Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[Revmitchell]

But here's the problem. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too..
If a person reads the Bible, interprets the passages to mean that the earth is young, and evolution never happened, he can certainly find ways to justify that interpretation and then believe it. But such a belief is entirely religious.. Thats NOT "science".
In contrast, if we conduct several centuries of science tests that show that the earth isn't young, & that show evolution does in fact occur, then that person must then make a choice.. Either accept the evidence, and embrace the science...
Or, Reject the evidence, and maintain their belief based on their interpretations of their religious texts..
But what they cannot do is claim the science isn't "proper" just because it shows their religious interpretations are wrong.
It appears that they feel a need to justify their religious beliefs with scientific evidence (apparently because they know that science carries a lot of weight in society), but at the same time they desire to dismiss entire fields of science when it shows that what they believe cannot possibly be true... Which simply isn't going to fly in a scientific discussion.

Science doesnt show. Science is the conducting of experiments and the results are interpreted by those who conducted the experiments. The results are only an interpretation.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Well when we actually have several centuries of such evidence that starts showing the same dating and not all over the map (showing that the "science" is actually unreliable) you let me know.

And here, you're pulling more creationist nonsense from your own rectum.
Geological dating is quite consistent. Its NOT "all over the map".
You'd know this if you read actual GEOLOGY reports rather than parroting drivel from creationist websites

 

[KeyserSoze]

And you also dismiss science that disproves your theories. So here we are.

There is NO "science" that disproves what im saying here. THATS THE POINT..
The ONLY objections to the theory are RELIGIOUS.. NOT Scientific

 

[Revmitchell]

No, you do NOT look at the same evidence i do.. You look at distortiosn of the evidence which is what creationists HAVE to do if they desire to continue to accept concepts like a young planet or the poofing of all life fully formed as it is now 6000 years ago.
As for "what evidence do we have for evolution..? Surely you jest.
We have been digging up fossils of extinct life for centuries.. And what has become obvious to even the most ardent skeptic is that the fossils are buried in a very distinct ORDER.. And that order can ONLY be explained by evolution.
Single celled life arises billions of years in the past, multicellular life doesn't show up in the record for over a billion years later.
Simple fishes don't arise till the cambrian era, amphibians come on the scene around 375 million years ago.. Reptiles around 300 million years ago, and mammals not until around 200 million years ago.. Humans don't come around till the last couple of hundred thousand years (which is very recent geologically). And in between each group, we have transitional fossils showing the changes from one lineage to another.
Now, NOTHING other than evolution can explain this order of fossils and their transitions..
This order is so well established in fact, that it can make very precise predictions as to what fossils WILL be found in certain strata, and what fossils will NEVER be found in certain strata..
It was this very testable process that allowed paleontologists to discover tiktaalik in arctic Canada in 375 million year old deposits.. How do you think they knew not only where to look, but at what geologic depth the fossil would be in.?
Its this precise ability to PREDICT nature that makes evolution so well evidenced.

Now, as for "there is not 100% agreement on evolution.. That's a bit of a misnomer.. I can find scientists that think aliens built the pyramids, or that Bigfoot lives in Mississippi, but that doesn't mean that such claims are accepted as valid.
The truth of the matter is that ALL peer reviewed science journals, ALL Universities that educate PhD classes in Geology Paleontology, and other evolution related subjects accept evolution, and ALL Science Organizations do as well.
In 2005 during the Dover intelligent design trial in PA, the judge made a very specific point of mentioning that NO SCIENCE Organization anywhere accepts the creationist position.. So that's as 100% as you will ever get..

As for proof of common ancestry..? You'll need an understanding of genetics.
Just as we can take DNA from a parent and a child, test them side by side, and prove they are related, we can also take DNA from different species, test them side by side, and prove they too are related.
DNA testing is based on well established and tested laws of Mendelian genetic inheritance.
So if we humans share common ancestry as evolution claims we do, then we humans should share not only the same DNA as other primates, but also things like mutated non functional pseudogenes in both genomes. And we should also share things like endogenous retrovirus insertions which invade genomes during the process of fertilization and reproduction.
So here too, evolution can make VERY TESTABLE PREDICTIONS..
"If common ancestry is true then the human species should share these very distinct DNA markers with our chimpanzee evolutionary relatives.." and if we don't, then evolution has serious problem..
Well, we tested this exact scenario over a decade ago, and just as evolution predicted, we share all these genetic markers with our chimpanzee cousins..
This is DNA proof of common ancestry..
Now, do you know of any other scientifically tested and verified way for an organism like a human or a chimpanzee to obtain its DNA other than inheritance..? NO..? Then our shared common ancestry is confirmed..
Which is one of the reasons Dr Francis Collins who mapped the genome was so clear on the matter.

Everyone looks at the same evidence. How that evidence is interpreted is where the difference comes in. It is a fallacy that only creationists have a bias. Evolutionists do as well.

 

[777]

There is NO "science" that disproves what im saying here. THATS THE POINT..
The ONLY objections to the theory are RELIGIOUS.. NOT Scientific

Okay, since you won't answer the question, I'll assume a "no". Why? Because a Christian would never had ignored that question once, much less than more than twice.

Even an atheist should be aware that there are three different kinds of knowledge - philosophy, science, and mathematics. science is observation of a material fact, evidence, and empirical evidence of the fact and a explanation of the fact with evidence that constitutes theories. Science provides material evidence, not proof. So I can answer your question, it's a theory.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is NO "science" that disproves what im saying here. THATS THE POINT..
The ONLY objections to the theory are RELIGIOUS.. NOT Scientific

So you think that science can disprove religion but religion cannot disprove science?

 

[KeyserSoze]

This is false as well. The bible did not change. It was inerrant then, it is inerrant now.

You're missing the point.. To people centuries ago, the "inerrant" word of God was a fixed earth that didn't move.
Today however, YOU no longer accept that old interpretation.
Someone has CHANGED that original interpretation of the (supposedly) "inerrant"
passage.
So what happened..? They looked at the evidence, determined that their interpretation of those passages had to be wrong, (since the sun is the center of the solar system) and changed the error in their interpretation..
Which is why today, you dont adhere to geocentrism..
Well, Same thing can apply to evolution..

 

[KeyserSoze]

Okay, since you won't answer the question, I'll assume a "no". Why? Because a Christian would never had ignored that question once, much less than more than twice.

Even an atheist should be aware that there are three different kinds of knowledge - philosophy, science, and mathematics. science is observation of a material fact, evidence, and empirical evidence of the fact and a explanation of the fact with evidence that constitutes theories. Science provides material evidence, not proof. So I can answer your question, it's a theory.

A claim was made that "i'm ignoring SCIENCE" that proves evolution wrong.
I simply stated fact.. There is no "science" that proves evolution wrong.
If you know of some, by all means present it here, and we'll discuss it.

 

[KeyserSoze]

So you think that science can disprove religion but religion cannot disprove science?

Its not so much that "science can disprove religion" and more along the lines of "science can disprove certain testable claims made by religion.
By contrast, How is religion going to disprove anything in science...?
What would be the basis on which the science was disproved other than claims of appeal to authority..?

 

[KeyserSoze]

This is called the bandwagon fallacy. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
.

Thats true, it has nothing to do with how many people "believe it". It has to do with what the EVIDENCE shows.
Thats why if i pull DNA data from The International Genome Consortium, they will lay out all of the DATA that shows common ancestry.
If i go to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, they will lay out all the DATA and patterns in the fossil record which lead them to only one conclusion.. Evolution
The list goes on..
At the end of the day, evolution is an overarching concept that uses data from a wide variety of scientific fields.
All of which seem to state clearly that the DATA points only to evolution..
Which is why its accepted as correct

 

[Revmitchell]

Thats true, it has nothing to do with how many people "believe it". It has to do with what the EVIDENCE shows.
Thats why if i pull DNA data from The International Genome Consortium, they will lay out all of the DATA that shows common ancestry.
If i go to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, they will lay out all the DATA and patterns in the fossil record which lead them to only one conclusion.. Evolution
The list goes on..
At the end of the day, evolution is an overarching concept that uses data from a wide variety of scientific fields.
All of which seem to state clearly that the DATA points only to evolution..
Which is why its accepted as correct

Their conclusion is only an interpretation

 

[KeyserSoze]

Science doesnt show. Science is the conducting of experiments and the results are interpreted by those who conducted the experiments. The results are only an interpretation.

The problem here is that at the end of the day, the interpretation HAS to match the evidence.
You cannot simply offer up another scenario because you dont like the consensus interpretation
For example take the DNA evidence for common ancestry.
We humans DO share all the same genetic markers in our genes that chimpanzees do, just as evolution predicts we must if common ancestry is correct.
Now, why is this..?
How did chimps obtain our mutations..? How did Chimps obtain our genetic viral stowaways..?
Evolution not only explains it.. It PREDICTED IT..
Now, What other scientific mechanism besides inheritance is available as an explanation..?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Their conclusion is only an interpretation

You seem to desire to operate on the basis that "all interpretations are equally valid"..
Creationist websites are notorious for spreading this claim..
You'll regularly see "Well, we're all looking at the same evidence.. its just the interpretation that's different"
But reality is quite different from what these people actually "claim".
If their interpretation flies in direct contradiction to the evidence at hand (which most of it does) then its not really an "interpretation of the evidence", and more of an "interpretation in spite of the evidence"..
Which is why they get routinely scolded by the scientific community.

 

[777]

A claim was made that "i'm ignoring SCIENCE" that proves evolution wrong.
I simply stated fact.. There is no "science" that proves evolution wrong.
If you know of some, by all means present it here, and we'll discuss it.

Where's the scientific evidence that probes evolution right? Blah blah blah, DNA. smashed fossils, bones found within a mile of each other, all that does is prove a common ancestor as you say, Well, you're right about that one.

Q

 

[Reformed1689]

You're missing the point.. To people centuries ago, the "inerrant" word of God was a fixed earth that didn't move.

I don't think you understand the inerrant word of God vs interpretation.

Well, Same thing can apply to evolution..

Actually that is fundamentally different.

Its not so much that "science can disprove religion" and more along the lines of "science can disprove certain testable claims made by religion.

How do you test creation?

 

[Reformed1689]

Where's the scientific evidence that probes evolution right? Blah blah blah, DNA. smashed fossils, bones found within a mile of each other, all that does is prove a common ancestor as you say, Well, you're right about that one.

Q

Don't forget that time on Nova when they took a hacksaw to the bones to make them fit with each other!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem here is that at the end of the day, the interpretation HAS to match the evidence.
You cannot simply offer up another scenario because you dont like the consensus interpretation

No no, the conclusion is the interpretation of the evidence. Interpretations are always subject to bias.

 

[rlvaughn]

As for the creation of the universe..?
The currently accepted cause of our universe is the Big bang that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago...

I am curious. Do you believe in an eternal self-existent God, a God who came out of the Big Bang, no God at all, or perhaps something else?

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not dodging the issues..
I'm separating them into their proper categories.
The Bible is a spiritual book.. Not a science text..
As someone famously said, "the Bible is about the rock of ages, NOT the ages of rocks.."
The concept of sin is a spiritual issue.. Not a scientific one.
If someone chooses to use the Bible as a resource for the historical and cultural concept of sin, they are of course perfectly free to do so.. But sin isn't a science.. I cannot put sin in a test tube, and break it down into its periodic elements.
Allow the Bible to teach its moral lessons, while allowing science to uncover the mechanisms by which the universe operates.
They are 2 entirely different fields of study.

Since Jesus is God, is not his view on Genesis FAR more emportant than yours or mine?

 

[Yeshua1]

I did no such thing.. YOU did..
I simply laid out the evidence that shows we evolved..
YOU guys brought up the Bible.. My original post makes no mention of the Bible at all..

There are people here who cannot reconcile their beliefs in an inerrant Bible with the scientific evidence at hand..
Thats not me bringing the Bible in.. thats YOU guys..
I'd be perfectly happy to discuss purely the scientific evidence on this issue, but people on this board seem determined to bring the Bible into the discussion as those the Bible has some scientific tests conducted on the matter..

The Bible itself claims to be infallible and trustworthy in all things that it deals with, so would be the truth even in science as regarding origins!