Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Inferno

Theory, Law, Fact - Do You Know What They Are?

Recommended Posts

Yeah. I sometimes call it the farmers principle because it often seems we reap more than we sow. So, if you plant tomatoed don't be surpised when someone throws some of them back at you. I think there is a proverb that says, If you sow the wind, don't be surprised if you reap the whirlwind :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I sometimes call it the farmers principle because it often seems we reap more than we sow. So, if you plant tomatoed don't be surpised when someone throws some of them back at you.  I think there is a proverb that says, If you sow the wind, don't be surprised if you reap the whirlwind :huh:

63833[/snapback]

 

If you want philosophical truths read Proverbs.

 

if you want additional philosophical truths read GK Chesterton.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theorists “attempt†to explain facts, but “theories†are NOT facts. Therefore, a theory is nothing more than an opinion about facts

 

Therefore:

 

.

63829[/snapback]

Ok, please explain. Theories are now nothing more then opinon.....so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from that, Romans Chapter one is largely descriptive, in that it explains what happens when you do the wrong things (cause and effect). It doesn’t make you do anything, therefore it is not an ultimatum, but a factual truth based upon cause and effect.

 

If you stick your bare hand in fire, your flesh will burn. No one is making you stick your hand in, or keep your hand out, it is simply explaining the consequences (a factual truth based upon cause and effect).

63831[/snapback]

 

Ok. Christianity isn't an ultimatum. That means I'm free to choose heaven, hell or something else entirely.....right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Christianity isn't an ultimatum. That means I'm free to choose heaven, hell or something else entirely.....right?

63837[/snapback]

"I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and you must choose life in order that you may keep alive," Deuteronomy 30:19

 

Galatians 6:7-8 (New International Version)

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

 

It is simple. One who rejects God's laws cannot live in paradise with those who wish to live by God's laws. They would ruin it for the faithful. Why should a third option exist? Wouldn't the one who created everything have the right to determine how many options there are and the requirements for choosing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm lucky I saved this. Part 1. Part 2 will follow in 5min.

 

There's a lot to respond to, I'll respond to every person in turn, in chronological order. Sorry that I've been away for two days, I had a Latin test to take.

 

I'll respond to Ron first.

 

Getting to the “science†won’t change the “factsâ€ÂÂ, no matter how you slow it down (i.e. “Woahâ€ÂÂ)

I'm trying/hoping to slow you down because there is absolutely no use in showing a fact for anything if you don't even have an understanding of what a fact/theory/law is.

That is exactly why my first thread here (well my second one, but I'm discounting my "Hello" thread.) was trying to establish what you know about science. This isn't in any way an attack against anyone, I am NOT saying that anyone is stupid. What I am saying is that science is often very difficult to understand and you can only advance to the next topic if you properly understand the previous one.

So yes, I will get to the science in due time, but there's absolutely no use yet, there's much more we need to get clear on before that's even an option. (That's also the reason why so many of the arguments fail in the first place: One of the two sides doesn't understand the topic or the sides won't agree on basic definitions that have been around for hundreds of years.)

 

Really!! A fact is not a Fact??? Can you provide evidence where two oranges and two apples are not four pieces of fruit? Is that fact, in fact, not always a fact?

You didn't even try to understand what I was saying, did you? Let's retry:

This is the definition of a fact:

"an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

If you say that a fact is invalidated, it is by definition not a fact anymore.

 

Incorrect…. A fact is a fact (period). A statement can be “factual†based upon the “facts it contains. Some “facts†are dependant upon circumstances (i.e. the fact of gravity is different on the Earth than it is on the Sun), but those “facts†are still facts, no matter where you are.

Wrong. The definition of a fact can't be "it is a fact". I have provided the definition of a fact in my second post and I have provided it here again.

Note: A word in English can have two meanings. That is why a fact in law is something very different from a fact in science. Read up on it here.

 

Here is another definition, saying essentially the same as my statement in post two:

 

"The first edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fact as "1. Something known with certainty. 2. Something asserted as certain. 3. Something that has been objectively verified. 4. Something having real, demonstrable existence." The 3rd and 4th definitions are what scientists mean by "facts."

 

Here is a statement of fact, in the scientific sense:

 

* Under normal circumstances, if a piano is dropped from a height, it will fall.

 

Read more at Suite101: Science Fundamentals – What is a "Fact?": Knowing the Definition of a Fact is Crucial to Understanding Science http://www.suite101.com/content/science-fu...130H8MXPM"

 

Look at the part where it says: "Under normal circumstances". This is exactly what I said here: "(...) a fact is something that is always true under a specific set of circumstances."

 

Actually, I answered your question by speaking directly to it:

I would contest that, but it doesn't really matter because you have already shown that you don't understand what "fact, theory and law" mean, so I'll take it that you've answered both questions with a "yes."

 

On to Cassiterides:

 

No offence but i'm more interested in dictionaries and how they define words, not just some 20 year old's self-definition.

Well this was a dictionary definiton. I even linked to them. Don't worry, I'm not luring you onto some evil sites, it's mostly dictionaries and wikipedia. But in any case I'll post the links again, in case you might have missed them.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

Here's another excerpt from Link 3: "So one can see that a theory is a "model of reality" that explains certain scientific facts (...)"

 

Look up the word theory in a dictionary, as JoshuaJacob said it is that simple.

OK, let's do that, again.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

 

So, what's that about looking up the dictionary definitions? Heed your own advice. :huh:

 

There is no need to start redefining words (as you are trying to do).

Beg your pardon? How am I redefining words here? :)

I'll accuse you of the same now: Stop redefining words. Show me the definitions in dictionaries.

 

Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

 

As per the definitions of "Fact" and "Theory" you are only half-correct.

What I have shown was the fact of gravity (objects "fall" downwards) and the formula was the theory. (Why do objects "fall" downwards?)

 

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories.

The effects of gravity "as seen on Earth". And even of those, only some of them. But the "acceleration "theory"" can't explain how the Earth falls into all directions at once. It also can't explain planetary motion. In short, it is not supported by the facts and is therefore not a theory in the scientific term but rather a theory in the slang term, i.e a hunch.

 

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

As explained above. This is a common misunderstanding of what facts and theories are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2. Part 3 will be posted in 5min.

 

And now MamaElephant:

 

Evolution is not a fact, yet it is taught as one. You can say that the theory of evolution is on equal footing with the theory of relativity but that doesn't mean it is true.

Evolution is not taught as a scientific fact, but it is taught in the every-day use of the word "fact". (Evolution can't possibly be taught as a scientific fact, that is as shown above impossible.) Evolution is (in the every-day use of the word) a fact. That is to say that it is demonstrably true and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The theory of evolution is on the exact same level as relativity, germ theory, etc. etc., as above.

 

I would present to you some theories based on evidence that support creation and/or the flood. Now, why would we teach the theory of evolution but not teach these equally valid theories?

Well first of all the following question arises: Do you mean creationism or Intelligent Design? (Because even most creationists have abandoned that creationism and flock instead to the very similar ID.)

The second question must of course be "ARE they equally valid?". And the answer to that is unanimously no. The first problem is of course that there is no scientific theory of creationism (although it is sometimes claimed, but even a casual glance shows that it doesn't even fulfill the requirements of a theory, never mind if it's true or not) nor of Intelligent Design. The second problem is that currently, all available facts point to Evolution. (As I intend to show in a later thread.)

In any case, I'd be more than happy to see these theories.

 

I also continually see old evolutionary ideas used to explain evolution. Such as Lamarck’s thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics even though evolutionists say that the theory no longer holds those views.

I have yet to see an evolutionary scientist use Lamarck's ideas. Do point me to those scientists please.

 

Science demands empirical evidence that can be re-created in a laboratory before it labels something as "fact." I am not sure that I agree with this part of his signature. There are facts and theories that cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

 

For that too I'd love a link. All theories must by definition be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions.

 

Most of the evidence against evolution is not found on this forum, but can be found in books and links that are recommended.

 

A good example can be found in these posts:

What you provide as evidence isn't anything more than an idea incompatible with the evidence. Creationists have (just to prove this one point) yet to show how fossilization can occur in such a short time, how it is possible for plates to suddenly speed up/slow down, etc. etc. etc.

The evidence simply does not disprove Evolution. (At least none that is available to us at the present time. It is always possible that contradictory evidence comes up, however unlikely that may be.)

 

Back to Cassiterides:

 

Right, and the shape of the earth is just entirely theoretical as well. I believe the earth is spherical (like most) however i can't prove this. The shape of the earth is therefore just another scientific theory which can't be proven.

 

Have you ever debated flat earthers before?

 

They reject all photos or videos from space and claim they are faked.

Are you for real? :)

Just because somebody denies the facts doesn't mean that they aren't there. Just because somebody denies the facts doesn't mean that they aren't mistaken.

There is an immeasurable amount of evidence that shows that the Earth is indeed a Geoid. (Not a sphere.)

 

Confirmed ''scientific facts'' are incredibly limited. Most is all theory, and theories are not proven facts. The theory of evolution, is just one of many theories which has not been proven.

That is once again a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what a scientific theory actually is. A theory can NEVER be proven, no matter what, because there might still be contradictory evidence out there. (See the links provided above.)

 

For something to be a 'fact' and proven we would have to be able to directly observe it etc

Agreed. You do however realize that you contradict your above statement (gravity is a theory, not a fact) with that? I can replicate an object falling -> Fact.

 

evolution though is non-observable, it's theoretical.

I will go into that in due time (I stick to my promises) but suffice it so say for now that this statement is demonstrably wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3. The last part will follow in 5min.

 

On to Mike Summers:

 

If all 6.7 billion of us on planet earth could agree on it, we could call something a fact or law.

That is not the definition of a fact or a law in any use of the term, neither in science, law nor every-day language.

 

The advantage of the creationist Christian world view allows some of us to do that by appealing to ultimate authority (who is going to argue with God?).

That's taking it to a whole different level and would need a whole thread on it's own... I was really hoping we could let this thread be a science only thread...

No, you don't appeal the the ultimate authority, you instead appeal to a book written by mere fallible mortals. Nobody knows the mind of God.

 

Since the Garden of Eden, each one of us has had the ability to decide what is opinion, theory, fact or law (knowledge of good and evil).

And then we started defining words, so that one person would say "spade" and the other one would understand what the other one was saying and not redefine "spade" to mean "wool".

This is EXACTLY why we have definitions. I'd love to redefine words, but that's not how things work. Hint: That's why dictionaries were invented, because words were already defined.

 

One humorous way that Aristotle chose to demonstrate absolute versus subjective truth was called by some the Tower Test. If someone says they can fly without contrivance they would be brought to a very high tower and pushed off. If they fell to their death truth was objective (they couldn't fly). If they flew truth was subjective.

 

I've never heard of anyone doing that but I'd love to read that story, sounds like a lot of fun.

However, this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the topic. Or am I missing something here?

 

Since I'm pro-life I would suggest a different test. Let the claimant walk out into a field and flap his or arms or do whatever they think is needed to fly. If they levitate off the ground then they can fly. The ‘truth†is subjective. On the other hand if they don’t lift off at least they are not dead.

Science would (metaphorically speaking) suggest the first one, the one you call "Aristotle's way". If your theory doesn't "fly", it will fall to it's death and never be heard of again.

 

In the Christian worldview God is the law giver. In a world view without God, 6.7 billion people are going to argue over what the truth is (opinion, theory, fact & law).

Once again: Definition of words?!? Dictionaries?

 

Yes, it’s a ladder or hierarchy and we find it difficult to remove our bias from our view.

Quite the contrary, the idea of a hierarchy (opinion, theory, fact, law) is exactly the misconceptions many people have about science. There is indeed a ladder quite like this (opinion, hypothesis, theory -> bottom to top obviously) but fact and law are entire categories of their own.

Think of it as a pyramid. The theory is the pyramid, laws are the stones constructing the pyramid and the molecules are the facts underlying the laws. Once again, refer to the above links.

 

The commonality in all this is creativity. I'm defining creativity as the ability that we all possess to bring ideas into existence that did not exist before. Can an idea be a law if it doesn't even exist yet? Once there was no light bulbâ€â€Ânow who would argue over a light bulb’s existence? It’s considered a fact. (except for those pesky flat earth people) Oh well, I tried.

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you mean.

 

Among us humans it takes agreement to decide these things. This is because we are individual creative units and creators can draw from a seemingly infinite repertoire of ideas that they can create. The dilemmas is we can't out create a creator.

 

Simplistically put, life is about learning what to create and what is best not to create-- or avoiding conflicting creativity. At least that’s my opinion.

Not wanting to be an ass but how is this on topic?

 

I just wanted to add that it would be a good idea to visit the homepage for this forum as there are articles and debates posted that are good to read.

Thanks. I'll get to those, too. But as I suggested, we need to look at the underlying problem first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the last post.

 

Who says theories cannot one day become a proven law?

Their definition. Here's my challenge to you: Link me to any quote of a scientist who suggests that a theory can "become a law". It is in the definition of a theory that it can't become a law, as my above links prove.

 

Ron:

 

And yet, regardless of your statement, it is still insufficient when attempting to provide evolution as anything more than opinion. Nor dose it even put a dent in the excuse that is this OP when it runs smack into the truths in JJ’s signature.

That's funny, what truth in JJ's sig? Didn't I adequately prove that the definition JJ (and indeed anyone else's on this forum) uses is not consistent with reality? Didn't I quote enough dictionaries?

Here then is my challenge to you: How many dictionaries must I quote before you acknowledge that I'm right? Indeed, do you even allow for the possibility that I'm right?

 

(And yes, people have already answered that second question with a "No", that's why I ask. If you don't even allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, there's absolutely no point debating, I'm sure you will concede at least this point.)

 

Therefore; Why is evolution promulgated as a fact, when it “clearly†is not (no question mark due to this being a rhetorical question).

Or possibly, the right question to ask would be: Why do so many people misunderstand what a fact and what a theory are? And why do so many people attack science based upon misunderstandings of what is actually said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Inferno

 

Evo science as you defend it comes across, as a classic case of an “entity†that is a true believer--that believes its own PRâ€â€Âand is precisely why I would rather not live in a world where evo science “owned†the “truth†and could apply their truth to all of us as they see fit. Adolph Hitler came as close to doing that as any. Fortunately he did not survive. As the Jews said, Never again! Never again! Never again!

 

I couldn’t go into a laboratory with all the money in the world backing me and come out with something as "simple" as an ameba let alone something as complex as over 50 trillion cells working together in concert (a human).

 

Yet, Dawkins can describe in twenty minutes how “evolution†evolved an eyeball that he says may have taken several millions of years to evolve. Talk about glib and simplistic. Dawkins no doubt it is a very intelligent man. But, with all his knowledge, can he go in a laboratory in his lifetime time and come out with an eyeball? I would be one of the first to invest in his company. If he could do that I have several friends that could use new eyeballs. Dawkins would probably agree that he never observed an eyeball evolving. That means he created the scenarios he tells.

 

Creativity is everywhere around us and evo science makes the statement that creativity is not scientific? What planet do they live on? What about all our universities that teach ID as engineering? George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in blue is not Scientfic? The lightbulb is not scientific because Edison created it? Pllllease! There are over 7 million US patents!

 

As far as why there is so much confusion in understanding science, facts, etc. it's because science has become like the Pharisees-- so busy "creating" rules and theories no one can keep up with them. Me thinks they have thrown common sense out the window. Science is like mans governments a bunch of rule makers. God made Ten comandments. There are over 30,000 rules in the US tax code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ARE they equally valid?". And the answer to that is unanimously no.

63847[/snapback]

That is nothing more than your opinion. I see no evidence for evolution. Did you know that the Bible states that God created sea creatures first? That he created "herbs" or plants without seeds first? Did you know that creationists accept speciation?

 

What you provide as evidence isn't anything more than an idea incompatible with the evidence. Creationists have (just to prove this one point) yet to show how fossilization can occur in such a short time, how it is possible for plates to suddenly speed up/slow down, etc. etc. etc.

 

63847[/snapback]

I didn't provide that as evidence of creation or the flood. I provided it as evidence that evolutionists come here thinking that they know what creationists believe and they don't have a clue and haven't read hardly any articles written by scientists but instead take a layman's understanding of things on a message board and claim that creation has no evidence.

You said that you came here to learn, and I am open minded, but so far your posts do not seem to support that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I Know What They Are?..... ABSOLUTELY!

 

Regardless of what you think or profess (i.e. you cannot find challenges to evolution  here, or you only find old arguments), no evolutionists have provided:

 

1- Evidence for macro evolution.

2- Logical, rational or scientific refutation to the assertions against evolution.

 

Macro-evolution is not even a proper theory. It is nothing more than a model (best case scenario).

 

Micro evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species; regardless of evolutionist’s attempts to water down the definition of kind/species, in order for it to fit their model.

 

And concerning JoshuaJacob's Signature:  If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact (or facts), the best that can be said of the findings for the experiment is that of mere opinion.

 

1- An opinion is not a fact.

2- A fact is not an opinion.

3- A fact is truth (or that which comports with reality).

4- Anything else, is nothing more than opinion, until it is validated as a fact. Otherwise it remains a Non-fact!

5- An opinion promulgated as a fact is a lie (see non-truth).

6- An opinion is proceeded upon via faith.

7- Faith dogmatically defended is a religion.

63740[/snapback]

Hey, but when you animate a evolution process that cannot be observed, it becomes fact. But every other animation is just cartoons. Go figure. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

merriam-webster

 

plural the·o·ries

Definition of THEORY

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances â€â€Âoften used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory

Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.

There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.

She proposed a theory of her own.

Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.

There is no evidence to support such a theory.

He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.

Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein

First Known Use: 1592

 

same here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory and here http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

 

A theory is not a fact, it is based on some facts AND assumptions.

 

merriam-webster

 

Definition of FACT

1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action

2archaic : performance, doing

3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

 in fact

: in truth

Examples of FACT

Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.

The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.

He did it, and that's a fact.

Origin of FACT

Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

First Known Use: 15th century

 

same here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact and here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

 

Just because some people want to over complicate a word to fit their worldview or ideas does not make it the true definition.

 

And My sig just proves a point, that our kids are being taught millions and billions of years of unproven evolution, that's a fact. You can spin the words all you want till You get dizzy but it does not prove goo-to-you evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this was a dictionary definiton. I even linked to them. Don't worry, I'm not luring you onto some evil sites, it's mostly dictionaries and wikipedia. But in any case I'll post the links again, in case you might have missed them.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the first website you linked to is not a dictionary source either but some evolutionist website attacking intelligent design.

 

A few examples of actual dictionaries:

 

The Chambers Dictionary

Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

Collins English Dictionary

 

Beg your pardon? How am I redefining words here?  :huh:

Your links where you are defining words are from anti-creationists sites and wikipedia not dictionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Christianity isn't an ultimatum. That means I'm free to choose heaven, hell or something else entirely.....right?

63837[/snapback]

Absolutely, but then you are still responsible for reaping the result of your choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, but when you animate a evolution process that cannot be observed, it becomes fact. But every other animation is just cartoons. Go figure. :huh:

63853[/snapback]

 

Like G.K. Chesterton said: "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny, what truth in JJ's sig?

63849[/snapback]

The only funny thing about it is that you aren’t getting it. And I don’t mean “ha ha†funny, I mean “odd†or “queer†funny.

 

Didn't I adequately prove that the definition JJ (and indeed anyone else's on this forum) uses is not consistent with reality?

63849[/snapback]

No, actually, you did not. But I did provide you with the truth of facts. And I’ll do so again, if you wish.

 

Didn't I quote enough dictionaries?

63849[/snapback]

No, in fact, you did not. But, if you wish to try again, I’ll leave a blank space below this sentence, to afford you the chance to try again.

 

Here then is my challenge to you: How many dictionaries must I quote before you acknowledge that I'm right?

63849[/snapback]

Just one, in context, would be nice.

 

Indeed, do you even allow for the possibility that I'm right?

63849[/snapback]

I have absolutely no problem with your being right. But I’m still waiting.

 

(And yes, people have already answered that second question with a "No", that's why I ask. If you don't even allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, there's absolutely no point debating, I'm sure you will concede at least this point.)

63849[/snapback]

I have no problem with being wrong, that is how we learn. Are you willing, as well, to admit you are wrong???

 

 

Or possibly, the right question to ask would be: Why do so many people misunderstand what a fact and what a theory are?

63849[/snapback]

Again, I have already provided that for you, but you seem to be avoiding it. So, here you go again:

 

1- An opinion is not a fact.

2- A fact is not an opinion.

3- A fact is truth (or that which comports with reality).

4- Anything else, is nothing more than opinion, until it is validated as a fact. Otherwise it remains a Non-fact!

5- An opinion promulgated as a fact is a lie (see non-truth).

6- An opinion is proceeded upon via faith.

7- Faith dogmatically defended is a religion.

63740[/snapback]

.

 

 

And why do so many people attack science based upon misunderstandings of what is actually said?

63849[/snapback]

No one is attacking science, just your misunderstanding of facts and theories. By the way, anyone who claims macro-evolution is fact, is not familiar with the empirical scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was how the idea of a theory was put to me that best explained. And in three words no less.

 

Theories explain facts.

63828[/snapback]

 

merriam-webster

 

plural the·o·ries

Definition of THEORY

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances â€â€Âoften used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

 

First Known Use: 1592

 

63855[/snapback]

myth [ mith ] (plural myths)

 

noun

Definition:

 

1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior

 

2. myths collectively: myths considered as a group or as a genre

 

3. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person

the myth of the new man

 

:huh: The similarity just stood out to me and I couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is (in the every-day use of the word) a fact. That is to say that it is demonstrably true and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Interesting statement. Are you aware leading evolutionists themselves have actually admitted evolution is not observable and rests entirely on faith?

 

Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’

 

G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’

 

Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation''

 

All of these men are/were leading evolutionists and they admit evolution is not observable - therefore evolutionists have admitted themselves evolution is far from fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow inferno thanks for taking the time to answer your objections to my comments. I'm fairly new to these parts and having never been on a form before I don't know my way around in terms of how to use the quote boxes etc. I would like to ask you though without your appealing to external authorities what you think came first the theory or the thought? All your rhetoric is created by you just like all mine is created by me. We are unique individuals. What a boring world it would be if we all thought like science wants us to.

 

Now you must confess your ignorance when it comes to understanding how a creationist thinks. The existence of God is to me a fact (reality) undeniably so. I do not have to prove it to you for it to be a truth to me. And my friend, the fact that we disagree shows that the same is true for you. So you are a bit naïve if you come to Christian site and expect that science will trump God. God is scientific and is beyond scientific to me (and probably most Christians).

 

I watched a few weeks ago a video on consciousness on YouTube. The speaker said about the only thing that we can't doubt is our own consciousness. I think he is right. In my view the universe is set up for creativity. The essence of creativity is that who knows what a creator will create? The idea of evolution was created.

 

My dad used to say that most good ideas become bad ideas when they are carried to a ridiculous extreme. I am sorry you missed the point about the 6.7 billion people. I did not mean it as a dichotomous statement of absolute “truth!†only in a general sense.

 

We communicate with what we call code. I have a personal theory that I feel obsoletes current communication theory. Briefly stated information is a nonphysical and code does not store information. Nor is it a carrier of information. The only place I know information to exist is in the mind (that would be true in God’s mind also). Code is not necessary to communicate internally with ourselves but it is to communicate with others. The current theory of communication breaks down because scientists and most creationists think that we can store information in code.

 

 

In reality code evokes information in a mind by agreement and a prior learning process. Core meaning, as I like to call it, is the same in all of usâ€â€Âno matter what language we may speak. That is to say the sound dog (code) evokes a 4 legged critter. In French it is chien=dog.

 

Meaning can drift and that’s why we need to almost continuously define things. As you have noted dictionary’s help to slow down drift. It does not help that sounds can evoke more than one meaning also. Take right (correct) and right (direction). Theory may mean one thing to a scientist and another thing to a lay personâ€â€Âit’s whatever any of us wish to define it as. As such it is a variable assigned meaning by the speaker or the listener. Hopefully they match. Subtly they probably won’t.

 

The only way in and out of our mind is through the five senses and an awkward communication system that is not well understood. You can understand something differently than I do because you may have defined it slightly differently than I have in my mind. Take the classic statement the cup is half full as an esample. Some would say it as half empty. Some see it as having 4 ounces of water in it. I personally would say that half-empty or half-full is not very scientific but it works for most people doesn't it?

 

If you want my opinion evolution is an old, tired, worn-out idea that's like an old rusty ship creaking and gowning as its ready to take on water and descend into Davey Jones’ locker. Evolution has been replaced by something infinitely more efficientâ€â€Âcreativity. So how is it that a young guy like you has been taken in by some old fashioned ideas created by some old geezer that existed many, many years ago? Evolution is an idea whose time has passed!

 

Science needs to stopy trying to play god as the ultimate authority of "truth." They are fallible just like the rest of us.

 

Look at all the technologies around us. You mean you have never played Xbox? That technology was created. Look at all the neat things that have been created. Get with it dude!

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2. Part 3 will be posted in 5min.

 

Evolution is not taught as a scientific fact, but it is taught in the every-day use of the word "fact".

 

(Evolution can't possibly be taught as a scientific fact, that is as shown above impossible.) Evolution is (in the every-day use of the word) a fact. That is to say that it is demonstrably true and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

63847[/snapback]

Huh???

 

A fact is a fact. What does "everyday use" of the word fact mean?? Or are you trying to change the definition, so as to call evolution a fact despite it not being a fact.

 

One other FACT for you is that, evolution does get taught as a scientific fact. I have to put up with my lecturers calling it a fact all the time. So please don't say it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh???

63875[/snapback]

Anytime someone attempts to justify their mistakes with prevarications it becomes a “HUH†moment gilbo. And it is usually extremely transparent to most of those involved in the discussion.

 

A fact is a fact. What does "everyday use" of the word fact mean?? Or are you trying to change the definition, so as to call evolution a fact despite it not being a fact.

63875[/snapback]

A fact is indeed a fact, as any rational person will conclude. But b00tlegt is committing the classical equivocation here by hedging on vague notions of what he “wants†definitions to be, not what they actually are.

 

As I stated before; a theory is an attempt to take facts and promulgate one’s opinion on what they mean. A “theory†is by no means a fact… Period! Only a “fact†is a “factâ€ÂÂ…

 

So, once again, for clarity:

 

1- An opinion is not a fact.

2- A fact is not an opinion.

3- A fact is truth (or that which comports with reality).

4- Anything else, is nothing more than opinion, until it is validated as a fact. Otherwise it remains a Non-fact!

5- An opinion promulgated as a fact is a lie (see non-truth).

6- An opinion is proceeded upon via faith.

7- Faith dogmatically defended is a religion.

63740[/snapback]

.

 

 

One other FACT for you is that, evolution does get taught as a scientific fact. I have to put up with my lecturers calling it a fact all the time. So please don't say it isn't

63875[/snapback]

And, in my scholastic ventures, this is what I have found as well. Also, if you read white papers, abstracts, and findings of any sort, from evolutionists, you get this exact same understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfortunate truth of the matter for creationists is that it is scientists who have the education and expertise to define scientific terms that are generally accepted, as well as those text books that are most widely distributed. As it so happens an overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields of science agree that:

 

a. The process we refer to as evolution (change in allele frequency within a population over time) is a fact that has been widely observed and documented.

 

b. The Theory of Evolution is currently our best understanding of the process of evolution. This theory has been modified significantly since Darwin and will continue to be modified as new information is added to the current model.

 

Notice I said an overwhelming majority of scientists. I can give you some samples if you wish to contest this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfortunate truth of the matter for creationists is that it is scientists who have the education and expertise to define scientific terms that are generally accepted, as well as those text books that are most widely distributed.  As it so happens an overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields of science agree that:

 

a.  The process we refer to as evolution (change in allele frequency within a population over time) is a fact that has been widely observed and documented.

 

b.  The Theory of Evolution is currently our best understanding of the process of evolution.  This theory has been modified significantly since Darwin and will continue to be modified as new information is added to the current model.

 

Notice I said an overwhelming majority of scientists.  I can give you some samples if you wish to contest this

63986[/snapback]

Your above arguements are known as the logical fallacies of Argumentum ad Populum and argumentum ad numerum. It can also broach upon the logical fallacies of Petitio Principii (which leads to quesiton begging), and Argumentum ad Futuris (hope and prayer that your evidences will be found in the future).

 

In fact, the statement "The Theory of Evolution is currently our best understanding of the process of evolution", is itself circular reasoning.

 

Therefore, you are leading yourself down the road of non sequitur(isim).

 

And that is "The unfortunate truth of the matter" for evolutionists.

 

 

Remember "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, but then you are still responsible for reaping the result of your choices.

63857[/snapback]

 

So correct me if I'm wrong. Christianity boiled down to its simplest form amounts to this; choose God and go to heaven, or do not choose God and go to hell. There are no ifs, ands, or buts on the not choosing God part. nor are there any compromises on the issue of not choosing God.

 

Please explain how this is not an ultimatium. I'll provide the definition of ultimatum just to make sure there's no confusion on the issue.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ultimatum

Definition of ULTIMATUM

: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action

Examples of ULTIMATUM

She was given an ultimatumâ€â€Âwork harder or lose her job.

<issued the ultimatum that the project be finished by the following week, or it would be terminated>

Origin of ULTIMATUM

New Latin, from Medieval Latin, neuter of ultimatus final

First Known Use: 1731

Related to ULTIMATUM

Synonyms: claim, dun, importunity, requisition, demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms