December 29, 200520 yr Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. Scientific theories are not 100% solid fact. You realise nothing in science is 100% fact? Plenty of things are fact. Things we observe happen. For instance, decompisition is a fact. We can watch it happen. The explanations are not 100% fact, with enough evidence you can change any scientific theory or law. They are not 100% absolute and can be changed, if it wasn't the case new evidence would be ignored. That's exactly what I said below. The explanations are not fact. This isn't what defines it as a scientific theory. Scientific theories are explanations for observed phenomena. Even if you watched apes evolve into humans, you'd still need an explanation therefore it would still be a scientific theory. You're right about that. The point though remains that we were not there to see things evolve, therefore, we do not know it happened. Its speculation.
December 29, 200520 yr That's exactly what I said below. The explanations are not fact. Still doesn't make it "just a theory", its alot more than that. You're right about that. The point though remains that we were not there to see things evolve, therefore, we do not know it happened. Its speculation. Biologists have seen things evolve, just not to the extent creationists demand.
December 29, 200520 yr That's exactly what I said below. The explanations are not fact. Still doesn't make it "just a theory", its alot more than that. Actually, its still a scientific theory. Theories can be developed enough to be taught and accepted - but they are still theories. Look up evolution anywhere - its the "Theory of Evolution." You're right about that. The point though remains that we were not there to see things evolve, therefore, we do not know it happened. Its speculation. Biologists have seen things evolve, just not to the extent creationists demand. No, you are missing the point. Biologists have seen things evolve - yes. But they have no proof that we came to exist through evolution. Just because someone disagrees with humans having evolved from apes doesn't mean they disagree with evolution. The issue isn't whether or not evolution exists or can occur - the issue is that no one was there to know if we actually did come to exist through evolution because no one was there to see it.
December 29, 200520 yr That's exactly what I said below. The explanations are not fact. Still doesn't make it "just a theory", its alot more than that. Actually, its still a scientific theory. Theories can be developed enough to be taught and accepted - but they are still theories. Look up evolution anywhere - its the "Theory of Evolution." Calling it just a theory is saying its nothing more than a theory, which is wrong. Scientific sources will also call it "The Scientific Theory of Evolution", or "modern evolutionary synthesis". You're right about that. The point though remains that we were not there to see things evolve, therefore, we do not know it happened. Its speculation. Biologists have seen things evolve, just not to the extent creationists demand. No, you are missing the point. Biologists have seen things evolve - yes. And humans. But they have no proof that we came to exist through evolution. There is no 100% proof for any scientific claims. They have evidence we are a result of evolution, just as every other animal on earth. The issue isn't whether or not evolution exists or can occur - the issue is that no one was there to know if we actually did come to exist through evolution because no one was there to see it. Seeing a event directly isn't the only form of evidence, evidence is left even if no one was around to see it.
December 29, 200520 yr That's exactly what I said below. The explanations are not fact. Still doesn't make it "just a theory", its alot more than that. Actually, its still a scientific theory. Theories can be developed enough to be taught and accepted - but they are still theories. Look up evolution anywhere - its the "Theory of Evolution." Calling it just a theory is saying its nothing more than a theory, which is wrong. Scientific sources will also call it "The Scientific Theory of Evolution", or "modern evolutionary synthesis". You're right about that. The point though remains that we were not there to see things evolve, therefore, we do not know it happened. Its speculation. Biologists have seen things evolve, just not to the extent creationists demand. No, you are missing the point. Biologists have seen things evolve - yes. And humans. But they have no proof that we came to exist through evolution. There is no 100% proof for any scientific claims. They have evidence we are a result of evolution, just as every other animal on earth. The issue isn't whether or not evolution exists or can occur - the issue is that no one was there to know if we actually did come to exist through evolution because no one was there to see it. Seeing a event directly isn't the only form of evidence, evidence is left even if no one was around to see it. I still don't think you understand. I'm not arguing with any of the points you're making. I agree with you. I am a firm believer in evolution and I understand the scientific world fully. At the same time, I understand that because we weren't there...we have no way of knowing where we came from. It is a mystery that we can create very good scientific theories to explain...but it will always remain a mystery unless we learn how to go back in time.
December 29, 200520 yr At the same time, I understand that because we weren't there...we have no way of knowing where we came from. It is a mystery that we can create very good scientific theories to explain...but it will always remain a mystery unless we learn how to go back in time. We may not have been right there but we have PROOF that it happend. With your logic Star treak and sponge bob could be real because we are there we are also seeing it happen. Nothing is 100%. My post earler was saying how do you even know for sertain that ANYTHING exists for all you know you could have been in a coma since you were 1 day old and this is just a long dream.
December 29, 200520 yr At the same time, I understand that because we weren't there...we have no way of knowing where we came from. It is a mystery that we can create very good scientific theories to explain...but it will always remain a mystery unless we learn how to go back in time. We may not have been right there but we have PROOF that it happend. With your logic Star treak and sponge bob could be real because we are there we are also seeing it happen. Nothing is 100%. My post earler was saying how do you even know for sertain that ANYTHING exists for all you know you could have been in a coma since you were 1 day old and this is just a long dream. We KNOW star trek and spongebob aren't real because they are on the tv and nothing on there is real :) I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam.
December 29, 200520 yr At the same time, I understand that because we weren't there...we have no way of knowing where we came from. It is a mystery that we can create very good scientific theories to explain...but it will always remain a mystery unless we learn how to go back in time. We may not have been right there but we have PROOF that it happend. With your logic Star treak and sponge bob could be real because we are there we are also seeing it happen. Nothing is 100%. My post earler was saying how do you even know for sertain that ANYTHING exists for all you know you could have been in a coma since you were 1 day old and this is just a long dream. We do know things exist. And if you're being serious, then my comment about reading Descartes was serious. I know things exist because I see them happen. You are trying to turn this into a philosophical debate. We could go in depth into epistemology if you want, but I don't think you do. If you want, we can discuss true justified knowledge; we can talk about what is true justification for knowledge. I could bring up the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and we could talk about the difference between your knowledge justified by reason, and my knowledge justified by experience. You know that there is a difference between making very logical assumptions (that I agree with) and seeing something and knowing for a fact that it happened. Example: A man is on the ground next to a building. He is dead and looks as though he was pushed or jumped off. The security cameras in the hallway outside his room doesn't show anyone entering his room beforehand. In his room there is no sign of a struggle. The legal ruling is that he committed suicide (on accident or on purpose). We all accept that as fact and we're fine and dandy. It makes sense right. We have enough proof that that is what happened. Ten years down the road someone admits to killing him. Despite that fact that we thought we had enough proof that the man did it himself, we were wrong. That truth is, we can't know anything for certain unless we witnessed it, and when it comes to the education of our children, I think its important to teach them that the theory of evolution is widely accepted, that we believe it is how we came to be, but its not fact. What is the objection with that?
December 29, 200520 yr Ten years down the road someone admits to killing him. Despite that fact that we thought we had enough proof that the man did it himself, we were wrong. And yet we would still maintain that he had killed himself, because we still have no proof that the guy killed him. Unless the guy has footage of himself killing him, in which case we would have to make sure the footage is legitimate/etc. Only then can we be sure. Hannibal, you speak of paradigm shifts and etc. What's wrong then, with teaching what we currently have the most verifiable data for? Creationism used to make sense, now we have better and more provable ideas- thus we don't teach creationism anymore. Are you saying we should teach the aristotealian ideas and say, even though we have this other theory that works far better and fits far better into our other theories, it still could work. My problem with teaching anything faith-based is that it is faith-based. I'm completely fine with saying "this is another theory, but it's entirely faith-based". But teaching it alongside things like Evolution and Newtonian mechanics seems ludacris at the least.
December 29, 200520 yr Ten years down the road someone admits to killing him. Despite that fact that we thought we had enough proof that the man did it himself, we were wrong. And yet we would still maintain that he had killed himself, because we still have no proof that the guy killed him. Unless the guy has footage of himself killing him, in which case we would have to make sure the footage is legitimate/etc. Only then can we be sure. Hannibal, you speak of paradigm shifts and etc. What's wrong then, with teaching what we currently have the most verifiable data for? Creationism used to make sense, now we have better and more provable ideas- thus we don't teach creationism anymore. Are you saying we should teach the aristotealian ideas and say, even though we have this other theory that works far better and fits far better into our other theories, it still could work. My problem with teaching anything faith-based is that it is faith-based. I'm completely fine with saying "this is another theory, but it's entirely faith-based". But teaching it alongside things like Evolution and Newtonian mechanics seems ludacris at the least. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught - and I don't think that ID should be taught in science class. But it all should be taught as theory. Growing up, I was always taught "we don't know how the dinosaurs died, but here are some possible theories." I don't understand the difficulty in saying "we don't know how we came to be, but there is a very credible theory about evolution and this is how it works."
December 29, 200520 yr My problem with teaching anything faith-based is that it is faith-based. I'm completely fine with saying "this is another theory, but it's entirely faith-based". But teaching it alongside things like Evolution and Newtonian mechanics seems ludacris at the least. Yeah I agree here for the most part, but a lot of religion is not entirely faith-based. A good portion of religion has factual backups. Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
December 29, 200520 yr My problem with teaching anything faith-based is that it is faith-based. I'm completely fine with saying "this is another theory, but it's entirely faith-based". But teaching it alongside things like Evolution and Newtonian mechanics seems ludacris at the least. Yeah I agree here for the most part, but a lot of religion is not entirely faith-based. A good portion of religion has factual backups. The facts to religion are more "these people existed in this place." There are no physical facts that support a belief in God. For instance, I can believe that Jesus was preaching where he was because we know that it happened. But to believe he did miracles or rose from the dead, that is based on faith.
Create an account or sign in to comment