Four questions about this statement regarding evolutionary theory?

Question

Taken as a whole, what is factually wrong about the statement below?

Besides being declarative, what kind of statement is it?; i.e., what is it's fundamental nature?

What is the underlying, unfalsibiable presuposition?

What is the metaphysical nature of the presupposition?



An individual “fact” of the biological past is a single fossil or other artifact recovered, studied and reported in detail. There are over 100,000,000 "facts" of the biological past. Biological evolution is a conclusion based on those FACTS. It is a fact that in the recent past (60 million years ago) there were no large mammals at all such as horses, bears, man, etc. Still farther back it is a fact that there was no life on land- at all. Still farther back there were no fishes in the oceans. Still farther back it is a fact that there was no multicellular life on Earth, anywhere. These are a very few of the many, many facts that make biological evolution on Earth a FACT. —David D, a rather long-winded and clueless resident of Yahoo Answers

Answer 1

Well looking at this objectively I see that the facts do not support the conclusion as being a fact. Doesn't the bible also state the same progression in the creation of the earth? Yet it does not conclude with evolution.



I think the nature of this statement is to draw false conclusions from factual evidence. For example. Stevy Wonder is blind, Love is blind, God is love, Stevy Wonder is God.



More to science topic is the discovery that all women can be traced with RNA to a common ancestor. What conclusion will be drawn. I read in that article that that was the first ape to become a man. I am not so quick to jump to such a speculative conclusion. Considering that this fails to rule out the Eve account.



presupposition = to believe in advance

metaphysical = speculative

The nature of the statement to me says that the evidence will fit the persons belief because he wants to see it a certain way whether or not the conclusion is sound.



Before I choose a side I like to have at least one thing that strongly pulls me that way. I once watched an interview with Richard Dawkins, a renowned evolutionist. The more he said the more i realized his conclusion was arbitrary. I really expected a sound scientific logic to his view. I was disappointed.



The more I investigate religion and evolution I find them both being a religion. Both require faith in what is not seen. And if biologic evolutionist don't pull it together and stop smoke screening us all I am afraid that religion will win.

Answer 2

The statement is incomplete, but factual.



There are no unfalsifiable presuppositions, but it does not offer details on radiometric dating, superposition, or several other testable concepts used. It is principally a statement of the meaning of fact ("datum") in science, and how facts are connected. The biggest missing piece is the the final use of fact differs in meaning and matches with the statement by Stephen J. Gould: "In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Answer 3

permit's basically make this easy, it quite is a a catalogue of the information that we do understand, even nonetheless i'm no longer sparkling if we've got here upon one hundred,000,000 fossils or no longer, yet on the huge sort would not remember. the final nature of it quite is an user-friendly, intense point inventory of what all of us understand. there is little if something incorrect with it. it quite is a falsifiable assertion in that shall we locate fossils that seem in the previous others of comparable nature, i.e. shall we locate great mammals relationship to sixty 5 million 3 hundred and sixty 5 days in the past or complicated, multicellular ones relationship to 3 billion years. we will additionally practice that the relationship mechanisms are falsifiable... so a ways there is not any information of "metaphysical"...