Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fact Theory Falacy
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 136 (5447)
02-25-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Mister Pamboli
02-24-2002 2:10 AM


"No TC - that's the infamous list! ;-)"
--Oh IC, so its a matter of opinion is it?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-24-2002 2:10 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 136 (5448)
02-25-2002 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by toff
02-25-2002 2:47 AM


"Ummm...no. Note the request asked for 'famous scientists'. People like Gish, Hovind, et. al. might well be famous, but they're not scientists."
--Refer to previous post, it seems you gave me a definition that simply states is 'well known'. By your logic, the word is extreamly flexible.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by toff, posted 02-25-2002 2:47 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by joz, posted 02-25-2002 10:19 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 128 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 1:52 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 136 (5459)
02-25-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by TrueCreation
02-25-2002 8:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Refer to previous post, it seems you gave me a definition that simply states is 'well known'. By your logic, the word is extreamly flexible.

Famous when applied to scientists refers to giants of their respective fields i.e Nobel prize winners and the like......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by TrueCreation, posted 02-25-2002 8:06 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-25-2002 6:15 PM joz has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 126 of 136 (5493)
02-25-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by joz
02-25-2002 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Famous when applied to scientists refers to giants of their respective fields i.e Nobel prize winners and the like......
Come on guys. Surely we are looking for:
"observably famous" - I can see they are famous by the number of references to them in say "The National Enquirer" or "People."
"falsifiably famous" - I can ask my mother-in-law and if she hasn't heard of them, they are not famous.
"repeatably famous" - they've been in the "National Enquirer" or "People" more than once.
Amazing discussion - I thought the word "scientist" was the one that was going to cause problems! Just goes to show: you never can tell on this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by joz, posted 02-25-2002 10:19 AM joz has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 136 (5504)
02-25-2002 10:26 PM


Like I said, I don't think this question is very important. However, would George Washington Carver count?

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 1:53 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 136 (5510)
02-26-2002 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by TrueCreation
02-25-2002 8:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Ummm...no. Note the request asked for 'famous scientists'. People like Gish, Hovind, et. al. might well be famous, but they're not scientists."
--Refer to previous post, it seems you gave me a definition that simply states is 'well known'. By your logic, the word is extreamly flexible.

I did not give you any such definition. YOU trumpeted off about 'famous scientists' who supported creationism. You queried what the definition of 'famous' was; I told you to check a dictionary. Now, presumably, you know what 'famous scientist' means, yet you still haven't come up with a single name. Instead, you try to play word games. Surprise, surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by TrueCreation, posted 02-25-2002 8:06 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 136 (5511)
02-26-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Cobra_snake
02-25-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Like I said, I don't think this question is very important. However, would George Washington Carver count?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-25-2002 10:26 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 130 of 136 (5526)
02-26-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peter
02-07-2002 10:35 AM


Perhaps we could all go back and read the TOPIC for this thread.
What it means to be famous, I think has largely been covered.
Famous scientists are those who are known outside their
individual fields.
Steven Hawkin is famous.
Einstein is so famous you don't need his first name, just
don't confuse him with the violinist!!
Whether or not any famous ANTHING are of the opinion that YEC
is FACT is irrelevant. It's evidence and the explanation of that
evidence that is needed.
I posted the following a while ago ... and have no idea whether
or not it got read ... but feel it is a complete, or at least
adequate, answer to TC's original question.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Personally I would have thought this was a pretty simple question.
A THEORY is an explanation for the existence of a number of observable
phenomena (FACTS).
Evolution IS a theory ... not a fact. No matter how many observations
of the world support it, it will always be a theory. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth, and as
Darwin's title says the origin of species.
A belief (no matter where it comes from) is NOT fact.
I believe that Evolution is a feasible, well supported explanaiton
for the diversity of life on earth. This is because it plausibly
explains many FACTS which can be observed.
What facts? A couple would be:
Anatomical similarities between ALL vertebrates.
The fossil record (whatever you believe about it fossils DO exist).
I'm not arguing what those facts are at the moment, I'm discussing the nature of FACT and THEORY.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 10:35 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ThingsChange, posted 02-08-2004 9:46 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 131 of 136 (84575)
02-08-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peter
02-26-2002 7:54 AM


More facts...
More facts:
1. DNA Replication does always produce an exact replica
2. Not all portions of DNA is useful to the cell (i.e. "junk" DNA)
3. The timing of DNA is dependent on age of organism (remember Dolly the sheep clone?)
4. Many isolated eco-systems exist with a diversity of life unique to that location
5. Environment change has been observed to affect populations of species
6. Extinction can occur due to environmental change
7. Sedimentary rock formation in a natural setting is a slow process and has not been directly observed either

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 7:54 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 02-08-2004 9:52 PM ThingsChange has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 132 of 136 (84577)
02-08-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ThingsChange
02-08-2004 9:46 PM


Re: More facts...
Nice to have a new person here, Things(you don't mind if I call you things for short do you?).
However, this doesn't seem like the best thread for that post. Perhaps you could open a thread if you think you want to discuss it.
It is also rather hard to get what your point is, you need to offer up some comment. Also I think you left a 'not' out of point 1. It is wrong as worded. Very.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ThingsChange, posted 02-08-2004 9:46 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ThingsChange, posted 02-08-2004 10:15 PM NosyNed has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 133 of 136 (84583)
02-08-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NosyNed
02-08-2004 9:52 PM


Re: More facts...
Nosy,
Yikes! How did the "not" disappear??? Did the "submit reply" replication mutate my wording? (it was an inadvertant demonstration of how much difference a single change could do)
As for pertinence to this thread...
The thread topic is "Facts, Theory,Falacy" and an earlier thread asked for facts, and some were given. The post I was responding to dealt with getting back to the thread. The thread had long wandered off topic (too long IMO).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 02-08-2004 9:52 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 02-08-2004 10:35 PM ThingsChange has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 134 of 136 (84588)
02-08-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ThingsChange
02-08-2004 10:15 PM


Re: More facts...
Uh, this thread got so far off topic that it is hard for you to tell now what it was originally.
The intention was to discuss the problem that some people have with discussing evolution as a theory (how did it happen) and the fact of it happening.
The problem that the non-scientifically aware may have with the scientific meaning of "theory" was the original intent.
So individual facts of the kind you offered up are, IMO, at too low a level of detail to be discussed here.
(at least I think it was ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ThingsChange, posted 02-08-2004 10:15 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ThingsChange, posted 02-12-2004 3:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 135 of 136 (85848)
02-12-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
02-08-2004 10:35 PM


It's Just a Theory
So, here we are at thread number 134 and counting...
If you were to summarize the discussion to date (and what your view is) to give me a simple explanation (not the forum fellow!) to counter the argument of "evolution is just a theory"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 02-08-2004 10:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peter, posted 03-03-2004 2:30 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 136 of 136 (89951)
03-03-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by ThingsChange
02-12-2004 3:17 PM


Re: It's Just a Theory
I don't think that you need to counter that as such.
What you need to say is that 'just a theory' is an
inapproriate way of phrasing the question.
Theories are not fact, they are founded in the interpretation
of facts.
Evolution, as a theory, has a lot of facts which are in favour
of the theory as currently expressed, and few which are against
it. As time goes by, and more is understood, even those
few 'contras' get filled in.
I mean, gravitation is 'just' a theory, but I'm not going to
be stepping off any high ledges just yet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ThingsChange, posted 02-12-2004 3:17 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024