Exactly. It's the irony of this that makes it somewhat difficult to take Prunepicker seriously at times. As smart as he/she may seem.
Wrong. You've just shown your lack of understanding science. 1. There is no absolute science. You made that up or some idiot you believe told you what to think. 2. Theories are just that. Theories. They are proposed ideas.
I disagree with evolution because the evidence is so weak it can't be supported. I know you want it to be for religious reasons but it's not. By the way, I'm not a Creationist. Please provide the post where I said, "if science disagrees, then science is wrong".
The incredible lack of evidence is FOR evolution is strong evidence AGAINST evolution. The given definition of evolution is the gradually transitioning from one species into another. There is no evidence of that ever happening. That's very strong evidence against evolution. It's your turn to produce some evidence contrary.
In science, theories are WAY more than that. You keep claiming to know something about science. Then, you say stuff like in this post of yours! You should have had THAT idea of yours debunked in high school.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. A scientific theory is supported by extensive research,repeated experimentation and observation. The theory of evolution is no less valid than the theory of gravity.
Creationist,fundamentalist,literalist;whichever one floats your Ark. You disagree because of religious beliefs.
Alright, maybe I don't feel a need to meet in person just yet. Thank you for being reasonable. But I can't speak for the thread's "lurkers". I told you from the start, I never said I could provide evidence. Plenty of people, maybe even yourself, know more about evolution than I do. Though the lack of evidence doesn't mean something couldn't have happened. A concept you're familiar with. All I did was ask the same kind of questions about Christianity as you did of evolution. Yet you continue to avoid them. That's why I've (and many others) been interested in studying all of you. Let's say you're not doing this for religious reasons. That means that Christianity, which to you is true, is no different than the evolution theory. You have your own thoughts about what is fact. I asked those of you on this thread who oppose evolution, to provide evidence for your claims. Yet it's always met with either hostility or avoidance. I will admit a second time: based on the fact that the theory of evolution is not complete, it has the possibility of not being correct. Can you say the same of Christianity's claims?
If it's taught as fact in order to supress opposing ideologies, I can sympathize with that. Anyway, I just wanted to add the list of theoretical claims you made. Maybe you could at least try to back this up with solid evidence? Please? http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
I know exactly what a scientific theory is. You forgot to add a very important part of what one is and that is "it's something that doesn't have enough information" to deem it other than a theory. As I've been saying over and over but of course it falls on deaf ears to those who aren't educated above a high school education.
Not true. I disagree because the evidence isn't strong enough to support it. Period. No if's, and's nor but's. For some reason there are those who can't fathom that someone can come to an opinion against evolution without religion being a part of it. All you have to do is do some real research and look at what's there ask questions. Evolution is a very weak theory. Then there are those folk who believe whatever they're told without reservation. I honestly pity those people.
That makes sense. I just don't like the religions of people who don't believe in evolution. I don't so much have an issue with the skepticism of evolution itself. Then there is the fact that you're being hypocritical when criticizing evolution but also believe in Christianity.
By "something that doesn't have enough information", you mean like your claims seen here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
The theory has changed a lot over the time it's been around. It wouldn't make sense to deny it, that is just how such things work.
Because the irony is you yourself believe so surely in something that has very little evidence going for it. Yet you criticize evolution for the same thing. Whether or not something is taught in schools as fact is irrelavant.
It would be fine if Prunepicker could concede the fact that his/her religion might be entirely false. Then the criticism of the theory of evolution wouldn't be so hypocritical.
I'm curious now, what do your friends or family think about all this? Do you have the same ideals they do or do they differ?
Religion is a construct of Mankind, and so divorced from reality, as is Evolution currently, it is not that I disbelieve Evolution more than I believe that somewhere there is a confluence between both that there is a Creator of all as well as the handiwork improving and Evolving in ways we have yet to fathom, sans Fairy stories and fake or missing links.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified. If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory, the current theory would be dismissed and discarded. This has never, ever happened. Ever. This should show just how powerful this scientific theory really is. It should be noted that other scientific theories that are just as widely accepted in the scientific community include gravity, cell theory, plate tectonics, the big bang theory, and the atomic theory. These are all scientific theories. Yes, gravity is on par with evolution. Too many people think that a scientific theory could potentially be raised to a higher level (*if only there were enough evidence *). There is NO higher level. For instance, a scientific theory does not have the potential to become a scientific law, because they are completely separate things. A scientific law is not above a scientific theory. A law is a principle or guideline to keep in mind (such as the laws of thermodynamics), whereas a theory is the best current explanation for a set of facts. A scientific theory is the highest possible achievement of science. Evolution is not *JUST* a theory… it is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory (http://notjustatheory.com/)
Not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. The theory of evolution does not predict nor should it be reasonably expected that all gaps will be filled. History is imperfectly preserved. But the gaps have been getting smaller and smaller, and there is absolutely no reason, except theological commitments, to think that work in this domain will be somehow different from every other domain of science.
Remember however, Scientific accountability is vastly important, otherwise there are far too many pseudo Science clowns that are little more than modern day Alchemists in Scientist's garb.
No, you have that wrong. There is NOTHING in science that is stronger than theory. The most heavily tested and verified explanations of how something works become THEORY.
If you think there is a competing hypothesis, then you should state it. So far, you've proposed NOTHING. Evolution is universally accepted as a foundation of all modern biology -THAT is how strong it is.
