[_ Old Earth _] Science states Evolution is a fact AND a theory. Wrong.

[B.A.C.]

I can PROVE that "Evolution" is NOT a fact AND a theory, as Science claims it is.

This is a play with semantics designed to stop any challenges to Evolution.

If you go and look up Evolution you will find almost EVERY website say's it is BOTH fact AND theory.

Google "Evolution fact and theory", you'll see what I mean.

Let's start with some science.

I'll define "Theory" and I'll define "Fact" scientifically and I'll do it in a very easy to understand way.

A "Theory" is a plausible way of explaining verifiable observations (facts). That was simple wasn't it?

A "Fact" is a verifiable observation. Another simple one.

A "Theory" is falsifiable, it has to be, in order to be accepted by Science.

A "Fact" is never falsifiable, or it wasn't a fact in the first place.

How can something be BOTH then?

Is Evolution a fact? Yes, in terms of adaptation IMO.
Is Gravity a fact? Yes.

Is Gravitational Theory a fact? No, of course not, it explains the "Fact" of Gravity.
Is Evolutionary Theory a fact? No, of course not, it explains the "Fact" of Evolution (micro-evolution). I don't consider macro-evolution a fact, though some may.

This is the ONLY fact in Science that they claim is BOTH a fact AND a theory. Why is that you may ask?

It's a subtle play on words, or semantics to STOP any challenges to Evolution.

If you say "Yes, I believe in Evolution (In terms of micro-evolution)", they can then use your words against you to say "You must believe in the "Theory" as well", since it is BOTH fact AND theory.

When discussing Evolution it is VERY important to distinguish between "Theory" and "Fact". Most Christians believe in the fact of Evolution in terms of adaptation, but not in the Theory which states that, for example a bird can turn into a reptile.

This is my first thread here, hope this will bring some discussion

B.A.C.

 

[John]

I'll help you out in this thread B.A.C.

 

[B.A.C.]

Thanks John,

I've read through a lot of your posts, we have very similar views about this. I've been arguing with Atheists for years about Evolution, I know a few techniques as well.

Appreciate the support on my first thread, thanks bro

 

[John]

Here is a small video clip to add to B.A.C's post.

Cambrian Explosion vs. Darwin's Tree of Life

[youtube:1m4yy2ob]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p8ISxxDKWA[/youtube:1m4yy2ob]

I'll let this marinate, i don't wish to hijack. ;)

 

[B.A.C.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Our good ole' friend talkorigins *still shaking my head

Here they state while Evolution is a fact, it is also a theory. So they state it is a fact AND a theory.

Then in the same breath, they say "facts" and "theories" are two different things. Wow, just wow.

Sound like confusing doublespeak? Yup, it's on purpose to confuse the issue and make it unquestionable.

Sneaky, sneaky.... :naughty

 

[B.A.C.]

Here is a small video clip to add to B.A.C's post.

Cambrian Explosion vs. Darwin's Tree of Life

Yup, excellent video, sums it up nicely.

This is also the reason why we have two competing theories amongst science, punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, scientists can't agree which one is right, yet they try to pass it all off as fact. When in fact, neither are right according to the evidence. ;)

 

[jwu]

Is it a fact that frequencies of allele change over time?

 

[B.A.C.]

Is it a fact that frequencies of allele change over time?

What does that have to do with saying Evolution is both fact AND theory? I will respond however:

What's called Genetic Drift has been observed, yes. Alleles drift randomly up or down, though it hasn't yet been proven what effect this has. They can theorize about it, but the best supported theory is Nearly - Neutral Theory which states that most mutations only have small effects on fitness. Also, we can observe and verify that DNA mutations never ADD any information, they just mutate already existing information. So in order to draw any conclusions from this, we would have to expound using conjecture and best guesses, which isn't really scientific and wouldn't be accepted in ANY other area of study.

B.A.C.

 

[Barbarian]

This is also the reason why we have two competing theories amongst science, punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, scientists can't agree which one is right, yet they try to pass it all off as fact.

You've been misled about that. The debate is about the relative importance of the two. When Stephen Gould, who first proposed punctuated equilibrium, points out cases of gradualism in evolution, it's pretty clear that they aren't exclusive categories. Would you like to learn why?

When in fact, neither are right according to the evidence.

A hundred years ago, people assumed complex living things suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. Now we know that there were complex organisms for many millions of years before the Cambrian, some of which appear to be precursors of many Cambrian organisms. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[jwu]

Is it a fact that frequencies of allele change over time?

What does that have to do with saying Evolution is both fact AND theory? I will respond however:

What's called Genetic Drift has been observed, yes.

And that's the "fact" of evolution.

Also, we can observe and verify that DNA mutations never ADD any information, they just mutate already existing information.

Interesting. What is your definition of "information", which branch of information theory would you use to quantify information in a genome?

 

[atheiststudent]

BAC, I have to completely agree with a statement you make. Evolution is NOT a fact and a theory. I'm a student in the biological sciences and I don't know a single scientist who would say evolution is a fact. It is only a theory. As with all theories a counterexample could crush it immediately. Same with gravity (I was a physics major for two years before switching)-- also only a theory. Most people seem to think the theory of gravity is a pretty nice idea, but since mere humans can't observe everything at once we can't be sure of it.

Where scientific semantics get slippery is that evolutionary biologists will says the theory is *based* on facts. That is, they have observed things happening which they say are facts that support their theory. One thing people need to be reminded of from time to time is that science can NEVER prove a theory... only disprove it.

 

[Barbarian]

BAC, I have to completely agree with a statement you make. Evolution is NOT a fact and a theory. I'm a student in the biological sciences and I don't know a single scientist who would say evolution is a fact.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)

Dobzhansky was a Christian, BTW.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

In light of Ben Stein’s new movie on intelligent design, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,†UC Irvine biologist Dr. Francisco Ayala gave a lecture entitled “Evolution Is a Fact and It Is the Unifying Concept of Biology†on Wednesday, April 30 in Humanities Instructional Building 100.
http://www.newuniversity.org/main/artic ... olution152

Ayala is also a Christian.

It is only a theory.

Those who say "it's only a theory" do not understand what "theory" means in science. No hypothesis can become accepted as a theory until it is confirmed by a sufficiently large and convincing body of evidence. Evolutionary theory is no different than gravitational theory, except that evolutionary theory is somewhat better established than gravitational theory.

Where scientific semantics get slippery is that evolutionary biologists will says the theory is *based* on facts.

Far more important is the fact that it's the only theory that can adequately explain the evidence.

 

[John]

Parts of evolution are factual but the whole animal into another animal over X amount of time is phooey.

 

[freeway]

This burns me about what they call fact/theory... Just this last weekend I was in Costco. I like looking through the book section. There was one book for grade school kids call universe or space something of that nature. Anyway one section was about how man came about. Low and behold there was the ape Lucy depicted as the missing link along with how they lived alone the river the whole scene was right out of a fairy tale, but trying to be pasted off as science..
Sorry not trying to derail.. just wanted to throw that in. when their theory is pushed off as fact

 

[Barbarian]

Parts of evolution are factual but the whole animal into another animal over X amount of time is phooey.

We can test that belief. Would you like to try?

 

[B.A.C.]

Parts of evolution are factual but the whole animal into another animal over X amount of time is phooey.

We can test that belief. Would you like to try?

Hey Guys, I just got back from some personal stuff. Yup, I'd like to try. =P

 

[John]

Welcome Back.. B.A.C

 

[B.A.C.]

Welcome Back.. B.A.C

Love the word play, lol.

How are ya Brother? Hope all is well and thanks for the welcome!

 

[VenomFangX]

I would not accept an ultimate truth or fact if it come up and bit me on the leg. I think God gave us the intelligence to think for ourselves with the good book as a moral guide. Evolution is not a fact, it is a scientific theory which is the highest proof possible in science. To think of ultimate truths is from my point of view is to have a closed mind not open to the reality of the Cosmos revealed by God at his pleasure.
yours
VFX

 

[Barbarian]

Yup, I'd like to try.

OK, let's see about the reality of one animal into another. If I can show you a series of fossils, each differing from the next by less variation than exists within mammalian species today, and with great change over time, would you accept what it is?

If I could also show you genetic evidence for that same change, would you accept it?