| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 05:29:17 AM |
| Object: |
God and Darwin |
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
God Darwin
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God+Darwin&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 06:07:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:12:31 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:00:05 +0000 in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell (Les
Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:21:05 -0700, PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>
wrote:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Powerful man in what sense?
Can he write great music? Does he have the power to
inspire us like Mozart or Beethoven?
Can he inspire in any way shape or form that gives
him power over our thoughts like Shakespeare still
does?
Is he a powerful teacher?
Does he have the power of intelligence and eloquence
to persuade us.A powerful leader of thought?
Or does he just have the biggest nuclear arsenal in
history and more guns and weapons than everybody
else? I say the man is impotant and weak as all he
can do is threaten and destroy.
True, but sometimes that can be a persuasive argument. Though that
said, I wonder what the 250 billion that'll be spent on Iraq would
have achieved if they spent it on more humanitarian and development
projects.
Well, it has to be said, the Pope has little more than a few Switzers
with halberds yet he commands more people than GW Bush.
I don't know, maybe regarding the Pope as the worlds most
powerful is even more retrograde than it being Bush :-)
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
28 Jan 2005 07:23:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:07:57 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Well, it has to be said, the Pope has little more than a few Switzers
with halberds yet he commands more people than GW Bush.
I don't know, maybe regarding the Pope as the worlds most
powerful is even more retrograde than it being Bush :-)
I think you might find that the Swiss Guard, is rather like the Household
Cavalry, or the Guards. What you see, is funny hats and shinney breast plates,
but back at the barracks, there are tanks, guns, and all the rest of the modern
accoutrements of war.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
28 Jan 2005 08:20:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:23:13 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:07:57 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Well, it has to be said, the Pope has little more than a few Switzers
with halberds yet he commands more people than GW Bush.
I don't know, maybe regarding the Pope as the worlds most
powerful is even more retrograde than it being Bush :-)
I think you might find that the Swiss Guard, is rather like the Household
Cavalry, or the Guards. What you see, is funny hats and shinney breast plates,
but back at the barracks, there are tanks, guns, and all the rest of the modern
accoutrements of war.
There is only about 100 of them.
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/swissguards.htm
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
28 Jan 2005 06:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:20:47 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:23:13 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:07:57 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Well, it has to be said, the Pope has little more than a few Switzers
with halberds yet he commands more people than GW Bush.
I don't know, maybe regarding the Pope as the worlds most
powerful is even more retrograde than it being Bush :-)
I think you might find that the Swiss Guard, is rather like the Household
Cavalry, or the Guards. What you see, is funny hats and shinney breast plates,
but back at the barracks, there are tanks, guns, and all the rest of the modern
accoutrements of war.
There is only about 100 of them.
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/swissguards.htm
I find it very hard to believe, that the Vatican, which has embraced everything
else the 20th century has to offer, including a virtually bomb proof Pope
Mobile, would leave the Pope's safety in the hands of men, armed with halberds.
BTW, have you ever played any of those "historic battle" games?
If you have, you will know that pike and halberd, are pretty useless weapons,
against foot soldiers, and even worse in close quarters.
It is my guess, that they have everything that the White house, or the Queen,
has.
I would wager that the Swiss Guard can give a damn good account of it's self
against anything, up to an aerial attack, and they won't do it with pointed
sticks.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Daffer" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 09:42:29 AM |
|
|
PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com> writes:
Millions of years of evolution and the most powerful man on the
earth is George W Bush?
Alas, evolution is not teleological.
whd
--
EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 07:00:46 AM |
|
|
Scríobh PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Conclusive proof there's no intelligent designer if you ask me.
--
"Ná sáruigther Seinglenn
aitreb na lec nime"
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 06:23:38 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bB_Jd.36386$8W4.4291@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote in
message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only
to an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory
of Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the
scientific method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly
accurate approximations that match observations to predictive models we
call theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated,
for all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence,
Yes, the evidence includes chemical, geological, paleontological, genetic,
and biological.
how does one
make predictions then test them?
One of the most important predictions is the nested hierarchy.
Can evolution be repeated?
Evolution can be directly observed as the change in allele frequencies in
populations, and mutation.
Can evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
If we observed brand-new creatures being created that had no relationship to
previous life, then that would be evidence *against* Common Descent. Rather,
as we look at the history of life we see that new lifeforms are
modifications of existing lifeforms.
When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were essentially
lying because they had access to the same data.
An analogy? Non-sequirur
Example of theory as "fact".
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there are
many component theories and refinements to the overall theory, including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
Yes, but still unproven and still theory. I question whether calling
evolution
a _fact_ where absolute proof is absence is being totally honest.
There is no absolute proof in science. If you don't want to *believe* in
evolution, that's fine, but your disbelief is not scientific. Evolution is a
scientific fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:23:49 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:9MGdnRjjh72nQGXcRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bB_Jd.36386$8W4.4291@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote
in message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only
to an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory
of Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the
scientific method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly
accurate approximations that match observations to predictive models we
call theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated,
for all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence,
Yes, the evidence includes chemical, geological, paleontological, genetic,
and biological.
how does one
make predictions then test them?
One of the most important predictions is the nested hierarchy.
Can evolution be repeated?
Evolution can be directly observed as the change in allele frequencies in
populations, and mutation.
Can evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
If we observed brand-new creatures being created that had no relationship
to previous life, then that would be evidence *against* Common Descent.
Rather, as we look at the history of life we see that new lifeforms are
modifications of existing lifeforms.
The fossil record is one of sudden appearance, long periods of stasis
followed by abrupt extinction. Some scientist have suggested that as
high as 95% of all species that ever lived, have become extinct.
Dann
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 06:39:31 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bB_Jd.36386$8W4.4291@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote in
message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
No, they have different meanings. As I pointed out it refers either to
data-points or to well-established theories.
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only
to an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory
of Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the
scientific method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly
accurate approximations that match observations to predictive models we
call theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
That's like saying the electron is only a theory. Yes, Electron Theory is a
scientific theory, but the theory is so well-established that the existence
of electrons is considered a scientific fact.
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated,
for all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence, ...
<snip>
Yes.
---
Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over
time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution,
including mutation, variation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic
drift, speciation, hybridization, contingency, common descent, etc. The
primary areas of evidence are as follows:
* The nested hierarchy of extant life.
* The nested hierarchy in time of extinct life.
* The discovery that heredity is chemistry (Watson & Crick, 1953).
* Observation of genetic mutation.
* Observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time.
* Observation of natural and artificial selection and their effects.
* Observation of speciation in the wild and in the lab.
* Observation of hybridization in the wild and in the lab.
* The recently discovered nested hierarchy of genomes (including viral
inserts and pseudo-genes).
* Direct manipulation of the genomes.
National Academy of Sciences
"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology
and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In
contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot
be meaningfully tested."
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 11:53:03 AM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
There is some confusion here.
Evolution is a fact, and it is a theory.
The fact is: the observation that populations can changed inheritable
traits over time, and have apparently changed into significantly
different species; that many species have gone altogether extinct, and
changing species have sometimes given rise to two or more species, and
that the whole of living organisms on the Earth (the ecosystem) has
changed over time.
This fact, or collection of facts, was observed by Creationist
scientists in Europe and elswhere in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries.
The Current Theory of Evolution is a modification of Darwin's Theory of
Common Descent and modification through Natural Selection. His Theory
(with modifications) explains the observed facts, and has made numerous
successful predictions.
But it is not absolute proof - that is reserved only for closed systems
of logic, like arithmetic.
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well
supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but
only to
an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
And a model like this is the "truth" - as long as it fits the known
facts. When the time comes to consider facts it does not fit, it will
be modified if possible, replaced if necessary, and in the worst
scenario, we can even be without a theory at all. But that kind of
scientific nihilism i sunlikely; we would probably find ourselves
muddling along with two or mre theories that each explains an
overlapping set of facts rather like modern physics, in fact.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was
superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's
Theory of
Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the
scientific
method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly accurate
approximations that match observations to predictive models we call
theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof,
evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
The fact is, evolution happens. It seems to have been happening for
hundreds of millions of years, and all species seem to be descended
from one (or a few).
Darwin's theory, with modifications, fits and explains these facts, and
has made successful predictions. It has not been falsified yet.
If it ever is falsified, then we will say it is no longer true. All
scientific theories, even all observations, are provisional.
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it
usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can
also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be
treated, for
all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence, how does one
make predictions then test them? Can evolution be repeated?
Can evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
We are begining to understand weather, cosmology, vulcanology, etc. We
do not expect these scientists to create volcanoes, nor for the birth
of a particular star to be repeated. But the same type of event occurs,
given the same conditions.
And the observations are repeatable by anyone who wants to do the work.
Anyone can toss a bucket into a lava flow and bring it to a lab for
analysis. (Wear good boots, and don't linger!)
Anyone can expose yeast to certain kinds of toxic waste and watch them
adapt. They may adapt in different ways.
When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were
essentially
lying because they had access to the same data.
An analogy? Non-sequirur
Anyone can look at the fossil record, the twin nested hierarchies of
morphology and genetics, etc.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with
Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there
are
many component theories and refinements to the overall theory,
including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
Yes, but still unproven and still theory. I question whether calling
evolution
a _fact_ where absolute proof is absence is being totally honest.
The Theory explains the Fact.
If another theory is ever offered that explains all the facts and makes
successful predictions, then there will be a competing theory. You
might say there are many theories of evolution; there are numerous
minor differences, and scientists bicker about which ones explain the
facts best.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:32:31 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <bB_Jd.36386$8W4.4291@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, Dan
Wilson lumbered into the room and mumbled:
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory.
Every theory in science is "still a theory." Including the ones used to
build nuclear warheads.
Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
Evolution has been observed.
You don't appear to actually know what people mean when they say that. But
that's your ignorance, not a flaw in the sciences...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 01:14:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
No, moron.
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only to
an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory of
Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the scientific
method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly accurate
approximations that match observations to predictive models we call
theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
Evolution is a fact. Your deliberate invincible ignorance is bluster.
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated, for
all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence, how does one
make predictions then test them? Can evolution be repeated?
Can evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were essentially
lying because they had access to the same data.
An analogy? Non-sequirur
An example, oh terminally ignorant one.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there are
many component theories and refinements to the overall theory, including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
Yes, but still unproven and still theory. I question whether calling
evolution a _fact_ where absolute proof is absence is being totally honest.
That evolution is a fact is being totally honest. The other thing you
are not is honest.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:42:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
Anybody who says that is either dishonest of stupid. Which are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 03:27:06 PM |
|
|
In article <me6iv0tlgfl2i85dqp4vg47aragi8lm9sg@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> writes
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
Anybody who says that is either dishonest of stupid. Which are you?
You missed the other two elements of Dawkins' tetrachotomy
--
alias Ernest Major
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 12:19:58 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:2dqgv0h5uq2snp8ci1210pmf91mm7rvnhu@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:02:17 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is
a _fact_?
Because you're confusing terms.
When you go to the doctor, and he takes an x-ray of your arm, and
it shows a broken bone, is that not a fact? Or is that just a theory?
This _is_ an observation! No one has ever observed eohippus
change into modern equus! You must rely upon interpretation
of the evidence which is interpreted within an overarching
paradigm that is evolution.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 08:05:59 AM |
|
|
In article <SI%Jd.36918$8W4.19418@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
willy224@bellsouth.net says...
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:2dqgv0h5uq2snp8ci1210pmf91mm7rvnhu@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:02:17 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is
a _fact_?
Because you're confusing terms.
When you go to the doctor, and he takes an x-ray of your arm, and
it shows a broken bone, is that not a fact? Or is that just a theory?
This _is_ an observation! No one has ever observed eohippus
change into modern equus!
They HAVE observed it indirectly through the fossil record, which is all
that could ever be done with an event that may take millions of
years to occur naturally. Forensic scientists don't have to observe a
person being murdered with a hatchet to tell that a hatchet blow to the
head was the cause of death.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:35:08 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <SI%Jd.36918$8W4.19418@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, Dan
Wilson lumbered into the room and mumbled:
This _is_ an observation! No one has ever observed eohippus change into
modern equus! You must rely upon interpretation of the evidence which is
interpreted within an overarching paradigm that is evolution.
You obviously do not understand what people are talking about when they
speak of the fact of evolution.
Evolution *has been observed. If you don't understand what that means, do
some reading.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 02:17:04 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
< snip >
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is a _fact_?
The things being observed are facts. That alleles change over time is a
fact; it has been observed. That part is the *fact* of evolution.
The *theory* of evolution tries to explain how such changes are
propagated within a population over time, e.g. natural selection
"weeding out" harmful changes and "rewarding" beneficial changes. (I
am, of course, anthropomorphizing natural selection, hence my use of
scare quotes.)
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
31 Jan 2005 03:45:19 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is a _fact_?
It is called "convergence of evidence." When observable, testable facts converge
to a single conclusion, that conclusion can be considered true. When observable,
testable facts from many different disciplines converge to a single conclusion,
the "truism" of the conclusion is strengthened.
This principle is applied in many areas, not just evolution. There is no single
"fact" we can hold up to prove that our sun is a vast cloud of mostly hydrogen
fusing in to mostly helium, but there is a lot of evidence based on physics and
chemistry upon which we can base a very solid argument, solid enough to call it
fact. There is no way to "prove" that the stars are suns with the same basic
nature as our own, but there is a lot of evidence upon which we can base a very
solid argument, solid enough to call it fact.
It is the same thing with evolution. There is no single proof, no single fact.
There is, however, a lot of evidence that all points to evolution and creates a
very solid argument, solid enough to call it fact. More to the point, every
single theory about how life came about and differentiated that has been run
through the scientific process you give above -- observation, theory, making
predictions, testing theory, revising theory based on further study -- have all
either pointed to evolution or been proven to be false. Once again, a
convergence of evidence.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 09:49:17 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 11:05:53 AM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 11:38:08 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything. The highest
awards in science are reserved for those who show that an accepted
theory is wrong and for those who replace them with new theories than
have not yet been proven wrong. Every scientist is expected to do his
or her best to prove their own hypotheses wrong and to help others do
the same.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 12:22:30 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
The highest
awards in science are reserved for those who show that an accepted
theory is wrong and for those who replace them with new theories than
have not yet been proven wrong. Every scientist is expected to do his
or her best to prove their own hypotheses wrong and to help others do
the same.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:02:25 AM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
At the company where I work, they use a very nasty organic solvent.
It is both toxic and carcinogenic, so that had to pay a lot of money
to have the waste safely disposed of.
So they selected a common kind of yeast and evolved it.
They exposed a bunch of these cells to a small concentration of the
solvent and almost all of them died. But the few survivors who were
slight variants of the average population were then well fed and they
multiplied to billions of nearly perfect copies. Then the solvent was
added to their environment, his time in a slightly higher
concentration, and again, almost all of them died. The process was
repeated a couple hundred times. At the end of it, they not only
could stand quite high concentrations of the solvent, but consumed it
as their food. They also could no longer survive living in their
original natural environment, but died if they did not have a steady
supply of the solvent. They now grow by the billions and consume the
waste solvent at the plant, and their remains are used as agricultural
fertilizer.
You don't need the theory of evolution to cause such observable
(factual) evolution. It is an explanation that helps makes sense of
what happens. Life forms evolve in response to their environment.
That is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is the best
explanation we have for how this happens.
See? Evolution is an observable fact and also the name of a theory
that explains that fact.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:09:01 AM |
|
|
Scríobh John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>:
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
At the company where I work, they use a very nasty organic solvent.
It is both toxic and carcinogenic, so that had to pay a lot of money
to have the waste safely disposed of.
So they selected a common kind of yeast and evolved it.
[snip details]
<FUNDIE>
But you've described Intelligent Design!
</FUNDIE>
You don't need the theory of evolution to cause such observable
(factual) evolution. It is an explanation that helps makes sense of
what happens. Life forms evolve in response to their environment.
That is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is the best
explanation we have for how this happens.
See? Evolution is an observable fact and also the name of a theory
that explains that fact.
--
"Ná sáruigther Seinglenn
aitreb na lec nime"
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:17:19 AM |
|
|
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>:
[etc.]
So they selected a common kind of yeast and evolved it.
[snip details]
<FUNDIE>
But you've described Intelligent Design!
</FUNDIE>
But it's still yeast! That's not *evolution*, you know, where yeast turns
into a wombat. :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:38:29 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <Xns95EB72D5A9BE1cheezits32hotmailcom@130.81.64.196>,
Cheezits lumbered into the room and mumbled:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>:
[etc.]
So they selected a common kind of yeast and evolved it.
[snip details]
<FUNDIE>
But you've described Intelligent Design!
</FUNDIE>
But it's still yeast! That's not *evolution*, you know, where yeast turns
into a wombat. :-D
Yeah, the cretinist understanding (as it were) of evolution amounts to
"when stuff turns into other stuff."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 07:03:03 AM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science
observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and
test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim
that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several
industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how
it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
In science, "fact" is generally taken to mean "a hypothesis that has
been so strongly confirmed by evidence, that it would be stoopid to
think it's not true". If you don't want to go by that definition of
"fact", not a problem; nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and
*force* you to accept that definition. That said, it may be worth
noting that any definition of "fact" which *excludes* the theory of
evolution, equally excludes *all other* scientific theories. Germ
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, *none* of them are "proven
facts"; rather, they're all just hypotheses which are backed up by mass
quantities of supportive evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 10:23:43 PM |
|
|
<cubist@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106830983.888553.7910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science
observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and
test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim
that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several
industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how
it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
In science, "fact" is generally taken to mean "a hypothesis that has
been so strongly confirmed by evidence, that it would be stoopid to
think it's not true". If you don't want to go by that definition of
"fact", not a problem; nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and
*force* you to accept that definition. That said, it may be worth
noting that any definition of "fact" which *excludes* the theory of
evolution, equally excludes *all other* scientific theories. Germ
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, *none* of them are "proven
facts"; rather, they're all just hypotheses which are backed up by mass
quantities of supportive evidence.
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact. Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact. But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory. I have never seen another scientific discipline try
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory. Yet
I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory. We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it. We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows. The same can be said about electrical. We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory. I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
29 Jan 2005 02:17:39 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:l8jlv0lott88m8450tv8j3ul4qpe28trsg@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:23:43 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
<cubist@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106830983.888553.7910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science
observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and
test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim
that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several
industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how
it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
In science, "fact" is generally taken to mean "a hypothesis that has
been so strongly confirmed by evidence, that it would be stoopid to
think it's not true". If you don't want to go by that definition of
"fact", not a problem; nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and
*force* you to accept that definition. That said, it may be worth
noting that any definition of "fact" which *excludes* the theory of
evolution, equally excludes *all other* scientific theories. Germ
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, *none* of them are "proven
facts"; rather, they're all just hypotheses which are backed up by mass
quantities of supportive evidence.
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact.
Actually, it is.
You just make assertions without coorborating evidence?
Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact.
Tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They knew the bomb went off, but even the scientist who designed
it were not sure it would. They feared it would cause a reaction in
the atmosphere (nitrogen). So, they did not have all the answers.
But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge
No, it's not.
An opinion!
is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory. I have never seen another scientific discipline try
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory. Yet
I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory. We do
not understand why bodies attract.
Yeah, we do.
I know of no theory to
explain it.
Quantum theory.
Ok explain how QT elucidates this
We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull,
Yes, we can.
The pull is the same on heavy objects as it is in lighter objects. Why?
but exactly what it is no one
knows.
Warpage of spacetime around matter.
This is just verbage!
The same can be said about electrical. We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory.
And we can observe the facts it entails.
I wrote as much.
I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
You believe incorrectly.
So what: you believe differently.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
