Read the whole thing and not one fact.

Competent scientists recognize that theories are not laws but serve the function of testing ideas and pursuing new relationships. “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.”

I just would like to refer us all back to a post I made yesterday of what seems to being discussed again on page 3.

Read the whole thing and not one fact.

 

Not sure what you are looking for.

 

 

What I have been saying is that evolution is supported by evidence. I provided some clear evidence. What has been provided as "evidence" for Creationism other than someone's faith, which to me is not enough.

I just would like to refer us all back to a post I made yesterday of what seems to being discussed again on page 3.

 

The popular use and scientific use of the term "theory" are very different! A scientific theory, resulting from the application of the scientific method, is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomena based on extensive evidence and testing. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory. For example, the atomic theory of matter states that matter is composed of particles called atoms in various arrangements. The theory of evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and geological evidence. Although they continue to argue over the details of exactly how the various mechanisms of evolution operate, biologists long ago concluded that evolution happens. This is because evolution explains all of the evidence far better than all other proposed explanations for the origin of life.

 

LINK

I just would like to refer us all back to a post I made yesterday of what seems to being discussed again on page 3.

 

BTW, you never provided your source for where you got that quote.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

 

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

 

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

Here is a good website discussing Evolution, Creationism, etc.

 

This site explains the evidence supporting Evolution and explains why Creationism is not real science.

Not sure what you are looking for.

 

 

What I have been saying is that evolution is supported by evidence. I provided some clear evidence. What has been provided as "evidence" for Creationism other than someone's faith, which to me is not enough.

What you provided is theory. Did you read it before you posted? The last part supports a "theory" that pigs once had a dew claw like deer and yet have lost it through evolution (and FWIW, that's more adaptation if it's even plausible, if you want to call that evolution, that's fine by me, however, one organism has never, nor never will evolve from another to become a completely different organism). No evidence to that theory, simply theory. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's worth the paper it was written on. Hogwash (no pun intended).

I'll admit not having read this entire thread so hopefully I'm not being redundent.

 

My feelings on the whole issue is that until someone can show me how anything can be made from nothing, creation is the only explanation plausible. What happened after that and the timeline may be open for debate to some, but it all boils down to the beginning.

I'll admit not having read this entire thread so hopefully I'm not being redundent.

 

My feelings on the whole issue is that until someone can show me how anything can be made from nothing, creation is the only explanation plausible. What happened after that and the timeline may be open for debate to some, but it all boils down to the beginning.

:thumb:

I'll admit not having read this entire thread so hopefully I'm not being redundent.

 

My feelings on the whole issue is that until someone can show me how anything can be made from nothing, creation is the only explanation plausible. What happened after that and the timeline may be open for debate to some, but it all boils down to the beginning.

 

But that is just a guess in reality. You have nothing to back that up.

What you provided is theory. Did you read it before you posted? The last part supports a "theory" that pigs once had a dew claw like deer and yet have lost it through evolution (and FWIW, that's more adaptation if it's even plausible, if you want to call that evolution, that's fine by me, however, one organism has never, nor never will evolve from another to become a completely different organism). No evidence to that theory, simply theory. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's worth the paper it was written on. Hogwash (no pun intended).

 

I thought you read it all? Did you read the part about the fossils changing over time? Is that a theory too, even though they have fossils to prove it?

 

I've said it before that there are holes in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, but also parts of it are fact. The holes in it do not mean that it is untrue, it means that scientists have not discovered everything yet. There is a lot that we do not know.

But that is just a guess in reality. You have nothing to back that up.

Well, we're all on level playing field aren't we?:banana:

I thought you read it all? Did you read the part about the fossils changing over time? Is that a theory too, even though they have fossils to prove it?

 

I've said it before that there are holes in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, but also parts of it are fact. The holes in it do not mean that it is untrue, it means that scientists have not discovered everything yet. There is a lot that we do not know.

Now, there's something I agree with.

Well, we're all on level playing field aren't we?:banana:

 

Nope, because like I have provided here, evolution has scientific evidence supporting it. Creationism has faith supporting it.