Evolution is a Truth

I am assuming English is not your first language, because your post is riddled with horrible grammar. I mean it is to the point where some of your sentences are unintelligible. But you know what, let's just move on from that because there is nothing we can do about that now. Except, I could ask that you proof-read. Here is the main issue with what you posted originally. Have you ever heard of "Ordinary Language Philosophy"? Basically, it states that people in very esoteric fields of study, who use their own unique vernacular, often forget to make clear their definitions of words for people who are not in their fields. "Truth" in law has a different meaning than it does in other fields. "Theory" to the general population typically means a hypothesis unproven, whereas in hard sciences it means something quite the opposite; it means something backed by considerable evidence. So when you throw words like "Truth" around it becomes problematic. You have totally failed to give an adequate definition of truth. In fact, you failed to address my very point on this. You missed it more than you failed to proof read, actually. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... Further more, "science observing something" is perhaps your definition of what truth is, but I challenge you to find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or philosophy book a congruent definition. And we can have a WHOLE OTHER DEBATE about what is the definition of "truth", but that will get very long and very exhaustive. Again, see the above citation on "Ordinary Language Philosophy" for a better articulation of that. I must also stress to you, as advice going forward, to DEFINE your key terms when starting a debate so that EVERYONE IS ONE THE SAME page and can know what you mean. WHAT YOU SAID "By the context I used, it shows I was thinking that evolution was truthfully and REALISTICALLY seen in society and NOT that it requires no further explanation." MY RESPONSE So what are you really saying? That evolution is a term used by scientists to reference observable data? WOW DUDE! What a discovery you made! But that is NOT what you said. You said that Evolution is a "TRUTH" (and you failed to define truth in your original post, which I attacked), and that it "REQUIRES NO FURTHER EXPLANATION" (see next point on how science is constantly changing its theories). Here is a quote from you: "...and NOT that it requires no further explanation." So wait, you did NOT say, "it requires no further explanation"? Because you did, but in that sentence you are saying that you DID NOT SAY THAT. You are either confused, or you are a victim of not proof-reading before your publish. So you've contradicted yourself in your rebuttal. But I applaud you for sticking to your guns, at least attempting to, and debating for the sake of debating. Even though you're making yourself look foolish with backtracking. However, I am STILL debating what you originally posted. And I've already won by your definition in your opening post. Because I got you to change what you said. You originally said that it "Requires no further explanation" and as the above two quotes from YOU show, you have retracted that statement. WHAT YOU SAID "The scientific method is merely saying how when you discover something to be true or factual that it brings up more questions." MY RESPONSE So I want you to carefully read you wrote, and what I wrote, in context. I was talking about SCIENTIFIC THEORIES in Round 1...and you then you bring up a definition (your own definition I might add) about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEORIES and METHODS are DIFFERENT THINGS. BE CONSISTENT. Not quite the definition of the scientific method by the way. Here is how the OXFORD ENGLISH DICITIONARY defines "The Scientific Method": "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." So the Scientific Method gives us results that REFORM our ideas and our INTERPRETATION of data. At one point in time, everyone that the Solar System was EARTH CENTRIC, now we know its HELIOCENTRIC. How? We got new data. We got... FURTHER EXPLANATIONS! Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... LAST POINT You also do not define clearly what you mean by "Evolution" by means of which branch of science you are talking about. Biology, Chemistry, Paleontology, Botany, Genetics, Physics, all handle the term "evolution" differently. This also goes into my original point about "Ordinary Language". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...