Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 300 (419505)
09-03-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Buckets writes:
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?
It sounds like you're not quite sure what the Big Bang is, so let's start there.
The available cosmological evidence indicates that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter and energy of the universe existed as a tiny speck of incredible density. We don't know what came before this, but the speck rapidly expanded and matter formed as the universe cooled. Some regions of the early universe were slightly denser than others, and their slightly larger gravity caused these regions to draw in ever more matter so that stars and galaxies (huge collections of stars) formed.
The larger the star the faster it consumes itself and turns nova or supernova, meaning that it, in essence, blows up and scatters its remains into the cosmos. The first stars were mostly hydrogen, the simplest element, but the fusion furnaces in the center of stars cook heavier elements all the way up to iron, and nova and supernova create even heavier elements all the way up to uranium and beyond.
New stars condense from the scattered remnants of old exploded stars, and these new stars, and any planets they might possess, begin with at least some heavy elements, depending upon how many old exploded stars contributed material. Our solar system is in just this circumstance, possessing a great deal of heavy materials. The Earth is just chock full of heavy elements like carbon, oxygen and iron. Planets in the first solar systems of the universe could never have been like Earth, since almost no heavy elements existed at the time.
The evidence indicates that the Earth is about 4.56 billion years old, which means that the universe was about 9.14 billion years old when the Earth first formed. The first life appeared on Earth perhaps about 3.8 billion years ago when the universe was about 9.9 billion years old. After the passage of about 9.9 billion years and all the intervening events of many stars and galaxies forming and colliding and exploding over and over, there is really no direct relationship between the Big Bang that is the origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth.
Also, if one supports an atheistic view of evolution...
Evolution is not atheistic, or at least it's no more atheistic than plumbing or knitting. Neither evolution nor plumbing nor knitting render any opinion pro or con on the existence of deities, but that doesn't make them atheistic. Deities are the realm of religion, not secular activities like science and plumbing and knitting, and when talking about evolution we're talking about science, not religion. But it does get confusing when talking with creationists, because when they talk about evolution, they *are* talking about religion.
(I am a pending agnostic)
Hopefully it is an inner spiritual search and not science that is leading you toward agnosticism.
It's always fun to read Creation Wiki. You can just go on forever and ever picking it apart. In the Big Bang article under the heading Evolutionary Assumptions it says that Big Bang theory has two basic assumptions, the Copernican Principle, and an unbounded universe.
Not only are these not evolutionary assumptions, as the Big Bang resides in the field of cosmology while evolution resides in the field of biology, they are not even cosmological assumptions. The first, what Creation Wiki calls the Copernican Principle, namely that there is no privileged position in the universe, simply falls out of the data. The second, an unbounded universe, is something that we can't be sure of, though the evidence certainly points in that direction, but Creation Wiki is confused on this point, because under the section on An Unbounded Universe he argues for a privileged position, which is actually his point one, the Copernican Principle. I think he really only has one point, an incorrect one in conflict with the data.
You see, as we peer out into the universe we observe that the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is retreating from us. If you imagine galaxies as raisins in rising bread dough during baking, this visualization should indicate to you that every raisin is getting more and more distant from every other raisin. The expanding bread dough is analogous to the expansion of space that causes galaxies to retreat from one another. This means that no matter where you are in the universe, you'll observe galaxies retreating increasingly faster with increasing distance. There is no privileged position.
Addressing the origin of life:
In addition, how exactly does a single celled organism develop from nothing? I don't understand how, even if supplied with a life-sustaining environment, life can come to be.
There are many theories and speculations about abiogenesis (the origin of life), but this post is already long enough. Hopefully I've set the stage by noting the lack of any direct relationship between the Big Bang and abiogenesis, so I'll let others address the issue of the origin of life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 300 (419890)
09-05-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
Buz writes:
It is the inadequacy of BB evolutionist...
For the umpteenth zillionth time, BB is cosmology, evolution is biology. Groups that reject BB, evolution, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, the implications of the fossil record, geological layers and the constancy of physical laws, to name just a few, are rejecting most of science, not just evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 09-06-2007 10:44 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 300 (419930)
09-05-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:21 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Hi Vashgun,
"Evolutionist" is not a synonym for "atheist". Many evolutionists believe in God.
What evolutionists do not believe is a literal interpretation of Genesis. Rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a rejection of God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:21 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:58 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 33 of 300 (420086)
09-06-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Vashgun writes:
Many evolutionists believe in God.
A sick retarded God perhaps.
Aw, shucks! You mean I believe in the wrong God? Darn!
Your original point was that evolutionists are faux scientists motivated by a desire to deny God. But many evolutionists do believe in God, and so of course are not trying to deny him. It is only the literal inerrancy of a book written by men that they refuse to accept.
This thread is attempting to make clear that the Big Bang is a completely separate event from abiogenesis. Even if you don't accept the details of the views of modern science on this, we know that Genesis describes creation of the heaven and earth on day one and creation of the first life on day three, so you must acknowledge that even Biblically the origin of the universe and the origin of life were separate events.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve phrasing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:58 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 1:18 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 300 (420230)
09-06-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
09-06-2007 10:44 PM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
You're right that most people in science accept both evolution and the Big Bang, and other issues aside it isn't a problem assuming that someone who accepts one also accepts the other.
But creationists like Hovind create much confusion in their followers when they make it seem like scientists believe the Big Bang created the solar system with the sun, the earth and the other planets, shortly after which life began on earth.
The opening post asks, "Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory?" You may as well ask, "Is an iron mine in Colorado directly related to my Toyota Corolla?" This is the type of confusion that this thread is addressing.
The answer to both these questions is "No, not directly related, but there is a relationship of a sort since one follows the other, but by many, many steps and the passage of much time."
Certainly the Hovind claims, such as that the spin of the Big Bang could has an influence on the spin of the planets in our solar system, are just nonsense, and it creates many scientific misunderstandings about science among creationists since they look to people like Hovind for their science instead of to scientists.
Right or wrong, scientists will at least be honest about the views of science. People like Hovind will only lie about what science really believes in order to make it look as ridiculous as possible, and that's why this thread is here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 09-06-2007 10:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 46 of 300 (420485)
09-08-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buckets
09-07-2007 8:24 PM


Buckets writes:
If the Big Bang occurred, then how did life occur after it? Abiogenesis? Penspermia? What theories propose a non-religious view to the origin of life after the Big Bang (that are scientifically sound)?
This sounds no different than your original question. It's been explained that the Big Bang is related to abiogenesis in only the most indirect fashion. I could just as nonsensically ask, "If I was born, then how did I come to be in front of this computer typing this message?" Except that if I wasn't born I wouldn't be responding to you now, one has almost nothing to do with the other.
For the 2nd question, if someone doesnt believe in God, then isn't it NECESSARY for one to support the Big Bang theory? Or are there other theories?
This is like saying, "If you're not a Republican then you must be lesbian." Once again, one has almost nothing to do with the other. Scientific theories are not constructed for the purpose of denying God. A theory is constructed to explain and make sense of a body of evidence from the natural world in order to better understand the physical universe.
Lastly, is the Big Bang still valid?
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that Big Bang theory, like all other theories, is tentative and will continue to be accepted by the scientific community for only as long as no other theory comes along that better explains the evidence.
You're going to have a lot of difficulty arguing with your buddy because your confusions are soundly based in a typical fundamentalist distrust of science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buckets, posted 09-07-2007 8:24 PM Buckets has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buckets, posted 09-08-2007 3:29 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 49 of 300 (420601)
09-08-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buckets
09-08-2007 3:29 PM


Hi Buckets,
No one is poking fun at you. As you can see, Chiroptera is giving you the same style of answers I gave you, and it's because instead of incorporating our responses into your thinking, you're just rephrasing the same question over and over again. We're trying to find ways to get you to start taking into account what we're telling you.
Let me take a different tack by posing a question for you: How did Noah's flood lead to Jesus dying for our sins?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buckets, posted 09-08-2007 3:29 PM Buckets has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 71 of 300 (422171)
09-16-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by CTD
09-16-2007 9:08 AM


CTD writes:
You may choose to view the speculations invented to replace the history of life and the speculations invented to replace the history of the rest of the cosmos as unrelated. Not everyone is required to make the same choice. I fail to see any legitimate reasons for doing so.
The point being made isn't that you're required to accept the scientific view. The point being made is that if you're going to argue against the scientific view, then be aware that science views the origin of the universe and the origin of life as distinct and unrelated events separated by a vast amount of time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 9:08 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:18 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 81 of 300 (422232)
09-16-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:18 PM


CTD writes:
From the context I take it you have some definition of 'science' I would never use, and quite honestly I don't know that I can understand it.
Well, we weren't talking about the definition of science, but as far as that goes, I just use the standard definition is science, which is the study of way the universe works using methods based upon methodological naturalism.
What we were actually talking about was the scientific consensus about the Big Bang and the origin of life, which is that they are two separate events separated by a vast amount of time. You don't have to share this view if you don't want to, but it would be nonsensical to argue that this isn't the view of science because it's a simple fact that this is the view of science. As Casey Stengel would say, "You could look it up."
You appear to have concerns about error within science:
If a scientist claims a thing is so, and it turns out it isn't... You do the math. I'd much rather know how things work than how some 'scientist' thinks they might work.
It sounds like you have a lot in common with scientists, because they want to know how things work, too. To this end scientists use the scientific method, peer review, replication and consensus building in order to move the state of the art forward. The views of one scientist are not important. What's important is whether the evidence behind any particular theory is sufficiently compelling that a consensus can develop around it. Consensus is how theories become accepted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:18 PM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 95 of 300 (422500)
09-17-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


CTD writes:
I don't see much more that needs to be said regarding the original topic. Yes, one can divide science up into categories and groups. The divisions are arbitrarty and have been based on convenience rather than any guiding principle. The modern divisions are peculiar, and follow modern societies' trend toward overspecialization.
On the contrary, the division of science into fields is far from arbitrary and follows the "guiding principle" (to use your term) that a scientific field is defined by the kinds of questions it tends to ask. Research that attempts to answer questions about life belongs in the field of biology, about the Big Bang in cosmology. One field uses uses microscopes, the other telescopes.
What, precisely, do you see as the uniting element between the Big Bang and the origin of life? What common questions do these two fields attempt to answer?
When it is convenient, why not talk of 'stellar evolution' as a separate topic from 'planetary evolution'? Fine and dandy. But it's a mistake to insist that others must consider these topics as having nothing in common when they clearly do have much in common.
Your own example of planetary and stellar evolution argues against your position. Planets have no fusion furnace at their core, they do not radiate light, and they only gradually cool while convection processes deliver heat to the surface to radiate into space and which might, depending upon the planets composition and circumstances (nearness to the star it orbits, for example) drive tectonic processes.
Stars, on the other hand, give off their own light, have a fusion furnace at their core that cooks elements into heavier and heavier elements, and unless very small will eventually go nova or even supernova, spewing its newly formed elements into galactic space to seed new stars.
While no would claim that these two fields have "nothing in common", to again use your words, these are clearly two separate areas of study.
But these are relatively trivial issues. The big error comes when one accepts speculation in place of hard science.
I think any scientist would agree with you.
You can see dozens of equasions on a page - math is science, right? Wrong. Math deals with solving the equasions - not making them up. Without observations and evidence to back it up, math is just speculation written on paper.
I think scientists would agree with this, too.
You appear to have a lot in common with scientists, because they agree with you that observations and evidence are crucial to testing hypotheses. It sounds like you believe scientists actually just make things up. Why do you think this?
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law. Used to take good evidence for an idea to advance from one stage to the next, and that's where the legitimate role of consensus among scientists came into play.
Don't put too much stock in a name. Whether the term hypothesis, theory or law is invoked, they're all pretty much the same thing. Where they differ is whether a consensus has developed around them, which is precisely what you identified as important. A hypothesis has no or little consensus, while theory and law have earned significant consensus. You'll see theory and law variously but very similarly defined, usually saying that a law is just a theory that is comprehensible in terms of simple and straightforward relationships, usually mathematical. Hence we have Boyle's Law of gases and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion on the one hand, and Darwin's theory of evolution on the other. But these rules of nomenclature are not strictly followed, for example, game theory is highly mathematical.
New terminology arises in languages in ways not well understood, and whether the term theory or law eventually becomes attached to a new idea, it really makes little difference.
More importantly, all theories are tentative, open to change in light of new evidence or improved understanding.
But those were the days of long ago. Before a man could just up and publish a 'biogenetic law' or a 'theory of relativity' or even a 'theory of evolution'. To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was. The other two were fully aware. And the general public had no clue.
Haeckel did not just "up and publish" the biogenetic law. He offered copious evidence in support of his theory. Some textbooks still include Haeckel's embryo drawings, though usually in a historical context. But as I said, theories are tentative, and Haeckel's theory didn't even survive his own lifetime, at least not in the strong form he originally proposed it. There *is* recapitulation during embryological development, but not in any strict way, and there are many other influences.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity developed out of evidence for the former, and out of mathematical imperative for the latter. Both have withstood numerous tests. Probably the most significant single confirmed test of Darwin's original theory came with the discovery that genetics provided a rigorous mathematical model for evolution. For general relativity it was explaining precession of the orbit of Mercury and the discovery that light was indeed bent by gravity as verified by Sir Author Eddington in 1919 (headlines in the New York Times and all that, it made Einstein a household name).
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.
You seem to have a great deal in common with scientists. Scientists use the same definition of theory you do, and they, too, bemoan the lay public's misunderstanding of the term when applied to science.
It almost seems like someone is purposefully misinforming you about the practices and beliefs of modern science.
The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples. He felt that by predicting them it would strengthen his 'theory' if they should be found. This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Sure there is, and if you'd like to move to a biology thread we can discuss lots of them.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves.
On the contrary, that's precisely one of the ways that language evolves. For instance, the word "bead" originally meant "prayer", and gained its current meaning from the practice of using beads to count prayers (thank you, Wikipedia).
But no redefinition of the word "theory" has taken place in any scientific context. Scientists are using the same definition you are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 113 of 300 (422676)
09-17-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2007 10:01 PM


Re: And...
Dr Adequate writes:
One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue.
Of course, you cannot quote anyone saying that you're right on the mark, and that scientists feel the same way on the issue, because you made this up.
CTD is confusing my agreement with his definition of theory with the corrections to his confusion about hypothesis, theory and law. Here's what I said in Message 95:
Percy in Message 95 writes:
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.
You seem to have a great deal in common with scientists. Scientists use the same definition of theory you do, and they, too, bemoan the lay public's misunderstanding of the term when applied to science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:53 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 114 of 300 (422677)
09-17-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


Re: And...
Hi CTD,
We're drifting far afield from the topic of this thread. The opening post asked a question concerning the degree of relatedness of the Big Bang to abiogenesis and evolution. I think this question has been answered. Do you have any other issues regarding the topic?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 123 of 300 (423375)
09-21-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by CTD
09-21-2007 10:46 AM


Re: Fundymental misunderstandings
CTD writes:
I note that it differs from past evolutionist definition(s) considerably.
Uh, no it doesn't. Every lifeform that has ever existed, except the very first lifeform and those that are extinct, is transitional. Just look at any tree of life, a concept conceived even before Darwin. Unless you're at the tree's root (the first life) or at the end of a branch (extinct), you're transitional between lifeforms both above and below you on the tree.
It looks like this discussion with you is going to have to go through two phases. We're in the first phase now, convincing you of what science actually says. Once you understand that, then the second phase would be a return to explaining why the Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is the actual topic of this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by CTD, posted 09-21-2007 10:46 AM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 137 of 300 (423451)
09-22-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by CTD
09-22-2007 2:04 AM


Re: misunderstandings
CTD writes:
Now follow closely: If ALL forms are transitional, as you folks keep insisting; how could there ever have been any LACK of them?
Number of fossil remains available for study in Darwin's time: maybe hundreds.
Number of fossil remains available for study today: maybe millions.
Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, before most methodological fossil finding efforts. For example, the voluminous dinosaur fossil discoveries of Cope and Marsh mostly postdate Darwin's death. What Darwin had in the fossils available at the time was a very, very sketchy outline of evolutionary history, and so he noted how very easily future fossil discoveries could invalidate his theory.
Fortunately for Darwin and his theory, the fossil record we have available to us today strongly supports the evolutionary view. No pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils found, no fossils discovered completely unrelated to any existing fossils.
The expectation of scientists is that the universe makes sense, and that therefore the evidence left behind from events is consistent with, and if we're fortunate informative of, those events. If an ancient band of Jews cooked a sheep on a spit over a fire a few thousand years ago, then when archaeologists investigate the site today the expectation is that they'll find sheep bones, not goat bones. If an ancient cat ancestor some millions of years ago became buried in river sediment after a flood, then when paleontologists investigate the site today the expectation is that they'll find a cat ancestor fossil, not a dog ancestor fossil.
I know this is obvious, but I explain this because you seem to be missing the point that the evidence for evolution reflects what really happened in earth history. It isn't fictional or made up or contrived by a facetious God.
Though huge portions of earth's history are lost forever either because layers have eroded or subducted away or because events left behind no record, there is still a huge amount of earth history left behind for us to study, and study it we do. You seem largely unaware of the enormous body of research from paleontology. Evolution is certainly a legitimate target of criticism, but directing the criticism without knowing what evidence it actually possesses is like firing your gun before you've loaded it. In other words, most of your criticism is irrelevant.
As I said before, it looks like you'll first have to learn what science actually says before we can complete the discussion of the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by CTD, posted 09-22-2007 2:04 AM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 282 of 300 (426652)
10-08-2007 9:59 AM


What is a fact?
This thread is nearing its conclusion, so as grist for the mill of a possible successor thread I'd like to say a few brief things about facts.
When evolutionists say, "Evolution happened, that's a fact," if what they really mean is, "You can't question this, it's a fact," then they're using a fallacious debate tactic and should be called on it.
The word "fact" is just a shorthand way of saying that the supporting evidence is extremely strong. It's actually a very imprecise term, since everyone is free to interpret the degree of certainty that defines "fact" as occurring in a different place. It's a subjective decision. The word "fact" is ambiguous.
Everything in science is tentative, there is nothing we know with absolute certainty, and that includes our facts, even the best supported ones. Questioning facts is as valid as questioning hypothesis or theory, since it's really just a way of inquiring as to the supporting evidence. In other words, claiming that evolution happened is a fact does not relieve evolutionists from presenting the supporting evidence.
--Percy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024