Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

I think we are going to have to take this nice and slow.

quote:

---

but to establish that evolution is still a theory, not a law

---

Do you understand from the replies already given why the theory of evolution would never become the Law of evolution? Or do we need to explain it in further detail?

quote:

---

scientifically speaking, it isn't perfect

---

The implication being that there are some theories that ARE perfect - could you give us an example?Do you understand the idea of falsification in science and the ramifications of this concept?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 07:41 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 07:47 AM

quote:

---

And on what ground is evolution considered the best theory? I'll furhter diagnose this when I receive the answer to the question.

---

Well because of the evidence stacked up in favour of this theory. Rather than discuss the 100s and 100s of example - let's narrow it, tell us which element is incorrect. Here's a hint don't both just presenting something from AIG or something like that, we seen and seen them off more times that I can remember.

quote:

---

Intelligent design as a scientific theory is in a primitive stage (the concept has been around a lot, but the science is rather new). However, if we reject ID on the grounds that it is more primitive and does not have as much science behind it as evolution, can it even be possible for evolution to be challenged? Wouldn't all new theories have to be rejected on this ground?

---

No not at all, all the IDs have to do is present their evidence to the peer-review journals in the same way as every other scientist....Not one of us is expecting a fully formed theory to just appear, however some groundwork would be nice.

quote:

---

Notice the word "only." I think that single word sends a strong message.

---

Yes that we can't think of anything better that fits the facts as presented. If you know something we don't, let us know.

quote:

---

There is certainly a lot of controversy behind evolution, so I wouldn't quite say that.

---

Actually that's not true at all - creationists try and paint this picture, but besides the states most people in the west think they are nutters. In scientific circles there has not been controversy about the broad thrusts of evolution for a long long time. again unless you know any different?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:05 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:07 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:17 AM

quote:

---

If the evidence was stacked in favor of dictatorships as the best form of government, would you believe that?

---

I forget isn't this a version of "do you still beat your wife?"Well what do you think? Isn't your question actually rhetoric in nature?The truth of the matter is that you are just trying to avoid saying "I actually don't know enough about evolution to answer this question". So again what's the problem we've missed? where's the flaw?

quote:

---

If evolution was that dominant, then why does this forum even exist? Why must you believe even though this forum brings so many challenges to evolution?

---

ah self-delusion at it's best. This forum exists because there are people don't believe in evolution and they like to come here to discuss it. I'm not saying everyone believe in evolution but amongst people who actually understand science.. well let's say the numbers aren't with you (ie those who don't run around shouting "well it's a theory not a fact" and "if it true why is it only a theory")

quote:

---

Why must you believe even though this forum brings so many challenges to evolution?

---

From a very very small self-selecting sample. I'll be brutally honest, most of them don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to science. Half of them are so poor that they are destroyed with their first post (we call them hit and run posters).Look how many conversations we are currently having here describing the basics to creationists. It's a shocking reflection on the creationist movement.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:33 AM

quote:

---

But before that challenge, what was the perception on Newtonian Mechanics? Wouldn't going against it before that challenge be "stupid?"

---

Well if it was done in the same pisspoor manner as ID sure, but with actual science? no I don't think so.

quote:

---

Wasn't Galileo prosecuted for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric, not geocentric?

---

That is not a great example for a christian to bring up.....

Well no offense but your line of questioning has been so weak, what were you expecting?I've seen nothing that would warrent any detailed reply.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 19:05 AM

quote:

---

Sure, but the fact is, humans conducting the experiment are usually far from flawless.

---

That's right - why (lots of different) people don't repeat experiments lots of time I don't know. Hey here's an idea Creationists could reproduce the experiments and catch the errors and the frauds... oh wait...

quote:

---

Evolutionists claim there is mountains of evidence behind them, but have they really gone through these mountains and ensured that the scientific method has been followed accurately? That there are no two pieces in the evidence which contradict each other? In math, if one theory falls, every theory built on that theory falls, too. How can you be sure that one of the foundations of evolution is true beyond a doubt? Because if the foundation falls, so does the evidence and research built on that foundation.

---

What a lot of old rot. forgetting the actual science bits for a moment (Replication of experiments, falsification etc), what do you think creation nutjobs have been looking for all those years?We are going around in circles here - you've got nothing like your chums who have tried to pull this one for the last 100 years or so.Your second example is so poor it's not really worth a response but...Do you not understand that just subbing those words into a quote that you like the look of is a gross simplification of the scientific process and what is occuring in science. You have beaten this "is it just the best idea" rubbish to death and got nowhere with it.If you want to continue with this line, maybe you should show us WHY it's just the "best idea" and a matter of faith.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 20:11 AM

I feel like we are going around in circles here. Your use of the word theory suggests that you still don't understand how the term is used in science.

quote:

---

That the scientific method has been followed perfectly.

---

None of your usual waffle - I want a direct quote from this thread that backs up this claim.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-14-2005 20:18 AM

That's a dodge and doesn't actually answer my challenge.I can't be bothered with this thread anymore - we are just going in circles.

A * generally is paired with another in an actual statement - want to add it in?

If it's any comfort - you've always looked like you are smiling to me. I suspect like me - you mouth doesn't do big clown smiles.

Oh dear not the salt in the sea line - I thought that had been added to the "arguements that creationists shouldn't use" list?You really want to stop repeating what you see on creationist sites like you've actually looked at the issue.

quote:

---

Yes, and I gave some examples of why dating is debatable. But then, RAZD called me for being off-topic. If I don't give specifics, I get called for lack of evidence. It feels like the rules are being twisted so I can't accomplish much at all without being called for something.

---

No you are asked to go to the correct forum to discuss those issues.Do you want to discuss them in the correct forums or do you want to redraw your claims? I for one would like another creationist to take a run at the salt claims.