0 members (),
289
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Of course it confirms the theory. Confirmation is not proof. Look at definition 2 at http://m-w.com/dictionary/confirm
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Originally posted by trilobyte: samwik posted: Well, sorry, guess my point is that science is always ready to see old "facts" explained away by some new "facts." ...and if that is true, then were these ever really "facts?"
It's time to once again change your "facts". For example T-Rex soft tissue was found...we all know soft tissue can't last for 65+ MY's...so it is obvious the dinosaurs went extinct recently....time to change your "facts" Hiya trilobyte, you brought up the word FACT first; and I was asking you a question about your use of the word when I quoted your, ?Speculative assumptions is passed as FACT.? You then quoted my sentence [above] talking about ?facts,? but that sentence only introduced my next 2 sentences: ?As you use "FACT," I think you're referring to "reality." When science uses "fact," they mean a basic idea or observation that hasn't been refuted (despite many attempts), YET. ?samwik I guess I didn?t ask that in the form of a question, but by saying, ?I think you?re referring to?.? I?m asking for any correction. So, do you agree that the word fact gets used differently? ~Samore semantics P.S. As for finding 65Mya soft tissue, I?d argue the ?fact? that soft tissue can?t last that long, needs to be thrown out (or at least looked into). P.P.S. I'm gonna go look up confirm & confirmation now. Thanks, ~S
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
TFF, can you edit your fish fossil link (put in a "hard return" halfway along) to see if this page gets back to regular size? Maybe it's just my computer, but.... Thanks, ~Samwik
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
That's the fact; now to confirm. TFF, I thought I'd written that all for nought, but....
I think a scientist should use the word ?verify? instead of ?confirm? when talking about a theory. Verify was on the list of synonyms from that dictionary link and it seemed the most appropriate. Confirm #2 (strengthen) seems like a pretty rare usage to me. Confirm #4 (remove doubt)(& my dictionary says -prove) seems more common, and that is how I was using it above in saying something can ?confirm a prediction,? but not a theory.
As soilguy pointed out, ?The TOE is a useful theory because its predictions are accurate.?
So far?.
~samwik
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Scientists know the meaning of the words they use. It is not for them to dumb down the language for the laypublic.
Rather it is for the laypublic to stop relishing their willful ignorance.
When the person that discovers a new antibiotic is honored as much as a sports hero then society will have taken the first step toward demonstrating what is most important.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
To continue the discussion, I just want to make sure we're using the same definitions for these fundamental words. ~samantics
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
Trilobyte. Could you please inform us precisely where where you believe there is a missing link on the evolutionary line between apes and humans.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
DA wrote:
When the person that discovers a new antibiotic is honored as much as a sports hero then society will have taken the first step toward demonstrating what is most important.
Agreed. But my favourite from Dean Swift:
And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.
Soilguy. You know why the page got wider? Evolution.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand: Trilobyte. Could you please inform us precisely where where you believe there is a missing link on the evolutionary line between apes and humans. Terry, Terry, Terry. Over the years of arguing with members of the He-man Science-haters Club, it dawned on me that every transitional fossil found to fill a "gap" in the fossil record actually opens up two NEW gaps -- one on either side of the latest transitional fossil find.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by trilobyte: What the similar genomes tells us is that a common creator used common "part" when the creator made the different kinds. But creationism doesn't predict that. It predicts nothing. If the genomes of similar looking creatures were very different from each other, that would "satisfy" creationism just as much as similar genomes. This is how creationism fails as a scientific hypothesis. It cannot be refuted. On the other hand, evolution WOULD be refuted if the genomes of similar creatures were very different.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Terry ... soilguy is correct. I too have pointed this fact out in this forum. But I still think your question has value as TB has no answer.
But I think, far better, is to stop feeding the troll. Perhaps then he will crawl back under his rock.
Too bad the moderators don't see their job as one of promoting science rather than just being the "nice" police.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
No, please keep this thread. After we understand the definitions of words like ?facts,? I?m expecting to talk about science?s place in the grand scheme of things. Any thoughts on that #5 definition?
back to fact: the dictionary link above provides an answer:
#5 : ?a piece of information presented as having objective reality?
is how science speaks of facts that form the foundation of a theory.
vs.
#3 : ?the quality of being actual? #4 a : ?something that has actual existence? #4 b : ?an actual occurrence?
which are the common usages; as well as being used scientifically (as when observations are made, results gathered, etc.) to lend support or falsify a theory.
To me the phrase ?information presented as? is the key. This is the kind of ?fact? (fundamental), upon which a theory is based. It?d probably be better to use the word assumption, but that sounds too weak; maybe ?founding assumption? would better describe it.
Hopefully, ~Samwik?
P.S. see my link on the quotes thread? ....the LUCKY 9%!
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
The word "FACT" can be quite easily quantified.
When the value attributed to the fact is objectively the same for everyone, for example the temperature at which water melts, or the wavelength of radiation given off by a piece of iron at 2475.8 degrees Celsius ... then it is scientific fact.
When the answer requires having a specific belief system, culture, nationality, personal saviour, guru, or whatever ... it is at best a datum.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: You've never heard of archaeopteryx?
Oh I have heard of archaeopteryx...but do you have any kind of proof that it actually is an in-between? basically all you have is several fossils...and a very large assumption. Where is your proof that requires no speculation?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179 |
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand: Trilobyte. Could you please inform us precisely where where you believe there is a missing link on the evolutionary line between apes and humans. Did you ever see the evidence you guys present? Sheeze, most of the fossils are FRAGMENTED skull caps, jaw bones and a few teeth. The rest is bias, speculative assumption and plaster of paris passed off as FACT.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Oh trilobyte, I'm glad to see you back; I'm so hoping you'll read back and answer my question about the dictionary definitions of the word "FACT." I think it starts on page 2. Please? Thanks, ~samwik
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179 |
samwik...why don't you post the FACTS rather tha trying to derail the subject and talking about the meaning of facts?
It's amazing how you evos work when your lost.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310 |
G'day Sam,
Off Topic Somewhat
I read through this thread and am a bit of a loss to see how it relates to your query about Global Warming.
My old science teacher said nothing could be proven to a certainty. Philosophy suggests that you can only prove one thing "That I think". Not that anyone else thinks, just that you can prove that you think.
But science makes some basic assumptions. A line and a point can meet only once or not at all. Parallel lines never meet.
But there are a number of theories that have fairly overwhelming evidence in support of them and it is funny that the word "theory" seems to get used to suggest that the theory may not be valid or a "fact" within the limits of human thought.
The earth revolves around the sun. Maybe it doesn't but the evidence is overwhelming that it does. Is that a fact or a theory. Probably more importantly, is it a theory that can be currently challenged based on the evidence or body of knowledge that currently exists.
I always love evolution arguments because the "theory" doesn't conform to the bible or other religious texts. You end up with the arguments such as "How long was the first day?", "Who were Cain and Abel's wives?". Fun but irrelevent. Take out the religious arguments and what is the counter argument to evolution?
I remember a fundamentalist preacher that said that the chance of man being evolved from single cell organisms was the same as blowing up a junk yard and creating a fully functual jumbo jet. He even had a very very large number that he used against this happening. Me, I don't believe that there is any chance at all of blowing up a junk yard and creating a jumbo jet. It is not an incredibly unlikely event. It is just not possible. But the fact that life may have been extremely long odds just means that we beat those odds. Nice thought, if you ask me. I also rather like the thought that Einstein suggested that in an infinite universe with infinite alternative universes then any finite probability must occur, an infinite number of times. The less likely the probability the longer the frequency between the occurrences but otherwise it is still infinite. Doesn't sit all that well with the big bang theory but you can't have everything.
Fossils are incredibly rare. That sounds strange considering that I live in an area where I can find marine fossils in my backyard. But the rarity is not related to the fact that fossils can be found all over the place, only that fossils only manage to be created in exceptional circumstances and that they last is fairly amazing in itself.
So that rarity means there are huge gaps in the records. Fossils or impressions that include such things as skin or feathers are rarer still. The gaps do not "prove" that evolution theory is defective, only the nature of how fossils are formed and just how rare they are.
There are several fossils of dinosaurs that are birds or birds that are dinosaurs, most from China. There are creatures that have feathers and glide and there are creatures that don't have feathers but fly. There are often gaps in fossil records in the tens of millions of years. So?
Evolution may be called a theory but it has a huge body of evidence that supports it. Arguments in the detail of what was around and when are not the same as arguments that throw any doubt on the theory itself.
More two cents worth, probably worth less than two cents, but hey this is purely an opinion forum where not science is going to be able to establish that God exists or doesn't exist. Faith, is the belief in something in the absence of absolute proof. That's what makes it faith.
Regards
Richard
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Oh please, could you take the time to read back over this thread and look at the different definitions for the word, "fact." My comments point to a big difference in the way the word can be used.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this; do you see the difference also?
With that understood, I could respond to your most recent post re: "...post the FACTS..."
Still hopeful, ~samwik
P.S. I'd also like to hear from everyone else about this difference! Am I the only one who see a difference? ~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
"Where is your proof that requires no speculation?"
No proof is needed - and it was not a "speculation," but a PREDICTION. Anatomists had already guessed that birds and reptiles were related. Evolutionists predicted that, if the two were indeed related, that there would be a species that had characters common to both. Lo and behold, we discover Archy - as well as others.
|
|
|
|
|