Some questions about evolution.

[McBell]

What you call "creationists" are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and decided the evidence does not support evolution. As to published research, there are great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weaknesses of the ToE. But again, you knew that already, didn't you?

Really?
There are "great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weakness of ToE"?
Care to point some of them out?

Or is this yet another "source" you will conveniently not ever present?

 

[McBell]

I disagree with your statement the ToE is backed by scientific evidence.

Your disagreement with the facts do not change the facts.

 

[Valjean]

Why would skepticism about evolution have anything to do with creationism? Who came up with this either-or dialectic?

"I question punctuated equilibrium" -- so magic poofing must needs be the true mechanism? Ridiculous!

 

[jarofthoughts]

You interpret the word as you will, and give me leave to do the same. There are multiple meanings for the word according to the dictionary. I can see why ToE proponents want to define "theory" as "fact" to meet their own agenda. To quote from Merriam-Webster,theory is defined as: "A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation; an unproved assumption; Conjecture." Calling a sow's ear a silk purse doesn't change what it is.

For the love of everything nice and fluffy, would you be so kind as to educate yourself a little?
Look, you don't have to trust our sources.
You don't even have to trust us.
Just google 'scientific theory' and see what it says for yourself.
It means something quite different than the commonly used word 'theory'.
Seriously...

 

[rusra02]

For the love of everything nice and fluffy, would you be so kind as to educate yourself a little?
Look, you don't have to trust our sources.
You don't even have to trust us.
Just google 'scientific theory' and see what it says for yourself.
It means something quite different than the commonly used word 'theory'.
Seriously...

When Darwin penned his book The Origin of Species, he certainly did not consider his theory to be established fact. In his introduction, Darwin penned "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."
To sum up, I don't accept what you call a 'fact' and don't accept your definition for the word 'theory' as it applies to the ToE. Words and their meanings have power, to enlighten or deceive.

 

[rusra02]

Really?
There are "great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weakness of ToE"?
Care to point some of them out?

Or is this yet another "source" you will conveniently not ever present?

These are publicly available and can be searched for on the Internet, as can the lists of scientists who reject evolution. But you knew that already, didn't you?

 

[McBell]

These are publicly available and can be searched for on the Internet, as can the lists of scientists who reject evolution. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Are you so ashamed of them that you cannot even be bothered to present one?
Does not help your position to be so ashamed of that which you refer to.

 

[McBell]

Words and their meanings have power, to enlighten or deceive.

I agree.
Though it is sad that you have not only chosen to be deceived, but to also perpetuate the deception that you fell for on to others.

 

[Valjean]

When Darwin penned his book The Origin of Species, he certainly did not consider his theory to be established fact. In his introduction, Darwin penned "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."
To sum up, I don't accept what you call a 'fact' and don't accept your definition for the word 'theory' as it applies to the ToE. Words and their meanings have power, to enlighten or deceive.

What does the Darwin quotation have to do with what facts are or how "theory" is used in scientific discourse?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I disagree with your statement the ToE is backed by scientific evidence.

Change in Allele Frequency

Descent with Modification

Adaptation

These are facts of Evolution.

No, you must be thinking of someone else. I do not believe the ToE is valid.

Duly noted....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You interpret the word as you will, and give me leave to do the same. There are multiple meanings for the word according to the dictionary. I can see why ToE proponents want to define "theory" as "fact" to meet their own agenda. To quote from Merriam-Webster,theory is defined as: "A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation; an unproved assumption; Conjecture." Calling a sow's ear a silk purse doesn't change what it is.

And I'm calling foul on this one. I think your quote-mining the definitions to suite your own agenda.

Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

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 &#8212;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 : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Do you notice that you conveniently chose a portion of the definition of (NUMBER 6) instead of choosing the first definition from the start? This is why we call creationist dishonest.

There two uses for the word theory. Urban usage uses the word to mean "guess" but scientific usage of the word means it's based on facts (i.e. germ theory, theory of electricity, theory of gravity...etc...etc...) but I'm sure you've been told this plenty of times.

It's my theory you're just ignoring the facts...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When Darwin penned his book The Origin of Species, he certainly did not consider his theory to be established fact. In his introduction, Darwin penned "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."
To sum up, I don't accept what you call a 'fact' and don't accept your definition for the word 'theory' as it applies to the ToE. Words and their meanings have power, to enlighten or deceive.

And the ToE does not rise and fall with Darwin alone. We have come a long way since Darwin.

 

[jarofthoughts]

When Darwin penned his book The Origin of Species, he certainly did not consider his theory to be established fact. In his introduction, Darwin penned "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."

Quote-mine much?

Here is the full passage:
"This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts; with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done."

See how it means something completely different than what you tried to make it appear to?

To sum up, I don't accept what you call a 'fact' and don't accept your definition for the word 'theory' as it applies to the ToE. Words and their meanings have power, to enlighten or deceive.

Again, you don't have to accept 'my' definitions.
Just Google 'scientific theory' and do your own research.
You are absolutely unquestionably dead wrong in your understanding of what a scientific theory is.

If you do not accept this, then it is absolutely safe to say that you are either ignorant, stupid, or insane.

 

[Father Heathen]

I disagree with your statement the ToE is backed by scientific evidence.

But it's not a matter of opinion, and you cannot bend reality with your mind through willful ignorance.

 

[Photonic]

What you call "creationists" are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and decided the evidence does not support evolution. As to published research, there are great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weaknesses of the ToE. But again, you knew that already, didn't you?

There are a great number of researched papers showing that the Theory of Gravity is wrong. Or the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Or Maxwells Theories of Light to be wrong. Flaws in mathematical formula, etc.

Fact is though, that doesn't mean it shatters the theory. Science necessarily has unknowns to explore or it wouldn't exist.

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"
Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

 

[Acim]

Why would skepticism about evolution have anything to do with creationism? Who came up with this either-or dialectic?

Those with an agenda on either side of popular debate.

If you question evolution in scrutinized way...
- from creationist perspective, you must surely be one of us. We do that. We welcome you. Just have to sign here and pledge that you agree to creationism in all its glory.
- from staunch proponents of TOE, you must surely be one of them. You obviously think bible is fact and disregard all of science data, all the time. As a creationist, you will only ever use your emotional perspective to justify your faith over reason.

From these two sides, there is no 'in-between' nor any gray area. It is either-or. I can attest to TOE proponents referencing me as (old-school) creationist, I would say about 10 times in last 2-4 weeks, even while I have at least 3 times said, "I'm not old school creationist." In other thread, just my scrutinizing TOE data has lead, often, to claims along lines of, 'well your creationism ignorance cannot explain the data any better.' Which translates as: don't scrutinize what we've all accepted. It is very poor form.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Why can you not explain it top me? Don't you understand it? Can you meet the challenge or not. Redirection and side stepping are not backing up your side of this debate.

Not for nothing, but why does it have to be a challenge or debate? Where is the confrontation coming from?

If God is truly God, then he is beyond our complete understanding, as would be the methods and rationale He used in forming Creation.

Do YOU understand the detailed specifics of how God formed the universe and caused life?

Making demands of full knowledge, of people who have a layman's understanding of a science that there are experts in, is a fool's undertaking. Evolution is a biological fact; what is in question is what caused life to begin with. It's in questions like that, that we find faith and God.

When we use faith, which is an expression of our deepest, most strongly held hopes and which is transformative if surrendered to, as a cudgel to wield against those who do not share faith, we help no one. We accomplish nothing. We diminish faith when we confuse it with fact.

Christ likened things to mustard seeds on a fairly regular basis; why then would you make a categorical decision as to which parts of the bible are allegory and meant for exploration and contemplation, and which are literally true?

Did your Bible come with a decoder ring that mine didn't? We should stick to asking and contemplating questions, not demanding answers.

 

[Acim]

Scientific Theory (according to Wikipedia)

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena​

- I think I found the word fact twice on the entire page. Never suggesting this is what scientific theory rests on.

Thus we could go with what Wikipedia says here about Fact in Science.

I'd rather not (right now) cherry pick quotes from there, and just trust that whoever cares to connect the two, will do so. But I am compelled to reference what Fact in Philosophy says on that same page. I don't think this necessarily helps any particular side, but is helpful to understanding larger framework, as science ultimately exists within philosophy (though admittedly, even that is arguable).

Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,[citation needed] in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."[dubious – discuss]

Correspondence and the slingshot argument

Some versions of the correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact. This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not for nothing, but why does it have to be a challenge or debate? Where is the confrontation coming from?

If God is truly God, then he is beyond our complete understanding, as would be the methods and rationale He used in forming Creation.

Do YOU understand the detailed specifics of how God formed the universe and caused life?

Making demands of full knowledge, of people who have a layman's understanding of a science that there are experts in, is a fool's undertaking. Evolution is a biological fact; what is in question is what caused life to begin with. It's in questions like that, that we find faith and God.

When we use faith, which is an expression of our deepest, most strongly held hopes and which is transformative if surrendered to, as a cudgel to wield against those who do not share faith, we help no one. We accomplish nothing. We diminish faith when we confuse it with fact.

Christ likened things to mustard seeds on a fairly regular basis; why then would you make a categorical decision as to which parts of the bible are allegory and meant for exploration and contemplation, and which are literally true?

Did your Bible come with a decoder ring that mine didn't? We should stick to asking and contemplating questions, not demanding answers.

:biglaugh:

 

[Tristesse]

Scientific Theory (according to Wikipedia)

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena
​

- I think I found the word fact twice on the entire page. Never suggesting this is what scientific theory rests on.

Thus we could go with what Wikipedia says here about Fact in Science.

I'd rather not (right now) cherry pick quotes from there, and just trust that whoever cares to connect the two, will do so. But I am compelled to reference what Fact in Philosophy says on that same page. I don't think this necessarily helps any particular side, but is helpful to understanding larger framework, as science ultimately exists within philosophy (though admittedly, even that is arguable).

Since theories and facts explain different things, it's possible for something to be both a theory and a fact. A well supported theory often becomes a fact in the scientific sense.