Evolutionists: if some major discovery was made that proved evolution to be wrong, and some new theory gained more credibility, would you accept this new theory as fact instead?
Like in a good theory it must be proven first
Obviously. As one of the most thoroughly proven (tested) theories, it is unlikely, but as with any theory or accepted fact, if new data proves it invalid, we adjust and move on, smarter than before.
Eventually it will happen, it always has.
Yes. This is how science works.
If it has evidence supporting it, yes. Evidence is key. Evolution is as much substantiated as gravity is. Only fucking idiots deny it anymore.
Actually space-time may be the reason thing fall, rather than gravitational pull. Get off your high horse and realize that there are things about this world (the vast majority of it actually) that even the greatest scientists haven't figured out yet.
No offense Car but to suggest that some other great cause in the universe caused our fossil record to make things look like things evolved over millions of years, would be foolish.
After life was created it appears to evolve. It’s more like the Big Bang theory and life is still expanding not evolving. And we were wrong about gravity. We have known we were wrong about gravity since Einstein said he Fucked up. Inventing an all powerful, imagery force to govern the universe, with zero proof of its existence, only to be believed in through faith, will not, does not, substantiate gravity.
I guess if the theory was not a theory but a better and more fitting description and name for evolution, but evolution is fine by me, however my view on revolution is a little different than many only because I dispute whether we actually evolved from apes or not but that is my only dispute. I believe in basic evolution that science suggests.
Evolution does not state that we came from apes
@Red4799: the state of scientific education in this country is deplorable, agree?
" I dispute whether we actually evolved from apes or not but that is my only dispute."
We did not come from apes. We *are* apes. Apes and humans have common ancestors, however, as the fossil record and DNA evidence proves.
"Evolution does not state that we came from apes"
Eh, that's splitting hairs as it sort of does. It says we share a common ancestor, which means we evolved from something very ape-like. But they won't specify what that ancestor really was. We take it on faith. The theory of evolution is a religion.
No theory should be accepted as fact. That's why it's a theory.
This is referring to a scientific theory. The definition of a scientific theory is not the same as the definition in the way you are using it.
Yes, it is. Even scientific theories are not proven facts. They have evidence behind them but there can still be evidence to the contrary.
Gravitational theory, for example, is not 100% fact. Actually, there are some scientists proposing that space-time is actually the reason things fall down, not gravitational pull.
Not fact, but a scientific theory isn't just an educated guess like in everyday use (theoretical, just a theory) but a working hypothesis evolved, tested, and peer reviewed. Doesn't mean it's correct but definitely more than a hypothesis.
You're right. I never claimed it was a hypothesis. I'm just saying that a scientific theory isn't a substitute for solid fact. Scientific theories can be wrong, even ones that are backed by evidence.
Exactly. A 'theory' alone can be defined as unproven conjecture. A Scientific Theory in regards to the academic and intellectual community has a far more specific meaning.
"The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."~
Adapted from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).
Listen guys, you don't need to copy and paste your usual answer to retards who say evolution is "just a theory". I fully understand what a scientific theory is and how it is used.
My point is that the english word "fact" does not describe what a scientific theory is. Even gravity can be questioned with opposing evidence. You can debate a scientific theory. You can't debate a fact.
@Carcano: what I have a problem with is creationists rejecting ANY hypothesis or theory that disputes their claim Earth was recently created.
They won't even LOOK at evidence, it's their credo, period.
Well that's not me, I look at evidence.
May I ask what your evidence for a young earth is?
I'll give you that once you show me your evidence for your claim that I believe in a young earth.
Well you seem to be denying that evolution is the answer, so I assume you believe in a young earth. Unless you believe the earth is more than billions of years old--- I suppose that's an option.
I never denied that evolution was "the answer". I denied that evolution is the only possible answer. It's not. Any good scientific mind will keep their options open.
It's very unscientific to run around saying that a scientific theory is absolute fact. It's not. Not even gravity is. You should always question these theories.
What other options are there to consider. There really aren't any as of now.
No one can evolution is the only possibility. It's just that evidence points 99.99% in the direction towards evolution.
If the only restaurant I've ever eaten at is McDonalds does that give me the right to say that McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world?
Your a analogy makes no sense
Car, that analogy doesn't work as one deals with opinion and the other with fact. Some questions have a definite answer while others don't. And this is all based on basil assumptions.
Ok I'll jump in. Are you guys aware of the many frauds and forgeries that have been perpetrated along the way for the gaining of popularity for the theory of evolution? Or how about even Darwin himself laying out the potential pitfalls of his belief, with even today's scientific evidence falling into those specific pitfalls?
Carcano your on the wrong side of this
Nvm didn't read all of it.
It's really annoying to see wannabe intellectuals put others down with their misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.
I never said I didn't believe in evolution. I said evolution as a theory isn't solid fact. It's a possibility coupled with supporting evidence as to why it's a possibility. That's what a scientific theory is. It could be 100% wrong for all we know. Humans know pretty much nothing about the universe, life, or how they both began.
I disagree. The likelihood of us being completely wrong about evolution is like the likelihood of us being wrong on germs. Sure snowflakes can be found to cause cooties which causes cancer, it's so unlikely that we say it won't ever happen, you can do the same with evolution. The likilihood of evolution being completely false is very low. The likilihood of it being off on a few details is more likely to be true. While if you ask two people "is the earth flat or round?" the answer may not be "round" but round is still closer to the facts than "flat"
That's not true at all. Considering the extremely tiny scope of human knowledge it's very possible that we're wrong about many scientific theories. There are even some suggesting that gravity isn't real and we fall down due to space-time instead of gravitational pull.
You've mentioned space time like five times by now. I don't think you're giving human knowledge as much credit as it deserves. There are many issues still being worked out today-- evolution is not one of them. However, certain aspects are still unknown, such as the exact beginnings of life and the first common ancestor.
I didn't use gravity as an example, you did. Evolution isn't comparable to gravity but rather the heliocentric theory.
All scientific theories can be questioned.
Also both camps believe in evolution, even creationists. Evolutionists are just the ones who admit it.
Of course they can be questioned. Scientists question them everyday.
But so far nothing has disproved evolution, hence why it has stuck around for a 100 years.
You have a right to question everything but that doesn't make some questions logical. Imagine if I told you that you're a brain in a vat. Can you disprove it completely? No. Can you prove all data points in the opposite direction? Yes. Can you say that hypothetically one day we will prove that all existence is a lie and we live in a vat as a brain? You can but that doesn't make it logical lol. Evolution is like saying we don't live in a vat. Could we be wrong? Yes. Is that what the evidence is currently saying? No.
If you can question it and provide opposing evidence then you can't call it a fact. Just learn the English language and we can avoid discussions like this. You are looking at scientific theories in an unscientific way.
And it's entirely possible that I'm a brain in a vat and my life is artificial. It would be very unscientific for me to say that it's a "fact" that I'm not a brain in a vat.
No one is saying it's a fact
If it is practical to call something a proven fact, I call it that. Yes, I know evolution could "eventually be debunked", but with your logic that means we can't use the term "fact" ever lmfao, creationism doesn't have "facts" or even "evidence" on its side. It also uses evolution.
Evolution simply means "change over time". We know organisms have adaptation mechanisms built into their genes. We can prove that with genetic testing. What we cannot prove, as it is taken solely on faith, is that the theory of evolution is anywhere near true. We've never witnessed or been able to duplicate one organism evolving into another. Therefore it is not a fact but a theory, in the conventional sense.
As for gravity, once again there are very probable substitutes for what we can test and observe on earth. One specific substitute is density. This is a proven concept. Gravity, on the other hand, is taken on faith by believing that objects in space orbit one another. Unfortunately all we have are CGI images and animation telling us that is what we see.
No offense but if you believe in Noah's Arc, you must believe in face paced evolution.
I love when I'm trying to prove a point with someone and they just assume my position and copy/paste arguments that they would use against someone who usually holds that assumed position.
I already asked your thoughts on how life arose and you gave no answer.
Evolution and creationism are really the only two viewpoints held by people today
I wasn't talking to you Car in my last response. I don't think you're a Biblical literalist
I have a scientific mind so my answer to how life arose is "I don't know but there are some plausible theories". You unscientific people say "obviously evolution, DUH. All the scientists said its a fact". That's why it's sad when you go around putting people down pretending to be more logical than they are.
Whoa whoa whoa. I already said no one is sure how life started. That's the truth there it is unknown how life started. What we do know is that evolved and changed over time
Car, no I don't...I think it's proven because
1. The fossil evidence supports it
2. DNA evidence supports it
3. It makes logical sense
4. Scientists have observed micro evolution
5. Micro evolution leads to macro
6. Creationists believe in evolution
7. There's no one bringing up other compelling ideas so the most logical one to me is the one I believe.
I don't believe evolution is how life started. Try again.
Evolution is how life develops over time.
Evolution ISN'T how life started
All scientific theories have evidence in their defense. That doesn't mean every scientific theory is correct.
A scientific theory is a phenomena that explains a scientific law. Something that happens. Evolution is pretty rock solid factual and it's not going anywhere. Perhaps how we evolved but there is next to no possibility evolution isn't occurring. Because it's occurring around us right now, it's a fact
I'd have to, I'm impartial and just react to findings.
Or maybe not completely impartial, at the moment I find the theory of evolution sound - but I'm not an evolutionIST, -ism is ideology, I look at data without prejudice.