Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
There is more evidence in favor of evolution than you may be aware of. You are unfortunately making the classic creationist arguments, although judging by your tagline I expect you are using these words unintentionally.
If you have some time, go to this website ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html) and read. The fossil record is only a small portion of the evidence.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Sure we do.
No...we have evidence that 'suggests' a transistion from one animal to the next. We do not have proof.
Just like some Dinosaurs becoming birds...(a theory that I support). We have fossils 'suggesting' this. But we do not have actual proof.
...and,BTW, "Evolution" is a Religion to some. Just look at the reaction of those who "Believe" in evolution when you just state matter-of-factly that it is just a theory. They get defensive and irate that anyone would not believe in what they believe.
redrock
If ID/creationism can't even win in Utah, then it's dead.
"Proof"----Concrete verifiable answers to those same questions.
For instance....the Dinosaur nesting grounds in Montana.
We have fossils of eggs. We have them in a grouping that suggests intentional placing of the eggs. We can postulate a theory that this means the parents of those eggs lived in monogomous relationships (based on what we see about current nesting practices of currently living creatures). We can also postulate about their social habits etc.
Which makes sense...unless there existed something totally different 100 million years ago...something that we have no modern correlation for.
Which is why its a theory and not a fact.
No matter how much we want it to be so.
redrock
We do have proof beyond reasonable doubt that humans shared an ancestor with apes. This is provided via the recent genome studies that have identified virus DNA inserted at identical locations in several species. There are several thousand identified matching insertions, and species that morphological studies have concluded split farther back in time share fewer such common insertions, confirming the timeline determined by those earlier studies.
Just like the DNA evidence is not absolute "proof" that OJ did it (because maybe space aliens framed him), it is proof beyond reasonable doubt, just as the genome evidence confirms common ancestors between species.
BTW, "Evolution" is a Religion to some. Just look at the reaction of those who "Believe" in evolution when you just state matter-of-factly that it is just a theory. They get defensive and irate that anyone would not believe in what they believe.
Not irate that some don't accept evolution. Irate that some misrepresent the precise language of science. A scientific "theory" is one thing, while the common usage of "theory" means another. Deliberate misuse of the word, particularly after the actual semantics have been explained over and over, cause honest people to be irate. "Religion" or "faith" has nothing to do with it.
"You're right. Evolution teaches that we are STILL apes."No, taxonomy does. We ARE apes.
Ahhh, you beat me to it... Exactly right. We are African Great Apes.
You're doing just fine in proving that yourself.
When I find a fossil....it's proof that an animal existed.
When I start to come up with how it lived and it's social structure...that's a theory.
I guess the problem with all this arises in that those who totally believe in Evolution insist that it's THE way it happened. Their minds are never open to anything else..any other possibility. To those "Evolutionists"....evolution is a proven fact...as close-minded as any Wahabi could wish for.
Personally...I believe that evolution is a good starting point. But it is NOT the total answer.
redrock
Attack the Grammar/Spelling and Ignore the Argument Placemarker
Hey, when the facts aren't on their side, what do you expect them to do?
Honest debate is evidently out of the question, so they have to score whatever minor points they can.
Your definitions are incorrect for the subject.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."
Please go read before you continue the discussion. In science a theory is as close to fact as science gets. Because scientific proof requires that we demonstrate conclusively that the theory is true in all places and for all times, science cannot prove much in the traditional sense of the word.
I'm curious. Do you beleive men are made of something other than molecules?
Evolution is based on a lot of facts (see my list of definitions, above). These facts have been gathered over hundreds of years. The theory of evolution is a well-supported and well-tested theory, developed over the last 150 years.
The scientists who study evolution are not close-minded as you suggest, but they are not going to ignore the results of science for no good reason.
Since you seem to have something specific in mind, what hypothesis do you suggest scientists address as an alternative explanation to the theory of evolution?
But... but... it's possible that in actuality God is turning off the light and he just designed your refrigerator so that it looks exactly like your light is being switched off by the little button. It is only your atheist, secularist, matarialist bias and your desire to do drugs and consort with loose women that blinds you to this truth.
But the existence of the animal was not a scientific hypothesis in the first place. It is a fact, a piece of evidence, which is a different thing.
When I start to come up with how it lived and it's social structure...that's a theory.
No, that's a hypothesis. A scientific "theory" is a general explanation for how things work. Such as the "theory of gravity" (which is very little understood, by the way), the "theory of evolution", or the "theory of music". Gravity, evolution and music all exist, but to explain them in scientific terms takes a theory.
"Are you implying that life did not evolve from dirt?"
No, I am stating that the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life.
And creationism the faith of the fools whose children who will be judged by the way they say "You want fries with that?"
So9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.