Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your utter failure to address to any of the actual arguments is becoming tiresome and childish. I would enjoy an actual debate with you in an academic setting, where your infantile tactics would not be acceptable.
I don't believe the loaves and fishes story either.
Most people - indeed, most Christians - over the age of 10 don't.
I am completely unsurprised you do believe it, though.
Making an ad populum argument proves nothing since it is just a fallacy. Most people - indeed, most Christians believed in geocentrism when Galileo got thrown in prison for teaching heliocentrism. But that didn't make the majority correct that they believed the way they did. It would be wrong for someone in his day to use the ad populum fallacy argument to tell Galileo "everyone believes in geocentrism so you must be wrong!"
In science, a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. A single scientific observation is not a fact.
Are you not reading? I challenge you to Google Scientific Theory and tell me how many times you find the the word fact in the definition.
From the NCSE
Quote:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
I am distinguishing fact as opposed to Theory. Facts are the observations - the data.
Theory and fact are different. Theory explains the fact. Fact is not a definition of Theory - they are different - that's my point. One is an observation, the other is the explanation of said observation. They do not rest on a different position on a scale of certainty. That is how the non-scientist regards it.
When I am saying fact in science, I am specifically separating it from the conclusions regarding the observation. Just the facts ma'am. Facts are the world's data. It is just the observation as opposed to conclusions drawn from the facts. This is where we are talking past each other. The conclusion (the explanation) is beyond the facts - the observations , yes the empirical observations. That is why the ToE is both fact AND Theory. They are different aspects of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains the Facts of Evolution. It is the observations that are the facts because it IS empirical. Of course, if you are the only one that is capable of making the observation, of course it would be brought into question and will be tested to confirm it - the peer review. We are saying the same thing. Fact has not been removed from the SM lexicon. Creationists use the term differently, as a laymen would.
Quote:
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas
that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend
themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors
whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics
flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the
empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and
then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only
mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
See we agree what a fact is. Fact is not about absolute certainty. It is just a kernel, just the observation aspect incorporated into the theory or necessitates a modification of the theory. My point has been that the Theory is not the fact, and that the explanation (the Theory) does not somehow become the Fact (merely the empirical observation) when confirmed. The Theory is the over-arching explanation and framework that is supported by the facts and laws. This is why Evolution is referred to as both Theory AND Fact. I think we can move beyond this.
Pan, I am sorry man, matadora is right. It depends in the depth and the person you are talking too. the word "fact" can be used meaning "we have used "this" and it has never failed". that's in the past. And we assume, through uniformatranryism ... wow butchered that ... Uniformitarianism that it will work in the future "FOR US" in the near future..
So when we, people like matadors start pointing out what a fact is and is not we need to listen. I am not wasting my time telling you what degrees I have because it is not the point. The point is understanding what people say. Weather degreed or not.
I have no trouble bouncing around words. Once a person needs clarification I give it and maybe, if I respect them, I will change it. I use the word "fact" many times times. Likes its a fact I am a J.O. but that doesn't change the facts I say. It just gets me ignored by other emotional JO's.
All that aside. stone cold fats don't exist when we hit deep levels of science. That is all I am saying. I never say 'evolution is a fact" because that is intellectually dishonest and it is used to recruit people. I am not interested in recruiting for "my team". I am interest in teaching. I learned that from the bible by the way. And I am atheists.
You don't need to waste your time. Matador and I have been talking past each other and parsing different aspects. I hope my last post clarified the disconnect.
The facts of Evolution are that it is incontrovertible that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. That is no doubt a fact.
"changed"... change could mean anything. Creation, Extinction, Adaptation, Mutation, Entropy.
Change is a fact, but it is not a "fact of evolution", which is only a hypothesis.
See we agree what a fact is. My point has been that the Theory is not the fact, and that the explanation (the Theory) does not somehow become the Fact (merely the empirical observation) when confirmed. The Theory is the over-arching explanation and framework that is supported by the facts and laws. This is why Evolution is referred to as both Theory AND Fact. I think we can move beyond this.
Not quite.
The facts of Evolution are that it is incontrovertible that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. That is no doubt a fact.
The Scientific Method is often misunderstood, even by individuals in other branches of sciences.
You are confusing the word fact for absolute truth. In science no natural law can be accepted as an absolute truth because there is always the possibility that some experiment may be devised that would refute it. A perfect example of this is the new and more sensitive Next Generation DNA sequencers that demonstrated that our DNA is not 99% identical to the chimpanzee but 95-96% instead. I assure you that this percent will change again through more experimentation. We are on a fast explosive ride with respect to the world of molecular testing. It is a very exciting time to be working in the field of Molecular Diagnostics.
I am very well versed in science and the Scientific Method. The language used in the Scientific Method was purposefully constructed so as to not to use the word fact when describing any conclusions or results in the Scientific Method.
When you use the word fact to prove a scientific discovery you are giving the impression that no further testing would ever change the results. This is exactly the reason the word fact is not used when carrying out experiments under the Scientific Method.
True thinkers and scientific people totally get what a Theory is and how it came to be. We know that a theory in science has a different meaning form the word "theory" in common usage, in which "just a theory" carries with the implication of a flight of fancy, a hunch, or an abstract notion.
We know in the scientific community that a theory that has withstood repeated testing over a period of time and becomes elevated to the status of a law or principle, although not always identified as such. The Theory of Evolution, which has been tested and retested, directly and indirectly, for the past 170 years, is an example. As far as scientists and intellectuals are concerned, it is a basic principal in Biology, just as is the Cell Theory.
"changed"... change could mean anything. Creation, Extinction, Adaptation, Mutation, Entropy.
Change is a fact, but it is not a "fact of evolution", which is only a hypothesis.
Evolution is way past the Hypothesis stage.
The Theory of Evolution has been established and that's a fact.
It is a fact that we have tons evidence proving that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
I suggest you take a look at the evidence so that you can stop being misinformed. In this day and age of information technology there is no excuse for being misinformed unless you allow it.
The Theory of Evolution has been established and that's a fact.
It is a fact that we have tons evidence proving that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
I suggest you take a look at the evidence so that you can stop being misinformed. In this day and age of information technology there is no excuse for being misinformed unless you allow it.
Or perhaps we are informed with the same evidence and we have come to different conclusions? Evolution as the origin of species is not the truth, but an educated guess. It is the best solution for why things are why they are sans an intelligent creator. Agnostics are much more enjoyable to have discussions with because their minds are open to all conclusions.
Or perhaps we are informed with the same evidence and we have come to different conclusions? Evolution as the origin of species is not the truth, but an educated guess. It is the best solution for why things are why they are sans an intelligent creator. Agnostics are much more enjoyable to have discussions with because their minds are open to all conclusions.
Only the truth matters. Evolution was an idea rooted in 19th-century ideals of progress.
It has simply failed to be supported by the evidence. The fact that it counterdicts the Biblical
account of creation (though some say it does not) is besides the point. The point is that
it's just not holding water.
Considering many of the other things you post, in all honesty I would not be the least bit surprised.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
