Is evolution invalid or untrue because it is a Theory?

[McCulloch]

Matt Stopera from BuzzFeed asked 22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to write a message/question/note to the other side. Heres what they wrote. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages ... lutio?bffb

If Evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is evolution taught as fact?

Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

Is evolution invalid or untrue because it is a Theory?

[Ooberman]

You have to live at least 5 centuries to see even the smallest changes in a species.

Doesn't Me's realize he has admitted Evolution happens? If it takes 500 years to see a change in a species, then 500 million years would mean 1 million changes.

But, of course, Me's probably doesn't realize that different species have different rates of change...

[Clownboat]

You have to live at least 5 centuries to see even the smallest changes in a species.

Doesn't Me's realize he has admitted Evolution happens? If it takes 500 years to see a change in a species, then 500 million years would mean 1 million changes.

But, of course, Me's probably doesn't realize that different species have different rates of change...

Good point. I would assume Me's is required to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. If he believed it could be millions/billions, then it would seem he admits evolution happens per his 5 century admission.

If 500 years = small change, then 5 million would equal large changes. Next consider 50 million...

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Clownboat]

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law of nature, entirely predictable (and measurable).

This is rich. Our resident "science denier" is going to accept gravitation because he can measure and predict it - and, then tell us God exists.


When were you going to measure and predict what God does, Me's?

(BTW, Evolution is every bit as predictable. Please read a science paper. At this point, I'm suspecting you are trying to proudly display your ignorance.)

Moderator Warning

Hi Ooberman

Please don't label others on the forum with perjoratives.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

You have to live at least 5 centuries to see even the smallest changes in a species.

Doesn't Me's realize he has admitted Evolution happens? If it takes 500 years to see a change in a species, then 500 million years would mean 1 million changes.

But, of course, Me's probably doesn't realize that different species have different rates of change...

Good point. I would assume Me's is required to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. If he believed it could be millions/billions, then it would seem he admits evolution happens per his 5 century admission.

If 500 years = small change, then 5 million would equal large changes. Next consider 50 million...

How old would you guess the world is Me's and can you comment on the observations in bold above?

[eman]

[Replying to post 6 by McCulloch]

They may not be thought of as theories today but just as you point out mans continual observation of the material energy is constantly bringing him to differing conclusions from one generation to the next. Mans ability to comprehend absolute truth is limited by his own restricted senses, which are all subject to mistakes. What we believe or hold as absolute truth today may not in the near future be held as truth at all. Our limited senses give us very little means by which to observe past or even present. 5 people witnessing a traffic accident will give us 5 different views of observation, each of which could or may not be true. Their own perspective is but a small part of the entirety of the picture, the same for physical science. The kind of metaphysical science I hold to is of an entirely different nature. Accepting that I do not know, I take knowledge from another more advanced than I who has in fact seen the truth. Science does the same but students of it will not admit it. However it is quite questionable as to whether the scientist have actually seen the absolute truth about anything, even though they generally rather think of themselves as all knowing. To see a few forms of bacteria change forms in a chemistry lab is hardly in my mind enough to make the claim that evolution is a fact of life. Please!

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by McCulloch]

They may not be thought of as theories today but just as you point out mans continual observation of the material energy is constantly bringing him to differing conclusions from one generation to the next. Mans ability to comprehend absolute truth is limited by his own restricted senses, which are all subject to mistakes. What we believe or hold as absolute truth today may not in the near future be held as truth at all. Our limited senses give us very little means by which to observe past or even present. 5 people witnessing a traffic accident will give us 5 different views of observation, each of which could or may not be true. Their own perspective is but a small part of the entirety of the picture, the same for physical science. The kind of metaphysical science I hold to is of an entirely different nature. Accepting that I do not know, I take knowledge from another more advanced than I who has in fact seen the truth. Science does the same but students of it will not admit it. However it is quite questionable as to whether the scientist have actually seen the absolute truth about anything, even though they generally rather think of themselves as all knowing. To see a few forms of bacteria change forms in a chemistry lab is hardly in my mind enough to make the claim that evolution is a fact of life. Please!

I have highlighted many blanket statements and assumptions you have made here. Please continue reading as I will illustrate a misunderstanding.

Scientists don't claim to be all knowing. That is contrary to the nature of science which is based on the principle of not knowing; this is what drives scientific exploration. To claim that scientists think they are all knowing is a rather pejorative label.

Don't assume your "metaphysical science" is in fact science. It is just metaphysical studies to claim it as science you would have to apply the scientific method which frankly you are not because of the following presupposition.

That supposition is that you get knowledge from one who does know the truth of all reality. One you are assuming you are actually talking to something and not yourself. Two you are assuming that even if what you are talking to does indeed exist that it is telling you the truth. Three you are assuming that it indeed does observe all things and will give that knowledge to you. None of which you could possibly prove as true.


Now onto the highlighted blue.

It is not just watching single celled organisms go into multi cellular organisms that lead scientists to declare the theory of evolution as a fact. It is the multiple different disciplines confirming the different theories.

1 DNA confirms it
2 Speciation confirms it
3. Fossil record confirms it.
4. we see evolution occur right in front of us everyday.

Did you know that there are bacteria that have adapted to breakdown radioactive isotopes? Did you know there are life forms that can replace phosphorus with arsenic in their cells?

Evolution is a fact and that fact does not change the existence of whether or not a god exists. You share the same building blocks as a fungus You are related to a tree you and a fish share a common ancestor hundreds of millions of years ago.

The human genome project alone should be all the evidence you need to confirm evolution.

[eman]

[Replying to post 2 by The Me's]

You say evolution is not being taught as a "fact" but it most certainly is. The result of this is you have students coming out of colleges (sponge brains) who never question the validity of the theorie(s) of evolution and if they do they are many times either not allowed to teach their learned perspectives nor take part in any college functions including but not limited to teaching, giving lectures, or even suggesting the possibility of there being some type of intelligence in the makeup of life itself. By their acts they prove of themselves that yes there is no real "intelligence" in their own makeup but that doesn't dissclude the rest of us from having some "intelligence" in our makeup.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 2 by The Me's]

You say evolution is not being taught as a "fact" but it most certainly is. The result of this is you have students coming out of colleges (sponge brains) who never question the validity of the theorie(s) of evolution and if they do they are many times either not allowed to teach their learned perspectives nor take part in any college functions including but not limited to teaching, giving lectures, or even suggesting the possibility of there being some type of intelligence in the makeup of life itself. By their acts they prove of themselves that yes there is no real "intelligence" in their own makeup but that doesn't dissclude the rest of us from having some "intelligence" in our makeup.

Couldn't it simply be that rational people use their intelligence and understand that what they are taught is logical, rational and makes sense? Schools can't teach that some "intelligence" is an alternative to evolution for the same reason they can't teach that Thor the Thundergod is an alternative to meteorology or that Poseidon is an alternative to seismology.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 27 by eman]

Look the reason why creationists can't teach creation as "science" is because it is not "science" it does not follow the scientific method. If you could somehow prove scientifically that Intelligent design were true you would get the nobel prize.

Seriously make a list of why intelligent design creation whatever you want to call it is true. Give me one experiment that is repeatable that demonstrates this.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 2 by The Me's]

You say evolution is not being taught as a "fact" but it most certainly is. The result of this is you have students coming out of colleges (sponge brains) who never question the validity of the theorie(s) of evolution and if they do they are many times either not allowed to teach their learned perspectives nor take part in any college functions including but not limited to teaching, giving lectures, or even suggesting the possibility of there being some type of intelligence in the makeup of life itself. By their acts they prove of themselves that yes there is no real "intelligence" in their own makeup but that doesn't dissclude the rest of us from having some "intelligence" in our makeup.

Well, there are two things. One is the FACT of evolution.. that each generation is slightly different than the previous one. That is 'modification'. You have a bunch of mutations that your parents don't have. That is the 'change of the frequency of alleles over time'.. or 'descent with modification'. That's a fact.

Then there is the theory of evolution, which is a model that explain the fact, and what happens over a longer period of time. Just like Gravity is a fact. You take a brick, and drop it on your foot, it will hurt. Then, you have theory of Generial relativity that explain how gravity works.


So, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution models the reasons and consequences of that fact.