Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.

This is my #1 problem with ’scientific’ and/or ‘atheists’ people. They talk about science…and they throw the word ‘fact’ in there writings. The word fact is an absolute. Science isn’t based on absolutes. Gravity isn’t a ‘fact’. You can’t have ‘facts’ in science. Why? Because you can’t know tomorrow.

Now, I’d like to repeat this statement, just because it’s all too common to avoid this point. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE. There are laws, there are theories, there are hypothesis’, etc.

Looking back in time is like CSI. Your analyzing the current state, to your best ability but you can’t fully ‘know’ what happened. You can assume and make very plausible guesses based on the evidence but you can’t know “the guy was stabbed first, then he fell to the ground, then he walked outside and shot himself”. The guy could’ve tripped on something and stabbed himself, then someone shot him.

It just matters on “how much evidence” the person has, to decide which situation is more plausible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Fact is truth. Truth has no error. Terms are important and if your going to throw an absolute term around in the science realm, you obviously don’t know what science is. Science is the study of facts, or it’s original dervivative ‘to know knowledge’.

In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Actually no. Law is the term that should be used, not ‘fact’. 2nd law of thermodynamics. Law of Gravity. I know he is a proponent of Evolution, which isn’t my qualm. My qualm is in his terms. SAY LAW! NOT FACT!

Stephen later quotes Darwin. I see a lot of irony in his statement because the Big Bang and Darwins theory fight against each other and won’t mix, like oil and water. But many evolutionists say ‘Oh, we have a different form of evolution’. Yet they continue to quote Darwin on different points. This is my second issue with Evolutionists. Big Bang and Darwin DON’T mix.

There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination.

I think Evolutionists put 2 types of evolution, into the same category and call two SEPARATE things by one term (evolution). By types I mean, Micro and Macro. I will not deny Micro-evolution and any creationist should agree with it, just as they agree with gravity (not as ‘fact’ but as ‘law’). But I disagree with Macro-evolution. It’s a theory and that’s what’s debated. But, on the other hand, creation is only a theory and probably will never get passed being just a ‘theory’ but neither will macro-evolution.

This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won’t do in the real world.

Lol. Philosophy? Um…no maybe English class, or Science class.

Science develops/creates a view/concept to interpret the data at hand. It looks at the data at hand (the ‘facts’) and tries to understand them and break them down. Why do people not float away from earth (’fact’)? Science says Law of Gravity.

Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

Highly Probable? Silly not to accept it?

There is a difference between knowing someone got shot or it’s ‘highly probable’ they got shot. One has the bullet in the wound, the other just see’s a hole in their chest. One has the ‘means’ (the bullet), the other doesn’t.

Evolution is taken as ‘fact’ yet, there is no bullet to find to prove it. They have a missing link. Not just one, but millions of missing links.

Big Bang contradicts Darwin’s original thesis. Missing link…is still missing. Carbon dating is unreliable and many (if not all) dating past a few thousand years becomes shotty. Dinosaurs existed, yet they were on average the size of a chicken (read from a top science website), some were hundreds of feet tall, yet we see nothing ‘evolving’ to anything similar (science is based on observations; if we came from the same water, then how come it’s not repeating?). The date of the Big Bang changes too often, now has semi-settled on 13.7 billion. The date of the earth changes too. (Again, I’m rehashing the dating issues).

In Conclusion, please don’t think I’m ‘Christian’ or a ‘Creationist’. I maybe those, but I may not be. I take what Buddha says “I don’t know”. Knowing something, especially the past, is a near improbable task. Since there are zillions of variables. Many of the evolutions theory’s (um….if you read different books…you’ll realize they don’t agree on many….many things; some that are critical to their thesis) are talked about on a linear plain and some ‘ideas’ are created to fill in the blanks.

Maybe Aliens came to the earth and is stringing us along like puppets. Maybe we are in a parallel universe. Maybe…just maybe…evolution isn’t fact.

What I do know about scientific theory (and what most people who don’t have a BA/BS in some kind of science) is the amount of work that goes into a theory like evolution. At the bare minimum scientific theory requires, observation, fact gathering, peer review and testing. With evolution there will never be enough fact gathering to actually “prove it”.

On the flip side, faith doesn’t require proof or facts, because it is faith. Spending lots of time in Archaeology classes, I know there are is a lot of ’supporting evidence’ for a lot of the Holy Bible.

Most of the time when people tell me that “Evolution is only a theory”, which is true, I’ll say if you can accept that “Religion is based on mythology” then we can have a rational discussion.

You are welcome to your opinion, but your statement that theists “don’t read, they don’t think, they don’t care” is an ad-hominem attack and way off base. You are making them out to be blithering idiots. All groups, including atheists, have their range of people.

For instance, you appear to be a good example of how someone can be an atheist while simultaneously adhering to 9/11 conspiracy theory. It tells me you may not be accepting your atheistic stance from a foundation of evidence-based reasoning. What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

This is a good example for everyone. If we are truth-seekers, evidence-based reasoning is the best method, and it must be applied to all facets of life, not just the god question.

They don’t read, they don’t think, they don’t care. They have their myths and that’s all they need. They have their myths and that’s all the want.

It’s analogous to trying to explain to Bush supporters why 9/11 wasn’t perpetrated by Muslim bogeymen. They don’t listen, they don’t think, they don’t care. They have their official myth and that’s all the want.

A mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open.