Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

let me just paste this from http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html
talking about evolution:

Quote[/b] ] If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

let me emphasize "that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact."
so really evolution being "just" a theory doesn't mean anything bad. But it being a SCIENTIFIC theory means a lot.

 

[Finch]

... Calling into question a proofs accuracy can open up a multitude of other possible questions that might need to be verified to change an observers opinion. To simply prove something is not enough, because the cause and effects caused by proving said thing will only open up more possible questions, such as, what is its effect on (?) have you oberved this many times and has it been independantly verified? is there another possible explination. If cause C was removed, what would the effect be on the outcome? - a infinent and neverending number of questions of a initial proof could be asked, and might be asked if the questioneer disliked the possible outcome of the initial peice of evidence.

The mind selectivly chooses what happens to be stored in our memory. If, over time, one wants the something to have happened that they might have seen bad enough, the person will actually be able to recall the events as they wanted it to be, in vivid detail. This can lead to memory distoritions in wich proof can, in said dunjects mind, be effectively debunked due to ones presonal experiences, real or imagined. this phenomena is compounded when they are told by someone else what they saw when their own memories of the event are sketchy at best, thus one can think they know exactly what happened, when details that they think they they have observed are not actually true. This process cannot occur at all if the person chooses to remain steadfast on a subject so much that they feel no need to recall memories to prove it to they selves; they already know.

(sorry if im a bit difficult to interpert, themind shift from wrigdting a comprehensive and informetive article on Taxus cuspidata to philosiphy is a difficult one for me)

 

[seedjar]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 27 2004,8:00)]

Quote[/b] ]thusly there's no solid proof of anything.

ok?.... I really don't know what to say about that... Then should we just give up and do nothing? the fact that there's no solid proof of anything isn't relevant when debating about evolution/creationism because ... well... how can it be?
You can't prove you're not just a dream... or that you're a brain in a jar being fed stimuli.
You take what you have (proof) and you base your beliefs on it. With the proof we have, evolution happens and creationism has no scientific proof.

My point here is that what we call proof within the realm of science is really just a form of faith, backed up by experience. It's faith that things are consistent enough to be treated as proof. We can use this proof when discussing issues of science, but not religion, because while religion depends on faith (a different faith from the faith in proofs) it (often) does not have anything to do with experience. We could say that religion or creationism is unscientific, but it's very different to say that religion is wrong because it is unscientific. What would lead us to believe that things which are scientific are neccessarily correct? I believe that science is useful, but usefulness is not correctness. We can have beliefs without proof, it just so happens that it's usually more productive to have beliefs which are based on proofs.
~Joe

 

[Finch]

therefore, there's no proof that what we observe really happens

 

[altrade212]

Quote[/b] ]science is useful, but usefulness is not correctness

so it wouldent be useful if its not correct, its just filling your head with lies, from what i know, in science theres alot more evidence and proof than the bible can ever give, the bible talks about a great flood thats flooded the world, yet there are tsunami's going all the time, it talks about next the world will be ended by fire, yet there are forest fires and all sorts of fires all the time, so if a investigator was to tell you, it started by a ciggrret a,d he or she actually shows you the remains of the ciggerate, would you still think it was a sign of the bible? as a matter of fact, there was a tsunami in asia a few days ago, would you belive the world is ending, or it was indeed the earthquake?

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]so it wouldent be useful if its not correct

False facts, expecially when your convinced they actually happened, can be very usefull to your puropuse

Altrade those examples on natural disasters do not prove anything because they cannot be compared to eachother.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,11:11)]My point here is that what we call proof within the realm of science is really just a form of faith, backed up by experience.

Science isn't a form of faith, backed up by experience or facts. Science is a form of facts backed up by faith that you're facts are all correct (if you even think faith is needed when facts are hardcore). Science has no basis in faith, and of course in thinking that you would think that creationism and science can coinside.. but they can't.

 

[altrade212]

Quote[/b] ]Altrade those examples on natural disasters do not prove anything because they cannot be compared to eachother.

you can compare it to the "predictions" of the bible..

 

[Finch]

The less specific a reference is, the more it is open to inturpertation. The bible says the world will end in fire, but leaves exactly how open to inturpertation.

Specificites can be changed to fit the loose wording of parts of the text

 

[seedjar]

Quote[/b] (altrade212 @ Dec. 27 2004,8:18)]as a matter of fact, there was a tsunami in asia a few days ago, would you  belive the world is ending, or it was indeed the earthquake?

Well, I believe that the physical act which lead to ther tsunami was probably the earthquake, but that's not to say that God didn't will any of it to happen. Personally, I just think that it doesn't matter. God is external to the world, as are theories like Creationism. Whether they are real or not has no bearing on what happens here and now; it affects only the way we think about what is happening - so why worry about it?
~Joe

 

[Finch]

I have 'faith' in science because it is backed up by facts. By this loose defenition, science would be considerd my 'faith'

 

[seedjar]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Dec. 27 2004,8:25)]

Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,11:11)]My point here is that what we call proof within the realm of science is really just a form of faith, backed up by experience.

Science isn't a form of faith, backed up by experience or facts. Science is a form of facts backed up by faiths. Science has no basis in faith, and of course in thinking that you would think that creationism and science can coinside.. but they can't.

I'm not saying science is faith, I'm saying that to have proof of something is to have faith in that something being consistently reproducible. Science is based upon faith because science is based on reproducible phenomenon, which is based on consistent causality, which is based on faith.
~Joe

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] ]I have 'faith' in science because it is backed up by facts. By this loose defenition, science would be considerd my 'faith'

Considering that you even need faith in science when the facts are in your face.

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ] Science is based upon faith because science is based on reproducible phenomenon, which is based on consistent causality, which is based on faith.
~Joe

Exactly!

 

[seedjar]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Dec. 27 2004,8:31)]

Quote[/b] ]I have 'faith' in science because it is backed up by facts. By this loose defenition, science would be considerd my 'faith'

Considering that you even need faith in science when the facts are in your face.

There's no need to get combative, AE. The facts may be in our face, but there is ample reason to doubt facts. Just look at what kinds of things get passed off as facts by politicians - we need to call facts into question even when we don't factor in the inaccuracy of our observations!
~Joe

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,11:30)]Science is based upon faith because science is based on reproducible phenomenon, which is based on consistent causality, which is based on faith.

Going back to the topic at hand and away from what science is for the moment, a huge (or only) factor in Evolution (Natural Selection) is not casual (more specifically) it's a fact that all living things undergo mutation during their lifetime. It might be casual, but it surely is consistent. Your comment about consistent casuality is implying that scientists have to have "faith" in (specifically and in terms of natural selection) that mutations are consistant. There is no faith needed, mutations are consistant.

 

[Finch]

Mutations are constant, but the rate of the number of benificial mutations incorporated into a species gene pool is not consistant

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,11:35)]There's no need to get combative, AE. The facts may be in our face, but there is ample reason to doubt facts.

If facts can be doubted, in comparison, faith shouldn't be a factor in determining our history. As many scientist would say to you and other creationists "where are the facts?". Faith is a weird thing to belive anything by and beliving faith over facts is illogical, in regards to science and anything else.

 

[Wesley]

Ok... I've read the mojority of this topic, and I have a question. From what I have read so far, is that all the evolutionists are arguing about how evolution works, and how it did everything( I couldn't come up with a better explanation LOL). So then.... evolution must not be consistent since all(I'm being very broad when I say all) the evolutionsists are arguing about the "right" evolution.

Quote[/b] ]you wanna know somthing funny..the bible does not mention dinosaurs, so religious people say they are tricks of the devil and they never exsisted...

Actually the Bible does mention dinosaurs, it is just that a lot of people don't know where it(excuse me, THEY are). Yes, there are multiple times it mentions it, I think there are two or three dinosaurs that it mentions. I'll need to find it, I used to know where they all were(I was big into dinosaurs).

Quote[/b] ]You take what you have (proof) and you base your beliefs on it.

Actually, your proof is fact. Air is around us is not proof, it is fact. The right way to say that would be, "you take fact and try to prove or disprove it" Another thing is that it is impossible to prove anything because of human error, so the experiments we create to prove are'nt perfect, so we can't prove. Science is not meant to prove in the first place. Now there are GOOD scientists out there, that have taken science to far and all they want is to prove ther other scientists that contradict them wrong(that would be for personal gain). Science is and always has been to find out about the world and universe around us along with the creatures that live in it.
I'm not gonna say anything about my beliefs in evolution/vs. creation, cause you all know I'm a firm believer in creation and that its the only way.
By the way, if it gets into a yelling contest, I'll either report you or just leave the topic..................... HA! J/k I'll just leave the topic. I wouldn't rat you guys/gals out, I like you too much despite our differences. Oh, I know you are gonna use quotes in this, and I know I coulda done a better job on this, but I didn't wanna have to go through 6 pages of stuff to find what I was looking for. LOL , I'm tired

Later,
~Wes~

 

[Finch]

in a way, faith was inportant to the survival of our species