tell you all to learn how to r....

D. D. Chen, thank your answer and for your Candor. Sinceraly.

Answer 1

Because at the end of the day this is a political fight.

Somewhere off to the side - you have your philosophers, postmodernists, pragmatists, utilitarians, theologians, and scientists who prefer to see evolution as a theoretical model that deserves to be stamped with the words, "True...until contradictory evidence tears it apart."

They have a keen understanding that scientific theories are not set in stone - but until then we believe in such things because of its coherency and ability to structure empirical phenomena.

Then you have the people who just don't care. And they are probably the largest group of all.

And finally you have the Fanatic Group - Ye Rabid Atheist or Fundamentalist attempting to use Science in order undermine each other's positions of what should really be considered a philosophical question.

The Rabid Atheist scores point on the Fundamentalist position because Category 2 (People Who Don't Care) are neutralized because they don't care and Category 1 are willing to acede to Evolution as Truth until proven otherwise...(Well, except maybe the Postmodernists).

IE: The Rabid Atheist can appeal to more people in terms of arguments.

The Fundamentalist cannot make common cause with his fellow Theists in Category 1 because there exists a divide based on Interpretation. In fact, Category 1 Theists are more likely to make common cause with their different subcategories or even Atheists. Association is structured around tolerance and ideas - something which both the Stereotypical Fundamentalist and Rabid Atheist cannot do well.

Since the Fundamentalist is attempting to save a very specific conception of God from criticism, the person must construct an internally logical physical/metaphysical system.

However, for someone else to accept the argument requires them to agree with the argument's foundational principles.

This is the reason why Creationism and Intelligent Design are very hard for people to believe in when they lack that particular religious background. They deny the premises are correct.

Answer 2

Look up what a SCIENTIFIC theory such as Evolution by Natural Selection is (hint: it is NOT a hypothesis and doesn't become a law, it EXPLAINS. Laws are some of the building blocks of Theories). It should take you 2 minutes.

Evolution is supported by massive massive evidence, makes countless testable predictions that have proved correct, and IS falsifiable (if such evidence existed).

Any reasonable person who looks at all the evidence would have to conclude that the odds that evolution hasn't occurred are 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion etc.

The fact that you are purposefully ignorant of it all (just as you are purposefully ignorant of the very basics of science re: hypotheses, theories and laws) changes absolutely nothing.

Answer 3

Oh, man.


When you say "horses descended from eohippus", what useful information have you revealed? Uh, nothing. YOu're saying something came from something that it is not.

But counter-point: If you know and believe in electricity, that it works and that it's usable science, then there is no way you can defend the belief that the world is only 5,000 years old. It's all about moving electrons.

So, don't ask your religion to validate my science, and I won't ask my science to validate your religion. Evolution is a useless thing to argue about anyway. The whole point of Darwin wasn't "Evolution" it was "Adaptation". Adaptation is a biological process that can reveal new things about the world if we understand it. Instead, the uniformed rally around the word "evolution". We expect our children to learn while the adults are throwing torches at each other.

This argument is over 100 years old and you won't advance it any further on yahoo answers, sorry. DROP IT. Cripes.

Answer 4

There is a rather huge mountain of circumstantial evidence (facts), from such convergent disciplines as island biogeography, paleontology, comparative morphology, developmental biology, population genetics, immunology, ecology, etc., that not one biological scientist seriously doubts the truth of evolution, but just in case anyone else still does, the recent findings from the field of molecular genetics has been called the absolute forensic proof of evolution (the virtual smoking gun).

By the way, the theory of evolution, like most scientific theories was originally based on facts (read the book Origin of Species, published in 1859, the theory was drawn from many, many facts). We just have so many more facts now that can only be explained by evolution (and not one "fact" of biological evidence that yet disproves it (no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian, for instance).

Answer 5

You don't understand what a scientific theory is.

In fact there are no more 'laws' in science - though the old ones are allowed to maintain their title.

A theory is one that explains all the evidence and despite concerted, consistent efforts has NEVER ever - ONCE been proven wrong in a single example - if it was it would not be a theory, it would be a failed hypothesis.

Now consider how many creationists have been trying to find evidence against it - for over 140 years? Checkmate, I reckon.

Answer 6

Your assumptions are wrong.

The evidence existed before the argument.

The theory was developed from the observed facts, and made testable predictions.

In the core concept all subsequent facts have supported the ToE. There has been, and probably will be more refinement in the fine detail.

Gravity is 'only a theory' too.

Answer 7

You need to look up the way science uses theory and law because no amount of evidence can move one to the other.

Since you are stuck on the word theory, perhaps you would care to explain how creationism matches the Law of Fossil Succession: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

See fossils are sorted in the geology simple below more complex and more like modern animals and plants. It establishes the relative order that life appeared on Earth.There is no arguing this fact. It is just the way it is. Any theory has to fit into it. So why don't you explain that to me? My email is open.

Answer 8

is not being able to 'disprove', prof in its self?

No, that's why people who say "you can't disprove it" get no respect from us,

If so why is the THEORY evolution pursued and defended as LAW!

You don't know what theories, Hypothesies, laws and facts are , do you?

It sounds almost as suppositions to prove suppositions, and all based on circumstantial evidence. As if the argument existed before the facts. Should it not be the opposite?

What?

Answer 9

Inability to disprove, repeatedly, is only enough to establish a theory. Mechanistic determinations in molecular genetics are not circumstantial. Direct observations of evolution are not circumstantial. Some facts preceded the arguments, and some were discovered in systematic searches in order to test the hypothesis by disproof.

Answer 10

it is not proof in itself but you are right when you say that the religion of evolution is pursued as law. after all the definition of religion as found in the dictionary is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." or defined as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion a fighting cause." that is what an evolutionist isn't it. hope i helped.