I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[chair]

You can start by not asserting your theory as fact. :thumb:

The Theory of Evolution has not been presented as a fact by anybody here. It has been presented as a Scientific Theory. To remind you:

For those who are confused and a bit lazy, here's part of the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Theory:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.​

There are the observed facts of evolution. Things like fossils, genetic evidence and the like, which have been presented here repeatedly and very carefully. They are not the theory.

 

[Stripe]

The Theory of Evolution has not been presented as a fact.

Right here:

There are the observed facts of evolution.

Nope. It's just a theory.

 

[chair]

Right here:


Nope. It's just a theory.

"just a theory" is what uneducated people say about scientific theories. You can fix that by learning a little about science. No need to repeatedly display your ignorance- just read up on the topic.

And there are observed facts, Like it or not. The fossil record shows that there once were trilobites and no mammals, while today there are mammals but no trilobites. That is a fact (even if you don't agree on the dating).

Evolution doesn't need anybody to "believe in it". It just is. As Terry Pratchett puts it in Small Gods:

"Sir, surely only things that exist are worth believing in?" said the enquirer, who was wearing a uniform of a sergeant of the Holy Guard.
"If they exist, you don't have to believe in them," said Didactylos. "They just are."​

 

[Right Divider]

"just a theory" is what uneducated people say about scientific theories.

Actually, it's what intelligent people say to other people that try to push "the fact of evolution (i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor)".

 

[chair]

Actually, it's what intelligent people say to other people that try to push "the fact of evolution (i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor)".

Again, you are presenting something "i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor" that isn't the actual theory of evolution, but rather a conclusion one can reach from the theory.

The problem some here have with the theory of evolution has much more to do with religion than with science. "common descent from a single common ancestor" doesn't fit well with a literal reading of Genesis- which is why some like to emphasize it.

 

[Stripe]

"just a theory" is what uneducated people say about scientific theories. You can fix that by learning a little about science. No need to repeatedly display your ignorance- just read up on the topic.

Typical Darwinist: Asserts his ideas as fact, then pretends it is the other guy who has made a mistake when his error is shown.

Evolution is not a fact. It's just a theory.

When you're willing to submit to the scientific process, a sensible discussion will be possible.

 

[Stripe]

You are presenting something "i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor" that isn't the actual theory of evolution, but rather a conclusion one can reach from the theory.

You need to learn to deal with the challenge you face, not invent a challenge you are comfortable with. We argue against the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. If that is not what you believe, stay out of the conversation. If you think it's unfair to call that idea evolution, again, stay out of the conversation. :up:

The problem some here have with the theory of evolution has much more to do with religion than with science. "common descent from a single common ancestor" doesn't fit well with a literal reading of Genesis- which is why some like to emphasize it.

Evidence, remember?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And there are observed facts, Like it or not. The fossil record shows that there once were trilobites and no mammals,

False.

Here's a mammal fossil.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-mammal-species-fossil-utah-pangea/654547002/

:think:

while today there are mammals but no trilobites.

:idunno:

That is a fact (even if you don't agree on the dating).

Evolution doesn't need anybody to "believe in it". It just is. As Terry Pratchett puts it in Small Gods:

"Sir, surely only things that exist are worth believing in?" said the enquirer, who was wearing a uniform of a sergeant of the Holy Guard.
"If they exist, you don't have to believe in them," said Didactylos. "They just are."​

:AMR:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here's a simple guide to terms. Not strictly definitions, but a guide to how to conduct yourselves in a rational discussion.

Hypothesis: An idea.
Theory: An idea that has not been rejected. Essentially a glorified theory.
Fact: Things both sides agree to.
Law: Unprovable, but nonetheless essential rules.

Did you mean "Essentially a glorified Hypothesis"?

 

[chair]

False.

Here's a mammal fossil.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-mammal-species-fossil-utah-pangea/654547002/

:think:



:idunno:



:AMR:

Trilobites were extinct long before those early mamaals appeared on the scene.

 

[genuineoriginal]

For those who are confused and a bit lazy, here's part of the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Theory:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.​

Yep, just like I said:

Scientific theories are scientific hypotheses that have been approved by consensus.

Some scientific theories are tested, but for the most part they are just approved by consensus and then taught as fact.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Trilobites were extinct long before those early mamaals appeared on the scene.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And the evidence suggests that all of the fossilized creatures died within a year of each other in a global flood.

 

[chair]

Yep, just like I said:

Some scientific theories are tested, but for the most part they are just approved by consensus and then taught as fact.

You have an interesting way of misreading plain English. It says
"in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid"
it does NOT say
"for the most part they are just approved by consensus and then taught as fact"

You do your cause harm by this kind of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"just a theory" is what uneducated people say about scientific theories.

"just a theory" is what rational people say about scientific theories.
To say otherwise is to claim science is based on consensus.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton

​

The fossil record shows that there once were trilobites and no mammals, That is a fact.

The fossil record does not show that there once were trilobites and no mammals.
The fact is that there are rock layers that contain fossils of trilobites without any fossils of mammals being found in the same rock layer.
Your interpretation is that the reason no mammal fossils were found in the same rock layer is because there were no mammals anywhere on earth when the trilobites were buried in the sediment that they fossilized in.

Please learn the difference between a fact and an interpretation.

 

[chair]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And the evidence suggests that all of the fossilized creatures died within a year of each other in a global flood.

yes, I've heard that claim. It is a rather odd one, considering on how the different fossils appear in different layers- and those layers have been dated to different periods.

The conversation at this point usually goes to a few creationist site references, a lack of real scientific sources, then a complaint that the scientific community has a conspiracy to hide the Truth. Is that where we are headed?

 

[Stripe]

yes, I've heard that claim. It is a rather odd one, considering on how the different fossils appear in different layers- and those layers have been dated to different periods.

The conversation at this point usually goes to a few creationist site references, a lack of real scientific sources, then a complaint that the scientific community has a conspiracy to hide the Truth. Is that where we are headed?

Asserting the truth of your idea is no way to engage in a discussion over evidence.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Again, you are presenting something "i.e., common descent from a single common ancestor" that isn't the actual theory of evolution

Nice try, but no cigar.

"common descent from a single common ancestor" is what is presented as the theory of evolution to children, so it is what we all understand is meant when anyone talks about "evolution".

What is Evolution? Evolution says that all living things are related. This means that if will go back far enough in time, all animals, all plants and every other living thing, had one ancestor. Evolution led to that one species becoming many more until today when we have millions and millions.

​

 

[chair]

Nice try, but no cigar.

"common descent from a single common ancestor" is what is presented as the theory of evolution to children, so it is what we all understand is meant when anyone talks about "evolution".

What is Evolution? Evolution says that all living things are related. This means that if will go back far enough in time, all animals, all plants and every other living thing, had one ancestor. Evolution led to that one species becoming many more until today when we have millions and millions.

​

Ah, if you want to have a discussion about what it says in some site for kids, be my guest.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then stop running away from the topic.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You have an interesting way of misreading plain English. It says
"in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid"
it does NOT say
"for the most part they are just approved by consensus and then taught as fact"

When an explanation is not falsifiable, it has not been tested.

Karl Popper...saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.

​

Is the theory of evolution falsifiable?

Maybe your complaint is that I stated that scientific theories become theories because of consensus?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution, climate change, or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.

​

 

[Stripe]

When push comes to shove, Darwinists define evolution as "change." Utterly unfalsifiable nonsense.

Why does it take a creationist to describe what they believe and adhere to it?