> OK, let me make a statement that you may think is outrageous at first. :)
> Evolution is both theory and fact.
Cummins: A theory by definition is something that is not known to be a fact. Saying
one thing is both a fact and a theory is silly.
That only shows your ignorance on this issue. Something can be a theory and a fact.
CumminsL The late Carl Sagan often
said that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. I suspect that many
Evolutionists think such honest expression of their beliefs sounds a little
too religious.
Carl Sagan was right, evolution is a fact AND a theory. So stop beating the strawman and learn about science before you try unsuccesfully to tear it apart.
> My favorite example is the theory of plasticity as
> opposed to the fact of plasticity. It is a fact that metals display
> plastic behavior. Many theories have been proposed to try to
> explain this fact.
Cummins: In regards to Evolution, what part is the "fact"? That all modern life
developed naturally from a common ancestor?
The observation of the fossil record, the observations at genetic level.
CumminsL Or, that alleles change in frequency with time?
That too/
Cummins: Most any Evolutionist asserts that both of these are facts. Now, what's the theory?
The theory is how it happened.
CumminsL That all modern life developed naturally from a common ancestor?
Nope.
Cummins: Or, that alleles change in frequency with time?
Nope.
Cummins: It's too bad you used plastic metals for your explanation of something being
both a fact and a theory at the same time instead of Evolution.
Why ?
CumminsL Doesn't the fact/theory of ameba-to-man predict (this definition of
evolution is the one that is relevant) that there is an ability of nature to
increase complexity step by step?
Ability yes, necessity no.
Cummins: It's interesting that you can address the fact vs. the theory of evolution
without identifying what you consider (and what the evolutionist community
considers) the fact to be and what you consider the theory to be.
Of course he still has shown your argument to be merritless. Now it is even more interesting that you have to ask these questions. You apparantly oppose evolution not on its merrits, or you would at least understand it. So I can safely conclude that you reject evolution based on your belief and ignorance.