Oh brother. The whole point is why should that be universal fact whereas evolution is not? It is a matter of methodology in determining the truth. METHODOLOGY. I cannot say it enough. I'm starting to think you don't grasp what that means...
And on another note, do you go to the doctor when you are sick and listen to his/her advice on what to do to get better? If so, a lot of times the bases for such medical decisions or drug therapies is much weaker than the case for evolution. Furthermore, the methodologies used to determine such clinical guidelines adhere to statistical and scientific guidelines which are akin to that in evolution studies. And this point is not limited to just medicine and doctors, but can be applied to virtually any intellectual field including many that impact you and you rely on daily whether it be engineering, drug therapies, and even man-made things like insurance or investment (which involve deep statistics, risk assessment, etc.) Quite literally you benefit from the scientific method and accompanying methodologies tremendously as a person who lives in this society. And yet, with absolute conviction and no alternative methodology of your own, you insist on fighting these very methods and bringing them down to the level of something much less rigorous. You want to dismantle the very fundamentals seen at the most effective schools for decades if not centuries and in turn teach our children that ideological dogmatism is an acceptable alternative to scientific rigor. I will never understand such a position.
Last edited:
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances.
However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.
Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
I asked for the methodology in determining the truth, not specifically for 1+1. In determining fact. Because it was not long ago that you said everything is opinion and not in fact, fact. So that should include 1+1 too, right? So where do you draw that line and who decides what is universally accepted truth? Adding to that, what would it take for you to accept evolutionary fact as fact? And don't answer with "proof" as that does not mean anything- to you what constitutes "proof" of evolution because that is clearly the point we disagree on?
Last edited:
And on the points that you ignored in my last post, what do you think? IF you reject evolution as fact based on a lack of evidence, then do you do the same for all of those other things to? And if so, what should be taught in schools concerning those issues? Especially at graduate and professional levels? Something you learn pretty quickly when you get to those levels is that we don't know what the hell we are talking about, but only that we know a lot more about what we are talking about than anyone outside the field. This is the way human knowledge progresses though and it is the way science is. We are not omniscient and we accept that, but at a certain level there is great utility in differentiating between fact and fiction or the relative levels of certainty (of course while making sure the students know that everything has some grain of salt that comes with it- but it is the scientific method and the peer-review community that is built around that notion more than perhaps any other institution out there and certainly moreso than the church which at times is the exact opposite ["faith"]).
The child that rejects evolution in the first place? So you are telling me by the parents teaching their children that creation is the origin of man is harming the child?
If you can count and and get the answer than it likely is the answer.
We couldn't disagree if there was proof of evolution. It would tolerate no disagreement.
Basically if a the year old can understand the concept its pretty much the reality. But you clam that is the same simplicity at which evolution is proven, please provide such proof.
We disagree on what proof is, so far its nothing, at least from you. What has convinced you so completely?
No...I am simply stating that a lack of critical thinking skills and education pertinent to the world they will be faced with will likely be detrimental to them as they try to be successful.
Rejecting Evolution by and of itself may have no ill effect, they simply do not become biologists. Rejecting the concept of accurate Data will most certainly lead to many hardships throughout life.
all other things, no. The evidence to many things is completely convulsive. You have provided nothing in the realm of conclusive evidence fire such an expert you seem terrible at citing basis for your position. You haven't provided your methodology.
I have nothing to go on but your word, frankly you have no credibility, so I have nothing. You expect me to accept what you do as fact so please other than you being the academic Messiah give me reason or stop posting.
If I May:
Biogeography shows us how new species only arise near very similiar species. Similar species share a common time and place.
What evidence is there for evolution?
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
As there are 98,900,000 results for "Evidence for Evolution".....I will not post more, but instead hope you to look at the rest.
If I May:
Paleontology shows us that organisms have changed gradually over time, as reflected in the fossil record.
Biogeography shows us how new species only arise near very similiar species. Similar species share a common time and place.
Developmental biology shows us that an organism builds on ancestral features as it develops from a single cell.
Morphology shows us how organisms adapt ancestral features to new uses, even when there are more efficient solutions elsewhere in nature.
Genetics shows us that we can group species by similarity of genes. These groups even share unused DNA.
What evidence is there for evolution?
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
As there are 98,900,000 results for "Evidence for Evolution".....I will not post more, but instead hope you to look at the rest.
Thank you, this is evidence of evolution, but how would you use this to convince a fundamentalist?
I would not bother to try, as they have every right to believe as they do and are of no concern to me (unless a friend or relation). A child in school however, is of societal concern to an extent, as the education process is rather important for our future.
My methodology of choice is the scientific method- I've said it many times. As for the evidence of many things being completely conclusive (I am guessing relative to evolution?) - hahaha. As Mark Twain said, "education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty." The difference between a layperson and an expert is that the expert knows how little he knows and also how much more he knows than the layperson.
I am in the healthcare field- trust me when I say there are plenty of things that are not conclusive relative to evolution- in other words, a lot of the things we accept as fact or even use clinically is on a scientific basis that isn't nearly as strong as that which proves evolution. Or, don't believe me. I could care less.
I have already provided a general summary of the evidence out there- go look at the first few pages of this thread. I have also given you sources to go look at further studies. You merely chose to brush all that aside. At this point I am not going to hold your hand and show you anything more- I have done my part. If you want to live with your head stuck in the soil, so be it, just don't expect me to sit back and let people like you try to change our schools for the worse.
Last edited:
So it isn't your concern if just the average Joe believes in creation but it is if the average child does? What harm does it bring to society?
Similar threads
