Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[jamesmusslewhite]

---

I believe in evo going back to bigbang that did happen . and whateever the posibility that was before that.

I believe nothing but a consciousness and a big dark space, then God said, Let their be Light and BANG!!!!! the rest took 5 more stages to complete. There was the first creation, Adam and Eve were the second creation and Eve was Adam's second wife. God caused the Great Food to wipe out the first creation. That the flood created all the wonderful fossils we argue about on this Forum. That everything that was not on the big boat was buried in the mud of the flood and from the deep ancient mud which was displaced by the rushing Artesian fountains that cracked the earth's surface like a egg shell. That shot 22-34 Kilometers into the sky collapsing the outer canopy That that is why the fossils records only show live and death of species and no crossovers-(no missing links).
@ james
@kebot

anybody can find all the wrong things on such theories.
Just and if you find falt in it, it is just a theory and not law and should be analyzed tested and analyzed again till proven to be true or false. Even if it takes 1,000 years. That is Science

but how do u look at creationism ? im sure u also find some or lots of the something fishy on it.
Yes especially because of bad science and religious crack-pots. True very true, and it would help without cheating by those on both sides of the issue.
but do u believe creationism as

a. claim,
b.theory
c. fact
d. or not more than a possibility

C. Fact for the most part, I believe in the works of God when compared to evolution.
B.) on the issue of some interpretations and languages which have some variances due to the mistranslations from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, and early English. Some times you have to take 3 or 4 translations and compare them against each other to get a truer understanding of the meaning of the text. And the Creation's 6 days could be just six steps and not literal 24 hour days.

That is about the best I can explain your question. Hope it is enough.

[brownprose]

I still see people mistake accepted Scientific Theories to fall in the same rank as mere mere hypothesis. There are theories that have become facts... examples below:

Gravitational Theory
Atomic Theory
Boyle's Theory
Thermodynamic Theory

The scientific community has already declared that Evolution is in the league of the above or put it simply evolution is as factual as the sun that rises in the east.

In the words of Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."


Authorities that say the fact about evolution

The National Academies of Sciences --> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.htm
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
...more

[schmuck]

It is as simple as this :

- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results

To all who discounts CREATION and relies on EVOLUTION , provide a link or source and it dont matter if its reliable or not regarding the last 2 methods of SCIENTIFIC STUDY which are the ANALYZIZATION and CONCLUSION and COMMUNICATION of RESULTS .

From that stand of point , it should put to an end sa argument . We already absorbed gazillions of knowledge no matter where it came from or sourced at . As long as the last 2 methods arent materialized , it will always remain a THEORY and we all know what a THEORY is , scientist or not .

Amazon.com: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (9781416594789): Richard Dawkins: Books get it while its hot

[brownprose]

This is how The National Academy of Sciences describe why evolution is a theory and a fact. I hope people get time to read below the position of the scientific community.


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

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.

Source: Evolution Resources from the National Academies

[brownprose]

^^ Btw, the National Academy of Sciences is the voice of the scientific community. Election to membership in the National Academy of Sciences is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a U.S. scientist or engineer.

[schmuck]

^^ can it be epic win tiem now?

[brownprose]

In law, our discussion here is already moot and academic for the authorities have spoken THAT EVOLUTION IS ALREADY A FACT. It's like saying if you don't believe in evolution might as well not believe in gravity at all.

[kebotDiNaMute]

tarunga ng imong storya oi. ka paet anang one liner. elaborate pa na, hadlok ka?




not as strong as before? hahahahaha, gahuna huna na pod ka og tao nga wala diha. kinsa man na kebot? kinsa ng tao diha nga imong gislti nga not as strong as before? hahaha imbento napod na nimo, hahay creationist.




wa ko kasabot sa imong mga one liner oi. yes i always think. hinaot ko nga ikaw pod unta. kay kinahanglan pa ka og telescope para ma conclude nimo nga daghang mga bitoon sa kalangitan. hahahahaha try harder. gusto ka mobalos hahaha try harder.

tarunga ng imong storya oi. ka paet anang one liner. elaborate pa na, hadlok ka?
--- read carefuly malic, ONE LINE PALANG SAYOP NA... NO NEED TO ELABORATE...

kinsa ng tao diha nga imong gislti nga not as strong as before? hahaha imbento napod na nimo
--- ISLAM 101... remember? Preacher man ka dd2 for pila ka decades.. hahaha! now hmmm... denial? liar? hmmm... i wonder whats best to describe the situation...

kay kinahanglan pa ka og telescope para ma conclude nimo nga daghang mga bitoon sa kalangitan
--- so d nalang ta mag telescope? hahaha! ayaw pod ana brad... hubble telescope gave us and idea how expanded is the universe...
--- balus? sa unsa brad?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Amazon.com: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (9781416594789): Richard Dawkins: Books get it while its hot

The book bseems to be a good read out of the contents basing from the reviews of fellow EVOLUTIONIST and ATHEIST but it doesnt take a SKEPTIC to say that even if its a published book , it is the BOTTOM LINE of the argument . I may have not read the book myself and doesnt even have any clue at all it existed until SCHMUCK showed it here . My point is , if anyone have read it , then good but question would be , what are the contents ? Did it FACTUALLY CONCLUDE what and who are the missing links ? Did it FACTUALLY ANALYZE the systematic and dramatic changes that occur which we call evolution ? Like I said , if it stays as a THEORY , it will always be a THEORY .

To my understanding from BROWNPROSE postings , it is a FACT obviously because there are findings but it is a theory because it doesnt connect yet .

These is how it goes between the 2 ( CREATIONIST and EVOLUTIONIST ) , from a POV of a HARDCORE ATHEIST and HARDLINER EVOLUTIONIST , there is no such thing as a MOVER /CREATOR / DESIGNER / ARCHITECT whatsoever but instead just mere TANSFORMATION out of NOWHERE to benefit the confusions of survival , mutation and links specially on HUMAN BEINGS .

On my part ... I am an EVOLUTIONIST less the HARDLINER because I firmly believe in evolution basing from the story of the Book of Genesis but was expounded more in details .

[schmuck]

^ if you are looking for evidence, try dipping your toes on the other side of the pond.
Trust me, I've done the same