Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Alan]

Of course I do, you said so didn't you? That is why evolution is unquestionably true as well, you said so, didn't you? Silly bible, obviously not true, you said so didn't you? By the way, a circle doesn't have four ends.

Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Compared to God you are a puny person, with a puny mind, thinking and expressing puny thoughts. God's thoughts and actions are not, nor have ever been subject to your or any other puny fallen humans observations. The testimony He has given to His servants and recorded for us in the scriptures is as far above all puny fallen human observation as God Himself is above us.

Do all those speaking of the sun rising and setting today think the world is fat because they use this expression? Of course not. Only a puny agenda driven mind would declare it must be so when bible authors made similar statements.

Sorry you've become triggered and agitated over this discussion but breathe, tomorrow is another day   

[Alan]

You have faith in evolution.  Science calls it a theory.

A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".


https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[Amo]

Sorry you've become triggered and agitated over this discussion but breathe, tomorrow is another day 

I'm breathing just fine. If I hadn't been breathing over this discussion, I'd have been gone about a year and a half ago.

[Amo]

And of course, you aren't.

Not when I am agreeing with that recorded for us by His chosen servants. Apart from this, I'm just as puny as the rest of us.

[Amo]

A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".


https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Considered fact by whom? Those who propagate it of course, never those who reject it. Your theory is no fact at all, but in the minds of those who first formed this intellectual idol, and those who fall easy prey to the same.

[Alan]

Considered fact by whom? Those who propagate it of course, never those who reject it. Your theory is no fact at all, but in the minds of those who first formed this intellectual idol, and those who fall easy prey to the same.

Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.

[Texas Conservative]

A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".


https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

No, a scientific theory is not considered fact.  I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."  "Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation.  I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact.  It is not, however, a fact.  When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."

You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

You believe that evolution is a fact.  It is your faith that guides you to believe it is a fact.

[4WD]

size=10pt]When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."[/size]

Not quite.  Scientific theories cannot be proven true. All that can really be done is to demonstrate that a theory is not true by examination and testing.  That is the process followed in all scientific investigations of a theory.  Once a theory has passed sufficient and significant testing without any negative findings then it is accepted as true.  The theory of current flow in a wire by electrons from a negative charge to the positive, for example, cannot be proven true.  It has never been shown to be otherwise.  And so it is considered to be correct.

[Alan]

You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Yesterday at 20:17:15

You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.

That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?

[Amo]

Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.

I am not the one who denies religious conviction and faith are part of my reasoning, you are. This to the point of repeating a lie so often that you now believe it. You call the assumptions you make according to your misplaced faith, facts, worshiping at the feet of your own chosen idol.

[Amo]

Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.

Please do present these facts not more than a couple at a time to be examined and discussed if you will. Your already know my position, it is written for you by the prophets. Please feel free to express why what is written is impossible or unquestionably wrong.

[Amo]

Charles Lyell and his agenda driven theory.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Charles+Lyell+and+Moses&&view=detail&mid=DE7F6FB1D96B6C9E60C1DE7F6FB1D96B6C9E60C1&&FORM=VRDGAR

[Alan]

I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.


That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?

It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.

[Amo]

It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.

If it actually is, then the "science" and "evidence" for such is being kept secret. In which case, none of it can be trusted when presented as proof. No "science" can be trusted that hides and conceals evidence and experimentation only to be released under the explanation of those who themselves did the hiding. To the contrary, all such cries out DECEPTION!

Are you in on a secret, or just expressing continued faith in the religion of your choice? It seems highly probable that there is much scientific work going on in the polar regions, especially Antartica, which the public is not privy to. Various nations have been conducting research their for decades now, with little revelation concerning the same. If in fact they have been making important finds, they have also been giving themselves plenty of time to attach their own hypothesis and theory to the same before presenting it. One would think that their would be quite a bit of revealing info stored in all that ice.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 09:33:21
Alan:

I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.

Michael:

That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?

It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.

But you are referring to a time yet future which you believe, and that you are certain that it will happen. If you don't consider that to be faith, it does not mean it isn't. My impression is that you have strong faith even, that science and scientists will in a very short time lay the evidence on the table, which in other words means that they will have come to know and explain when and how things came to be, or for Christian scientists, when and how God created all things. Such faith in science and in the scientists you have there.

I want you to consider this:

Isaiah 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

Revelation 21: 1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

What do you say of such creation? Will it be in the next billion years of evolutionary creation process or what?

[The Barbarian]

No, a scientific theory is not considered fact.

A scientific theory is an idea or group of idea which have been repeatedly verified by evidence.    It seems there is often confusion between evolution (which is an observed fact) and evolutionary theory (which is the repeatedly verified theory that explains it).   Sometimes, there's also confusion between the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution, and consequences of evolution such as common descent.   They are three different things.

Evolution is merely a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   

I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."

You seem to be confusing the phenomenon with the theory that explains it.

"Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation.

Not quite.  A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been repeatedly verified by evidence.

 

I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact.  It is not, however, a fact.  When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."

Nothing in science is "proven."   We can only have logical certainty when we have all the rules and can apply them as needed.   In science, we look at the particulars and infer the rules.   It's therefore inductive, not deductive.

But it works.  Works better than anything else we can do to understand the physical universe.

You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

It's directly observed to happen.  Can't be much more of a fact than that.

 

[Amo]

Not quite.  A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been repeatedly verified by evidence.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND THEORY

Fact vs Theory

The terms fact and theory are words with different meanings. Although both are used in many different fields of studies, they still manage to have their own distinct definitions that separate one from the other. One particular field, wherein both terms are commonly used is in Science.

In the scientific world, facts (or scientific facts) are what one can readily observe. It can pertain to any objective and real phenomenon may it be the falling of the ball after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences. In this regard, the fact is that the ball will fall. More so, if this test is being done repeatedly under a controlled environment that cancels all unnecessary variables the phenomenon would have become a very obvious and undeniable fact. It is considered a fact because it will remain as true even after several centuries unless there is a more rigid and precise way of measuring a certain phenomenon.

On the contrary, theories in science are likened to the explanations to what has been observed. It is relatively greater in weight to what a hypothesis is. If a hypothesis (an intelligent guess) is the first base of formulating a scientific law then theories are placed at the second base. These are the statements that are assumed to be true (because they seem so) even if there are no hundred percent concrete evidences. Nevertheless, theories are always presented to be true even if the claims in the said theories are mere speculations or a general agreement between a significant numbers of experts. Moreover, theories are the statements that often undergo a series of tests to nullify the claims maid by those who propose them.

To display the difference between fact and theory, a good example is when a report will state that a certain hurricane killed thousands in a particular state in America yesterday because of the reckless mass evacuation spearheaded by the local officials. In this aspect, the fact is that many were killed by the hurricane while the theory is the reason behind the death of these people. Was it only because of the haphazard evacuation plan or was it also because of the intensity of the hurricane among many other reasons? Hence, facts are really the real deal while theories are still unclear although presumed to be true.

1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.

A hypothesis becomes theory to some, when the evidence is construed to fit their own reasoning concerning the same. There is no proof of evolution, only evidence construed to concoct a theory according to the religious faith of evolutionists. Whose faith is in their own faulty understanding.

[Amo]

It's directly observed to happen.  Can't be much more of a fact than that.

It is not directly observed to happen. The same people who created the theory of evolution according to their own desires, claim that simple change is proof of their self exalted false theory. It is only proof the their twisted perception according to their desire for it to be so. It is their story applied to the evidence before all of us, and many disagree with it.

[Amo]

https://dissentfromdarwin.org

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

[Alan]

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/

Don't know who wrote the article but it is incorrect. A scientific theory is not a second base proposal of phenomenon, it is an observed and tested explanation.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work



 

[Michael2012]

Nothing in science is "proven." 

That's it then.

If nothing in science is "proven", then what does that tell us about science?

[Michael2012]

Quote
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

It's directly observed to happen.  Can't be much more of a fact than that.

Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed? Or can it even be considered observable, for so even while scientists are convinced that such came about for something like what, 6 million years?

[Amo]

Don't know who wrote the article but it is incorrect. A scientific theory is not a second base proposal of phenomenon, it is an observed and tested explanation.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Then evolution is not a theory. Please do present the tests that have proved evolution. Not just change, but the "theory" of evolution.

[Amo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

Antarctica is a de facto condominium, governed by parties to the Antarctic Treaty System that have consulting status. Twelve countries signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, and thirty-eight have signed it since then. The treaty prohibits military activities and mineral mining, prohibits nuclear explosions and nuclear waste disposal, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone. Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4,000 scientists from many nations…………………….

Richard E. Byrd led several voyages to the Antarctic by plane in the 1930s and 1940s. He is credited with implementing mechanised land transport on the continent and conducting extensive geological and biological research.[36] The first women to set foot on Antarctica did so in the 1930s with Caroline Mikkelsen landing on an island of Antarctica in 1935,[37] and Ingrid Christensen stepping onto the mainland in 1937.[38][39][40]

https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Research_stations_in_Antarctica

We've been there a long time now. Government supported scientists from many nations working year round. Every now and then we get some revelations of discovery. We know there were huge tropical forests there in the past, plenty of plant and animal life. There is also a whole lot of speculation and conspiracy theories about many apparent visible anomalies. It doesn't seem as though the year round presence of thousands of scientists from around the world is producing as much info and or scientific data as one would expect. Which begs the question, is such being withheld from the public, or is all that effort not really amounting to much? Not to mention, how much does it cost the tax payers of various nations? Regardless of creation or evolution being the truth, there should certainly be a whole lot of scientific info captured in all that ice. Makes one wonder.

[The Barbarian]

Reply #2596 by Texas Conservative

No, a scientific theory is not considered fact.

Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon.   Evolutionary theory is the theory
That explains it.   It's a theory, because its predictions have been repeatedly verified.   Creationists usually don't mean either of these when they speak of evolution.   Usually, they are speaking of the consequences of evolution, such as common descent.

I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."  "Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation.  I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact.  It is not, however, a fact.  When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."

In the proper sense, no theory is proven.   In science, we don't know the rules, and infer them from the particulars, like you would by learning a card game by watching people play.   Eventually, you'd get pretty good at predicting things, but you could never be absolutely sure you had it all right.

You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes.  Therefore, it is not a "fact."

The phenomenon of evolution is a fact.   The theory is a theory.  The consequences are overwhelmingly documented by many, many predictions that have been verified.

[The Barbarian]

Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?

Yep.   The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two.   The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.

Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed.   We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens.  We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen.

[Michael2012]

Quote
Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?

Yep.   The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two.   The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.

Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed.   We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens.  We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen.

Contradicting isn't it?

The answer is an obvious NO.

You said "Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon."

Evolution, as to the degree that one directly observes it to happen, may well be a fact in that sense. But with regards the evolution of man, which obviously is not and cannot be directly observed, it remains to be not a fact. What it is, is plain guess and make believe. It can't even be considered a theory. What it really is, is just a hypothesis. And I think it will remain to be just that.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcs49gaiUo

Another good one.

[Alan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcs49gaiUo

Another good one.

Opinion means nothing. 

[The Barbarian]

Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?

Barbarian observes:
Yep.   The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two.   The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.

Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed.   We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens.  We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen.    Creationists are willing to accept the evidence for growth of giant redwoods, but are unwilling to accept the much stronger evidence for human evolution.

Contradicting isn't it?

Yes, it is.  But giant redwoods don't contradict the man-made doctrines of YE creationism.  And that makes all the difference for them.

You said "Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon."

Yep.  We see it every day.

Evolution, as to the degree that one directly observes it to happen, may well be a fact in that sense.

Just as some growth of a redwood seedling is a fact in that sense.

But with regards the evolution of man, which obviously is not and cannot be directly observed, it remains to be not a fact.

In the sense that the growth of a seedling into a giant redwood remains to be not a fact.  In each case, the evidence is overwhelming for it, but if you think facts are only things you've directly observed, then there you are.  Again, the difference is that giant redwoods don't contradict your new doctrine men made for you.

What it is, is plain guess and make believe.

As you now realize, it's merely the only reasonable inference from the evidence.  We can confidently admit to the fact of human evolution and the growth of seedlings to giant redwoods, even if we've never observed it.

It can't even be considered a theory.

A theory is an idea or group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by testing.   As you have learned, there are many, many predictions of evolutionary theory that have been later confirmed.   Why not just accept it God's way, and be done with it?




 

[OneFlewOver]

I am going to say this once. And that is that.
If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror... Then your God is not my God.
Try looking at Dr. Job Martin's dvd collections. "Incredible Creatures that defy evolution."
EVOLUTION IS A LIE. It defies science and it is Satanic.

[4WD]

If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror...

What are you talking about?  Partly formed creatures??  Where in evolution is there anything like that?

EVOLUTION IS A LIE. It defies science and it is Satanic.

What science does evolution defy?

[Alan]

If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror... Then your God is not my God.

Not so fast, if YOU believe that YOUR interpretation of scripture is the undeniable truth then it is YOU that is in error; you only believe what you believe because that is what you have been told to believe. No where in scripture is evolution denied.


 

[Texas Conservative]