Atheists Haven (Not heaven).

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't think evolution is given to us by science which is an authority here? Good to
know when speaking to you.

How many times must this be explained?

Evolution is nothing but a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a model that attempts to make sense of some aspect of the natural world. It's only as strong as the evidence for it (like the accuracy of predictions made from it). Good scientists develop theories only according to where the evidence leads. If you need to point at something and call it an authority, it would be scientific evidence. Therefore, when I defend evolutionary theory, I never argue from any authority but the evidence. Many times the evidence points away from what I'd like to be true, in which case I have to accept it. This is why we say we accept evolutionary theory, rather than that we have faith in it. When a theory proves itself to be useful over and over again for over one hundred and fifty years of intense scrutiny, you don't need faith to believe it, but you may need a lot of intellectual honesty to learn to accept it. People lacking in this area often find themselves the targets of a snide comment here or there, due to the frustration in not getting through to them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
On its face yes, you have to realize that in science nothing is true it can all change dues to
the next piece of verifiable data which can alter our perception about it all.

It can't all change due to the next piece of verifiable data. For instance, you're not going to find any piece of evidence, at this point, that can change the fact that the planets in our solar system are spherical, and that they revolve around the sun. In the same way, you will never find evidence that points to a young earth, or instant creation. We have too much evidence to the contrary now, that it's become an excercise in absurdity to suggest otherwise. This is why, when first encountering a creationist argument of this type, we burst out laughing. It's so absurd at this point, that without mallice we perceive it as a joke.

Originally posted by C Hess
How many times must this be explained?

Evolution is nothing but a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a model that attempts to make sense of some aspect of the natural world. It's only as strong as the evidence for it (like the accuracy of predictions made from it). Good scientists develop theories only according to where the evidence leads. If you n ...[text shortened]... targets of a snide comment here or there, due to the frustration in not getting through to them.

I agree that evolution is nothing but a scientific theory. However, some atheists try to claim evolution is scientific fact. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Some theories
in people's minds however will not be rejected, and it something causes them to alter it,
it will only be looked at as if just that part is unexplainable, but they know its still true.

If something can't be immediately explained, it is by definition, at that point, unexplainable. If one piece of evidence can't be explained, it doesn't mean we can replace an existing theory with an untestable one that only seems to explain that one piece of evidence. Whether we alter existing theories, or create new ones, they must incorporate all the evidence, both old and new.

Of course, many times, when you find one piece of evidence that seemingly contradict a lot of prior evidence, the problem is in the evidence itself. A famous example is the C14 dating method, which gives unreliable results under specific, known to scientists, conditions. Is this evidence that dating methods doesn't work, and that all evidence dated using this method is wrong? No. It's been sufficiently explained and understood, that we now know when and where to use this method for accurate results.

Science, it works bitches.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree that evolution is nothing but a scientific theory. However, some atheists try to claim evolution is scientific fact. 😏

A scientific theory is built on scientific facts, moron. We call those scientific facts scientific evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
A scientific theory is built on scientific facts, moron. We call those scientific facts scientific evidence.

But evolution is not a scientific fact. Evolution is nothing but a scientific theory, as you stated before. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
But evolution is not a scientific fact. Evolution is nothing but a scientific theory, as you stated before. 😏

It is a fact that it's a theory built on facts, with no contradictory evidence that has stood up to scrutiny. That's good enough for me. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
It is a fact that it's a theory built on facts, with no contradictory evidence that has stood up to scrutiny. That's good enough for me. 🙂

I know of much contradictory evidence against evolution.

Originally posted by C Hess
If something can't be immediately explained, it is by definition, at that point, unexplainable. If one piece of evidence can't be explained, it doesn't mean we can replace an existing theory with an untestable one that only seems to explain that one piece of evidence. Whether we alter existing theories, or create new ones, they must incorporate all the eviden ...[text shortened]... e now know when and where to use this method for accurate results.

Science, it works bitches.

You really cannot help yourself can you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I knew you were not already Suzianne, sorry for my response. My point still is that those
that call themselves Atheist protect their core views values as everyone else does. They
are no different than anyone else outside of how they label themselves.

Your problem Kelly is that you are extremely stubborn. You do not listen to what others write and just repeat your opinion over and over and over even when it has been explained to you thousands of times that you are just plain wrong.
For the record, not one single atheist that I know of has evolution as a 'core value'.
I do hold the scientific method as a 'core value' and perhaps I defend evolution for this reason. If you tell me the earth is flat, I will defend the scientific understanding that it is in fact spherical. But a spherical earth is not a 'core value' to me.
Also, neither evolution nor a spherical earth are strongly connected to atheism. I first learned about both from by Christian parents, and later in school from Christian teachers.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wasn't aware you were an Atheist, besides with all Atheist and all other people we do tend
to defend out personal beliefs quite strongly. No matter how holy you think it is or rubbish
you think the word holy is.

Clearly, the point is that if a Christian can also accept that concept of evolution, and not view it as a threat to their faith (but something that actually enhances it) how can it be a Holy text for atheists?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really cannot help yourself can you?

?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know of much contradictory evidence against evolution.

I'm sure this is something of a news flash for you, but there's a standard for evidence in science. Hearsay, clever rhetoric, belief and "common sense" don't form irrefutable scientific evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm sure this is something of a news flash for you, but there's a standard for evidence in science. Hearsay, clever rhetoric, belief and "common sense" don't form irrefutable scientific evidence.

Then what is the standard for irrefutable scientific evidence?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then what is the standard for irrefutable scientific evidence?

From wikipedia:

Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence