Can you help a fellow out, I am little confused?

Question

When an evolutionist says facts.....do they mean facts, or their version of what they want to be facts?

When an evolutionist says evidence.....do they mean evidence, or their version of what they want to be evidence

When an evolutionist says proof.....do they mean proof, or their version of what they want to be proof?


You guys keep changing definitions when the FACTS disagree with your agenda....it's hard to keep up

Answer 1

Tell me.. what is an evolutionist?? Is it akin to a gravitationist?

Answer 2

You take God out of the picture and what's left is man's best explanation of how the world began.



Of course as one explanation after another gets proven wrong or differs with another it is changed.



It is like people not wanting to believe in the number two.

They ignore the evidence that 1 + 1 = 2 and skip to three.

It doesn't matter what proof or evidence you show that 1 + 1 = 2 or even how two is a real number, they firmly have decided to not believe in two and will come up with whatever excuse on how it does not exist.



Truth is not relative it is absaloute.

When your "truth" is a lie that changes and has been proven wrong, it isn't really true at all.

Answer 3

You know what confuses me?



Why you bother posting questions like these without posting a link to the claims you are making.





This is a straw man attack on evolutionists. Facts are facts - there is no such thing as a "version" of facts. Evidence is evidence - and the only people I see "moving the goalposts" are you Christians with respect to evidence.



Seriously - you crack me up with this crap. You think you are so smart and charming with your half-assed attacks against evolution. Perhaps if you studied evolution and actually got a little bit of understanding of it, you'd stop sticking your foot in your mouth.

Answer 4

Here is something interesting for you: We humans have what is called a GLO gene. This gene produces vitamin C in other species, yet ours does not work. If there were an intelligent designer, why would he (or she . . . or it) design us with a faulty one? The only answer is that it was functional previously, and then became dysfunctional at some stage, after which it was passed on to all people. This is actually true, but it just so happens that our closest primate relatives—orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees—have the same faulty GLO gene, unlike other, distant primates (which have functional GLO genes). Kenneth R. Miller, in his book 'Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul', writes, "That means that the common ancestor in which the capacity to make vitamin C was originally lost wasn't a human, but a primate—an ancestor that, according to the advocates of intelligent design, we're not supposed to have. And there's the problem. (2008:85-87)"



There are so many examples of this (inheritance from recent primate ancestors) that confirm the THEORY of evolution to be factual.



And who has an agenda? I love all this talk of agendas. I listen to Christian talk radio everyday and hear about the gay and lesbian agenda, the atheists agenda, the liberal agenda . . . it's like everyone is just out to get you and force you not to believe your interpretation of the Bible--as though they have secret planning meetings and stuff. That's silly. The real gay and lesbian agenda is simply to get through another day without being harassed, ridiculed, and disrespected by as many people as possible. Atheists don't have an agenda (not a formal one anyway). Atheists just enjoy watching Christians get all mad and resort to logical fallacy in the face of peer-reviewed, scientific, empirical evidence. As for liberals . . . democrats and republicans are both so close to the center the only cause for division is an imaginary fear of being pulled at all toward the other side. The media loves this fear (it sells), so exploits politicians mistakes and controversy to fuel the divisive, imaginary fear.



The only agenda of science is to establish natural reasons for things through peer-reviewed testing and observation, such as that above.

Answer 5

Evidence and proof are well-defined. Facts are among the things that can be proven or that can be supported by evidence.



Evidence, to be meaningful and valid, must be unequivocal in meaning. That is, if you have evidence of something but it could be understood in multiple and yet incompatible ways, it is not reasonable evidence. In which case, it is noise.



Proof, to be meaningful and valid, must be unerring in its direction. That is, it cannot point more than one basic way and still be proof of only one side of the issue. Otherwise, it is noise.



Facts must be based on valid evidence and proofs.



I don't see any variability in the definitions there. The only problem I ever see is that you can't provide facts to support your conclusions.

Answer 6

Sorry, it's the creationists who decide what the conclusion is, then twist the evidence to fit and choose whichever version of a fact makes their foregone conclusion sound better.



Scientists are always trying to find the errors other scientists made. That's how science works. Creationists are generally borrowing the most creative lies and spinning of facts from each other. That's why you can find the same arguments, in the exact same words, on dozens of creationist sites.

Answer 7

When Christians say facts.....do they mean facts, or their version of what they want to be facts?



When Christians say evidence.....do they mean evidence, or their version of what they want to be evidence



When Christians say proof.....do they mean proof, or their version of what they want to be proof?





You guys keep changing definitions when the FACTS disagree with your agenda....it's hard to keep up

Answer 8

We do have different definitions for some terms; thanks for bringing up the point. When we refer to facts, we are talking about things which have actually happened or which actually exist. When you refer to facts, you are talking about lies and delusions. Hope that helps. And we're not "evolutionists" as evolution isn't a belief. It's a solidly proven and easily demonstrated fact that is obvious to everyone who understands what the word means.

Answer 9

Go back in your cave.



You are such a bitter loser. 99% of the scientists around the world come up with same answer when shown the same evidence. Science is competitive, very competitive actually. They have no problem criticizing ideas and hypothesis of other scientist so if there actually were issues with evolution that wouldn't make it true it wouldn't be a scientific theory.



It's over, you lost. Get over it. There is no more debate.



And if you pull that BS about the word theory you are as blind as they come because I know so many people have pointed out the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY and that is different than the casual use of the word theory.



SCIENTIFIC THEORY =/= HYPOTHESIS.

Answer 10

Which facts are you speaking of which disprove evolution? I have no agenda, but evolution is the most reasonable explanation given all of the facts. Which definitions have been changed?



@Meddy: you confuse "theory" with hypothesis. A theory is the best explanation given a broad range of facts, facts are lower on the the ladder than theory. Perhaps a science class would be helpful.

Answer 11

What the hell's an evolutionist?



In the UK people leave evolutionary biology to the scientists.



Anyway, facts are facts - people didn't like the fact that the earth orbits the sun but that doesn't change the fact that it does.



People don't like the fact evolution is in direct contradiction with the genesis "account" but hey - tough sh*t.



...

Answer 12

When a Xian says facts.....do they mean facts, or their version of what they want to be facts?



When a Xian says evidence.....do they mean evidence, or their version of what they want to be evidence



When a Xian says proof.....do they mean proof, or their version of what they want to be proof?





You guys keep changing definitions when the FACTS disagree with your agenda....it's hard to keep up



I have known you were confused for a long time.

Answer 13

You're more than a little confused, "No Chance". I think you'll find that the facts, proof and evidence are there and plainly speak for themselves.



http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/index.html





BTW, why a lion as an avatar?- trying tocompensate for something?

Answer 14

I think that for many if not most of the atheists active here (though surely not all), a "fact" is something you say loudly and often enough in a vehement and absolute enough tone of voice. That's a fact, Jack.

Answer 15

could you give examples of evolutionist facts evidence and proof that you find invalid and how they are invalid?

also give examples on how creationist and religious facts evidence and proof are valid

Answer 16

Facts are facts, truth is truth, evidence is evidence, proof is proof. It is the religious who own their personal version of reality.

Answer 17

That's not a tough question to answer though...



Facts mean Facts

Evidence means Evidence

Proof means Proof



There's you're answer. Have a nice day.

Answer 18

I never ask for evidence or proof of evolution, not on R&S. I don't suppose you can offer any evidence for creation, besides, "Look at that butterfly!" Or can you?

Answer 19

They mean facts, evidence and proof.



Yeah, cause we're the ones that worship the book that thinks the Mediterranean is the entire earth and that it's flat... So obviously we have to change facts when they disagree with that agenda, right? Oh wait...

Answer 20

Stop making claims. Creationists have nothing at all. Evolution has the Scientific community.

Answer 21

Wow, you really ARE confused.

You're accusing "evolutionists" of doing what you do. What a hypocrite!

Answer 22

Really Christians and atheist look at the same facts and interpet them differently. Atheist simply want control of their lives and if there is no God then they can do so. Christians want to bring glory to God and if they see a way to do so with science they will. Then atheist say that science that supports creation doesn't flit as science because it's about religion. Which is stupid because denying there is a God is just as much about religion as admitting he's real.

Answer 23

This is a legitimate question on my part: can you give me specific examples of a time when evolutionists have done this?

Answer 24

A fact in science is an observation; a theory in science is an explanation of their observation.

Answer 25

science is driven on fact when religion is driven on faith.



So yes if a religious person says that they mean what they believe



but if a scientist says it that means that it has been proven

Answer 26

Hey bro, I like this question. I think this is a great point, Atheists think we are gullible, yet they'd believe anything that steven hawking or any other scientist pulls out of their butt. Their proof is what they want it to be, not what it actually is. kudos and God bless bro

Answer 27

You confused? Never.



It is their own version of evidence, proof and facts.

They have no proof.

Answer 28

Example of Fact:



English Standard Version (©2001)

And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

Answer 29

When a Christian says reality.... do they mean reality, or their version of reality?

Answer 30

Version, version, version.

Answer 31

They don't have a clue as to what they mean, for if they did it might stay consistent from one month to the next.





Okay Logic Lovers, its TD TIME!!

Answer 32

Your question needs to cite specific examples. Until then, you will remain confused.

Answer 33

Now I'm confused.

Answer 34

Oh great, it's you again...

Stop being arrogant.

Answer 35

I think the best answer would be to combine them all and say "theory" rather than facts/evidence/proof.



Seeing as almost all Science is based on theory and not actual fact.



Some people just use those word-age to i dunno....make Evolution attack Creation?





(((((NCWJ)))))

Answer 36

"Can you help a fellow out, I am little confused"



Don't worry, that's just 1st stage senility kicking in.

Answer 37

When evolutionists say evidence or facts they mean, "ou ou aaa aaa" it must me right!

Answer 38

I'd say you're more than a little confused.



Sorry, I assumed your questions were rhetorical, it's the first option for all of them.

Answer 39

What the hell are you talking about?

Answer 40

Well stated my friend, have you been by the Lords website you notice the Japan quake and floods across america have come from the prewritten gathering list...also new film and word on the Lord on His new waking sites please examine D james Kennedy on both new sites He stood with me against satan/death before His passing...it has begun



WHY has the Lord come from His Place, and Hides Himself no more?

Isaiah 26:21 He has come from His place for Judging His and His children's enemies, Isaiah 45:15 He hides no more for His children's gathering for inheritance... go for discussion and proofs of His now gathering and even films of the Holyone preparing for His Glory here on Earth...



http://adamandeveinaction.blogspot.com/ and http://messiahsgatheringquakes.blogspot.… and on the site http://www.adamandeveseedgatheringminist… on the prophecy and the signs page are the pre-written signs of His gathering Call...it has begun...

Answer 41

Sounds like you're not only confused but in denial as well.



Why don't you try showing us how it's done?

Answer 42

"I am little confused"



Well, that's quite the generous understatement.

Answer 43

"I am little confused?"



I'm glad you finally admitted it.



BTW, you are making claims without any evidence again. It is like you just cannot help yourself.

Answer 44

LOL @ U