the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
lead evidence based lives
And unlike cofty, on a scientific level I am not qualified to advocate or refute evolution . All I can do is to decide for myself whether I choose to believe it or not. It is very easy for a judge or a jury or a prosecutor, enjoying immunity, to decide on something when their lives do not depend on it -but if it did ?! -Romans 1:20
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
No confusion now.
That may be the case -or maybe not if evolution comes up with something new
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
In every other area of life we have to weigh up the evidence.
Or measure, or prove with experimentation: Case in point: The sun is a fact. Case in point: Experiment shows that the relationship between something and the sun under these conditions is always the case.
In this sense evolution has been "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.
There is a difference between preponderance of the evidence and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt: There may be so much evidence to support something is true that it can be accepted as true (if magnitude of supporting evidence was the determining standard) or on the other hand, the reasonable possibility of something not being true inspite of all of the supporting evidence is what reasonable doubt means ( in the US criminal cases are tried with reasonable doubt as the deciding standard and not amount of evidence)
there is nothing that will convince unreasonable people.
But not agreeing with a conclusion or theory does not make one unreasonable. And there are reasons why not everyone is convinced that humanity evolved from the same ancestor as animals inspite of all of the evidence that science uses to support that conclusion.
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
Someone who rejects evolution for supposed lack of evidence (which is really just lack of knowledge...
Google =
To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:[8]
- The general sense of change over time.
- All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
- The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.
Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution
I think that there is a difference between fact and conclusions. Anyway that it just something that I cut and pasted from wiki encyclopedia.
More Google= cofty
There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,
Bolony. I remember an article in National Geographic(I think it was) about 10 years ago that stated that DNA confirmed that "Neanderthal man" did not breed with homo sapiens. A couple of years later I read another article somewhere that said that they did. In fact anyone taking a dna test now can see some Neanderthal in their lineage. You figure it out. Where neanderthal humans?
as the understanding
Do you see the logical fallacy in the comparison above?
I am not qualified to advocate or to refute "evolution." Evolution is working system that science uses as a patern to predict. There is controversy whether it can be falsified or not. There is also controversy about evolution apparently contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. There is also controversy whether or not evolution can coexist with enthropy. Some people choose to believe in evolution.
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.
(biological) Evolution (Humanity evolved from simpler organisms) continues to be a theory until it is shown or proven or demonstrated to be the case . Until then it is not a fact.
You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."
There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.
A course in analytical reading and comprehension skills can help you: 'The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution' Think about the statement. And its context.
I am not getting into a pseudo-scientific cofty discussion with you - I am not interested. -or google cut and paste definitions or explanation. Do it yourself. I will say this though: The scientific method is used to test a hypothesis. If it turns out to be the case, it is validated. Such testing or experimenting if successful PROVES the hypothesis.
Evolution of humanity from simpler organisms cannot be proven or validated. Use whatever words you like. I understand that the term "theory of Evolution" refers to that all forms of life evolved from the same ancestor -That has not been proven.
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
Well, then the next sentence of my post proves itself to be true. :(
No it does not.
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
to backup your assertions that the accepted status quo is wrong.
The accepted status quo, if only a theory, remains such even without my assertions. facts do not need advocates or supporters, they cannot be challenged. The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution. Evolution continues to be only a theory until it is proven to be fact.
See, you can't just say that.
I can.
Evolution ain't a fact.
i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.
an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.
survival is at the core of what belief is about.
Harry Potter.....
Not to Abraham. And it is not relevant in this discussion whether you believe the Bible or not (although the Bible is true) but that the Bible records that historical figures such as Abraham, Paul and others showed faith based upon evidence (fact) and not upon snake oil.
the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".
richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.
the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .
i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.
an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.
survival is at the core of what belief is about.
Faith in no way is based on fact.
Sure it is. The faith that ALL Bible characters had was based on fact, for example, the faith that Abraham had was based upon the fact that he knew for a fact that God existed for a fact . That is a lot of fact. But he had more facts: He communicated with God, he saw angels, and God made his barren wife fertile. But even with all those facts, he was not 100 percent sure and that is what faith is all about.
Anyway, I showed one way. And that debunks what you stated above.
