• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is evolution a fact?

Robertinfremont said:
Correct David, you do not know. But you ASSUME that I do not know.

I do not wish to educate you above the elementary things you know about science.

This is simple to know.

What explains buoyancy? Do not look it up if you do not know. If you are half as smart as you talk like you are, you will know very fast.
Click to expand...

So you know some science......not sure what the point of all this is...…...
 
While we may never be able to fully understand and explain it evolution is an incontrovertible fact.
 
devildavid said:
You are wrong about what an argument appealing to authority is. Already went through this with another poster who was wrong about it. According to the both of you, it makes virtually every argument an appeal to authority. That is an absurdity. Not going through that dance again.
Click to expand...

And there we have it David, see my bolded text above - now you're beginning to see things as I see them.

It is true, that pretty much every argument we make about science is rooted in an appeal to authority, it has to be, unless we have direct experience of the experimental and theoretical aspects of the argument we simply have to base our position on external sources.

There is nothing controversial or unreasonable about this, it is your denial of it that I take issue with.

devildavid said:
Every scientific theory is not based on axioms. Theoretical physics uses axioms. Evolutionary theory does not. They are not the same.
Click to expand...

I disagree, every proposition is in fact based on axioms, until you really appreciate this you'll continue to disagree with me and you'll be wrong.

devildavid said:
Your chosen source called evolution a fact. Take it up with them.
Evolution
Click to expand...

Yes I know that, I cited the source because I agree with their drawing a distinction between axioms and theories that's why I cited them, citing some article does not amount to a blanket agreement with everything that source may have said in the past or might say in the future.

Claiming some purported process is a "fact" technically means one cannot question the claims made about the process, I do not regard that as conducive to the honest pursuit of scientific truth, everything must be open to question, to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
in other words, going forward, your dishonesty will be more blatant than usual. No one is required to play your debating games. You don't set the rules.
Click to expand...

I'm setting this rule.
 
devildavid said:
It doesn't really matter if anyone "believes" in evolution or not. It does not change the facts that support that it occurs and has occurred. The facts of evolution are not up for popular vote any more than any other scientific facts.
Click to expand...

David are there any claims made by any evolutionist that might be wrong?

Your position has to be "no" because you regard it as a fact.

But I do not see how you can claim that everything written about evolution by every writer on evolution is by definition true simply because "evolution" is true.

This is quite ridiculous.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
And there we have it David, see my bolded text above - now you're beginning to see things as I see them.

It is true, that pretty much every argument we make about science is rooted in an appeal to authority, it has to be, unless we have direct experience of the experimental and theoretical aspects of the argument we simply have to base our position on external sources.

There is nothing controversial or unreasonable about this, it is your denial of it that I take issue with.



I disagree, every proposition is in fact based on axioms, until you really appreciate this you'll continue to disagree with me and you'll be wrong.



Yes I know that, I cited the source because I agree with their drawing a distinction between axioms and theories that's why I cited them, citing some article does not amount to a blanket agreement with everything that source may have said in the past or might say in the future.

Claiming some purported process is a "fact" technically means one cannot question the claims made about the process, I do not regard that as conducive to the honest pursuit of scientific truth, everything must be open to question, to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

No, I don't see things as you see them. Citing factual information is not an appeal to authority.

Science is rooted in observation, facts, and testing. Science is not what some scientist says. If the science itself does not back the scientist, it doesn't matter what the scientist says. And anyone can look to the science for answers. It ha zero to do with an appeal to authority. Stop using this incorrectly. please.

Science is open to scrutiny. Facts are not. If they were, they would not be facts.
 
Of course evolution is not a fact...otherwise there would not be so much controversy over it...
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
So it could have been a supernatural event.
Click to expand...

That does not follow unless it can be demonstrated with observation, evidence and testing. And first, it must be established that the supernatural is more that just a made up concept. If you can't distinguish between a natural or a supernatural event then you can claim that all events have supernatural causes. And this would be logically incorrect.
 
Elvira said:
Of course evolution is not a fact...otherwise there would not be so much controversy over it...
Click to expand...

There is no scientific controversy over evolution. The only so-called controversy comes from those who ignore the facts of the theory.
 
devildavid said:
There is no scientific controversy over evolution. The only so-called controversy comes from those who ignore the facts of the theory.
Click to expand...
Theory...facts = oxymoron...
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
David are there any claims made by any evolutionist that might be wrong?

Your position has to be "no" because you regard it as a fact.

But I do not see how you can claim that everything written about evolution by every writer on evolution is by definition true simply because "evolution" is true.

This is quite ridiculous.
Click to expand...

As I keep telling you, there are no such thing as evolutionists. Evolution is the science based on the facts. Evolution is not about what anyone claims it is, it is about what the facts tell us it is.
 
devildavid said:
You plainly do not understand what scientific theories are. There can't be a scientific theory with facts.
Click to expand...
Because science is always changing because man's knowledge is limited, unlike God's...
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
And there we have it David, see my bolded text above - now you're beginning to see things as I see them.

It is true, that pretty much every argument we make about science is rooted in an appeal to authority, it has to be, unless we have direct experience of the experimental and theoretical aspects of the argument we simply have to base our position on external sources.

There is nothing controversial or unreasonable about this, it is your denial of it that I take issue with.



I disagree, every proposition is in fact based on axioms, until you really appreciate this you'll continue to disagree with me and you'll be wrong.



Yes I know that, I cited the source because I agree with their drawing a distinction between axioms and theories that's why I cited them, citing some article does not amount to a blanket agreement with everything that source may have said in the past or might say in the future.

Claiming some purported process is a "fact" technically means one cannot question the claims made about the process, I do not regard that as conducive to the honest pursuit of scientific truth, everything must be open to question, to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Your source did not mention the word axiom at all.
 
Elvira said:
Because science is always changing because man's knowledge is limited, unlike God's...
Click to expand...

Science only changes as human being learn more about physical reality. There is no god, so there is no entity with perfect knowledge of everything.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

This has permeated the literature more and more over the past few decades and is now taken for granted by many people, it is now quite acceptable even in scholarly discourse to describe evolution as a fact.

Here is an article devoted to this, it strives to justify this label, here are some quotes:



and



and



Richard Dawkins is also on record in this regard:



Can a fact ever be questioned? Well it seems not, note the qualification we see in these quotes "beyond reasonable dispute" (it would be unreasonable to dispute it) and "would be perverse to [with]hold assent" (it would be perversion to dispute it) and "beyond sane doubt" and "beyond informed doubt".

Clearly in the minds of these writers only an unreasonable person, a perverse person, an uninformed, unintelligent person would dispute evolution.

The effect of this is of course to discourage dissent, if one did ever find a reason to dispute evolution then one could not express that because only a perverse, uninformed idiot would ever do that!

Welcome to Kafkaesque world that evolution has grown into, claiming to be science it is dogma. When dissent is discouraged then truth is trampled, when the edicts of those in authority ("the experts") prevent the free expression of ideas then truth is trampled.

This is the real perversion, the unwillingness to be open to question, the insistence that one must agree to be regarded as intelligent, the obsession with eliminating doubt.

This is why I abandoned atheism and later evolution, it is based on fear, fear of disagreeing, fear of questioning, this is not science this is exactly how Galileo was treated, human nature has not changed, just the cloak that it drapes itself in.
Click to expand...
this kind of theory https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory


scientific theory


noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
 
Scientific fact: A natural phenomenon in a field of science in which there is general overall agreement that it actually has occurred or is occurring. Like evolution, for instance. It’s the ONLY accepted scientific explanation for how life on this planet has come to its present form. That’s a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom