Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No you're clearly wrong again.

Evolution as fact depends on Natural Selection and Genetic Drift.

ahh so your wrong it seems

evolution isnt the fact genetic drift is a fact and natural selection is a fact and evolution binds them together .. wouldnt that binding be infact a thoery?

Natural Selection - came BEFORE the discovery of evolution as fact and is from Darwin's "The Origin of Species, etc".

agreed

Genetic Drift wasn't observed until after the Theory of Evolution either.

so evolution the theory came before 1 of the two facts required your joining up to create evolution the fact

So Evolution wasn't a fact yet. The theory was around before the fact was.

so you admit it evolution = thoery of evolution was around before evolution=fact was possible

by bieng around before genetic drift was known about to science at large

so evolution is a theory not a fact

so your saying the theory of evolution is a fact! and facts cant be theorys thats just absurd

im glad you finally agree your the one thats wrong

[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Read my posts in this thread. I discuss my reasons for not believing it is a fact AND a theory. I will agree with the concept of it being a fact OR a theory though.

Well then you just admitted that I'm right by admitting to the 'or'.
Evolution, depending on the context can mean the theory or the fact.
Evolution is both a theory (1) and a fact (2).

As with anything, context is key.

Atoms. Fact and theory (i.e., atomic theory).

Gravity. Fact and theory (i.e., gravitational theory).

Germs. Fact and theory (i.e., germ theory [of disease]).

Emotion. Fact and theory (e.g., [Schacter-Singer's two factor] theory of emotion).

Evolution. fact and theory (i.e., Evolutionary theory).

Big Bang. Fact and theory? (i.e., big bang theory - great TV comedy as well)

Decision. Fact and theory (i.e., decision theory)

Climate change. Fact and theory? (i.e., climate change theory)

Cell. fact and theory (i.e., cell theory)

Circuit. Fact and theory (i.e., circuit theory)

Emotion is probably the best example, as it is similar to 'evolution' in linguistic structure. Emotion. It is a fact. Emotion. It haz lots of theories.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Well then you just admitted that I'm right by admitting to the 'or'.
Evolution, depending on the context can mean the theory or the fact.
Evolution is both a theory (1) and a fact (2).

As with anything, context is key.

I agree. Except the part where I agreed that OR is the same as AND. I don't agree with that part.

I agree that context is key though.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I agree. Except the part where I agreed that OR is the same as AND. I don't agree with that part.

I agree that context is key though.

but you didnt agree AND and OR are the same, the very deffintions of the word rule out that possability

And
an added condition, stipulation, detail, or particular: He accepted the job, no ands or buts about it.

OR
(used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.

1 connects conditions together, the other seperates them as alternatives

it can be AND or OR but cant be both at the same time

you agreed it isnt fact AND theory

but can be fact OR theory on context, and every example presented has been fact OR theory depending on context

thanks for finally agreeing

evolution is a fact
evolution is a theory
the theory of evolution isnt not a fact

and context as used by 100% of science is the key to the conspiracy that wasnt



[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by B.A.C.



Hey… B.A.C.

I’m going to try and explain this as best as I possibly can.

“Evolution is both fact and theory”

When someone uses the word ” evolution”, they could be meaning one of two definitions separately… but not meaning both definitions at the same time.

For example:

(1) ” Evolution” = observed scientific facts regarding species changes over time.

Or

(2) “Evolution” = “the theory of evolution” (a relaxed informal expression, implying they mean the “theory of evolution” ) (as noobfun has pointed out)


Note:

There is only one way, you would normally describe the (observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time) and that is to use the word “evolution”

There are two ways to describe the “theory of evolution” either by saying “theory of evolution” or by using a more relaxed informal style, by saying, just on it’s own, the word “evolution”

So there are only two possible meanings to the above sentence...either…

(a)“Theory of evolution” is both fact and theory.

Or

(b)”Evolution” is both fact and theory.

Obviously (a) is wrong because the “theory of evolution” is not a fact and also why would they use the word “theory” twice in the same sentence, to explain the same thing twice.

Because the word “evolution”, in this sentence, is taken from a scientific web site (assuming that is where you got it from) and not in a informal setting. I personally would assume the person who wrote the sentence, meant the word “evolution” to mean (observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time) and was not informally meaning it to mean the “theory of evolution”.

So what they are essentially saying, in the said sentence, is that, “Evolution” i.e. observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time, is both a fact and that “Evolution” is also a” theory” i.e. the “theory of evolution”. They are not saying that the theory of evolution is a fact.

Here is one example:

Evolution as theory and fact

Evolution as theory and fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7] This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning.

I will admit, that the sentence is confusing, especially and not just to people who are unscientifically minded, as the first three pages of this thread have proved but on closer inspection it is clear they are not saying that the “theory of evolution” is a fact. I personally don’t think there is a conspiracy, just a slight misunderstanding.




- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


Here's the way I see it:

Cells - fact not theory.
Cell theory - theory not fact.

Atoms - fact not theory.
Atomic theory - theory not fact.

Electricity - fact not theory.
Electromagnetic Theory - theory not fact.

-------

Here's the way you see it:

Cells - fact and theory.

Atoms - fact and theory.

Electricity - fact and theory.

-----------

Now Google "fact and theory" and the only FACT or THEORY to come up will be Evolution or The Theory of Evolution. Only 1 to support your view. My view has more support is all I'm saying.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Now Google "fact and theory" and the only FACT or THEORY to come up will be Evolution or The Theory of Evolution.

i did they ALL differenicate between the two contextual uses you have agreed exist

and make great pains to explain both contexts and how they relate to the word evolution

which you have already agreed can be both fact OR theory

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Now Google "fact and theory" and the only FACT or THEORY to come up will be Evolution or The Theory of Evolution.

i did they ALL differenicate between the two contextual uses you have agreed exist

and make great pains to explain both contexts and how they relate to the word evolution

which you have already agreed can be both fact OR theory

Yup you're right , "fact" OR "theory". A word can have 2 contexts. That's what you say in the above quote.

But we can never speak of "fact" AND "theory" with the same word. Or is this what that quote says? If so, then that quote doesn't say "fact" OR "theory"?

Can you explain this?



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Evolution is a fact and theory the same way that light is a wave and a particle.

And just like how Creationism/Religion is a theory.

Everything is a theory.

I am a theory.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Evolution is a fact and theory the same way that light is a wave and a particle.

And just like how Creationism/Religion is a theory.

Everything is a theory.

I am a theory.

I can see how these words could be related:
light - fact.
wave - fact.
particle - fact.

It's these two entries that bother me:
Evolution - fact.
Theory of Evolution - explanation.

-----------

ID/Creationism - Theory
Religion - Belief. At least to most.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Here's the way I see it:

Cells - fact not theory.
Cell theory - theory not fact.

Atoms - fact not theory.
Atomic theory - theory not fact.

Electricity - fact not theory.
Electromagnetic Theory - theory not fact.

-------

Here's the way you see it:

Cells - fact and theory.

Atoms - fact and theory.

Electricity - fact and theory.

-----------

Now Google "fact and theory" and the only FACT or THEORY to come up will be Evolution or The Theory of Evolution. Only 1 to support your view. My view has more support is all I'm saying.

I understand where you coming from B.A.C.

And your right about the google thing...

I see those examples above the same way you do.

Evolution as theory and fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7] This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways....

Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning....

The above two statements were the most important part of my last post.


I will admit, that the word “evolution” can be meant in two contexts (which is confusing) and in that sense it is fairly unique in science and maybe they should rename it, to make it clearer and avoid any potential ambiguity…but having said that, they are still not stating that the “theory of evolution is a fact”.





- JC

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Joecroft]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Joecroft]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Yup you're right , "fact" OR "theory". A word can have 2 contexts. That's what you say in the above quote.

[ thats also what you agreed and what every link you have supplied has said

fact OR theory depending on context

evolution is a fact OR evolution is a thoery depending on context

as it can be either, itthe word evolution) can be used for both but at seperate times in seperate contexts

as long as they differenciate between when it is fact and when theory as we have been and those links do they dont break the rules

evolution is fact and theory in differing contexts, the and is required to conjoin and display both possible sides of the OR (its still only an OR statement the and is required only for langauge clarity)


"evolution is fact and thoery depending on context"
is a relaxed version of the full statement
"evolution can be a used to describe both fact OR theory depending on context"



[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
ID/Creationism - Theory
Religion - Belief. At least to most.

Sorry, that shall not pass! lol

ID creationism is no scientific theory, and taking your scientific context (i.e., following 'theory of evolution'), I would think you mean it to be so.

ID creationism is a belief or philosophical position. It's not even a scientific hypothesis, as it is untestable and unfalsifiable. YEC Creationism did make testable hypotheses (which have been falsified), and the theistically inclined have made sure not to make that error again, lol.

YEC creationism is now a pseudoscience.

ABE: Suppose if I was desparate for attention, I could start a thread on 'don't let them tell you that Intelligent design creationism is a theory', and we could have 20 pages of discussing terminology and semantics.

Bleugh.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
ID creationism is no scientific theory, and taking your scientific context (i.e., following 'theory of evolution'), I would think you mean it to be so.

ID creationism is a belief or philosophical position. It's not even a scientific hypothesis, as it is untestable and unfalsifiable. YEC Creationism did make testable hypotheses (which have been falsified), and the theistically inclined have made sure not to make that error again, lol.

YEC creationism is now a pseudoscience.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Again, different people have different versions of Creationism.

One view of Creationism is that God created life (Abiogenesis), and then let Evolution take over. This is a theory.

Abiogenesis = Unknown
God = Unknown

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, different people have different versions of Creationism.

One view of Creationism is that God created life (Abiogenesis), and then let Evolution take over. This is a theory.

Abiogenesis = Unknown
God = Unknown

Not in the scientific sense. It is nothing like a theory. It's not even a hypothesis.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, different people have different versions of Creationism.

One view of Creationism is that God created life (Abiogenesis), and then let Evolution take over. This is a theory.

Abiogenesis = Unknown
God = Unknown

Not in the scientific sense. It is nothing like a theory. It's not even a hypothesis.

Abiogenesis is basically the study of how inanimate matter turned into animate matter.

To some Creationists the science of Creationism is Abiogenesis. Or as some of us call it, God.

To other's it is a different thing, for sure.

But if not a Theory it is the Field of Study of something, just like anything in science.

Not to all Creationists, but definitely to some.

As the Field of Study of Abiogenesis gathers more and more facts to add to the field.

So too will some people's Creationism be added to.

With those same facts. Leading both Fields of Study back to the singularity, what you call Abiogenesis, or what I call God.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by melatonin


Oh you're right. My bad. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and shown the same result. Mm. I don't think miracles count towards that.

I meant, personally, religion could be a theory as in, hey it COULD be true type of theory. Not scientific theory.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
But if not a Theory it is the Field of Study of something, just like anything in science.

It's not science.

Suppose some mighty brainbox might eventually formulate it in such a way to make it passable science. But no-one has so far.

With those same facts. Leading both Fields of Study back to the singularity, what you call Abiogenesis, or what I call God.

Sounds great. I'm sure it fulfills a purpose and provides meaning for you.

Originally posted by melatonin
Suppose some mighty brainbox might eventually formulate it in such a way to make it passable science. But no-one has so far.

No luck so far. Soon I bet, but not yet. Too much bias in Science to accept such a theory.

Originally posted by melatonin
Sounds great. I'm sure it fulfills a purpose and provides meaning for you.

No more purpose than it provides for the Scientist studying Abiogenesis.