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.
Alright, I've watched documentaries on evolution, I've read articles in printed encyclopedias, I've read most parts of On The Origin of Species, I've read of similar anatomy, similar skeletons, etc, of all species, presumably indicating species are related.
My question is: How do people 'know' evolution has taken place? Why is it considered a fact, though even Darwin himself knew it had (and still has) holes? Are people merely biased in evolutions favor?
Do you also get your understanding of electronics from books written before the US Civil War? Trying to understand evolution by reading a book written a century before DNA was discovered is like trying to understand computers by reading a book written before we could generate electricity.
Sir Les (and others) provides the usual mangled truth and dis-information, a propaganda tactic best employed by the Communist Chinese and Russians back when their dogmatic Administration thought you could control people's lack of independent thinking by flooding them with known mis-facts. What is sad in our open Western culture is that you do not have to take it anymore, to reference Peter Finch's famous line in Network.
Having astounding informational assets available to literally everyone through the Internet now, there is simply no rational excuse for clinging to the outdated and factually wrong tidbits of information that Sir Les, OneJackson and others here insist on.
"man supposedly came from apes", "isotopic dating continues to be inaccurate", "evolution is only a (colloquial) theory", "You can't predict current facts from past events". All hugely inaccurate or downright 180˚ out of phase with the facts and truth. And yet they persist in regurgitating them.
Others here are correctly addressing each of the many purposeful intellectual faux-pas presented here. Gentlemen of God, you have picked the wrong place to proselytize your inaccurate statements. Perhaps you should go back to your church's kindergarten Sunday School where the students can't yet argue back. That's your best chance to propagate and maintain the silliness.
Moderator cut: Orphaned/off topic
_________________________________________________
But, FYI, I did find this appropriate bit of philosophy on another thread. It's far more useful to the general discussion than more quaint but insufficient one-liners from One(liner)Jackson.
It came from a thread about the meaning of life and our place in it. Many theologans and wanna-be intellectuals here on C-D's R&P forum would do well to sit up and consider....
"There are other threads on this, but the brilliance of one answer is pretty funny.
Doug Adams wrote that the answer to everything had been found, and it was 42.
His brilliance is in realizing that, as small parts of a greater universe attempting to see the totality of it when we simply don't have the mental capabilites, our making a few itty-bitty-teenie-weenie bad childish models is like the 42nd cell in your anal ring trying to determine the complete function and mental processes of your entire body. Any full answer is going to be so incomprehensible that it can no more be grasped than the full meaning of the number 42. Or, as that 42nd cell finally determined to be a valid answer for it, Moderator cut: inappropriate language." "
Alright, I've watched documentaries on evolution, I've read articles in printed encyclopedias, I've read most parts of On The Origin of Species, I've read of similar anatomy, similar skeletons, etc, of all species, presumably indicating species are related.
My question is: How do people 'know' evolution has taken place? Why is it considered a fact, though even Darwin himself knew it had (and still has) holes? Are people merely biased in evolutions favor?
I believe it, but as far as I can tell it is not considered a fact.
1. You're confusing Evolution with the Big Bang. The two are entirely, entirely separate. Have you ever studied Evolution? Just as I advocate those that criticize the Bible understand what it is they're criticizing (plus, crticizing it is much more fun when you know it better than Christians), I advocate that people who argue against evolution to take a course on it. If you're going to argue against something, you need to have a clue about what it is you're arguing about, which you clearly don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneJackson
Moderator cut: Orphaned post
Please scroll up. This has been covered already. Either you didn't read the thread or you have reading comprehension issues. Do you want a scientific theory is? Clearly not.
Please scroll up. This has been covered already. Either you didn't read the thread or you have reading comprehension issues. Do you want a scientific theory is? Clearly not.
Yes, indeed I do know the difference between a theory and a fact.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): pluralthe·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2:abstract thought:speculation 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :conjecturec: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations
---------
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete:featb:crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic:action 2archaic:performance, doing 3:the quality of being actual:actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Yes, indeed I do know the difference between a theory and a fact.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): pluralthe·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2:abstract thought:speculation 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :conjecturec: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations
---------
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete:featb:crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic:action 2archaic:performance, doing 3:the quality of being actual:actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Oh my.
1. You highlighted the wrong definition. Nice try. Try #4 instead.
2. Do you ridicule the Theory of Relativity too? Have you ever heard scientists refer to their studies as Facts of...? So, what you're admitting is that if you come across a study you don't want to believe, or that conflicts with your religious ideas, than you'll simply call it a Theory (because all plausible or scientifically acceptable general principles are called that) and never have to actually know what it is you're actually talking about? Braaavoo!!
P.S. Just caught your thread on God's Gravity/Centrifugal Force (LOL!) - so, clearly, you do believe in the Theory of Relativity, but I must ask, it's just a THEORY? How do you believe it with such great faith as to start a thread about?
It's my belief that if people want to behave like this, that's fine. But keep it to yourself, quit corrupting education in this country. Why do people with absolutetely NO idea of what they're talking about ALWAYS SEEM to invovle themselves in those topics?
The OneJackson Theory of Facts: "Here! Look through my self-imposed and very limiting philosophical filters so you will only get part of the information!"
Why thank you. But now it's on to real facts, for those who don't just blindly accept the Sesame Street level of interpretation:
This next one, if you can read rapidly and with good comprehension (it's a bit long, but then so are the basics of evolutionary science), covers the discrepancy between the everyman's inaccurate but colloquial and common use of "theory" versus what scientists mean when they use it. There's quite a difference, and the theists know this, but as we see, they hope you won't.
I'll just post one small part that hits OJ's specious argument right where it hurts...
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is.
By comparison, a would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term ‘theory’ is inapplicable.
In scientific practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis."
There you have it. Can you change your perspective, having been corrected, OJ?
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.
