By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dsgrue3 on 15 October 2013
Edit Thread
AstroGamer said:
dsgrue3 said:
AstroGamer said:

Nothing about this thread is philosophical. That's what you seem to not understand.

The Earth orbiting the Sun is not philosophy, it's fact (or as close as it gets). 

Evolution is not philosophy, it's fact (again, as close as it gets). The Theory of Evolution may have some debate about mechanics - what/how much is the role of the environment, natural selection, mutation, but the evidence speaks for itself. It happened, of this there is no dispute within the scientific field - you know, actual experts that do this for a living, check themselves against each other, make their data available. 

You can bullshit as a priest, you can't bullshit in the scientific community. There are safeguards against that - that's the point of peer review and experimental repetition by other scientists. 

The entirety of your argument seems to be that you can't understand it or can't see the evidence. I've provided several ways already where you can view the data and this is simply the surface level data. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Review their experimental results, do the experiments yourself if you can.

Doubting simply because you haven't reviewed the data is fine, that's how it should work. Skepticism until sufficient evidence, but you don't show any willingness to look at the data. And that, to me, is unacceptable.

When you bring creationism and evolution and compare them, it becomes philosophical since science is just a narrower field of philosophy. A simple point to prove that while science can be true one day and inaccurate the next is the Bohr Model of the atom. back when it was first thought of and published, it was thought to be correct. It makes sense to an extent. Then, the quantum mechanical model is thought of and published and that is one of the most accurate models if not the most accurate models of the atom. The theory of evolution is in the same spot. it cannot be proven solidly. There is adaption proven without a doubt but evolution hasn't been so keenly proven. It hasn't been proven that nature is "randomly" selecting species to gain certain traits that they are a separate species.

Also, somewhat unrelated to this post, but has anyone actually tried to force evolution to happen. Seems like that would be a certain thing to do but I haven't heard of anything along those lines. That would certainly be a boon for evolution 

Yeah, you don't really have any clue what you're talking about.

We're done here. Start reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment