Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how it occurs, but it is also very well supported. All fossil evidence fits with the model.
EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM
- Thread starter xvenomousx
- Start date
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how it occurs, but it is also very well supported. All fossil evidence fits with the model.
Evolution is a fact. How evolution occurs is still being studied.
You are correct. There could be a creator, or two, or this could be a dream, or you're brain could be in a jar and we're all actually in a room looking at your brain typing questions directly into your cortex and you're brain interprets this as you sitting in from of a computer reading them, or maybe Xenu the .....
So yes, any of those situations could be true.
Evolution is still a fact.
The process of evolution is being debated.
Bare in mind, abiogenesis, life from non-life, is not evolution. Evolution is a process that occurs in systems with living organisms.
It has been observed.
I'm afraid it has been observed and is a fact.
If that was all religion was, I think few people would have a problem with it. However, theistic creation myths do say alot about the nature of that creation event. Faith leads people to think, for instance, that women came from the rib of a man.
In fact i hasn't.
What you have observed is adaptation but the non sequitor we're hanging on to which you haven't observed is the change potential to complete change one creature into another.
We all know this hasn't been observed.
Logically then evolution is still theory. So adaptation is fact by what adaptation leads to is not. It's speculation and that is theory. Which means...
Yes, that's right evolution is not a fact.
I'm just speaking in all litteral terms no in relation to the beliefs we tend to hold onto.
Sorry, but this misses the boat entirely.Saquist said:
How many bacteria have "speciated" in the last couple of centuries (or decades)? Why do viruses keep "emerging", with different infectious "capability"? What about GM?
Or are you hinting at something like a fish becoming a bird, or a dog becoming an otter then a whale, or somesuch?
Evolution is a scientific fact. Adaptation through natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is change. The more time beings have to adapt, the less they will resemble their ancestors. This has been observed in the fossil evidence.
That's not proven.
You're showing you have faith in it.
The Fossil evidence is static the progress you see is speculation.
So speculation is not fact. There is no proof on the planet that is direct evidence to the progress of actually events.
That would be the logical fallacy behind evolution.
I've come to understand uniformitarianis. It's a gradual this is a slow that...It's intresting. sometimes it's true but there is no way to confirm it.
Let me ask you spider...is it a fact or is it that you think there is no other choice but to accept it as fact.
I'm pretty open ended.
If any such evidence were to ever occur I'd have no choice but to accept evolution but I'm afraid there is about a 250,000 years of history who knows what happend. The most reasonable expression is..."we don't know".
For right now I must conclude creation is the only viable option.
You're showing you have faith in it.
The Fossil evidence is static the progress you see is speculation.
So speculation is not fact. There is no proof on the planet that is direct evidence to the progress of actually events.
That would be the logical fallacy behind evolution.
I've come to understand uniformitarianis. It's a gradual this is a slow that...It's intresting. sometimes it's true but there is no way to confirm it.
Let me ask you spider...is it a fact or is it that you think there is no other choice but to accept it as fact.
I'm pretty open ended.
If any such evidence were to ever occur I'd have no choice but to accept evolution but I'm afraid there is about a 250,000 years of history who knows what happend. The most reasonable expression is..."we don't know".
For right now I must conclude creation is the only viable option.
It is proven. We even know which animal is related to the very first animal.
We do know that all the present broad classifications of organisms first occurred during the Cambrian period. We can see the branching out of species, for instance the rise of bipedal apes from those that walked on all fours, the rise of large-brained bipedal apes out of the small-brained ancestors. There is massive evidence for this, and you are just in denial because you want to believe in a cherished myth.
We do know that all the present broad classifications of organisms first occurred during the Cambrian period. We can see the branching out of species, for instance the rise of bipedal apes from those that walked on all fours, the rise of large-brained bipedal apes out of the small-brained ancestors. There is massive evidence for this, and you are just in denial because you want to believe in a cherished myth.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is not speculation. It is a hypothesis derived from evidence by logical reasoning, which has been undergoing testing and peer review for more than a century without being falsified. That is much different from speculation. Our evidence for evolution is of roughly the same grade as our evidence for the entire science of astronomy, which is based on images of distant stars as they were tens of thousands of years ago, and of distant galaxies as they were tens of billions of years ago. Yet no one has challenged the theories of astronomy since the end of the Dark Ages; no one says that astronomy is based on "faith" that those galaxies are now where we calculate them to be.
What numbers? Creationists usually talk about how unlikely it would be for a protein to evolve, but this is a misunderstanding. Evolution proceeds in small steps from simpler beginnings. There was a precursor to the proteins we see now.
But proteins didn't evolve separately, then make a cell.
Somehow these things all got together, lined up in formation.
That's "in-formation"; which is mathematical.
Life isn't only structure, it's the function within the structure.
Admittedly, common descent has to have started somewhere, like cosmic expansion.
But Darwinism doesn't deal with ab initio.
Somehow these things all got together, lined up in formation.
That's "in-formation"; which is mathematical.
Life isn't only structure, it's the function within the structure.
Admittedly, common descent has to have started somewhere, like cosmic expansion.
But Darwinism doesn't deal with ab initio.
Uh huh.
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.
Creationism is the obvious cnclusion of those who accept the bible, studied or not, as the word of god and therefore true. It cannot stand comparison with evolution as a theory.
On what grounds do you disagree with evolution, allowing for the fact that you have shown little understanding of it elsewhere. It's easy to make statements, as is your wont, but isn't it time that you provided some evidence and had a proper debate. A number of us have asked the same of you but you appear to be long on statements and short on facts.
So tell us some of your objections and we can discuss our differences !