Posts by Fisherman

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Someone who rejects evolution for supposed lack of evidence (which is really just lack of knowledge...

Google =

To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:[8]

The general sense of change over time.
All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution

I think that there is a difference between fact and conclusions. Anyway that it just something that I cut and pasted from wiki encyclopedia.

More Google= cofty

There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

Bolony. I remember an article in National Geographic(I think it was) about 10 years ago that stated that DNA confirmed that "Neanderthal man" did not breed with homo sapiens. A couple of years later I read another article somewhere that said that they did. In fact anyone taking a dna test now can see some Neanderthal in their lineage. You figure it out. Where neanderthal humans?

as the understanding

Do you see the logical fallacy in the comparison above?

I am not qualified to advocate or to refute "evolution." Evolution is working system that science uses as a patern to predict. There is controversy whether it can be falsified or not. There is also controversy about evolution apparently contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. There is also controversy whether or not evolution can coexist with enthropy. Some people choose to believe in evolution.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.

(biological) Evolution (Humanity evolved from simpler organisms) continues to be a theory until it is shown or proven or demonstrated to be the case . Until then it is not a fact.

You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."
There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.

A course in analytical reading and comprehension skills can help you: 'The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution' Think about the statement. And its context.

I am not getting into a pseudo-scientific cofty discussion with you - I am not interested. -or google cut and paste definitions or explanation. Do it yourself. I will say this though: The scientific method is used to test a hypothesis. If it turns out to be the case, it is validated. Such testing or experimenting if successful PROVES the hypothesis.

Evolution of humanity from simpler organisms cannot be proven or validated. Use whatever words you like. I understand that the term "theory of Evolution" refers to that all forms of life evolved from the same ancestor -That has not been proven.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Well, then the next sentence of my post proves itself to be true. :(

No it does not.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

to backup your assertions that the accepted status quo is wrong.

The accepted status quo, if only a theory, remains such even without my assertions. facts do not need advocates or supporters, they cannot be challenged. The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution. Evolution continues to be only a theory until it is proven to be fact.

See, you can't just say that.

I can.

Evolution ain't a fact.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

Fisherman

Harry Potter.....

Not to Abraham. And it is not relevant in this discussion whether you believe the Bible or not (although the Bible is true) but that the Bible records that historical figures such as Abraham, Paul and others showed faith based upon evidence (fact) and not upon snake oil.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

When it it ain't a fact -like evolution for example.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

Fisherman

Faith in no way is based on fact.

Sure it is. The faith that ALL Bible characters had was based on fact, for example, the faith that Abraham had was based upon the fact that he knew for a fact that God existed for a fact . That is a lot of fact. But he had more facts: He communicated with God, he saw angels, and God made his barren wife fertile. But even with all those facts, he was not 100 percent sure and that is what faith is all about.

Anyway, I showed one way. And that debunks what you stated above.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

Fisherman

Word salad.

So is Shakespeare to simpletons such as you. And so is the syntax of a programming language to those that do not understand it -but they are not word salad and neither is the language in my illustration that you refer to.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

Fisherman

Not according to Merriam-Webster.

MW describes faith, it does not challenge the basis, you do.. Your post assumes that all faiths are based on snake oil. But faith simply means (logic) the belief and trust and hope in medicine that does work. And the reason you have faith in it is because you know for a fact that it does work.

Fisherman - Facts do not trump other facts and that is the sophistry of your argument assuming that faith is based on belief (not a talking horse) and if the basis for faith can be invalidate with any new facts whatsoever. ???

There is enough context in my statement above for you to figure out what I mean. I made some changes to the structure of my sentences before I posted but they did not post through, so let me rephrase what is posted above:

Facts do not trump other facts. The sophistry of your argument assumes that all faith is based on false belief or premise (not on a talking horse.) And that being the case, you also conclude that the basis for all faiths can be invalidated with evidence. My post intends to illustrate that faith must be based on fact in order for it for it to be defined as faith. Faith in a jackass or in snake oil is not faith because faith must only be based upon proof.

Every example of persons having faith in the Bible shows the person basing their faith -not on wishful thinking- but on a talking horse. Conclusion: No talking horse, no faith is possible. When faith based on evidence is the case (as it always must be), even new facts that come up, that contradict or seem to contradict exiting facts, do not invalidate the basis for faith, hence, if faith is based on evidence faith is not a fallacy and neither is it subject to new scientific facts or knowing any other facts .

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

Fisherman

facts fail.....

Unlike animals, people buy snake oil all of the time ( thousands of tank loads sold every year to say the least.) Take snake oil for baldness for example, people buy it for 2 reasons, they believe it works, they hope it works for them ignoring the facts.

Your post assumes and concludes too much. There is no logical fallacy in Bible faith. Faith is logic based on solid fact like taking medicine that works. The effact should realize after the length of treatment is completed. Those that have faith take the medicine and wait for it to work. Those that do not, don't buy it.

Facts do not trump other facts and that is the sophistry of your argument assuming that faith is based on belief (not a talking horse) and that the basis for faith can be invalidated with any new facts whatsoever.