Why do people say Evolution is a fact when it is not?

Update:

I support this claim because Evolution is a theory and every scientists knows that a theory is never proven only disproven. Plus it cant even be considered a real science because cannot be disproven only proven. Thank you very much :)

35 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Dear Daniel,

    I can see by your profile that although you have been a member since April, you have not been real active. As you can see there have been about 30 answers before me. Many of them are evolutionists. One said something like it is more than 300,000% more acurate than Creationism. Another said that the facts point only to evolution. There are several other such comments. You have to remember that in Y!A people can say anything that comes to mind. At this point I have a scientific rebuttal for virtually every evolution based argument. You may notice that few if any will ever give these "Rock Solid" facts and proofs of evolution. They take on faith that evolution is fact. I believe that they are willingly ignorant because they realize that there is only one alternative.

    I recently saw an article by the late Carl Sagan that was a paragraph that was impossible to discipher. When you parsed the sentences you found that he really only said something like this. "I believe in evolution, therefore evolution is a fact." I have seen that quote used several times to "Prove" evolution.

    It has been said that "If you make a lie large enough and tell it long enough, people will believe it."

    The following is a condensed form of a longer article. I have given the web address. People are so entrenched in evolution, that they will either not read it, or will say it is a lie. If that happens, who is the one that is brain washed? I have no problem with somebody telling me that their religeon is Evolution, but I do believe that the people that say that evolution is a scientific fact are either willingly ignorant, lying to themselves, or are brainwashed.

    Here is the article:

    __________________________

    One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person.

    Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less. What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!

    If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.

    The problems only get worse for the evolutionist. Not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates. The transformation from invertebrate to vertebrate would have been a major event in the earth’s evolutionary history. Yet the fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation. This problem has been exacerbated by recent finds in China of highly advanced and extremely well preserved vertebrate life forms in the lower Cambrian strata. These fossils have collapsed the available time for the invertebrate to vertebrate transformation by at least 50 million years, to between 2 to 3 million years. This is a blink of the eye in geological time (a period called the Cambrian Explosion), prompting the two primary Chinese scientists involved to bluntly admit that these fossils roundly contradict the theory of evolution.

    The nightmare gets worse for the evolutionist when we consider that the wide diversity of body plans that suddenly appear in this brief 2 to 3 million year window are markedly distinct morphologically from each other. This disparity of body plans is followed by stasis, where there are no incremental alterations to the body plans through the entire history of the fossil record up to the present. This is precisely what one would expect if special creation were true, and a stark contradiction to evolution.

    So all that is left is a sliver of a corner of the fossil record, the vertebrates. This is the rabbit in the hat for the evolutionist. The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever. A small remainder of this miniscule sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates. Of the land-dwelling vertebrate species unearthed, 95% are represented by a bone or less . Yet this is where the evolutionist concentrates all his efforts to "show" to his audience that "the fossil record supports evolution"! Their audience is completely unaware that all of the examples they are being shown come from an incredibly puny section marred with incomplete data. They are conveniently left in the dark regarding the other 99.99% of the data, from a portion of the fossil record that is far more complete, that shows NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! This is their sleight-of-hand. This is a sham. This is brainwashing. There is no other way to put it.

    Fred Williams

    January 2002

    http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fos...

  • 4 years ago

    the certainty which you're saying to no longer use a 'concept' shows which you're immediately became off by skill of the assumption of a scientific concept and deeply misunderstand what which skill. There are literal mountains of evidence to help evolution yet for sure you're seeing it via the lens of religion that's additionally blinding you. in case you prefer conclusive evidence of evolution basically take a check out the flu virus on your solutions. each 12 months is mutates and adapts and for this reason demands us to purpose and be earlier than the 'evolution'. You reported canines that hint returned to the wolf that's yet another variety of evolution that's easy to work out the dramatic variations that would ensue in a short volume of time. think of the skill of substitute that would ensue over thousands and thousands or hundred of thousands and thousands of years. that's evolution. Evolution is a certainty and together as there are information that stay uncertain it does no longer disprove it. neither is evolution there to discredit the bible. There are way too many stuff concerning to the bible that discredits itself that would not require evolution to be in contact. Your eyes are open yet your techniques is closed and none of this could make any experience until you end seeing what you opt to work out and notice what's obvious.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Just because this fact conflicts with your religious views, please don't insult science, human intelligence and reason, firstly, many of you religious followers do not understand the definition of a theory, why is not anyone determined in refuting the theory of gravity? A theory is fact until it is disproven, through multiple supportive experiments, or historical data, therefore until disproven, evolution is fact, you're confusing theory with a hypothesis- The Bible or the Qu'ran are not sufficient proof against evolution- science is not out to get religion, science is not a religion, so religion needs to stop targeting science

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Gary has the standard Creationist answer, that evolution is "just a theory."

    It shows a blatant ignorance as to what "theory" means in a scientific context. A scientific theory (which is what the theory of evolution is) is a WELL SUBSTANTIATED explanation of natural phenomena.

    Evolution is FACT.

    Evolutionary theory is falsifiable. It may be riddled with holes, but that doesn't prove Christian creationism correct by default. That's not the way science works.

    Rehashings of this same question have been posted ad nauseam.

    One can only kick a dead horse so much.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Evolution is a process that has some evidence in its favor. It's also a pet theory of the scientists for how we all got here that doesn't have a lot of evidence or proofs as yet.

    Science has yet to even rudientaly prove that bunny rabbits, birds, insects, people, snakes, gorillas, dogs, cats, bats all came from the Amoeba.

    That little Amoeba must be a pretty amazing thing.

    How come things don't come from it anymore?

    Before anyone even TRIES to dispute me, you have to conclusively show me the DNA path between the simplest of life (an amoeba or microbe) becoming a turutle, a monkey, an alligator.

    I'd like to see the DNA progress with annotations as to which period of time the changes occured.

    Then we'll sumbit it to a University genetics and bilogy department to see what they think.

    And we'll publish the results on the web for all to see.

    Scientists can DIFINITIVELY establish how the inorganic elements formed from the Big Bang using an ABomb model, which is similar.

    They can show you how free electrons and protons are emitted and how they bond or join to make hydrogen and then helium.

    I want YOU to show us how the DNA replicates to get from an Amobea to a Great Ape.

    If EVOLUTIONS is such FACT then that proof must be out there, just like it is for the small particle scientists WHO CAN show the EVOLUTION of Elements and have a PERIODIC CHART that allows them to PREDICT NEW ELEMENTS not yet made or found or discovered.

    Pleae lead us to that EVOLUTIONARY and GENETIC PERIOD TABLE of how DNA EVOLVES.

  • Alex
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it and it is the entire basis for Biology, Genetics, Anthropology, and very life science there is. Unless you are willing to say that there has been no progress in these areas in the last 200 years, you must accept that evolution has moved science forward.

    Added: and to the guy above me. Science not only knew the world was round, they calculated how round as far back as the Greeks. It was only religious repression that caused it not to be widely known.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Are you serious???? WOW, this is amazing. Do you guys know what a theory is??? Do you know what scientific method is????? It has 100% more evidence than creation, and is scientifically the most accepted theory for the beginning of life. I can't believe some of these answers!

    I'd just like to say something, complexity is supported by evolution, not an antithesis to it. Get your facts strait before you type, please!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yea...right. So a sky wizard made a man from dust, a woman from a rib-bone, a talking snake and a magic apple?

    Yea, that sounds much more credible than natural selection.

    Look, Seriously. Go to www.howstuffworks.com and type in "evolution". Do some research and you will see why the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of credible mainstream scientist, biologist, geologist etc...regard evolution as fact.

    In science "Theory" doesn't meand "wild guess"....look it up.

    Source(s): www.howStuffWorks.com
  • 1 decade ago

    A hard, cold irrefutable fact? You may have a point.

    A logical, reasonable theory backed in large part by years of careful scientific study and a mountain of evidence? Without doubt.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The religion of Evolution is making science God.

    This cult of Egoists are worshiping self.

    Wayne Murray

    The introduction to Genesis and to the whole Bible ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true the other false. All of God’s works are good, great, wondrous, and perfect.

    Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is only seen in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade to the plowshare to machines. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another.

    For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be evident stages of evolution today. You would be able to find species in many stages of evolution in nature right now. For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God. And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying prove. The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.