Intelligent Design

I was responding to this:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just because we don't understand how something works or came together, does not mean something is impossible.

That is just a blatant weirdness.

For evolution we have a pretty solid model, I know that. I never denied it. But I do think it has enough gaps to not entirely declare it as FACT. And that was the case forward. Just because we don;t know everything doesn't mean evolution is impossible. TRUE. But just because we don't know everything it also doesn't make it FACT. And your declaration that all we're talking about is "minimal parts" is very suspicious. What makes the missing parts minimal? Why do you call it that? What is that based on? What are your sources 😉 ?

My only case is that I feel it's a bit too presumptious to state that evolution is a proven fact. It's not, but it's a good model, the best we have. That's all I am saying. No more, no less.

Is it that nobody has explained the difference to you in how scientists use the words "fact" and "prove" versus how people who think there are absolute truths use the words?

Yes several times. But I don't agree with it, it's too easy.

Besides, not ALL scientists work that way. Only the ones that adhere strongly to their theories. In fact, most serious scientists say they're never done.

Originally posted by queeq
Yes several times. But I don't agree with it, it's too easy.

So you are saying that the scientific definition of "proof" isn't actually the scientific definition of proof?

Yes. But I disagree that evolution is presented as FACT. They find it beasically proven enough to call it fact. That I find presumptuous and not very open minded for concerns from colleagues.

So, your argument is that there are not enough "facts" to fully support the theory of evolution?

You do know that, in science (unlike religion), facts are allowed to change, and must, as soon as better evidence emerges?

Why do you not read what I post?

Again....*sigh* YES THERE IS ENOUGH FACT TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!! It wouldn't be a theory if there wasn't.

Again *sigh*... I DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH PROOF TO CALL EVOLUTION FACT! (my opinion).

(And religion can change actually, understanding of christian faith is quite different than 500 years ago - and no, I'm not gonna name sources)

ok, so it is calling a "theory" a "fact" that gets you?

lol, I know you have probably written this before, but its coming down to semantics, and as fun as it is to play with words, its better to get questions like this answered as directly and simply as possible?

Did you read the quotes from Gould and Muller that were posted earlier? They were saying evolution was proven enough to call it fact.... that was what I was arguing about.

Fact is fact, can't be argued with, follow it.
Theory says: needs more work! That's what I like. and what it should be from a scientist's POV.

all I would say is that, in science, fact refers to something that is liable to change with revision, so when a scientists uses the word, they are not speaking of universal truths

Originally posted by queeq
Why do you not read what I post?

Again....*sigh* YES THERE IS ENOUGH FACT TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!! It wouldn't be a theory if there wasn't.

Again *sigh*... I DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH PROOF TO CALL EVOLUTION FACT! (my opinion).

(And religion can change actually, understanding of christian faith is quite different than 500 years ago - and no, I'm not gonna name sources)

Gravity is a theory. You do know that?

A theory can be fact for all that is important-

Can be.... yes.... CAN be. Exactly.

Originally posted by queeq
Can be.... yes.... CAN be. Exactly.

In fact ID is not even a theory.

I never said it was. Stop putting words in my mouth. Over and over again.

Originally posted by queeq
I never said it was. Stop putting words in my mouth. Over and over again.

Not putting words in your mouth, just stating facts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
IEvolution is a theory. And evolution is fact.

What's is gonna be, boy?

Originally posted by queeq
What's is gonna be, boy?

Both. Are you going to make an apple decide whether it is round or red?

No, but I am gonna make it decide whether it's a fruit or a vegetable.

Originally posted by queeq
No, but I am gonna make it decide whether it's a fruit or a vegetable.

But as we already agreed the groups "theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive.

I quote.

Originally posted by Bardock42

A theory can be fact for all that is important-

Originally posted by queeq
Can be.... yes.... CAN be. Exactly.

That doesn't make sense. A theory CAN be fact but it has to be proved first. But then it isn't a theory anymore, but a fact.

But you're right, my fruit/vegetable comparison was wrong. Maybe I should rephrase: I am asking if the bug is worm (i.e. maggot, catterpillar and such) or a flying bug? Since we don't really know what the worm is, we don't know the outcome. So the worm CAN be that of a butterfly... CAN, but isn't until we know for sure.