Originally Posted by MasTequila

Most people I know that believe in evolution are one of these
believing that there is no God, being their default starting position.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

[b]As of now it [evolution] is based on a lot of consequential data such as the fossil record.
That is why it is still theory. Until we exhaust all other possibilities, it's a theory.

...

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

By John Rennie

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public Imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms........."

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate Facts, laws, inferences, and Tested hypotheses."

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
[.....]

The other 14 at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...to-creationist

Originally Posted by Tehran Tim

"....This should begin with more Jews standing up and condemning the Hateful Vulgarities of Their Religion..."

"....When your religion teaches you to lie, steal, cheat, murder, hate, rob, and deceive non-Jews, than there's something seriously wrong and backward about your religion.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...tml#post705689

Originally Posted by MasTequila

So in our lifetime we will never know if it is indeed fact, we just need to believe or speculate that it is?

I actually agree with all your points, just trying to point out that it takes a leap of faith to believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by MasTequila

I am one of those - assuming creation is the default

Most people I know that believe in evolution are one of these
believing that there is no God, being their default starting position.

So most, not all creation / evolution debates start with 2 people who can never come to commen ground because the belief at the beginning give neither an area to have commen ground.

So really to debate this issue you would have to start with the belief that God could have started it all and I would have to start with the belief that maybe he didn't. Then we can both openly look at the evidence and try to see what it leads us to believe. I have tried that but it always comes back to trying to figure out how it all started, which leads us back to our original positions.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

We need responses that at least are aware of the terminology- if not logic.
So no, we don't "have to exhaust all the other possibilites".
You don't know what 'Theory' (ie 'Theory of Gravity') means in scientific terms.
Not that there are any other rational/non-religous theories out there.

Originally Posted by Anonymous Neg Repper

I think rennie knows his facts and theories, better than you. Not that you know what theory means in scientific anyway- clearly