Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific facts

janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:55:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I thought you knew what a theory was.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:58:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:55:40 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I thought you knew what a theory was.

" scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Yes, it's basically an educated guess. Still just a guess, although based on facts.

Evolution is a guess based on known facts, but is not a fact itself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So no, it isn't a guess.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory; in that evolution is repeatedly observed and is therefore factual; common descent, that all life has evolved from a common ancestor is as much of a fact as it's possible to be due to the overwhelming support in all facets of science that effectively excludes all other explanations as a result can be effectively treated as a fact.

As a result, your cause for irritation is not down to such people being incorrect.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:31:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:58:54 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:55:40 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I thought you knew what a theory was.

" scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Yes, it's basically an educated guess. Still just a guess, although based on facts.

I'm not sure how you got that from the definition you provided. Your summary is closer to the definition of a hypothesis.

Read further into the wikipedia article you got that from to see why your summary is contradictory to the definition of a scientific theory.

Evolution is a guess based on known facts, but is not a fact itself.

Evolution is a considered a fact. The theory of evolution is a theoretical framework that is meant to explain the facts and mechanisms related to evolution. It's not that complicated.

You once said that you studied scientific and religious explanations before making a decision, yet you didn't even know these things? I don't believe you.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

What would you call a guess that effectively explains the diversity of all life on earth, was tested and confirmed by nearly every branch of science, and that makes predictions that are continuously confirmed by ongoing research? I'd call it a fact.

You know this, and yet you continue. You are either seriously struggling to rectify fact with your version of reality or you're being dishonest.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 3:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

Evolution, like gravity, is a fact, an observation. The theory of evolution is not a fact, neither it is the theory of gravity.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unless speciation could be shown to occur in the lab, I would have to say it isn't a proven fact. If that were to be proven, then I would have to say that evolution is a fact. But I have yet to see it happen.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:00:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I think that when science speaks about a theory, they mean it to be a collection of facts they have learned. so it is more than just a theory, like when somebody outside of science says they have a theory about how something works. those people really mean "idea" but in science it is more than that.
like the theory of gravity!! You cant argue with that.

Im a born again christian---was atheist for most of my life--but I still believe in evolution and most things science tells us. I love science, and think we see God's handiwork in it. And i believe he used evolution as his "hand maiden" in getting Mankind evolved.
just my ideas. Im too new here to get into a heavy debate yet? But i hop to be in the science forums in the future, and learning some stuff. sound like we have some pretty smart science fans in here!

~~~T~~~
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:02:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:00:29 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I think that when science speaks about a theory, they mean it to be a collection of facts they have learned. so it is more than just a theory, like when somebody outside of science says they have a theory about how something works. those people really mean "idea" but in science it is more than that.
like the theory of gravity!! You cant argue with that.

Im a born again christian---was atheist for most of my life--but I still believe in evolution and most things science tells us. I love science, and think we see God's handiwork in it. And i believe he used evolution as his "hand maiden" in getting Mankind evolved.
just my ideas. Im too new here to get into a heavy debate yet? But i hop to be in the science forums in the future, and learning some stuff. sound like we have some pretty smart science fans in here!

~~~T~~~

Which theory of gravity do you believe in? That gravity is warped space-time, or that gravitons are exchanged between particles?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:55:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unless speciation could be shown to occur in the lab, I would have to say it isn't a proven fact. If that were to be proven, then I would have to say that evolution is a fact. But I have yet to see it happen.

You may have ignored the part I wrote about the definition of evolution.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:02:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:00:29 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I think that when science speaks about a theory, they mean it to be a collection of facts they have learned. so it is more than just a theory, like when somebody outside of science says they have a theory about how something works. those people really mean "idea" but in science it is more than that.
like the theory of gravity!! You cant argue with that.

Im a born again christian---was atheist for most of my life--but I still believe in evolution and most things science tells us. I love science, and think we see God's handiwork in it. And i believe he used evolution as his "hand maiden" in getting Mankind evolved.
just my ideas. Im too new here to get into a heavy debate yet? But i hop to be in the science forums in the future, and learning some stuff. sound like we have some pretty smart science fans in here!

~~~T~~~

Which theory of gravity do you believe in? That gravity is warped space-time, or that gravitons are exchanged between particles?

I think I believe in both. I have seen pictures of how it warps space-time--like a bowling ball on a blanket. And I think it works through particles call gravitrons. but my point is it is a theory that is true to all of us. so a theory is way more than you made it sound in your first post. in science it isnt just a hunch or idea, brother.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:10:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:55:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unless speciation could be shown to occur in the lab, I would have to say it isn't a proven fact. If that were to be proven, then I would have to say that evolution is a fact. But I have yet to see it happen.

You may have ignored the part I wrote about the definition of evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean. I conceded that speciation would prove evolution as a fact. What else would prove evolution as a fact? I could be missing something.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:10:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:55:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unless speciation could be shown to occur in the lab, I would have to say it isn't a proven fact. If that were to be proven, then I would have to say that evolution is a fact. But I have yet to see it happen.

You may have ignored the part I wrote about the definition of evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean. I conceded that speciation would prove evolution as a fact. What else would prove evolution as a fact? I could be missing something.

You're missing the point I made about the definition of evolution, I think.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:12:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:02:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:00:29 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:53:58 AM, janesix wrote:
Evolution is not a fact,and neither is the Big Bang. They are merely theories. It irritates me when public figures such as Richard Dawkins proclaims evolution to be a FACT, when clearly only a theory, which is ultimately a guess.

I think that when science speaks about a theory, they mean it to be a collection of facts they have learned. so it is more than just a theory, like when somebody outside of science says they have a theory about how something works. those people really mean "idea" but in science it is more than that.
like the theory of gravity!! You cant argue with that.

Im a born again christian---was atheist for most of my life--but I still believe in evolution and most things science tells us. I love science, and think we see God's handiwork in it. And i believe he used evolution as his "hand maiden" in getting Mankind evolved.
just my ideas. Im too new here to get into a heavy debate yet? But i hop to be in the science forums in the future, and learning some stuff. sound like we have some pretty smart science fans in here!

~~~T~~~

Which theory of gravity do you believe in? That gravity is warped space-time, or that gravitons are exchanged between particles?

I think I believe in both. I have seen pictures of how it warps space-time--like a bowling ball on a blanket. And I think it works through particles call gravitrons. but my point is it is a theory that is true to all of us. so a theory is way more than you made it sound in your first post. in science it isnt just a hunch or idea, brother.

A theory IS ultimately just a guess. That's a fact, bro.
janesix
Posts: 3,442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:18:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:11:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:10:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:07:36 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:55:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:51:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:41:00 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:33:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:23:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:15:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:11:20 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:10:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:07:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

As has been pointed out to you. Evolution =/= the Theory of Evolution in the same way that Gravity =/= the Theory of Gravity.

And the Theory of Gravity is only a theory as well. You are correct.

Yes. It is the highest form of scientific knowledge possible.

Which can be wrong of course. Which theory of gravity do you prefer? The relativistic one or the quantum mechanical one?

Yes, the theory of gravity can be wrong to some non-zero degree (it should be obvious that binary "right" and "wrong" classifications have little utility in this context). But the fact that something exists which explains the effects attributed to that which we call "gravity" in English... can that be wrong?

I consider preference, including my own, to be irrelevant when evaluating the relative merits of competing theories.

You're not getting it. There ARE competing theories of gravity. They can't both be right.

No, I get it, and I agree. But that fact has no impact on the question being discussed.

Just like there are competing theories of evolution, and competing cosmological theories. Someone has to be wrong. And who even knows if there isn't a totally different theories based on facts we haven';t discovered yet? Do you really think we know everything, and can thus come to the correct theory? Or are we in our infancy of science,and have a lot of it wrong?

Yes, there could be competing theories of evolution. In other words, there could be competing models which attempt to explain evolution. However, if they are theories of evolution, then by definition they all have in common that they take evolution to be a fact and attempt to explain how or why that fact is true and with what processes evolution functions.

In science we never assume a theory is correct. No fact or theory can be proven true in science. That is a fundamental philosophical and mathematically validated principle upon which science is based.

What I am talking about is the distinction between a theory and a fact. A theory is an explanation of facts. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain how and why gravity is a fact.

So I really don't understand what you're trying to say, because we suddenly seem to be talking about different things. I thought we were talking about the distinction between fact and theory, and now you're talking about competing theories and falsifiability.

We have the fossil record. Fossils are facts. That they show organisms can change from one to another is a theory. An educated guess. It is not a fact that evolution occurred. It looks like it, but it is still not a fact. It is a fact that we have similar genetic code to chimpanzees. That we had a common ancestor is a theory , not a fact. That's the difference between facts and theories. Theories attempt to explain facts.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between fact and theory. That is exactly what I said previously.

I personally believe evolution occurred and is occurring still, but I realize that isn't a fact, it is just the best explanation of the facts so far.

I think you may be using a definition of "evolution" which doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Evolution just means the change in inheritable traits across generations. That part is most certainly considered a fact in science. You're right to say that this alone does not imply that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That aspect is probably theoretical, but I'm not the right person to ask about that.

So I think you're mistaking what evolution is for one of the proposed implications of evolution. Evolution most certainly is occurring today. If there exists variation in inheritable traits which effect the likelihood of survival and reproduction of members within a population, then it is impossible to not have evolution. That part is a fact.

What you seem to be suggesting is that whether this causes speciation and whatnot is theoretical and not factual. Is that right?

By the way, just for some background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unless speciation could be shown to occur in the lab, I would have to say it isn't a proven fact. If that were to be proven, then I would have to say that evolution is a fact. But I have yet to see it happen.

You may have ignored the part I wrote about the definition of evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean. I conceded that speciation would prove evolution as a fact. What else would prove evolution as a fact? I could be missing something.

You're missing the point I made about the definition of evolution, I think.

I must have missed your point. I apologize, I'm honestly not sure what your getting at.

Evolution can only be considered a fact if it were shown empirically that things change from one to another. I haven't seen evidence for that, only hybridization.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:27:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know why, but I find lengthy arguments between two purple circle users to be kind of funny.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:05:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:57:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:55:01 AM, janesix wrote:
So many True Believers

So far everyone has posted descriptive reasons and justifications why your initial argument is not correct.

I'm assuming that as you aren't willing to defend your initial post, that you concede everything that has been mentioned this far?

Of course not. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Same with any other scientific theory. A conclusion or explanation based on observed facts, which may or may not be right.

You said this in your original post, the replies thus far argue that this isn't a justified position to take, and give reasons.

Reciting this same conclusion in the face of those arguments isn't a particularly useful considering you have made no attempt at all to even acknowledge that people have called your conclusion into doubt.

When someone answers detailed critiques of their conclusion by simply reasserting the original conclusion without even acknowledging an argument has been made is normally an implicit concession that these points cannot be argued with.