The Top Three Mistakes Of Creationists? (Creator, Darwin, Earth, evolution)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

1) Using the Bible as a science book
2) Refusal to make naturalistic assumptions in interpreting naturalistic evidence
3) Insistence that revealed truth is the same as empirical data

I second that.

[Fluffy]

Only definition 2c. equates with your concept of evolutionary fact here Fluffy. And the same definition can be applied to the Bible.

2a applies as well. Evolution has been demonstrated to exist to the same extent has Chaucer has been demonstrated to exist. However, that is irrelevant since a dictionary is not going to give you an accurate enough definition for something which requires as much philosophical analysis and debate as the term "fact".

There are 3 stages of knowledge:
That which has been demonstrated to be absolutely true (ie that which is indubitable)
That which has been demonstrated to be reliably or reasonably true (ie fact or belief)
That about which no demonstration of truth has been made

Notice that truth is both the word given to the truth-false scale and to the positive end of that spectrum and I use the term above in its former capactiy.

The last option covers some aspects of faith such as those aspects of faith that do not contradict any previously held assumptions. If one has accepted the laws of reason (ie is not an irrationalist) and has a faith than contradicts previously held assumptions, then it lies in the same category as fact and belief since it would be a fact that the faith was false.

A fact is a belief because it is not a certainty. However, a fact also must conform to certain other restraints such as degree of reliability etc. However, since these restraints are also not certainties, a fact can be said to be equivilant in nature to belief as far as knowledge is concerned. Obviously, practically, fact has much more value, but this does mean that a fact is more true than a belief nor even that it is more likely to be more true than a belief. However, if we accept all of the assumptions that the fact is based upon (eg reality, logic, perception etc) then we have made our fact more reliable than our belief. Similarly if we accept all of the assumptions that the belief is based upon (eg God, the Bible etc) then we have made our belief more realiable than fact. This artificial tinkering with truth should not be taken as anything more than a practical measure however.

Evolution is a belief that strongly coheres with the basics accepted by science. Therefore, it is a scientific fact.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Victor

I second that.

oooohhh, I was so tempted to write:

1) They're stupid
2) They're stupid
3) They're stupid

Sometimes one should just be cordial and identify the actual problem.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That which has been demonstrated to be absolutely true (ie that which is indubitable)

There is no such thing, there are no absolute truths, no scientific experiment can be replicated and recreate the exact same results, there are always anomalies.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That which has been demonstrated to be reliably or reasonably true (ie fact or belief)

If something is reliably or reasonable true, then to a scientist it is a good working theory. A good scientist should not have the word fact in their vocabulary.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That about which no demonstration of truth has been made

This is a belief.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

A fact is a belief because it is not a certainty.

Fact is the laymans term for what a scientist would call 'a conclusion drawn from statistically significant evidence' or 'a working theory that has yet to be proven fallible'.
Fact in the common tongue implies something that is undeniable, to science nothing is undeniable, their are only varying degrees of likelihood.

In science the challenge is never closed, there are no certainties or truths, people are always welcome to try and prove current theories wrong, and sometimes they succeed. Scientific theories that have survived for decades and seemed to work in every scenario have been proven fallible and replaced. For an example look up steady-state theory vs the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Evolution is a belief that strongly coheres with the basics accepted by science. Therefore, it is a scientific fact.

There is no such thing as scientific fact. Microevolution or adaptation is a very good working theory, its source sciences of genetics and population dynamics have yielded good evidence to suggest how organisms adapt to changing environmental (both biotic and abiotic) conditions. There are statistical anomalies, and sometimes experiments give inconclusive results, but as a whole microevolution is a good working theory.
Macroevolution is the extrapolation of adaptation to take into account paleontological evidence for the existance of extinct species.
The study of evolution at work within living populations and paleontology are two separate and distinct sciences. Without genetic samples or observations of the population dynamics of these extinct species, the two largest aspects of the grand evolutionary theory can never be totally fused to a level that will satisy the most stubborn of disbelievers.
However, the evidence in the fossil record is good enough that it can be reasonably concluded that the mechanics of adaptation are what caused the variation of biological forms witnessed in the fossil record. A conclusion is not a fact, it is A conclusion not THE ONLY conclusion.

Evolutionary science is not a single subject, it is the combination of many different biological and geological sciences. It is the combination of many theories which have been logically linked to form a greater whole that makes good scientific sense.
To say "evolution is a scientific fact" displays a lack of knowledge of evolutionary science.

[Fluffy]

This is a good debate Halycon and I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, to prevent taking this thread further off topic, Ill start a new one about fact.

Edit: ta da http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...866#post493866

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

This is a good debate Halycon and I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, to prevent taking this thread further off topic, Ill start a new one about fact.

Okay dokey old chap.

[St. Thomas]

The only thing that I find realy irritating about this hole matter, is that most of the times, both parties refuse to see the very real possibility that both could be partially wrong and partially right. Put together the two `partials`that are `right` and you would have a very solid, reasonable, logical THEORY!!
But that`s all you can come up with. A theory.
Proof of what was the first living organim on this planet? IMO that will only be possible after someone invents a time machine, goes back to the time of this organisme coming into existence and whitnesses and documents this `creation`. And even if that were to happen, the rest of us would have to take him/her on his/her word.

I do, however strongly agree with the level of annoyment that arises when reading a posting by a `literal` believer. I am still astonished by there narrow minds. But as said above, the minds of many many more (both scientists and creationists) are not much wider!!

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Richard Dawkins is arrogant. He's closed minded and foolish in his style of debate. Being arrogant gets you nowhere.

How is it possible to be open-minded about Creation Science/Intelligent Design? Do you really think Dawkins ought pretend to believe that Creationists are at all reasonable? And if arrogance is an issue, do you really think Dawkins' arrogance is in any way comparable to that of the Creationists?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I believe Richard Dawkins to be the embodiment of arrogant evolutionists. The arrogance of his opponents by no means excuses his arrogance.

Still, one has to wonder why Dawkins' supposed arrogance is what's at issue here. Shouldn't the arrogance of Creationists be condemned at least as strongly? (Actually, even more strongly, since the Creationists are demonstrably wrong.)