Aineo wrote:r: Actually, it is tested virtually every day. It has not yet failed to explain what we see.
a: Give me a modern day example of a reptile evolving into a mammal.
I'm not sure why I would do that since it happened in the past. Why would mammals evolve again?
Once again you are attempting to avoid the real issue. No one denies evolution within a species, what is questionable is evolution from one species to another or one genus to another.
Except that this is what the evidence tells us. If you have a better explanation for the fossil record, please let us know.
r: Well, there you are, evolution is a scientific fact based on real occurrences such as the genome, nested hierarchies, the fossil record, etc., etc..
a: The fossil record does not substantiate evolution from one species to another or one genus to another. All the fossil record shows is fully developed animals.
Fine, then you explain it. Why the progression of fossils through time? And, of course it only shows fully developed organisms, just as evolution explains predicts. Partial organs would actually be more of a prediction of ID.
r: Again, there you are! "Something believed to be true or real." I along with most scientists believe that evolution is true and or real. You need to convince us that it either is not, or that this definition is wrong.
a: Children believe a lot of things that are in fact myth as do a lot of adults. So to appeal to what one believes as evidence that any concept is a fact is ludicrous or you would not deny the existence of God, since the vast majority of human beings believe in some higher power called god.
Hey, I'm only using your definition. It is believed by virtually all scientists who study biology, etc. that evolution is 'true or real.'
r: Leaving aside the FACT that your own definition refutes you, no. Then there should be disclaimers on ALL scientific theories. Besides, there are problems with all theories does that mean that we don't teach them? I mean, the theory of evolution is clearly a theory. If your teachers called it the fact of evolution, then I am sorry about your personal education experience. However, biologists tell me that there is NOTHING remotely close to evolution in explanatory powers. It is, for all practical purposes, a fact. If you want to be impractical that is fine, believe what you want, but teachers will teach what they think is right.
a: It is evident you have not read all the threads dealing with evolution that scientists have posted to on this forum. Many of them point blank state evolution is a scientific fact. So you are contradicting scientists.
Well, by your own definition, it is. Please see above. It is a theory, but it is also a scientific fact. I do not see what is mutually exclusive about these terms.
r: Probably nothing that I haven't seen. Most physicists think Setterfield is a bit of a nut case. None of the questions I have asked were answered by these websites. But what I'm curious about is why YOU believe them. What do you find so convincing? I didnt' come here to debate people who refuse to back up their assertions or run away whenever they meet opposition.
a: I would be careful with your name calling, especially when Mrs. Setterfield is a member of this message board. If you are going to discuss what Barry Setterfield has published then do so on the appropriate threads.
Except that I didn't say he is. This is merely an opinion held by many scientists out there.
I believe what you posted regarding Barry was believed about other scientists until what they proposed was shown to be accurate and is now part of accepted science. It is the “nut cases” who think outside the box who seem to make the great advances in scientific truths.
Some, yes. Other are simply what they appear to be. However, the point is that you cannot support your statements regarding cdk.
As to my definition of fact, as I pointed out what people believe to be factual is not always factual.