Confusing Opinions with Facts

by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  little_Socrates

  Calling evolution a fact is like calling the law/theory of gravity a fact.

  Yes our theories do a good job of explaining what we observe in the physical world. So it is a good workable theory. HOWEVER if you really get to questioning an honest physicist they will tell you they have no idea actually what gravity is or how it works. So yes the theory of gravity is good science but you can't call it a fact.

  Sometimes religious minded people become very dogmatic and close minded. However those that choose to follow science are prone to the same thing. A good scientist should stay skeptical and curious about EVERYTHING. The moment you think you have every thing figured out is also the moment when you actually know the least.

  Stay curious my friends!
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  A good scientist should stay skeptical and curious about EVERYTHING.

  And every scientist whose facts-based conclusion is not supported by Bronze Age writings is not skeptical and curious enough?

  Using my cellphone, too lazy to paste all the links to actual sources but this should get you started: Evolution as a fact and theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory?wprov=sfla1
• 

  shepherdless

  little Socrates: Calling evolution a fact is like calling the law/theory of gravity a fact.

  
  

  In science, laws are essentially equations, and theories are explanations. There is both a law of gravity:

  (Newton's law of universal gravitation),

  and a theory of gravity, published by Albert Einstein in 1915.

  
  

  I wonder whether little Socrates confuses "theory" with "hypothesis".

  
  

  Using the word "fact" in its ordinary everyday meaning, both the law of gravity and the theory of gravity are facts, as they have both been demonstrated to be true by numerous observations.

  little Socrates: if you really get to questioning an honest physicist they will tell you they have no idea actually what gravity is or how it works

  Not quite. Gravity is the only remaining one of the 4 fundamental forces that has yet to be explained by the principles of quantum mechanics. This is essentially because, in simple terms, it is an incredibly complicated mathematical problem to solve. But thanks to Einstein we have known for a century pretty much what gravity is, and how it works.

  One can argue back and forth forever about whether God or Jehovah exists, but one can't realistically argue whether evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is a "fact" within the ordinary meaning of the word. It why a disease becomes resistant to an antibiotic. It is why a bug becomes resistant to a pesticide. I haven't read half of Cofty's posts, but some of the ones I have read are compelling, and I have yet to see a sensible response to any of them.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  There is a reason we're debating semantics about evolution here.

  It's because there is no Theory of Divine Creation to discuss.

  It's because there is no such thing as the Law of Prayer we can argue about

  It's because God has never been observed.
• 

  cofty

  Calling evolution a fact is like calling the law/theory of gravity a fact. - LS

  It is.

  Gravity is a theory in the special scientific sense of the word.

  If you jump off a tall building you will hit the ground very hard. This is a fact.

  Evolution is a theory in the special scientific sense of the word.

  Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor. This is a fact.

  This thread is not about evolution. I can't say it any simpler than the OP
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  

  Thank you for posting that equation shepherdless. It reminds me of physics 101. The way we learned it though was : G= m1*m2/d squared (d being the distance between the centers of each object, if I recall ancient history) Even back then my theory was that there must be be a relationship between all matter in the universe no matter the distance. I also wondered if the the same  relationship existed in quantum condition and if somehow it failed or changed under certain distances. Could not figure it out back then. I learned more about physics later on. -Guess what "gravity" is or call it what you like, the relationship in the related equation exists, it is not an opinion.
  
• 

  cyberjesus

  People should not say "it is a fact that god created the universe". All they can say is "it is a fact that I choose to believe that god created the universe"

  is that a fact or just your opinion?
  
• 

  shepherdless

  Fisherman: The way we learned it though was : G= m1*m2/d squared (d being the distance between the centers of each object and G in Newtons, if I recall ancient history)

  Your memory is close to correct. Your formula has an error, but there is more than one way of expressing it correctly, and I don't know which you were taught. G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2. "d" and "r" mean the same thing in both equations.

  I otherwise, on this rare occasion, agree with you.
• 

  Fisherman

  small g( F sub g) is directly proportional to:
  
• 

  shepherdless

  Fisherman: small g( F sub g) is directly proportional to:

  Yes, that makes it correct.