Most people dont understand that nothing in science is ever set in stone. Science is just our attempt to model the universe with our theories.
What would our world be like if we accepted every single theory as fact, and never questioned it?
We might still believe in a flat earth or geocentric solar system.
We might still believe that things float or sink because of a certain amount of "Earth", "Water", Air" and "Fire" in it.
We might still believe that an Atom is the smallest unit of matter, and indestructible.
We might still believe in the theory of spontaneous generation - that animals and bacteria spontaneously generate from food.
I could go on, but even though I believe evolution is the most likely theory, I acknowledge that we truly know nothing, and that as we learn more our theories - our models - will change.
Is Evolution Fact or Theory?
Adam
2012/05/07 22:19:02
|
|
|||||
|
86 votes
|
|
63% | |||
|
50 votes
|
|
37% | |||
If you are ever arguing about Evolution with a liberal you may be bombarded with a statement that Evolution is a fact. But hey wow wow wow wait a minute you say. There is no way Evolution can be a fact because there is no way you can show that it happened without a doubt. And facts are only those things that happened. This is where things get interesting. They will bombard you with something like this: Evolution is a fact because all the evidence points to it. It has been proven scientifically so therefore it is a fact. You then think to yourself what happened here. That is not what a fact is that is a theory or a Law. Well this is what happened. They changed the definition of fact so that they can make the argument that they want.
If you look in a dictionary today you might find that one of the definitions written for fact is:
The quality of being actual: Actuality - a question of fact hinges on evidence
another way of saying The quality of being actual is: Something that most likely happened. If you look in the 1996 dictionary or around that time period you will find that this definition of fact is not there.
So you can see liberals have changed the definitions of the words themselves so they can win the argument. At which point they make call you ignorant. Yet another word they changed by adding the word uneducated. Why is this important. Well if you don't know that Evolution is a fact then you must not be educated and therefore you can be called ignorant. Well who wants to be called ignorant. By doing this they hope they have shut you up enough, or that you have finally accepted that Evolution is a fact.
Well at this point you might be saying. This isn't fair; how could this happen. To them it isn't about fair it is about whatever they can do to win their agenda. Besides whoever defines the debate wins the debate right. In order to win the debate they have decided to backdoor a way to control the debate. So now that the whole conspiracy has been broken wide open do you agree with them that it is a fact or are you with me on it is a theory and hold to what we all were taught what a fact is when we were younger.
If you look in a dictionary today you might find that one of the definitions written for fact is:
The quality of being actual: Actuality - a question of fact hinges on evidence
another way of saying The quality of being actual is: Something that most likely happened. If you look in the 1996 dictionary or around that time period you will find that this definition of fact is not there.
So you can see liberals have changed the definitions of the words themselves so they can win the argument. At which point they make call you ignorant. Yet another word they changed by adding the word uneducated. Why is this important. Well if you don't know that Evolution is a fact then you must not be educated and therefore you can be called ignorant. Well who wants to be called ignorant. By doing this they hope they have shut you up enough, or that you have finally accepted that Evolution is a fact.
Well at this point you might be saying. This isn't fair; how could this happen. To them it isn't about fair it is about whatever they can do to win their agenda. Besides whoever defines the debate wins the debate right. In order to win the debate they have decided to backdoor a way to control the debate. So now that the whole conspiracy has been broken wide open do you agree with them that it is a fact or are you with me on it is a theory and hold to what we all were taught what a fact is when we were younger.
If you want to believe in the snap of the fingers existence go right ahead.
Life from nothing.... There are two schools of thought on that which I would discuss with a person with an open mind but since it is not, I won't.
You see, you still carry the most ancient of questions that sentient man asked.
Who am I and Why am I here? Without the knowledge of past history and science the most common denominator becomes a supernatural force, a god as it were. Modern religion is nothing more then a business created to huckster an answer to that most basic question and humanity for all its advances still clings to that most ancient question through religion.
You just can't accept the fact that things just happen given the right set of circumstances and conditions.
This children is what we call a lay person. They have absolutely no understanding of what theory means to science and continue to use the colloquial definitions in an act to perpetuate the pretence that they actually know what they are talking about.
All joking aside, I'm sure you also don't believe in germ theory, atomic theory, electronics theory, cell theory. These theories are the base of all modern electronics and medicine.
angels can stand on the head of a pin" argument. The same level of facts is presented to support the argument.
For one there is actually proof that this is all random. Two...who in the right mind would set in motion events that would lead to life? Why? The logical inconsistencies with the intelligent design theory are along the lines of dividing by zero >.>
1) A house and the Universe are totally different things. Comparing them is completely silly.
2) It's possible to actually witness a star being born and a planet being created. No sign of god anywhere fitting in all the pieces.
3) Every domesticated animal is proof of Evolution that can actually be witnessed. As are bacteria and viruses. (which for the sake of argument are alive) So it stands to reason that if everything else on Earth evolves all on it's own that so do humans. Unless you're saying that out of the 4.2 billion years Earth has been around God decided to create humans specifically so that we could bypass evolution and just be the most advanced thinking minds on the planet.
4) You assume for a moment that god created the big-bang. When it's far more likely that the big-bang created god. (Or whatever higher power you think created the universe and life)
5) You're right something does fit together all the pieces of the universe, and sparked life. It's called Gravity, Electromagnetism, The Weak Nuclear Force, and The Strong Nuclear Force + a little chaos.
Unfortunately houses are not planets, and those need to be laid down brick by brick. That's also because we build square and hallow houses...which kind of defy the natural laws. (In that...the universe really wants to push it together in a solid sphere)
1) A Planet.
2) A Galaxy
3) A Star
4) A Black Hole
5) White Hole (well this one is theoretical if it even exists)
6) Mountains
7) Canyons
8) Rivers or other bodies of water
and I have more that I can tack on to their. Before you get your panties in a twist and shout "but those are natural things!" That's the point. They are done in nature at random with no outside help, no plan, just accidents.
Here's one that might really trip you out. Just recently a group of scientists tried to "Build" an eyeball. Something so complex that it's argued that it would have to have been created by some kind of higher power. My argument is that the eye is so complicated it would have to have been an accident. If anyone tried on purpose they'd fail due to Murphy's Law. Turns out I'm right on both counts. The group of scientists failed, and then accidentally created a non-working prototype.
Gimme some time and I'll dig up the article.
It's even more ridiculous to say such things are NOT scientific. Because it's not "this must fit because I think it fits this way. it's "This is most likely to fit based off a logical conclusion drawn from observation."
Which means that until proven otherwise it's fact, but not law.