- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi all,
Im very very new to the skeptics pages,
And from what i have read is confusing.
The point of this thread is for clarification of the Evolution theory or bigbang or a number of theories that are presented within the skeptics pages.1.First define Evolution and its concepts?
2.What is the Scientific Method?
3.Is the study of science only based on the Scientific Method?If so, Why?
4. Is Evolution Observable? that one being literally changes into different beings? (not counting changes in color)
5. Was the Big bang, observable? if so why?
6. What is a theory?
7. What is a Fact in other words Truth?
8. Is there a difference between Theory and Fact?
9. Which is evolution Theory or Fact?
10. Is scienced based on Facts or Theories? on observations or hypothesis?Why am i posting this thread. because in many posts i have read such commenst such as “The fact of evolution” and others like “The theory of Evolution”
Which is it!!! is there a difference?
I thought theory was something that was not held as a Fact. So how can this be a fact?
One can believe this, but holding it to be a absolute truth would be irony bc nothign is held to be true in Science, just not falsefied yet.Is this correct?
I hope that im not insulting anyone,With much Love,
Good questions.
Let's select the questions you asked that are actually about biological evolution:
Quote 1.First define Evolution and its concepts?
4. Is Evolution Observable? that one being literally changes into different beings? (not counting changes in color)
9. Which is evolution Theory or Fact?Regarding 1. try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionFor 4., the answer is yes evolution has been observed, not only as it happens but of course by looking at the fossil record and comparative DNA study, which is just as much observation as anything. The full answer is complicated because you would have to say what you mean by “different beings”. Do you mean one animal giving birth to a radically different offspring, or a plant producing a new species in one generation, or accumulated changes in bacteria that could be called a change to a new species even though bacteria don't reproduce sexually so you can't test if they are the same species or not?
For 9., I see it as “the fact of evolution explained by the theory of natural selection” which is a bit like “the fact of electricity explained by the theory of charges moving in a wire”. There is a Wikipedia page on evolution / fact / theory but I think it more likely to confuse a reader than to help understanding.
Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it. Common descent with modification is a fact of natural history that is evidenced in the fossil record and in many other ways.
Natural selection is the theory that is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. There are arguments to be had about the relative importance of the causes of change in species, but natural selection as a whole has withstood all challenges to date, and has been entirely consistent with all new discoveries, not least of which is the entire field of genetics.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 26 2010,19:44) Good questions. Let's select the questions you asked that are actually about biological evolution:
Im going to respond to this reponse later.becaues im tired.
its 3am already.. im out of it.
But i would like to ask you to answer the rest of the questions bc i feel they are important for my understanding of why you think the way you do.
becuase i have my own thoughts and opinions, and so do you.
thats the purpose of those questions to understand What is evolution to you…You have a good night my brother,
Your question that deals with cosmology:
Quote 5. Was the Big bang, observable? if so why? If you tune your FM radio to the middle of the band, about 100MHz, and steer clear of radio stations, about 5% of the hiss you hear is caused by background microwave radiation from the Big Bang.
That radiation was predicted by Big Bang cosmology in the 1940s and was eventually discovered to actually exist in 1964. Read about the other evidence in the Holy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Is the Big Bang a fact? It is a theory that explains the evidence. Would it be perverse to deny it? Many would say yes. Those who say no do have some difficulties coming up with better explanations.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 26 2010,19:53) Your question that deals with cosmology: Quote 5. Was the Big bang, observable? if so why? If you tune your FM radio to the middle of the band, about 100MHz, and steer clear of radio stations, about 5% of the hiss you hear is caused by background microwave radiation from the Big Bang.
That radiation was predicted by Big Bang cosmology in the 1940s and was eventually discovered to actually exist in 1964. Read about the other evidence in the Holy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Is the Big Bang a fact? It is a theory that explains the evidence. Would it be perverse to deny it? Many would say yes. Those who say no do have some difficulties coming up with better explanations.
Stuart
lol the holy wikipedia,you mean the very source that i can log into and delete everything you believe? and replace it with my face
Just pulling tail
in otherwords jk….
Your questions that relate to the scientific method:
Quote 2.What is the Scientific Method?
3.Is the study of science only based on the Scientific Method?If so, Why?
6. What is a theory?
7. What is a Fact in other words Truth?
8. Is there a difference between Theory and Fact?
10. Is scienced based on Facts or Theories? on observations or hypothesis?The scientific method is, to simplify, a systematic approach to finding explanations.
You might start with some observations, or facts (things that no one would reasonably deny). You could then make a generalisation about those facts called an hypothesis. You would then do some testing that was carefully designed to isolate your suspected cause to see if it produced the same observations you made originally. If your hypothesis seems to be true for your experiments, then others may take up the same idea and test it, trying as hard as they can to find the cases that disprove the hypothesis. Once the hypothesis appears to be standing up to a range of tests it may take on the status of a scientific theory, which is the highest status that any explanation can have in science. As long as no one is able to disprove the theory, it remains the current scientific model. That model must satisfy two important criteria: it must be falsifiable (disprovable in principle), and it must make predictions that could be confirmed by experiment.
To go back to your subject of interest, evolution by natural selection, it is a fact that evolution has occurred. Natural selection has the high status of theory because it has explained all the evidence, is falsifiable (you won't find bunny rabbit fossils in 500 million year-old rock, if you do then natural selection is wrong), and it makes predictions that turn out to be right years later. One example is that of the Piltdown hoax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man. Many scientists realised that either Piltdown was a forgery or natural selection was wrong. In 1953 Piltdown was exposed by new scientific techniques that had not been available in 1912.
Stuart
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,19:56) Quote (Stu @ May 26 2010,19:53) Your question that deals with cosmology: Quote 5. Was the Big bang, observable? if so why? If you tune your FM radio to the middle of the band, about 100MHz, and steer clear of radio stations, about 5% of the hiss you hear is caused by background microwave radiation from the Big Bang.
That radiation was predicted by Big Bang cosmology in the 1940s and was eventually discovered to actually exist in 1964. Read about the other evidence in the Holy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Is the Big Bang a fact? It is a theory that explains the evidence. Would it be perverse to deny it? Many would say yes. Those who say no do have some difficulties coming up with better explanations.
Stuart
lol the holy wikipedia,you mean the very source that i can log into and delete everything you believe? and replace it with my face
Just pulling tail
in otherwords jk….
The very same! I know what you mean, but when I quote Wikipedia it is not an appeal to its authority, but a way of saving a lot of typing on my part. You will note that I suggested not bothering with the evolution / fact / theory wiki: it is not necessarily that it is wrong but I would never express it like that myself. The other pages read to me to be sound descriptions, as I understand the subject material.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 26 2010,20:10) Your questions that relate to the scientific method: Quote 2.What is the Scientific Method?
3.Is the study of science only based on the Scientific Method?If so, Why?
6. What is a theory?
7. What is a Fact in other words Truth?
8. Is there a difference between Theory and Fact?
10. Is scienced based on Facts or Theories? on observations or hypothesis?The scientific method is, to simplify, a systematic approach to finding explanations.
You might start with some observations, or facts (things that no one would reasonably deny). You could then make a generalisation about those facts called an hypothesis. You would then do some testing that was carefully designed to isolate your suspected cause to see if it produced the same observations you made originally. If your hypothesis seems to be true for your experiments, then others may take up the same idea and test it, trying as hard as they can to find the cases that disprove the hypothesis. Once the hypothesis appears to be standing up to a range of tests it may take on the status of a scientific theory, which is the highest status that any explanation can have in science. As long as no one is able to disprove the theory, it remains the current scientific model. That model must satisfy two important criteria: it must be falsifiable (disprovable in principle), and it must make predictions that could be confirmed by experiment.
To go back to your subject of interest, evolution by natural selection, it is a fact that evolution has occurred. Natural selection has the high status of theory because it has explained all the evidence, is falsifiable (you won't find bunny rabbit fossils in 500 million year-old rock, if you do then natural selection is wrong), and it makes predictions that turn out to be right years later. One example is that of the Piltdown hoax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man. Many scientists realised that either Piltdown was a forgery or natural selection was wrong. In 1953 Piltdown was exposed by new scientific techniques that had not been available in 1912.
Stuart
My finaly post for tonight, tommrow we will continue,I learned in college that nothing in science can be held as fact, only A theory that is not falsifable, something better than a hypothesis. do you agree?
Please check out this site,
Let me know what you think?
http://www.DrDino.com if that doesnt work try, http://drdino.com/media-categories.phpDr.Hovind provides seminars based on creationism. I dont want to waste your time because i know already that you do not believe in that, but since this guy is a Dr. i was hoping for you to shed some light, or in other words offer your input in his analysis. I do warn you though that he might anger you a bit.
but if anything check out first the debates he has against professors. its more exciting.
the first video under multimedia/debates/
Creation vs Evolution.Tell me what you think about that one. and than check out the seminars.
i would really like your input, because i think you would understand it more than i would.please dont take it as in insult, just consider the points at mininium. bc i do consider yours.
Tommorow ill start my full responses.P.S. i deleted all your sources and added my face on it,
just kidding! or am i? muhahahaSimplyForgiven
Quote I learned in college that nothing in science can be held as fact, only A theory that is not falsifable, something better than a hypothesis. do you agree?
Not sure I understand exactly what you mean. There is no such thing is science as proof, although you can disprove a falsifiable theory. Facts are the kinds of observations on which every reasonable person should agree.Quote Please check out this site,
Let me know what you think?
Which bit of that site are you particularly interested in?Quote Dr.Hovind provides seminars based on creationism. I dont want to waste your time because i know already that you do not believe in that, but since this guy is a Dr. i was hoping for you to shed some light, or in other words offer your input in his analysis. I do warn you though that he might anger you a bit. but if anything check out first the debates he has against professors. its more exciting.
the first video under multimedia/debates/
Creation vs Evolution.
When you say “Dr. Hovind provides…” really you should be using the past tense, because Kent Hovind is currently in jail in Edgefield, South Carolina, for tax evasion.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 27 2010,17:29) SimplyForgiven Quote I learned in college that nothing in science can be held as fact, only A theory that is not falsifable, something better than a hypothesis. do you agree?
Not sure I understand exactly what you mean. There is no such thing is science as proof, although you can disprove a falsifiable theory. Facts are the kinds of observations on which every reasonable person should agree.Quote Please check out this site,
Let me know what you think?
Which bit of that site are you particularly interested in?Quote Dr.Hovind provides seminars based on creationism. I dont want to waste your time because i know already that you do not believe in that, but since this guy is a Dr. i was hoping for you to shed some light, or in other words offer your input in his analysis. I do warn you though that he might anger you a bit. but if anything check out first the debates he has against professors. its more exciting.
the first video under multimedia/debates/
Creation vs Evolution.
When you say “Dr. Hovind provides…” really you should be using the past tense, because Kent Hovind is currently in jail in Edgefield, South Carolina, for tax evasion.Stuart
lol no way!!!!
He is in Jail!!!can you show me a link or something to tell me about that!
the details!lol they actually brought that up in the debate, and i believe that he at one time believed that one does not have to pay taxes or something like that.
crazy stuff.
In this site, that i cant really link because its protected. i like the very first debate on their, and the Creation seminars.
look at the one abuot the Dinosaurds and Eden, its very intresting.
So there is no proof in science, yet only observations can be held as fact until proven otherwise? or the gathering of facts that to test a hypothesis?
im confused, because in my biology text book says this.“Most scientist careflly avoid the word “truth” when discussing science. Instead, they prefer to say That the data either support or do not support a hypothesis.
Suppose a hypothesis still stands even after yaers of tests. it is consistent with all evidence gathered to date. It proves useful in helpin us make predictions about other phenomena, and its predictive power has been tested many times. when any hypothesis meetes these criteria, it becomes a scientific theory.
to give an example, observations for all recorded history have favored the hypothesis that gravity pulls objects toward the Earth. Scientist no longer spend time testing the hypothesis for the simple reason that, after many thousands of years of observation, no one has seen otherwise. This hypothesis is an accpeted Theory, but it is not an “abosulte truth.” Why not? an infinite number of test would be nessary to confirm that if holds under every possible circumstance.
However, a single observation or result this is not consistent with a theory opens that theory to revision. If gravity does cause apples to fall down, it would be logical to predict that appels will fall down tommorow. However, a scientist might well see tommorowas an opportunity for the prediction to fail. think about it. if even one apple falls up instead of down tommorow, the theory of gravity would be re-evaluated. like every other theory, this one remains open to revison. a well-tested theroy is as close to the “truth” as scientists will venture. 1.4 (gravitional theory, cell theory, germ theory, plate tectonics theory, theroy of evolution, theroy of natural selection.)”Do you agree with that, because thats what has been taught to me since i can remember. lol if thats true than believeing in the Rapture would make scientist re-evaluate the gravitional theory.
Here is what the word fact definition.
noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.For truth
noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
1.the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.the state or character of being true.
5.actuality or actual existence.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7.honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8.(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
10.accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11.Archaic. fidelity or constancy.Soo…
i know i havent responded to everything you said from yesturday but i will again tommorow your nemesis took most of my time for tonight. clue: (He read from the Quran other than the holy wikipedia)in summary,
Check out that site tell me what you think, a outline would be great for me.
What do you think about what my biology book says.
Is evolution a fact or theory?
whats your definition of fact and theory?
You mentioned again that Evolution is a fact, yet it something proves other wise than its not.I saw in one of the debates that hovind put up that there were infact dinosaurs foot prints along side humans. something like that. If that were true in some sense could used to disprove evolution.
one more question. Dr hovind mention that bones cannot be used as evidence, because the only thing that is observable about it is that its dead, and it once lived. To speculate anything more, is just what you believe not truth. You can believe it, but doesnt mean its true. (what he says not me)
what do you think?
p.s. So you know of Dr. Hovind how?
Quote So there is no proof in science, yet only observations can be held as fact until proven otherwise? or the gathering of facts that to test a hypothesis?
im confused, because in my biology text book says this.“Most scientist careflly avoid the word “truth” when discussing science. Instead, they prefer to say That the data either support or do not support a hypothesis.
Suppose a hypothesis still stands even after yaers of tests. it is consistent with all evidence gathered to date. It proves useful in helpin us make predictions about other phenomena, and its predictive power has been tested many times. when any hypothesis meetes these criteria, it becomes a scientific theory.
to give an example, observations for all recorded history have favored the hypothesis that gravity pulls objects toward the Earth. Scientist no longer spend time testing the hypothesis for the simple reason that, after many thousands of years of observation, no one has seen otherwise. This hypothesis is an accpeted Theory, but it is not an “abosulte truth.” Why not? an infinite number of test would be nessary to confirm that if holds under every possible circumstance.
However, a single observation or result this is not consistent with a theory opens that theory to revision. If gravity does cause apples to fall down, it would be logical to predict that appels will fall down tommorow. However, a scientist might well see tommorowas an opportunity for the prediction to fail. think about it. if even one apple falls up instead of down tommorow, the theory of gravity would be re-evaluated. like every other theory, this one remains open to revison. a well-tested theroy is as close to the “truth” as scientists will venture. 1.4 (gravitional theory, cell theory, germ theory, plate tectonics theory, theroy of evolution, theroy of natural selection.)”Do you agree with that, because thats what has been taught to me since i can remember. lol if thats true than believeing in the Rapture would make scientist re-evaluate the gravitional theory.
Not believing in it, but observing it would make a difference.Truth is a personal construct. Science gives provisional conclusions.
Quote Here is what the word fact definition.
noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.For truth
noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
1.the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.the state or character of being true.
5.actuality or actual existence.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7.honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8.(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
10.accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11.Archaic. fidelity or constancy.Soo…
i know i havent responded to everything you said from yesturday but i will again tommorow your nemesis took most of my time for tonight. clue: (He read from the Quran other than the holy wikipedia)
He is not my nemesis. He is pretty forgettable. I think he speaks without love for what he says: Saul of Tarsus would have described his voice as a clanging bell.Well the bell clangs for him now…every mealtime.
Quote in summary,
Check out that site tell me what you think, a outline would be great for me.
Sorry I don’t have time to review a website for you. Please give me points you think are convincing and maybe they could be discussed.Quote What do you think about what my biology book says.
Is evolution a fact or theory?
whats your definition of fact and theory?
You mentioned again that Evolution is a fact, yet it something proves other wise than its not.
Evolution is a fact, yes. How is it not obviously that?Quote I saw in one of the debates that hovind put up that there were infact dinosaurs foot prints along side humans. something like that. If that were true in some sense could used to disprove evolution.
If it were demonstrated that human footprints and dinosaur prints had been laid down at the same time, it would disprove evolution.Quote one more question. Dr hovind mention that bones cannot be used as evidence, because the only thing that is observable about it is that its dead, and it once lived. To speculate anything more, is just what you believe not truth. You can believe it, but doesnt mean its true. (what he says not me) what do you think?
He doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is a clanging bell of the lying kind.Quote p.s. So you know of Dr. Hovind how?
How do you think I would have posted as much as I have on the subject of science and religious mythology without having looked at the material of quite a few creationists?Stuart
Quote (karmarie @ May 27 2010,18:46) Stuart, looks like youve got some-one interesting to talk to 
and hope your well (fellow NZer).
How many people on here are from NZ? And secondly, what do you really think of Australians? Better then you, or worse?New Zealand is made up of the 2 main islands called North Island and South Island. There are a whole lotta smaller ones too.
New Zealanders call Australia 'West Island'.
Australians call New Zealand, 'New Tasmania'.
One in eight New Zealanders live in West Island (Australia).
We are better at Rugby than they are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
