• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

outhouse

Atheistically
when there is no more concrete evidence for evolution than there is for an intelligent designer of all things.

Factually not true.

Evolution is fact, your denial is noted :rolleyes:


ID is a man made desperate attempt to keep the creation mythology alive, in light of scientific advancement.

beliefs of science are more important than the beliefs contained in God's word,

The problem is you don't know either.

Only man wrote the bible.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
JayJayDee said:
metis said:
Science works on the basis of objectively-derived evidence, and if there is no objectively-derived evidence for something, then we definitely cannot accept it as a fact. This doesn't mean it isn't a fact, only that we cannot assume that it is.

I don't see how you can call it objective when it is all designed to lean one way.
And what way is that, against faith based conclusions? YUP!


JayJayDee said:
metis said:
Since you note that there is no objective test for your theistic beliefs, are you willing to go to the point of believing you could be wrong?

Does science really believe that macro-evolution is wrong? We don't believe that creation is wrong either. Neither has concrete proof.....Impasse.
Obviously you're afraid to answer metis's question. Care to tell us why?



JayJayDee said:
metis said:
I'm not making any claims one way or the other about whether there's a god or gods, but you are. Therefore, it is up to the one making such claims to provide objectively-derived evidence if they are determined to make any scientific claims. The ToE is based on science and not some religious-belief system, and if anyone's beliefs are to deal with science, they must provide objectively-derived evidence.

No one who believes in creation is forcing anyone to give up their belief in science.
But I have the sneaking suspicion that if some could they would, at least where evolution is concerned . . . . .and some of the more fanciful stuff in the Bible such as the Big Flood.

And yet science's beliefs are being forced upon young and impressionable minds in our school systems, eliminating the need for a Creator altogether.
Yup, because that's the way our public school system works: teach the science not the scriptures. One of those Separation of Church and State things.
bigwink.gif
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
We aren't aware of your entire history either. Are we to assume then that because we lack a person-by-person detail of your entire family history that you aren't what you seem to be? No, we're not, because that's ****ing stupid.


In whose opinion? The Internet is full of frauds who masquerade as someone they are not.....where have you been hiding?

Also, question;

You bring up the fossil record. What do you have to say to genetics? The stuff that isn't up for debate? We know how closely related life is. We know how much DNA we share with Apes, especially Chimpanzees. Do you have an answer for that?

If we all have the same Creator who used the same raw materials to create the teeming variety of life we see on this planet, I don't see a problem. Just because our DNA is shared with apes, doesn't make us apes. You might want to believe that you came from chimpanzees but perhaps you can explain then, why chimpanzees are still here? Why didn't all primates evolve into higher life forms and become humans? This makes no sense to me.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
In whose opinion? The Internet is full of frauds who masquerade as someone they are not.....where have you been hiding?
I think you know what I meant.

If we all have the same Creator who used the same raw materials to create the teeming variety of life we see on this planet, I don't see a problem.
Why would he have to? Infinite power, infinite time...you can't make an argument of "convenience" when you have a being inherently without limits. Doing it "simply" and doing it in the most esoteric & convoluted way would take exactly the same amount of time to something that can literally just make reality.

Just because our DNA is shared with apes, doesn't make us apes.
Ape DNA doesn't make an Ape?

You might want to believe that you came from chimpanzees
No, that's just your own ignorance.
but perhaps you can explain then
I can't explain that which I did not say.
why chimpanzees are still here?
Because we aren't Chimpanzees. We're cousins to them. Chimps and us come from a common ancestor.

Why didn't all primates evolve into higher life forms and become humans? This makes no sense to me.
Do you want me to run down the list of human-relatives who weren't quite us but had culture and even religion? Because I can. As for what happened to them, some of them are our(personal) ancestors and the others we killed. If you're European-descent, there's a Neanderthal or two in your family tree somewhere waaaay back.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I think this is the core issue here.

I am too lazy to find it, but @shawn001 Posted a great video of the comparison between theist and naturalist positions, from Sean Carroll. It highlights what each philosophy wold expect prior to learning about the universe itself. Maybe he could post it here too. :)

This debate seems to always get framed incorrectly. Evolution has to be "proved" beyond all doubt, but ID as a credible theory never gets discussion.

Beyond the bible told me so, there isn't much there to prove, so that framing just doesn't get far.

I'd still like the Original Poster to actually lay out what he believes, but I suspect there's far too little there that will hold up to scrutiny. Best to play it safe with logic games instead, and keep the framing of the discussion on doubting evolution.



Responding to the "Fine Tuning" Argument for God (Sean Carroll)
Physicist Sean Caroll lays some of the problems with the popular "fine tuning" arguments for a god.

 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.



Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."


fossil.jpg


In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

"There is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

Students' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as 'scientific' will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria."
Central Conference of American Rabbis

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
"The Clergy Letter Project" signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences


Creationist Perspectives
Creationist views reject scientific findings and methods.

Advocates of the ideas collectively known as "creationism" and, recently, "intelligent design creationism" hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a "creationist" is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationism in its various forms is not the same thing as belief in God because, as was discussed earlier, many believers as well as many mainstream religious groups accept the findings of science, including evolution. Nor is creationism necessarily tied to Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Some non-Christian religious believers also want to replace scientific explanations with their own religion's supernatural accounts of physical phenomena.

In the United States, various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth. But even these creationists hold very different views. Some, known as "young Earth" creationists, believe the biblical account that the universe and the Earth were created just a few thousand years ago. Proponents of this form of creationism also believe that all living things, including humans, were created in a very short period of time in essentially the forms in which they exist today. Other creationists, known as "old Earth" creationists, accept that the Earth may be very old but reject other scientific findings regarding the evolution of living things.

No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.

Some creationists believe that Earth's present form and the distribution of fossils can be explained by a worldwide flood. But this claim also is at odds with observations and evidence understood scientifically. The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in a short period does not accord either with the known processes of sedimentation or with the estimated volume of water needed to deposit sediments on the top of some of Earth's highest mountains.

Creationists sometimes cite what they claim to be an incomplete fossil record as evidence that living things were created in their modern forms. But this argument ignores the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists and other biologists have constructed over the past two centuries and are continuing to construct. Paleontological research has filled in many of the parts of the fossil record that were incomplete in Charles Darwin's time. The claim that the fossil record is "full of gaps" that undermine evolution is simply false. Indeed, paleontologists now know enough about the ages of sediments to predict where they will be able to find particularly significant transitional fossils, as happened with Tiktaalik and the ancestors of modern humans. Researchers also are using new techniques, such as computed axial tomography (CT), to learn even more about the internal structures and composition of delicate bones of fossils. Exciting new discoveries of fossils continue to be reported in both the scientific literature and popular media.

Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on Earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years. Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old. Whenever creationists point to sediments where these relationships appear to be altered or even reversed, scientists have clearly demonstrated that this reversal has resulted from the folding of geological strata over or under others. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earth's sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution.

Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.

This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin's time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat

In whose opinion? The Internet is full of frauds who masquerade as someone they are not.....where have you been hiding?



If we all have the same Creator who used the same raw materials to create the teeming variety of life we see on this planet, I don't see a problem. Just because our DNA is shared with apes, doesn't make us apes. You might want to believe that you came from chimpanzees but perhaps you can explain then, why chimpanzees are still here? Why didn't all primates evolve into higher life forms and become humans? This makes no sense to me.
Well of course it makes no sense - we did not evolve from chimps. We are apes nevertheless. You want someone to explain why chimps are still here, when both chimps and humans are modern species. You are running out of lies.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
ID is a man made desperate attempt to keep the creation mythology alive, in light of scientific advancement.

It certainly looks like that. Evolution explains what we see very well and makes God redundant. So to counter evolution theists can either deny it and become creationists, or attempt to incorporate it and become ID-ers.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Factually not true.

Evolution is fact, your denial is noted :rolleyes:


ID is a man made desperate attempt to keep the creation mythology alive, in light of scientific advancement.



The problem is you don't know either.

Only man wrote the bible.

Intelligent design theory simply means to accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. You can see by that evolutionists fall over each other denying free will of people is real, that they simply have a problem with accepting any freedom is real.

Evolution theory is a scientific dead end, and the field is awash with ideologists producing pseudoscience intended to influence society.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Intelligent design theory simply means to accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. You can see by that evolutionists fall over each other denying free will of people is real, that they simply have a problem with accepting any freedom is real.

Evolution theory is a scientific dead end, and the field is awash with ideologists producing pseudoscience intended to influence society.
Actually the only one linking the existence of free will with atheism is you.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Intelligent design theory simply means to accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. You can see by that evolutionists fall over each other denying free will of people is real, that they simply have a problem with accepting any freedom is real.

I don't even see how they are related.

Evolution theory is a scientific dead end, and the field is awash with ideologists producing pseudoscience intended to influence society.

Unlike... Islam?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
The fact is, no one was there to tell us exactly what happened.
Which is why we study fossils in order to piece together, as best we can, the actual story of our past. We do the same thing with every other historical discipline and I don't see you trying to tear those down.

"No one was there to tell us how George Washington spoke. The Bible doesn't mention George Washington's voice, therefore George Washington can't be real, and is a ploy used by scientist to try and dissuade people from belief in god."

That would be an absurd argument, would it not? It would be absurd because the study of George Washington's biography could care less what people think about god. The whole purpose of studying George Washington's life is focused simply on George Washington, and little else.

If anyone reads a biography of George Washington, and infers some connection between his British accent and the absence of god, that's the reader's problem. Not Washington's biographers.

Would you prefer that science be worried about all of the mythological creation stories from all of the religions on Earth, or deal strictly with evidence and leave the religious bias and other stuff out of the discussion as much as possible?

You forget, I think, that if there is an implication in science about the supernatural, it affects much more than just the Christian concept of god.

but there is such a book from the Creator about how life began and how all the forms of life originated.
Let's just get this out of the way... The Christian Bible evolved from Mesopotamian beliefs, an amalgamation of Sumerian and Canaanite mythologies, even using the names of Canaanite gods to piece together their one supreme deity. The religion was rendered into a somewhat cohesive set of ideas during the Babylonian period. There is no evidence or reference to it's existence prior to 1200 BCE. The glorious kingdom of David is only referenced one time, dated around the 9th century BCE, in the Tel Dan inscription, because they were defeated in battle by "the divine guidance of the god Hadad". There is no earlier reference to the Torah prior to 600 BCE. (And even that is just a little scrap, containing 3 verses from Numbers.) The majority of the New Testament can't be referenced any earlier than 100-400 CE. There are more complete works from the apocrypha than that of the canonical Christian texts. Your source material isn't even certain of the year in which the supposed savior of humanity was born. (Herod died in 4 BCE. The census wasn't taken until sometime between 4-6 CE... That timeline only works out if Jesus's parents and their mule are time travelers.)

Would you consider a manuscript, written 200 years after the fact, to contain a reliable, accurate account of reality? Would you consider a religion of known pagan origin to have an accurate account of prehistoric events, given their obvious preference for the superstitious? If you agree with the concept of an old Earth, then you're gauging your belief on human origins, and on speciation, on a book written by superstitious goat herders and nomads from the Iron Age, ... Try to understand that for what it is. You're taking that book's account over the actual study of the remains of organisms and civilizations.

Given what it is, historically, why should science incorporate that one particular mythological account of creation as any more valid than the other few thousand mythological accounts of creation?

Some elevate the scientist's explanations to infallible scientific fact that cannot be challenged (sort of like the proclamations of the popes of science) and they claim that all life evolved from a single organism to all we see on earth, both past and present

That's just not true. If those "popes of science" made outrageous claims, they would be called on it. If they could not support their claims with evidence, they would be called on it. That's the beauty of science. You can'y just make ridiculous claims and expect to be taken seriously.

all you have to do is throw millions of years into the story and somehow it is believable without a single shred of solid evidence.

Except for all of the evidence that has been recorded over the past couple hundred years. None of which, mind you, has been refuted.

There could be an all powerful Creator that is beyond human ability to comprehend

There could be.

And yet science's beliefs are being forced upon young and impressionable minds in our school systems,

Science doesn't have beliefs. People have beliefs. There is only one objective reality. Science attempts to ascertain what it is.
And nothing is being forced on impressionable young minds. If there are certain implications that go along with scientific discoveries, then so be it. But no science class teaches that god doesn't exist. No one forces fact opon reality.

You might want to believe that you came from chimpanzees but perhaps you can explain then, why chimpanzees are still here? Why didn't all primates evolve into higher life forms and become humans? This makes no sense to me.

This is very telling of your ignorance on the subject.
 

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
None of which, mind you, has been refuted.
To be fair, a certain amount has been refuted* (Piltdown man etc.), and these cases are referenced with mindless tedium by those who dislike the idea of evolution as though they had some relevance; yet there exists a body of many millions of unrefuted examples

*it's probably worth noting that the disproval of specific claims about our evolutionary history has been done by the same scientists as those creationists immediately stop believing have credibility when they talk about what hasn't been disproven. Funny, that..
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
All you can do is wonder when there is nothing to base your speculation on but a few bones and fossils....wide open to the imagination of their interpreter.

I'm gonna be extremely brief.

The fossil record is immense, well beyond what you imagine it to be.

If there was such a book...that would be something.....a starting point at least.....but there is such a book from the Creator about how life began and how all the forms of life originated.

You are assuming that the "book" is correct, whereas in science we cannot make that assumption no matter how good we may think a book is.

Evolution was born in the imagination of man.

False. It's plain old common sense as all physical objects appear to change over time, and genes are physical objects. Evolution is about change, and just because some don't like to think that things change really is quite silly and definitely contrary to both science and good theology, both of which posit change.

Some elevate the scientist's explanations to infallible scientific fact that cannot be challenged (sort of like the proclamations of the popes of science) and they claim that all life evolved from a single organism to all we see on earth, both past and present.....

You are completely distorting how science operates, and if you continue to do so, then indeed you are just being dishonest.

I don't see how you can call it objective when it is all designed to lean one way.

Anything that exists has some design to it, even if it's quite haphazard, so the fact that objects have a "design" is no mystery.

You see, that is all we are asking for.....the honesty that actually says...you know what? We could be wrong. There could be an all powerful Creator that is beyond human ability to comprehend.....but we prefer to believe that there isn't.

All of us could be wrong, but it's strange I never see you claim that for yourself. But then I obviously haven't seen all of your posts.

Does science really believe that macro-evolution is wrong? We don't believe that creation is wrong either. Neither has concrete proof.....Impasse.

We know with certainty that "macro-evolution" has happened. But let me ask you this: can you provide one shred of scientific evidence that "micro-evolution" miraculously stops just before hitting "macro-evolution"? Please provide us this information, preferably from the geneticists that specialize in this area.

No one who believes in creation is forcing anyone to give up their belief in science.

False. There's been many attempts for creationists to try and ramrod legislation to inject "intelligent design" into science classrooms whereas it is simply not science.

Since we each have a belief system...

Science does not work on "beliefs"-- it works on objectively-derived evidence, which is something you simply have not been able to present to support your opinion.

...by people who stated categorically that evolution is a fact.

It is. "Theory", as in the ToE, is a combination of various items, including "axioms".

The true dishonesty is in stating that the beliefs of science are more important than the beliefs contained in God's word, when there is no more concrete evidence for evolution than there is for an intelligent designer of all things.

Again, please note that it is you who are making all sorts of assumptions while providing not one iota of objectively-derived evidence. Therefore, for you to claim that scientists are being dishonest is really quite an idiotic statement since you offer nothing and then virtually ignore or pooh-pooh away the vast amount of information that we know about the ToE.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church to believe that "evilution" was anti-Christian, but when I did the research I found out I was being badly mislead. I eventually went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years. I truly hope some day you also realize that you are being fed terrible "information", and fortunately most denominations understand that there's really no conflict between the basic ToE and the Bible.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
To be fair, a certain amount has been refuted* (Piltdown man etc.), and these cases are referenced with mindless tedium by those who dislike the idea of evolution as though they had some relevance; yet there exists a body of many millions of unrefuted examples

*it's probably worth noting that the disproval of specific claims about our evolutionary history has been done by the same scientists as those creationists immediately stop believing have credibility when they talk about what hasn't been disproven. Funny, that..

Fair enough - although I would argue that Piltdown Man was quickly discovered to be a fake and removed from what we could today consider to the the body of evidence.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
Actually, evolution is not A theory, but a fact. However, there are theories OF evolution. And it's an important distinction.
So, while evolution is a fact there are also various theories regarding its operation: ideas and sets of ideas intended to explain how it works. And this is the only context in which "theory" has any meaning in regard to evolution.
 
Last edited:
Top