Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

LOL, Kent is as gullible as he is a liar.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Creationists don't claim their theory can be proven by science. Evolution does.

​

---

No, evolutionists don't.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

For some of Dr Hovinds "Truth", http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TC,Induldge me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I am unhappy with the use of the word "fact" to describe evolution.To most people, "fact" means a theory with 0% chance of failure.Gould uses "fact" as having another definition. ie , one that allows for a degree of error. This is not the definition I subscribe to.The problem is, that evolutionists quote "fact" as Goulds usage, when they mean ABSOLUTE INCONTROVERTABLE FACT, though they claim the former. That is to say that, though they use the word "fact" as a lesser definition of "hey, evolution is fact" (though not proven absolutely) , but still mean it to be fact in my original definition. (wipes brow).* Breath deeply * Evolution is a FACT.Consider for a moment. This IS meant to be something as PROVEN without doubt. We all know it isn't.My concern is that the use of the word "fact", as used by others ( Schraf & Moose), is synonymous with the creation "science" usage of "fact", ie. any old bollocks. (pushing guidelines, Percy, I know), when the word "fact", doesn't mean this to most people. Science should use the word as a surgical instrument, not a blunt cudgel.We can hardly chastise Fred Williams for his narrow definition of "new information", when we are as inflexible ourselves.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Schrafinator,Moose,A cudgel is a club.I hear you loud & clear re. your definition of fact. But do the people you are talking to? To most people, fact is an absolute certainty. We gain nothing by changing the definition & then saying evolution is a fact, to people who don't understand it to have that meaning. In fact it puts us back a step, creationists will simply argue we are claiming absolute certainty, & show why it isn't, they can score a point.I'm repeating myself now, but, if we complain that creationists will rigidly apply one definition (new information) to make their point, we can hardly do the same.At the end of the day, it's apples & oranges. There is no harm done provided we define our meanings as Gould did, but there's a world of misunderstanding if we don't. I'm just a bit suspicious of the necessity of using your meaning of fact.Also, are the existance of fossilised organisms 100% fact? There are patterns in rock, that is fact. That they are fossilised organisms is an interpretation of the facts. How can we be 100% sure then, that the fossil record does show evolution when the basic premise isn't absolutely factual? It is a VERY reasonable inference, (99.99% recurring), but thats all.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
Then I want every single school textbook that the kids are learning to say that the theory has never been proven.

​

You know that those books present evolution as proven fact, and that simple isn't true.

​

Until anything is proven fact it's just a belief.

​

[/QUOTE]Firstly, that it is presented as the "theory of evolution", or "evolutionary theory" is indicative that it is not 100% proven. Nothing in science is. I suppose your going to tell me that God isn't represented in church as anything less than absolute Truth to young people?Secondly a belief has no evidential basis, a scientific theory does. God is belief, ToE is scientific theory.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

OK, but to most people, "theory" means "guess", while it means something much different to scienctists. Do you suggest that we have a discussion about scientific theories and not call them theories just because the common usage means "guess"?

​

---

Theory CAN mean guess. Scientific theory means something altogether different to most people, & indeed it is. Perhaps "scientific theory of evolution" would be more accurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

I actually do think we gain something when we use the word "fact" or "theory" properly in a scientific discussion. At the very least, it reveals the relative level of knowledge of the basics of science if the people who we are debating with use the terms incorrectly.

​

---

But at what point do you know you have achieved XX% surety, in order to use your definition of fact? A poorly supported theory may in the end to be absolutely correct, when a highly supported theory is overturned completely. You can not possibly KNOW the relative level of knowledge, so how can you define when to use your definition of fact, to assign it to a scientific theory? It would be wrong to do so.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Creation has scientific basis and religious basis.

​

Evolution just has the belief that it is scientific based.

​

---

People who go to religious schools because their parents make them have God presented as 100% FACT. They also have the THEORY of evolution presented to them.1/ Present evidence that leads to a falsifiable theory of creation. This is required to make it "scientific".2/ Why is evolution not science based?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]

quote:

---

People who go to religious schools because their parents make them have God presented as 100% FACT. They also have the THEORY of evolution presented to them.

​

Then kids should be presented with creation in schools as well.

---

I was. 6 day genesis, resurrection etc. was shoveled down my throat. NO-ONE said it was "theory".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

In school they tried to tell me I came from a rock

---

Actually, I doubt VERY much they did say that, indicating you never listened that hard after all.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
It's not a theory, it's a belief.

​

Did they say it in school where 95% of kids are forced to go to?

​

---

Yup, it wasn't a religious school. 100% of kids were there by law.
God did this, God did that.......not "might" have done.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Joz,It was a a regular, supposedly non-denominational school in Tottenham, north London. I'm not saying every teacher rammed the bible down your throat, they didn't, nor, I suspect was it part of the curricula to the level we saw it. Our head teacher was a bit of a nut, so whenever she covered a class it was always RE, though it was never identified as such. Assemblies etc. always had a bible story with an easily digested moral platitude attached. RE is fine, as long as it is identified as RE. I believed in God until I was 11 years old because I was told that was the Truth, there was no "& muslims believe this".
It was not presented as RE until much later.It was worse than that, Tottenham is an area with a fairly eclectic racial mixture, & everyone got the same dose of christianity.I suspect this would be frowned upon now, but it wasn't that long ago, but then, I'm 34 now, so maybe it was Mark[edited because I can't remember how old I am]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]

Joz,
Good grief! I have family in both Harlow & Tottenham!Small world!Spurs are on their way to Wembley,
The boys are gonna do it again........ Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

They were about 4th (one week only), which is good these days, slipped a bit, about 8th, still better than recent years, though. They even beat Man Utd on goal difference at one point, but alas, didn't last long. As long as Arsenal don't win the league (apologies if you're a Gooner)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.