Is the darwinian theory absolute or/and fact (if I may use that word)?

[Dan From Smithville]

Well since most creationists don't believe in an old earth that isn't a problem.
I don't think you were around to check either.

Not believing the earth is old does not mean that it is not. You don't still believe in Santa do you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The person that runs from questions and requests for evidence like a child fleeing a burning building is demanding answers. Isn't that special.

It is your claim. You show me.

I am not the one claiming creationists didn't believe species change.
This is just a dumb invention of evolution supporters so they can pretend someone said there were 10,000 birds on the ark.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not the one claiming creationists didn't believe species change.
This is just a dumb invention of evolution supporters so they can pretend someone said there were 10,000 birds on the ark.

You claim that change in species has always been accepted by creationists. I want to see your explanation and evidence for your claim. Since you are dodging and throwing off your burden of proof, all I can do is conclude that you cannot. Even you know you cannot.

Show me that it is a dumb invention by evolution supporters. Remember I was raised going to the Baptist Church (I still attend) and I know a lot about what literalists believe as well as having followed the debate for decades.

If the ark contained pairs of all terrestrial life as it is claimed in Genesis, and there are 10,000 species of birds known, then there had to be 140,000 birds on the ark. The Bible says seven pairs of birds. Of course, the story switches around to pairs of birds. So it may have been 20,000. It is not very clear in its telling of the story. There is no pretense except by creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not the one claiming creationists didn't believe species change.
This is just a dumb invention of evolution supporters so they can pretend someone said there were 10,000 birds on the ark.

Personally, I consider the change as the beginnings of acceptance of science and attribute it to the efforts to deny science by comingling it with creationism. That comingling has had the unanticipated effect of opening eyes to science and recognition that certain facts just cannot be denied.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong. Creationists don't question that species have changed. This is a common claim that just isn't true.
In fact they agree that there's been a lot of changes. Like all canines coming from one ancestor.

This is your claim. You made it. I didn't. You explain it. You demonstrate it. You support it.

But the reality is that we will not hear from you again on this claim unless it is to rise in denial on some other post or thread. And I expect if that happens, it will be cast out there again without any visible means of support.

 

[Polymath257]

Well since most creationists don't believe in an old earth that isn't a problem.
I don't think you were around to check either.

But we can do dating of the fossils and get an age. This can be tested by using multiple methods and the results are consistent.

Sorry, but this is where the creationist model goes badly off the tracks. The Earth is billions of years old and, for example, dinosaurs were around over 65 million years ago.

There is *no* scientific dispute on those facts. None at all.

So the fact that creationist don't believe it puts them squarely in the same position as flat-earthers.

 

[Polymath257]

Show me where creationists have ever said that the dogs we have today for example are the same canines we've always had.
Any biblical literalist will agree that there weren't a thousand different dogs on the ark but two canines of some variety.

Which would produce a genetic bottleneck of a sort that we don't see in canines. We do see such in some other species (cheetahs, for example). But the Biblical flood story would require *all* genetic lines to show such a bottleneck at approximately the same time. This isn't what the actual data shows.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But we can do dating of the fossils and get an age. This can be tested by using multiple methods and the results are consistent.

Sorry, but this is where the creationist model goes badly off the tracks. The Earth is billions of years old and, for example, dinosaurs were around over 65 million years ago.

There is *no* scientific dispute on those facts. None at all.

So the fact that creationist don't believe it puts them squarely in the same position as flat-earthers.

Whenever someone says they know what was going on 65 millions years ago, they may as well say: "Once upon a time." Because it's the start of a fairy tale.
You don't know and neither does anyone else.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which would produce a genetic bottleneck of a sort that we don't see in canines. We do see such in some other species (cheetahs, for example). But the Biblical flood story would require *all* genetic lines to show such a bottleneck at approximately the same time. This isn't what the actual data shows.

Nice avoidance of what you were claiming about creationists. So which is it?

 

[Polymath257]

Whenever someone says they know what was going on 65 millions years ago, they may as well say: "Once upon a time." Because it's the start of a fairy tale.
You don't know and neither does anyone else.

Yes, actually, we do. And, if you are interested, we can discuss how we know.

 

[firedragon]

What do you mean by Darwinian mechanism? If you mean natural selection, then just say that. That theory explains what we see too, but you cannot really call a theory a fact.

Random, natural selection. Tree of life. Gradualism. Not just "natural selection". Thats why I say there darwinian mechanism.

Darwin came up with a mechanism for evolution and its easier to say darwinian mechanism rather than mentioning lengthy statements every time.

 

[firedragon]

It is a fact that we have theories to explain what is observed. But the theories, themselves, are tentative explanations and not facts or absolutes that cannot be changed or discarded.

I would add that falsifying a theory does not automatically lead to the installation of popular belief in place of that theory. That seems to be the secret and false dream of some.

I asked that from someone who claimed it was indeed a fact and/or absolute.

 

[firedragon]

I think they misspoke or misunderstood.

Misunderstood.

 

[firedragon]

It is a fact that there are a lot of scientifically illiterate people that are debating against the theory. You can find some of that debate on this forum.

This forum is not the world. But people seem to believe that those who debate evolution, or/and debate against darwinian theory of evolution, are just stupid or uneducated. Thats exactly what was said, and that's what I responded to.

 

[firedragon]

Not quite, I said it is 'as much "fact" as biological evolution is'

Thats absolutely wrong.

The darwinian theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is not fact. Science does not work that way.

Biological evolution is a fact. Its observed right now, today. Its indisputable.

 

[firedragon]

Actually I didn't have any of those things in mind when I was reffering to pseudo-science, what I had in mind was intelligent design. I forgot about those other things and am grateful to @Polymath257 for the reminder

So if you replace your wording "pseudo-science" with "intelligent design", still you are saying "anything other than darwinian theory of evolution" is "intelligent design".

Thats absolutely wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Of course not. If it was a fact there would be no debate. Of course you can always change the definition and call it a fact, but darwinism is much more than change. Adaptation and selective breeding don't equal darwinism being a fact.

I must respect that statement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Random, natural selection. Tree of life. Gradualism. Not just "natural selection". Thats why I say there darwinian mechanism.

Darwin came up with a mechanism for evolution and its easier to say darwinian mechanism rather than mentioning lengthy statements every time.

It is easy to say natural selection too. That is what he called the mechanism and the name under which it is widely recognized.

 

[danieldemol]

So if you replace your wording "pseudo-science" with "intelligent design", still you are saying "anything other than darwinian theory of evolution" is "intelligent design".

Thats absolutely wrong.

Lucky I was not replacing the word "pseudo-science" with "intelligent design" then.

What I was hoping to convey is that intelligent design is pseudo-science.

Not that Neutral drift, Punctuated Equilibria, cross species genetic transfer, and other extra-selection mechanisms are pseudoscience.

 

[firedragon]

It is easy to say natural selection too. That is what he called the mechanism and the name under which it is widely recognized.

So since its easy, you can say what you like. Have a great day.