01 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayAs per discussion in the other thread, facts by your definition can never be known. Not event the possible fact of your existence.
You believe that to be true, or is it a fact?
Kelly
But by the common definition of fact then yes it is a fact. A solid verifiable fact backed up by tons of evidence (tons both literally and figuratively).
01 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan you share one or two reasons why it is a fact, by your reasoning?
As per discussion in the other thread, facts by your definition can never be known. Not event the possible fact of your existence.
But by the common definition of fact then yes it is a fact. A solid verifiable fact backed up by tons of evidence (tons both literally and figuratively).
Kelly
01 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou already know that evolution is a fact by my reasoning. So based on an understanding of evolution, if birds share a significant number of features with dinosaurs but not with the ancestors of dinosaurs or any other known animals past or present then it becomes clear without a doubt (ie fact) that they are descended from dinosaurs.
Can you share one or two reasons why it is a fact, by your reasoning?
Kelly
01 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat fits the model you think is true, but is it reality? You want to say
You already know that evolution is a fact by my reasoning. So based on an understanding of evolution, if birds share a significant number of features with dinosaurs but not with the ancestors of dinosaurs or any other known animals past or present then it becomes clear without a doubt (ie fact) that they are descended from dinosaurs.
yes so bad you call it a fact.
Kelly
01 Jun 07
Evolution is a theory and is thus superior to a fact. Gravity is a theory. Atomic existence is a theory. These are practically the basis for each subject. If one delves further, objects reaching terminal velocity is a fact, genetic throwbacks are facts, ionic bonding is a fact. These are trivial knowledge when compared to theory. Theories are the basis of science and are the essential truths. To state that evolution has a likelihood of being wrong is on the same level of saying gravity has a likelihood of being wrong. It just doesn't, and anyone who says otherwise does not understand the mountains of evidence for it, or just plain won't let themselves understand.
01 Jun 07
Originally posted by doodinthemoodTheories are the basis of science, not denying that; however, we do not
Evolution is a theory and is thus superior to a fact. Gravity is a theory. Atomic existence is a theory. These are practically the basis for each subject. If one delves further, objects reaching terminal velocity is a fact, genetic throwbacks are facts, ionic bonding is a fact. These are trivial knowledge when compared to theory. Theories are the basis ...[text shortened]... ot understand the mountains of evidence for it, or just plain won't let themselves understand.
always get it right so we call many of these things theories instead of
facts. With regard to evolution, you don't think that people can be
wrong about parts of the things they believe about it, and other parts
of it are correct? I'd say you cannot be serious about that! You'd really
have to define evolution in a very narrow way, the things that is being
giving credit for also comes into play. You can give evolution credit for
X whatever X is and if that is wrong, does that mean that evolution
itself is wrong?
Kelly
01 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI define evolution as the gradual variation of a species over time through mutations and natural selection, stemming from a common ancestor. It's a very useful theory in that if there's ANYTHING that cannot be explained by evolution in the creation of species, then it will INSTANTLY be disregarded. If you can provide even the smallest scrap of evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old, then evolution could not have happened, and it will be thrown the same direction as Lamarckianism before it. But of course, this evidence has never been produced. Whilst inumerable transitional fossils have been piling up, innumerable links with common ancestors being discovered, innumerable cases of atavism throughout the animal kingdom being recognised - Whilst this ocean of evidence has been pouring out in favour of evolution, not one drop has ever been formed for creationism. Evolution is a theory, but in common venacularisms, it is a good as a fact, as it has the same likelihood of being wrong as gravity or the existence of atoms does.
Theories are the basis of science, not denying that; however, we do not
always get it right so we call many of these things theories instead of
facts. With regard to evolution, you don't think that people can be
wrong about parts of the things they believe about it, and other parts
of it are correct? I'd say you cannot be serious about that! You'd reall ...[text shortened]...
X whatever X is and if that is wrong, does that mean that evolution
itself is wrong?
Kelly
01 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI wonder why you ignore the 20 reasons why professional palaeontologists are wrong, and you are right. I mean, surely in your bible it has a refutation of those points??
That fits the model you think is true, but is it reality? You want to say
yes so bad you call it a fact.
Kelly
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by doodinthemoodI'm suprised you don't know the whole story:
I define evolution as the gradual variation of a species over time through mutations and natural selection, stemming from a common ancestor. It's a very useful theory in that if there's ANYTHING that cannot be explained by evolution in the creation of species, then it will INSTANTLY be disregarded. If you can provide even the smallest scrap of evidence ...[text shortened]... fact, as it has the same likelihood of being wrong as gravity or the existence of atoms does.
It seems god made the earth LOOK 4 billion years old, put all those fossils under the ground just as a practical joke on us gullible humans, but christians knew that already, they saw through all the deceptions of scientists who are well known to trod on the holy book and the glorious word therein.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThis argument seems to assume that transition from no heart to heart was instantaneous...this would be tantamount to suggesting that someone learning to program would instantly create a viable alternative to windows on their first ever encounter with their language of choice! (as opposed to creating a s**t load of small and inconsequential little routines, that serve to increase the learners knowledge whilst some of them survive to exist in bigger routines, until one day (assuming they have the aptitude) they might create something big, and capable of surviving.)
"But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst."
I agree a normal organism is nicely balanced, changing small things
can have very bad result in a hurry. Yet, many believe not only did
an extremely large number of changes occur slowly over time, they
did it ...[text shortened]... so on. You 'believe' they came into being over time, a leap of faith
in my opinion.
Kelly
Technology can be likened in some ways perhaps to evolution in that the period between nothing, and a good product is littered with lesser versions of the final piece, that tend to resemble it less as you go further back in history.
04 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayGenetically the heart idea came from jellyfish which propel themselves by squeezing a portion of its outer skin to produce a small jet force out the back, it does that unfailingly throughout its life and have been around almost 500 million years. Plenty of time for evolution to turn that into an internal fluid flow.
"But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst."
I agree a normal organism is nicely balanced, changing small things
can have very bad result in a hurry. Yet, many believe not only did
an extremely large number of changes occur slowly over time, they
did it ...[text shortened]... so on. You 'believe' they came into being over time, a leap of faith
in my opinion.
Kelly
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by sonhouse"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday." -- G.K. Chesterton
Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayNo.
Theories are the basis of science, not denying that; however, we do not
always get it right so we call many of these things theories instead of
facts. With regard to evolution, you don't think that people can be
wrong about parts of the things they believe about it, and other parts
of it are correct? I'd say you cannot be serious about that! You'd reall ...[text shortened]...
X whatever X is and if that is wrong, does that mean that evolution
itself is wrong?
Kelly
A FACT is subordinate to a theory.
A THEORY is an explanation.