Evolution is (essentially) fact - so get over it already

[winoman]

Evolution (Common Descent) has nothing at all directly to do with the Big Bang - that is another matter completley - and neither is dependent or directly commected to the other.

I have posted sufficiently on the meaning of "Theory" in terms of what it means within Science and specifically in regards to Evolution to not need to do so again.

And what argument (from your side) - that you don't believe in Evolution so others shouldn't as well. You have given no alternatives - yes I have repeatedly asked you to sprovide such - and your critiques have continually fallen short of the mark. Meanwhile I have backed all claims concening the validity of Evolution as being factual - or as factual as anything known by Science. In arguing that Evolution is just a belief - you are essentially saying that anything postualted within Science is just belief with no basis for us to accept it. And if this is your argument then I suggest you go back to studying your religious books (or comic books) or whatever you feel gives you knowledge about things and leave serious discussions to grown ups.

[winoman]

You obviously can't comprehend what you read - try to go more slowly this time...

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
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.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

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

[Anonymouse]

Evolution (Common Descent) has nothing at all directly to do with the Big Bang - that is another matter completley - and neither is dependent or directly commected to the other.

I have posted sufficiently on the meaning of "Theory" in terms of what it means within Science and specifically in regards to Evolution to not need to do so again.

And what argument (from your side) - that you don't believe in Evolution so others shouldn't as well. You have given no alternatives - yes I have repeatedly asked you to sprovide such - and your critiques have continually fallen short of the mark. Meanwhile I have backed all claims concening the validity of Evolution as being factual - or as factual as anything known by Science. In arguing that Evolution is just a belief - you are essentially saying that anything postualted within Science is just belief with no basis for us to accept it. And if this is your argument then I suggest you go back to studying your religious books (or comic books) or whatever you feel gives you knowledge about things and leave serious discussions to grown ups.

I have never claimed because I do not believe in evolution, others should not as well. That is a gross exaggeration on your part. My critiques have been powerful to constantly get an emotional response out of you to post endless articles and links. I have already stated the flaws with evolution, and it is addressed much more in depth in the previous evolution thread which I suggest you read.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=2454

If you actually want to discuss evolution as opposed to posting endless articles with links, I suggest you pick one aspect of evolution and we can discuss it. Otherwise there is no point in this discussion when you keep stating "Evolution is fact" merely to comfort yourself.

And yes, science is itself a form of belief, because it is based on the metaphysical assumption that all knowledge comes from research and not revelation whereas a religious person believes the latter. In order for the scientific method to have been accepted, people must have put their faith and belief in it, for it to yield results and work.

This is the thing I do not understand about people of the scientific persuasion is that they have become dogmatic themselves while all too often pointing to Christians or other religious folks. An example of the irrational argument that evolutionists, atheists and the like put forth is that, "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it and cannot be proven". All the while they fail to realize that science is a criteria for the physical world, the tangible world. Thus, you cannot use physical criteria to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[winoman]

this clearly describes you - emotional blocks & bigotry...

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) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

[winoman]

I have never claimed because I do not believe in evolution, others should not as well. That is a gross exaggeration on your part.

Ahh - quite a bit of backsliding on your part - you are now saying that you do believe in Evolution...

My critiques have been powerful to constantly get an emotional response out of you to post endless articles and links.

Oh first its boo hoo hoo - he''s just posting factual articles to back hios position - now its that you've planned this the whole time - yeah, right, cough cough...

I have already stated the flaws with evolution, and it is addressed much more in depth in the previous evolution thread which I suggest you read.

You have stated no such thing - here or elsewhere

If you actually want to discuss evolution as opposed to posting endless articles with links, I suggest you pick one aspect of evolution and we can discuss it. Otherwise there is no point in this discussion when you keep stating "Evolution is fact" merely to comfort yourself.

OK - lets start with you stating what you do believe - as I have asked you - perhaps we believe the same things after all no...oops -no your saying that Science is no better then religion for developing an undestaing of thkngs - and I really don't think I can agree with this contention at all...still - you go ahead and begin...I'm quite comfortable in knowing and having presented where I stand....

And yes, science is itself a form of belief, because it is based on the metaphysical assumption that all knowledge comes from research and not revelation whereas a religious person believes the latter. In order for the scientific method to have been accepted, people must have put their faith and belief in it, for it to yield results and work.

Look either accept that Science is useful for revealing certain things (call them truths or whatever) - or reject it (and be the fool) - Science provides us with a basis for knowledge - perhaps not complete - but at least it has been arrived at and presented within a certain accepted framework where its results can be examined and if found false discredited. Religious "truths" cannot meet this criteria - thus they are dubious at best for actually revealing anything outside of perhaps "inner truths" that mean something to an indivual - but cannot be presented - and taught to the populace at large as fact...I mean can you just imagine where society would go with such (and where it has in the - discredited - past...)

This is the thing I do not understand about people of the scientific persuasion is that they have become dogmatic themselves while all too often pointing to Christians or other religious folks. An example of the irrational argument that evolutionists, atheists and the like put forth is that, "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it and cannot be proven". All the while they fail to realize that science is a criteria for the physical world, the tangible world. Thus, you cannot use physical criteria to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I prefer to apply probability. And which god/gods are we talking....this thing gets out of control very quickly you know...and no - it (religion) isn't science (and science isn't religion...please go read about Science - Popper even - yes certainly - we can agree on him - basically - can we not...?)- religion cannot preport to tell us about the things that Science does (though I would argue that Science can bring clarity to - or debunk certain religius claims). Is Scientific understanding the do all and end all - no -I would never claim it (and I've read and understand Popper - before you were even born I imagine...) - yet an understanding of the methods of science -and its limitations is all part of our understanding of things...but first we must accept that Science can indeed reveal to us some things of use/value - no?

[Anonymouse]

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) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Alternatives to evolution are either creation by intelligent design whether by God or Aliens. The difference between you and me is that I do not jump to conclusions in a dogmatic fashion. I leave my options open, whereas you do not. Either way, it is a belief and you are entitled to your belief for the sake of comfort. Your views are of evolutionary religion and dogma that do not leave room to question or deny evolution as you stated above

"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."

That sounds anti-intellectual to me, and dogmatic. Anyone reading this can see that as well. Now, in order to not come off as such you will come back saying "As long as the critique is in the realm of science" or some other excuse. But from what you yourself wrote it is patently clear that you have formed an intellectal Berlin Wall between you, evolution, and dissent of evolution. To get an idea of the religious character of evolution we will quote Teilhard de Chardin:

"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more - it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is what evolution is"

There we have it. Evolution is, in short, the God we must worship, or rather "bow" in his own words. Can things get any more religious, faithful, and dogmatic than that? This is similar to what you stated up there that those who deny evolution have "emotional blocks" and "bigotry". I think what we have here is a case of dogma 101, in which the students feel threatened by anyone who dare questions their cherished dogma.

As I said, if you want to actually discuss this topic, pick any aspect of evolutionary theory, be it fossils, natural selection, mutations, micro or macro evolution, and we can discuss it. Otherwise you are simply being desperate constantly restating how evolution is fact and hiding behind your position of "I already demonstrated how evolution is fact".

[winoman]

Rat - you just said that for me to claim that you do not believe in Evolution is exaggeration on my part.....OK - well then you really must do better to stake out your position. If you believe in Evolution then I'm not quite sure exactly what points we should be debating. You brought up the fossil record (not showing actual causation) - and I think LYN did a good job in quashing that claim as I alluded too as well. You claim no Macroevolutionary change - well this is semantics as we define/categorize what fits where and the lines of demarcation - but OK - in fact you are incorrect - and I posted several links to sites with evidence of such (and I can link many more - you might be familiar with the case of the spotted moth - or not...) etc...

Anyway what can I say further I don't know. The theory of Evolution is considered one the fundenmental building blocks of our scientific knowledge of biology today...knock (the basic precipts of) evolution and your really going after much larger things (OK so we can talk philosophy of Science in general) - funny how Evolution comes under attack (at this point in history) and not the other sciences - wonder why eh? And creationsim - wel whose creationistic beliefs do you want to discuss. I have a whole huge volume that is devoted exclusively to creation stories from diferent cultures. And Intelligent Design - not really science - and increasingly those with this bent (of a priori belief or just from inability to believe in the possibility of random increasing complexity [more then jst this of course - but in one line] - well its funny as they are increasingly proving/agreeing with evolutionary theory (like you it seems) - you are perhaps familiar with Bene - pehraps spelled wrong - one of the leading ID proponents - well he has recently stated 100% agreement with Evolution/natural selection as is commonly accepted - but only claims that an Intelligent Design was needed to start it all off!) - so no ID is not yet (really a science - does not meet falsability criteria) nor is it any real alternative to Evolutionary theory...

So besides the fact that I seem to have countered your oft presented claim that Evolution is pure junk and untrue (and I can fish out you saying such to start a number of threads) - well I really don't see the point of much additional discussion...

[Anonymouse]

Rat - you just said that for me to claim that you do not believe in Evolution is exaggeration on my part.....OK - well then you really must do better to stake out your position. If you believe in Evolution then I'm not quite sure exactly what points we should be debating.

What I claimed as exaggeration is you reference to me that if I do not believe in evolution then others therefore shouldn't either. That is the point I was making. And no I do not believe in evolution.

You brought up the fossil record (not showing actual causation) - and I think LYN did a good job in quashing that claim as I alluded too as well. You claim no Macroevolutionary change - well this is semantics as we define/categorize what fits where and the lines of demarcation - but OK - in fact you are incorrect - and I posted several links to sites with evidence of such (and I can link many more - you might be familiar with the case of the spotted moth - or not...) etc...

The fossil record doesn't show anything and he didn't quash anything. He merely brought up Hume's argument of causation. That doesn't change much anyway, because it is not the scientific method and it is not observable what happened between the fossils as they appeared and reappeared. It seems like a plausible explanation to reinforce belief in evolution regarding the point of the fossil record, but it is nonetheless a belief.

The spotted moth is the case of where semantics between micro and macro evolution become blurred. I have addressed this issue of the moth before because evolutionists like to use it as an example of "evolution". But by saying "evolution" that is essentially clouding the fact that this is an example of within species variation, or microevolution. It is not macroevolution and doesn't change into anything other than moth. By manipulating semantics evolutionists appear to have, in a clever manner, come up with a "proof" for evolution, which is silly.

Anyway what can I say further I don't know. The theory of Evolution is considered one the fundenmental building blocks of our scientific knowledge of biology today...knock (the basic precipts of) evolution and your really going after much larger things (OK so we can talk philosophy of Science in general) - funny how Evolution comes under attack (at this point in history) and not the other sciences - wonder why eh? And creationsim - wel whose creationistic beliefs do you want to discuss. I have a whole huge volume that is devoted exclusively to creation stories from diferent cultures. And Intelligent Design - not really science - and increasingly those with this bent (of a priori belief or just from inability to believe in the possibility of random increasing complexity [more then jst this of course - but in one line] - well its funny as they are increasingly proving/agreeing with evolutionary theory (like you it seems) - you are perhaps familiar with Bene - pehraps spelled wrong - one of the leading ID proponents - well he has recently stated 100% agreement with Evolution/natural selection as is commonly accepted - but only claims that an Intelligent Design was needed to start it all off!) - so no ID is not yet (really a science - does not meet falsability criteria) nor is it any real alternative to Evolutionary theory...

I don't know the relevance of this paragraph and your sloppy writing with run on sentences and fragments. I couldn't make out much, but I do not see the point in discussing creationism. This thread is about evolution. I believe that we were created but it is a belief.

So besides the fact that I seem to have countered your oft presented claim that Evolution is pure junk and untrue (and I can fish out you saying such to start a number of threads) - well I really don't see the point of much additional discussion...

The only place you hve countered anything is in the confines of your mind.