Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 128 of 217 (523375)
09-09-2009 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 7:52 PM


1 + 1 = 2 is a fact because we have defined it.
Is it a fact that we have defined it?
You can never truly prove that gravity exists.
I think my problem with this is that may well end up redefining the word, 'fact'. For example - the statement "Henry VIII was King of England" is no longer a fact. It isn't defined as true, and it can't be proven true in the mathematical sense. Yet most people would use the word 'fact' to describe it.
(welcome to EvC!)
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 7:52 PM PetersDenial has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 8:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 217 (523382)
09-09-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 8:50 PM


In the 1500 the country decided / accepted that Henry VIII was king of England.
Is that a fact, as you define it? If so, prove it. Explain how you logically prove there was no cover up, errors, legal loopholes that mean he wasn't actually king, or any other possible but unlikely occurrences that might happen. Unless you are saying that we define a king based on who historians say is king...
And if we define gravity as being 'the phenomenon that caused masses to be attracted to one another', ie., as a historical fact, does that mean gravity is a fact, after all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 8:50 PM PetersDenial has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 4:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 217 (523927)
09-13-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:15 AM


If evolution isnt about, or has never been about the origin of life, why does Dawkins, one of the worlds leading and most respected evolutionary scientists, go into such detail to explain how the first living cell came into existence?
Dawkins in the selfish gene writes:
Darwin's theory takes over from where the story of the slow building up of molecules leaves off.
The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition nobody was around to see what happened.
He draws a line between the two. The two subjects are obviously related to the subject of 'life'. The origin of biology itself is obviously a topic of interest to a biologist.
The selfish gene is principally about replicators (the title of the chapter to which you are referring). Dawkins talks (very) briefly about a pre-replicator world and then talks about the first replicators and so on. His central thesis is that where there is replication + inheritance there will be evolution which is why he also talks about memes in the book too.
{abe: heh - didn't see Percy's reply}
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 146 of 217 (523997)
09-14-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:43 PM


Here is the crux of the issue. No evolutionist denies or ignores the value of abiogenesis as the first step of the macroevolution process.
I deny it. It is, however, an important step in the history of biology.
Only when creationists refer to the two issues simultaneously do evos sanctimoniously claim they just don't get it.
No. When creationists say that since there is little evidence about how life originated this proved the theory of evolution wrong, they need to be corrected since the theory of evolution is an explanation for how life evolves.
When creationists say that without evidence of abiogenesis, the whole of natural history must be false, they should be corrected since not knowing what happened fifty years ago does not mean we don't know what happened yesterday.
Well we do get it, and very clearly. You believe that life magically appeared spontaneously around 3.5 billion years ago in that pool of primordial ooze...
I don't believe in magic. I believe that life began to live on earth billions of years ago. There are a number of possible explanations as to how this happened which others have elucidated. Given the track record for 'mundane physical and chemical processes' for being the answer to mankind's difficult questions about seemingly awe-inspiring phenomenon, I'm inclined to place my bets there.
What we creationists are waiting for is evidence that one actual species/type of animal has ever evolved into another species/type of animal. That's the crux of your belief system after all, so produce evidence of it if you can and put this issue to bed once and for all.
I'm not sure what a species/type of animal is. I should also point out that it isn't just animals that have evolved! Evidence that all life is related has been presented. Evidence that populations change over time has been presented. This isn't the thread to go into the evidence, but feel free to find or start a thread on the subject. Might I suggest this, as a possible starting point?
Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory.
I guess there are tens upon tens of thousands of scientists engaging in disenguous propaganda then. Thank the Lord that the stalwart creationists are here to correct them! No, not really. The processes are different, the second process could exist without a natural origin of life. *poof* the first life appears via magic or god or time travelling scientists or...then *mutate/selection* it evolves.
Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.
By all means try. I've been posting here over four years now - feel free to examine my posts for evidence of dishonesty and pseudoscience. How life got here, and what happens to it when it is here are seperate questions. It is amazing how often creationists like to conflate the two and insist that if the origin of life was not natural that proves that it cannot evolve. It's like saying that if it can be proven that aliens created the solar system that proves that planets can't orbit the sun. It's a massive non-sequitur. Of course, if you have anything more substansive than throwing around claims of 'propaganda' and 'dishonesty' I'm always willing to hear it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:43 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 193 of 217 (524442)
09-16-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.
I agree.
So what criteria of truth do you use to determine what is a lie and what is not?
Here's the rub DA, a scientific knowledge isn't necessary or required when discussing a supernatural event which the Creation account is. Just because secular humanists must define, categorize and quantify evolution as a valid science, doesn't mean that it is in reality. It is the epitome of fraud and a pseudo science.
You don't necessarily require scientific knowledge if you are discussing a supernatural event.
However, you do need scientific knowledge if you are discussing what is or is not 'valid science'.
I just reject the concept that animals die and their remains survive long enough to be buried naturally in order to leave a permanent record of their entire generation in nice neat and easy to read sedimentary layers as evolution claims it is.
Are you suggesting that no organisms are ever rapidly buried unless a supernatural event occurs? That seems like a very broad statement, indeed! No animal has ever died in a mud slide, or in a tar pit or other boggy area? Granted, such events are rare - certainly not the norm - but nobody ever claimed it was common. We'd probably see things with shells (especially those that live in the water) getting fossilized more often than squishy animals that spend time on the land.
It isn't necessary to study the intricacies of a lie in order to recognize that it's a lie on its face.
Sometimes things that seem extraordinary, impossible even, at first blush turn out to be not only possible but inevitable with further study.
So how does all this tie into the phrase 'evolution is a fact'? Are you just trying to say that you think that evolution isn't true? That seems like a different topic entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024