Evolution a proven fact!

[JerryL]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to exploit your use of terminology, I just couldn't think of any other way to catagorize it

Apologies if I came across as accusing you of doing so. I was merely very worried you might. It's a common pitfall, and I wanted to avoid it before it happend.

Obviously I could not think of a better way to say it either, or I would have

 

[Mike182]

That's fine with me, because there really is nothing that is 100% proof.

what?

i don't agree with this, but first we must define proof.

1) i make a statement, for this instance, i will take the statement "a square has four sides"

2) we can analyse a statement synthetically and analytically:

2.a) a synthetic statement is judged true or false based on experience of reality.

2.b) an analytic statement is known to be either true or false based on the statements relation to the object - to accept/deny the statement would be to contradict the object.

3) the statement in 1) can be studied analytically, if we deny that a square has four sides, we are contradicting the definition of a square, therefor we have 100% proof that a square must have four sides, in order for it to be a square.

you idea that we can never have 100% proof is flawwed

 

[Yerda]

3) the statement in 1) can be studied analytically, if we deny that a square has four sides, we are contradicting the definition of a square, therefor we have 100% proof that a square must have four sides, in order for it to be a square.

Then you have nothing but mere tautology. That tells us nothing about the empirical world except our determination to use the symbol 'square' as meaning four-sided (two-dimensional) shape.

 

[Mike182]

Then you have nothing but mere tautology. That tells us nothing about the empirical world except our determination to use the symbol 'square' as meaning four-sided (two-dimensional) shape.

that was an example of how a statement could be proved true, we must accept that for a square to be a square, it must have four sides, otherwise it is not a square - i was not saying that this is the only way to prove something true, maybe in my last post i should have gone a step further and showed how i would apply either synthetic or analytic testing to evolution.

if we have (i don't know if we have or not...) bone structures of animals before, during, and after evolution, to deny evolution would contradict our findings, thus it would be proof.

my quarrel here is with this statement:

there really is nothing that is 100% proof.

 

[Yerda]

if we have (i don't know if we have or not...) bone structures of animals before, during, and after evolution, to deny evolution would contradict our findings, thus it would be proof.

Sorry, I'm not following. It would deny evolution by definition, is that what youare saying?

my quarrel here is with this statement:

there really is nothing that is 100% proof.

I see. I personally took his/her meaning to be that things in the real world can't be conclusively verified. A bit too much reading between the lines perhaps.

 

[Mike182]

Sorry, I'm not following. It would deny evolution by definition, is that what youare saying?

no, to deny that this evidence goes towards proving evolution is wrong

I see. I personally took his/her meaning to be that things in the real world can't be conclusively verified. A bit too much reading between the lines perhaps.

i took the statement at face value, and disagreed with it

 

[Yerda]

no, to deny that this evidence goes towards proving evolution is wrong

I think you have to run that by me again, man. I'm not followin.

 

[waacman]

no, to deny that this evidence goes towards proving evolution is wrong

wow, you took my arguement all the way to semantics

I think i understand what your trying to say. You mean if I say that you can't prove anything, then there wouldn't be any evidence towards a proof of something?

 

[rocketman]

I've never been to Australia, but I believe that it exists. Where would Neighbours come from???

You're more than welcome to come down and visit!

But don't go looking for the real Ramsey Street because despite the proven appearance on the screen, it's fake.

Ooops, apologies to our American cousins and others who haven't heard of the Neighbours TV show.

 

[Mike182]

I think you have to run that by me again, man. I'm not followin.

i'm supporting proof for evolution, despite the fact that we haven't seen it first hand :hug:

 

[Ryan2065]

The idea that we cannot prove anything 100% deals with the physical world, not our pre-defined words. Square is a word that we came up with and we defined it, so to prove that the word square means 4 sides is pretty redundant.

That being said, we cannot be 100% sure that anything in the universe is a square. Hear me out... If we were to look at the square on a microscopic level the angles of the square might not be 90 degrees... All it takes is one angle being 90.0000000000000000000000000001 degrees for the object to no longer be a square. There also might be a bend in one of the sides that is not visible to the naked eye, but would technically make the "square" a pentagon.

There are always other examples. You cannot prove 100% that you are sitting in your chair right now. If we again look on a microscopic level there would be tiny spaces between the atoms of your clothes and the atoms of the chair. Then again to say you are not sitting on a chair cannot be proven 100% either because we only have a limited range of senses and they themselves are not exact. We could very well be misreading what we are seeing...

 

[JerryL]

That being said, we cannot be 100% sure that anything in the universe is a square. Hear me out... If we were to look at the square on a microscopic level the angles of the square might not be 90 degrees... All it takes is one angle being 90.0000000000000000000000000001 degrees for the object to no longer be a square. There also might be a bend in one of the sides that is not visible to the naked eye, but would technically make the "square" a pentagon.

But can we prove that it's not a triangle?

 

[Ryan2065]

But can we prove that it's not a triangle?

Well triangles are two dimensional so the object has thickness therefore it is not a triangle

 

[JerryL]

You are 100% certain? It's completely proven?

 

[BUDDY]

Gravity is also a theory... I don't see you questioning that. Google the scientific definition of theory and you will find that theory pretty much means *fact*

Incorrect.

the‧o‧ry  /ˈθi

ə

ri, ˈθɪər

i/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6.contemplation or speculation. 7.guess or conjecture.

There is a distinct difference between calling something a theory and calling it a fact. You can look at loads of evidence that supports the theory, but the only way to turn the theory into fact is to recreate the environmental attributes that would have been present and experiment. Since this is impossible to do, evolution will remain a theory and not a fact. Creation and ID aren't even theories becaue they do not present any physical testible evidence in order to support a scientific theoretical proposition. So from the perspective of science, evolution still remains the most plausible theory to the progression of life.

However, I am still a creationist....go figure.

 

[Sunstone]

oh, its acceptable, but not for proof

Proof is relevant to mathematics, alcohol and logic, but it doesn't have much to do with science or your life, unless you're an mathematician, alcoholic, or logician. You couldn't even live an ordinary life if you required "proof" of events, for most events (perhaps even all events) cannot be proven to the same degree that a theorum can be proven in mathematics.

But you could live a more or less ordinary life if you all you required to believe something was that the evidence for it lived up to scientific scrutiny.

Some creationists like to make a big deal of the notion there is no proof of evolution. Well, there is no proof that you are your parent's child, either, but no doubt the weight of evidence strongly suggests that you are, in fact, your parent's child.

 

[YamiB.]

Incorrect.

the‧o‧ry  /ˈθi

ə

ri, ˈθɪər

i/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6.contemplation or speculation. 7.guess or conjecture.

There is a distinct difference between calling something a theory and calling it a fact. You can look at loads of evidence that supports the theory, but the only way to turn the theory into fact is to recreate the environmental attributes that would have been present and experiment. Since this is impossible to do, evolution will remain a theory and not a fact. Creation and ID aren't even theories becaue they do not present any physical testible evidence in order to support a scientific theoretical proposition. So from the perspective of science, evolution still remains the most plausible theory to the progression of life.

However, I am still a creationist....go figure.

You were told to look for the Scientific definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

Evolution has been proven. Ignoring it just seems being willfully ignorant to me.

 

[Yerda]

Evolution has been proven.

In science nothing is proven.

Ignoring it just seems being willfully ignorant to me.

I agree.

 

[Sunstone]

Evolution has been proven. Ignoring it just seems being willfully ignorant to me.

I don't want to put words in Buddy's mouth, but I think his position is a little more sophisticated than that of the average creationist. At least so far as I can tell, he's not arguing that the weight of evidence fails to support the Theory of Evolution. Instead, he's arguing that despite the fact the weight of evidence supports evolution, he remains a creationist. That's not willful ignorance. It's a legitimate position.

 

[YamiB.]

I don't want to put words in Buddy's mouth, but I think his position is a little more sophisticated than that of the average creationist. At least so far as I can tell, he's not arguing that the weight of evidence fails to support the Theory of Evolution. Instead, he's arguing that despite the fact the weight of evidence supports evolution, he remains a creationist. That's not willful ignorance. It's a legitimate position.

I'll admit that I don't know his position well. It seems to be willful ignorance to me to acknowledge that there is evidence, but to ignore it. If they denied the evidence then I would just consider it regular evidence. There are plenty of ways to reconcile faith with Evolution. To simply continuing following Creationism seems nothing short of ignorance to me.