I will answer some question in this post, one is why do I believe in Jesus well because I believe is because when I ask him into my heart I will be in heaven one day. Next is aren't you afraid of being some what pursacuted (I spelled pursacuted wrong twice) over the internet and the answer is no why is because what they say doesn't matter only God's opinion matters because he created us and loves all even though some of you don't believe in him . To end this well I guess I should proof read my stuff before posting it.
I feel that evolution is one of the most commonly misunderstood things by "Jesus freaks (with detail this time)," so I'm just trying to "shed light" on the subject.
I understand but you asked to put out the fallacy and I did (evolution most likely did happen =/= evolution did happen).
Still your points are extremely good proof that evolution could occur which refutes 99% or creationist's arguments.
I support evolution as the best explanation for the variation of species but we still cannot prove it and we most likely never will; however, this by no means discounts it as an extremely strong theory.
even though we cant go back to it and prove it 100%, evolution is regarded as fact.. and not believing in evolution is kinda dumb.. like not believing in gravity :P
I understand but you asked to put out the fallacy and I did (evolution most likely did happen =/= evolution did happen).
Ah, but we're addressing two different ideas - In the argument, I'm referring to evolution of a species through natural selection (which fundamentalists deny), rather than the idea that there is a common lineage that began with a single organism.
My argument addresses the type of evolution that shows what will happen to a species over time.
Your type of "evolution" (I'm not sure this is the proper word to describe it) refers to the past.
dumb
Would it be a euphemism or would it be accurate to say "misinformed"?
Ah, but we're addressing two different ideas - In the argument, I'm referring to evolution of a species through natural selection (which fundamentalists deny), rather than the idea that there is a common lineage that began with a single organism.
I believe you're referring to natural selection why I'm addressing the theory of evolution as a whole. Either why this is a fairly pointless point to keep discussing.
"misinformed"
I would say it depends on whether they simply do not know enough or whether they are purposefully denying facts.
Nothing is completely proven. Science works on high degrees of certainty, and the theory of evolution is as certain as theories can get.
By saying that evolution cannot be regarded as fact, is along the lines of saying that absolutely nothing can be regarded as fact. Evolution can be observed in laboratories and numerous cases of speciation has been directly observed and recorded.
Evolution can be observed in laboratories and numerous cases of speciation has been directly observed and recorded.
The mechanics of evolution have been observed, again I stress that calling evolution (in the holistic sense of describing the "unraveling" of life after the genesis of the first cell) a fact is incorrect. To call natural selection and mutation a fact is, however, would be correct.
I understand that evolution is regarded as true when biological experiments are undertaken and has never been falsified but that does not make it fact. Simply a **** good explanation that is backed by scientific fact.
The mechanics of evolution have been observed, again I stress that calling evolution (in the holistic sense of describing the "unraveling" of life after the genesis of the first cell) a fact is incorrect. To call natural selection and mutation a fact is, however, would be correct.
I think many scientists would disagree on how you distinguish between fact and non-fact. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology and all its fields point towards the validity of evolution and the relationship between all known species.
I'd say that x=x is the most certain postulate.
I was talking about theories. And yes, I believe that the only things that we can know for certain is abstract concepts, mathematics is a good example.
If certainty through absolute proof defines fact then I'm confused as to why you're arguing your above point.
I am not saying that absolute certainty is what defines a fact at all, but more that defining a fact is a subjective term that deals with high certainty. It is highly certain that natural selection occurs, but it is not 100% certain. Still you can call it a fact. The lineage between different species we are also highly certain of, yet you do not believe it as a fact?
To make sure we're on the same page, what's the difference between theories and postulates / axioms / assumptions?
I am talking about scientific theories which deals with high certainties to account for all the data we observe. You gave me an abstract concept that is more towards logic and mathematics.
It is highly certain that natural selection occurs, but it is not 100% certain.
Perhaps not 100% but because it has been directly shown in laboratory experiments as well as in various natural instances I consider it more a truth, I simply deny that the idea of original cell to all living organisms is not fact.
If we all were to accept theories as fact the scientific world would be a very stagnant place.
I am talking about scientific theories which deals with high certainties to account for all the data we observe. You gave me an abstract concept that is more towards logic and mathematics.
Just wondering - how do you come up with your statistics and percentages for "certainty" so I can calculate them.
Or in other words - how do you quantify "certainty" of something? Or is it completely subjective?
