the FoE - Fact of Evolution

[Dirty Penguin]

When talking about the theory, yes.


When talking about the theory, yes.


When talking about the theory, yes.


Actually, yes, yes and yes.


Because the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. The fact is allele frequency over time, and that is hardly contested by anybody - creationists included. What creationists contest is the theory of evolution that uses evolution as an explanation for the diversification of all life forms on the planet from a common ancestor. When dealing with this objection, we are dealing with the theory of evolution.

There is nothing remotely dishonest, biased or one-sided about referring to a scientific theory as a scientific theory. In fact, quite the opposite, it is completely honest, and the only people whose hands it "plays into" are the people who don't understand what the word means. We do not pander to those people or make them feel like they have a point by suddenly changing the wording of something. We make our points by educating them on the proper meaning of the terms and leaning back on the actual science involved.

:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Gday,



The word is "theory".

The issue is that DP insists on using the term "ToE" which is short for the Theory of Evolution.

Firstly - evolution is a fact of nature.
Yes. It is. Like gravity, germs or atoms.

And, there is also some confusion in the public mind over the word "theory" - because it has 2 meanings :
1. explanation
2. speculation
(I have boiled them down to just one word each to make the difference clear - in practice, if you check a dictionary it will say more than one word.)

So, the problem is that when using the phrase "theory of evolution" there are some poorly-informed people who mistakenly interpret that to mean something like
"speculation that evolution occurred"
or
"wild guesses about evolution"

Some poorly informed creationists think evolution is "just a theory", i.e. it's "just speculation", it's just an idea that Darwin made up our of thin air that has no evidence.

Which is completely false of course.

So - this word "theory" has become overloaded, it causes MIS-conceptions, and it is used by creationists in an misguided religious attempt to deny a fact of nature.

Thus, those of us who wish to communicate clearly, and who wish to discuss accurately and objectively - should afford using the misleading term "theory of evolution" when simply discussing plain old "evolution".


Iasion

So you're pretty much agreeing with what I said but you want to change your position to suit their ignorance. That's on you...but don't expect any of us, who are thoroughly informed, to pretty it up for them. It's on them to not be so misguided, ill-informed and uneducated. We do our best to inform them of the difference in how the word is used. News Flash......(THEY DON'T CARE)....So we move on....to find out that the word is not what they really have a problem with.....It's with what I previous mentioned.

 

[Alceste]

You repeatedly and deliberately insist on using a word which is misleading and one-sided and which plays right into the hands of creationists.

Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of gravity" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of germs" ?
Do you insist on saying the "THEORY of atoms" ?
No, no and no.

But you DO insist on repeatedly referring to the THEORY of evolution. When you could just as well refere to it as the "Fact of Evolution" or just plain ol' "evolution" like most scientists do.



Iasion

As I said before, context matters. Evolution is what we observe. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism that causes the changes we observe.

We say bacteria evolved to eat nylon, we don't say bacteria theory of evolutioned to eat nylon. We say the theory of evolution is the most thoroughly evidenced in the history of science. We can't say "evolution is the most thoroughly evidenced in the history of science". That's gobblety gook.

Nevertheless, it should be possible to use evolution alone more of the time, it just won't always fit the context of what people are trying to say.

 

[McBell]

So - this word "theory" has become overloaded, it causes MIS-conceptions, and it is used by creationists in an misguided religious attempt to deny a fact of nature.

Thus, those of us who wish to communicate clearly, and who wish to discuss accurately and objectively - should afford using the misleading term "theory of evolution" when simply discussing plain old "evolution".


Iasion

I disagree.
Letting the creationists have the word theory is the worst possible thing to do.

It would merely bolster their confidence in an unproductive manner.

 

[Iasion]

I disagree.
Letting the creationists have the word theory is the worst possible thing to do.

Pardon?
I didn't say we should.
Didn't you actually read my posts?

I am saying we should use correct words accurately - and NOT use the word "theory" when we are talking about a fact.

How can you disagree with that ?


Iasion

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Pardon?
I didn't say we should.
Didn't you actually read my posts?

I am saying we should use correct words accurately - and NOT use the word "theory" when we are talking about a fact.

How can you disagree with that ?

Nobody does, because we don't use the word "theory" when we are talking about the fact of evolution.

We use the word "theory" when talking about the theory of evolution.

 

[Iasion]

Nobody does, because we don't use the word "theory" when we are talking about the fact of evolution.
We use the word "theory" when talking about the theory of evolution.

Wrong - that's where you keep going wrong.
Even when talking about the FACT of evolution (such as on this thread - did you READ the title of the thread?), people such as DP have a habit of insisting on using the WRONG term.

Have you EVER seen DP and his ilk EVER refer to the FoE?
No.

Does he refer to the ToE EVERY time?
Yes.

My case is proved.
But feel free to keep on arguing silly falsehoods.


Iasion

 

[McBell]

Wrong - that's where you keep going wrong.
Even when talking about the FACT of evolution (such as on this thread - did you READ the title of the thread?), people such as DP have a habit of insisting on using the WRONG term.

Have you EVER seen DP and his ilk EVER refer to the FoE?
No.

Does he refer to the ToE EVERY time?
Yes.

My case is proved.
But feel free to keep on arguing silly falsehoods.


Iasion

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Wrong - that's where you keep going wrong.
Even when talking about the FACT of evolution (such as on this thread - did you READ the title of the thread?), people such as DP have a habit of insisting on using the WRONG term.

Have you EVER seen DP and his ilk EVER refer to the FoE?
No.

Does he refer to the ToE EVERY time?
Yes.

My case is proved.
But feel free to keep on arguing silly falsehoods.


Iasion

What am I now...your whipping boy now?

Look, you are completely wrong in your assumptions.

A theory is based on the evidence collected. It helps to explain an array of (facts). So calling it the "Fact" of Evolution is misleading in itself. There's more than one "fact" being presented in the ToE...

Decent with modification
Variation
Mutation
Speciation

etc...etc...etc...

In each of these above are observable and testable facts. The ToE explains these facts. When ToE is used in discussion with creationist or anyone else it is being used in the proper context.

When you assert that it should be called (Fact) you give the impression to creationist that the ToE can not be challenged. You give the impression that it is solid and definitive....and that's just not true. It follows the Scientific Method. We know that many of the facts in evolution have changed over time. Some facts have been straighten with new evidences, some remain the same and others have been removed. Following the Scientific Method this makes the ToE testable and falsifiable.

There's no need to change the term as it is complete and encompasses the facts. There's no need to dumb it down for the ignorant. They need to educate themselves and/or stop being thick headed and allow themselves to be educated.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am saying we should use correct words accurately - and NOT use the word "theory" when we are talking about a fact.

How can you disagree with that ?

The proper use of the word "theory" when discussing an explanation of the empirical data related to biological evolution would be, the 'Theory of Evolution'.

Kowtowing to Creationists who revel in their ignorance of the term is not an option.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wrong - that's where you keep going wrong.
Even when talking about the FACT of evolution (such as on this thread - did you READ the title of the thread?), people such as DP have a habit of insisting on using the WRONG term.

No, you're the one in the wrong. You are insisting on us never using the the word "theory", but always employ the word "fact". You're the the insisting that we use the wrong term.

Have you EVER seen DP and his ilk EVER refer to the FoE?
No.

Actually, yes. At some point or other, every evolution-supporting poster on here has pointed out that evolution is a fact.

Does he refer to the ToE EVERY time?
Yes.

When talking about theory, yes.

My case is proved.
But feel free to keep on arguing silly falsehoods.

Do you even know what proof is?

 

[Alceste]

Iasion, can you please give an example of someone using ToE where "evolution" would have sufficed?

 

[gnostic]

Einstein's general relativity basically gets rid of gravity and better explains the observed facts with spacetime geometry.

Actually, no. Einstein's general relativity expanded beyond the bounds of Newton's gravitational law and theory, but it doesn't get rid of it.

Newton's law & theory is still relevant, as long as we stick to the confine to the motion of forces on Earth. Einstein's theory is far more relevant and useful to us, on more astronomical scale, hence beyond the confines of Earth, like in deep space, and with black holes and other dark matters.

Einstein's GR is completely useless when it come to smaller particles, at subatomic level. Which is where Quantum Physics is more relevant.

Just so you know, evolution isn't a fact, its a theory. In germ theory, disease is the fact and germs are postulated to explain the facts about illnesses. In atomic theory, chemical interactions are observed and atoms are postulated to explain the observed facts about matter. So in evolutionary theory what we have are a bunch of observed facts about living things and their relationships so we postulate evolution as an explaination to better understand those facts and their relationship.

Again, you're wrong.

Evolution is observed biological fact. The theory merely explained these observed facts, the same as other fields of biology as well as other scientific fields.

The facts are that biologically, all living things have some changes over generations. The more generations you observed, the more pronounced are the changes. Changes are more commonly come from the results of adapting to survive in changing environments (and changing climates).

Do you deny that changes don't exist?

If you looked at the marsupials of today, in Australia, (like the wombat for instance) you will find fossils of primitive wombats (the extinct diprotodon) that were larger. In fact, the skeletal remains found showed that they were almost as large as hippopotamus.

 

[gnostic]

Well evos do not have all the answers so I do not see why I should have.

No, New Hope.

Evolutionists don't claim to know all answer.

The main purpose of the theory of Evolution is to explain the mechanism of biological changes to lifeforms. And that's what evolutionists have managed to do, with biological explanation rather than the use of scriptures that explain zilch about biology.

Do you seriously believe in man created from dust or soil of the earth?

You have no idea when fish came to be created or evolved. All you have is what you find. Evos also use excuses for why there is a lack of fossil evidence. Perhaps you have yet to find such evidence...or are evos the only ones permitted to use this excuse.

So this research dates life to 10 billion years. If like you, I pick the research that suits me, I can alledge, on the basis of this research that all your current fandangle postualtions are nothing more than delusions.

Where did you pull this nonsensical number of 10 billion years????

And evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution is about CHANGES over time, not about the origin of life.

Did you get that?

CHANGES!

When will creationists ever learn even the most rudimentary science?

edit:

Wow! This is my 6000th posts. :bounce

Let's celebrate!:danana: