[Xei]

A linguist who can't use a dictionary, that's an interesting one.

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Ah, ok so scientists manipulate the meaning of the word 'theory' to suit themselves? You're talking to a linguist by the way anime http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/...ogy-of-theory/
Theories are used to explain possible reasons behind how gravity works. Otherwise they cease to be mere theories and become facts.
If science doesn't deal with 'proof' then why do so many scientist insist they know absolutely everything as if they had irrefutable proof? And don't start on the semantics of the word proof...

Did you just ask someone to elaborate on what they meant by 'proof' without allowing them to define what they meant by 'proof'? This being a contradiction aside, it suggests that you have a very narrow grasp of how language works, which is unfortunate for your prospects as a linguist.

[Crystalle]

(Original post by Xei)
A linguist who can't use a dictionary, that's an interesting one.

Where are you getting that idea Xei?

[amime]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Ah, ok so scientists manipulate the meaning of the word 'theory' to suit themselves? You're talking to a linguist by the way anime http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/...ogy-of-theory/
Theories are used to explain possible reasons behind how gravity works. Otherwise they cease to be mere theories and become facts.
If science doesn't deal with 'proof' then why do so many scientist insist they know absolutely everything as if they had irrefutable proof? And don't start on the semantics of the word proof...

In science Theories don't suddenly become facts. That is not how it works. A theory stays a theory no matter how much evidence is pointed at it.

Scientists know they don't know everything... otherwise, they'd stop working.

[Xei]

Well for some reason you consulted an etymology page instead of looking up the definition.

If you looked up the definition of theory in scientific parlance you would of found it simply means a broad conceptual structure which is extremely well empirically established.

It does not mean a 'guess about how something works'.

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Somethingundecided)
I didn't say it was untrue because there was a debate. But if it were a 100% valid truth, there wouldn't be a debate, would there?

'I didn't say that it was untrue because there was a debate, but if it were true there would be no debate'.

Sweet Jesus. This is a direct contradiction. You have proclaimed something to be simultaneously both true and false. If you cannot see how ridiculous your statement is, you have no place discussing anything even vaguely related to science.

With respect to your second sentence, I would like to direct you to the Mathematics forum where you will find a number of threads in which people debate whether 0.9 recurring is equal to 1. It is a '100% valid truth' (that is to say, absolutely true) that the two are equal, it is beyond dispute, and yet there is a debate. If offer this suggestion as a counterexample to your statement that a debate on something implies it is not true but in hindsight this is a futile exercise since the concept of a counterexample is beyond anyone who can possibly take the statement I quoted seriously.

[Crystalle]

(Original post by Bobifier)
Did you just ask someone to elaborate on what they meant by 'proof' without allowing them to define what they meant by 'proof'? This being a contradiction aside, it suggests that you have a very narrow grasp of how language works, which is unfortunate for your prospects as a linguist.

Changing the meaning of a word to suit an argument is not ok. Proof means proof and theory means theory. Theory does not mean fact, as illustrated by its etymology, and commonly held meaning. Proof tends to suggest irrefutable evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Give that link I provided another quick read....

[Crystalle]

(Original post by amime)
In science Theories don't suddenly become facts. That is not how it works. A theory stays a theory no matter how much evidence is pointed at it.

Scientists know they don't know everything... otherwise, they'd stop working.

Then why are there so many so-called scientists on this page assuming they do know everything, to the point that they insult those who disagree with them, and that theories are solid explanations?!

[Crystalle]

(Original post by Xei)
Well for some reason you consulted an etymology page instead of looking up the definition.

If you looked up the definition of theory in scientific parlance you would of found it simply means a broad conceptual structure which is extremely well empirically established.

It does not mean a 'guess about how something works'.

Mate, it's 2am. And I looked up the etymology because sometimes the original meaning of a word can have a bearing on its accepted meaning in some fields. That's what makes me a linguist sweetie - I go beyond the dictionaries!

[amime]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Then why are there so many so-called scientists on this page assuming they do know everything, to the point that they insult those who disagree with them, and that theories are solid explanations?!

Because when something has so much evidence going for it, some would say that it is idiotic/insult worthy when they disagree with it. Especially when the reason they don't believe in the evidence because of their Faith.

Now you're a linguist, so you should know that Faith means:

Noun:
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

rather than proof.

rather than proof.

If you are going against evidence based on faith, you are in my books an idiot. Sorry if this offends you.

[Crystalle]

(Original post by amime)
In science Theories don't suddenly become facts. That is not how it works. A theory stays a theory no matter how much evidence is pointed at it.

Scientists know they don't know everything... otherwise, they'd stop working.

This is what you said anime (my underlines): 'The term theory is use to describe how the fact of evolution works.... Not whether evolution occurs.
This can be applied to many other Scientific theories. Gravity is a fact, Theories are used to explain how gravity works.'
I would correct that to say 'describe how evolution might work' As it is a theory right? Based on you most recent post, it seems we are indeed on the same page about the meaning of the term theory anyhow!

[bunchlead]

A great debate too be had here girls and boys. I ask for decency when I respond to the OP as I come to try and offer why someone may not fully agree with Evolution in the strictest sense. reason someone may not except (blind) evolution is the fact the universe and nature are so amazingly complicated. Even scientist admit that life and the existence of our universe are a miracle. We all know that if the big bang had not of had the right ingredients (inflation theory etc) then the universe would not of come into being. When you look at life on Earth many people as do scientist marvel at the complexity of life, ie from the design of a birds wings for flight or the complexity of the brain to the amazing design of the eye. So even scientist admit that life is one big miracle, infact when you add virtually everything together its billions of miracles within a miracle. So on the aforementioned comments many of people just cannot accept a blind process creating such beauty and intricate designs.

Now the prevailing attitude of the general public is that people of science are atheist, this is of course very untrue. Many scientist believe in creation by a god, if my facts still serve me right a good 30-40% of scientist are spiritual, religious.

Now I do believe in a god but also believe in evolution. I and others call it creative evolution. Not just what we see on Earth but from the big bang onwards, how everything was just right to bring about everything we see.

The God v evolution/atheism debate has raged for a good several hundred years, especially with the advent of Charles Darwin and his famous book The Origin Of The Species. Sadly however this debate cannot be won at this present time as human understanding is not at a point to make a conclusive decision one way or the other.

I have not come on here to try and prove I am right, I am on here because the OP asked how can people not believe in Evolution. Well like I was saying many dont believe in blind evolution , but in creative evolution we believe. I hope you can appreciate a little! why some people take a religious view on the amazing universe in which we live. Hope I have not upset anyone and in the interests of fair debate I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, however I have not come on here to fight and abuse or too be abused by anyone. Thanks guys for a great and interesting debate.

[Crystalle]

(Original post by amime)
Because when something has so much evidence going for it, some would say that it is idiotic/insult worthy when they disagree with it. Especially when the reason they don't believe in the evidence because of their Faith.

Now you're a linguist, so you should know that Faith means:

Noun:
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

rather than proof.

rather than proof.

If you are going against evidence based on faith, you are in my books an idiot. Sorry if this offends you.

Who said anything about faith? I'm agnostic! And why did you need to put these words in such large letters and so many times?
As for evidence. Evidence remains human evidence. Tiny human evidence on a tiny planet in a vast universe. We can barely see beyond the end of our noses.
So I take the phrase 'scientific evidence' with a pinch of salt, just as I do 'blind faith'. I hope you can understand that.
I'm not unscientific - I was in top set throughout school for science and tended to be a straight A student. I just don't have my head so far up my own arse that I believe I know everything based on what my tiny, fallible human eyes see. And that people who have what they feel to have been spiritual experiences are all idiots.
I think we make our own decisions about what we personally believe based on our fallible human perceptions and that's all there is to it.

[Xei]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Then why are there so many so-called scientists on this page assuming they do know everything

You seem like a nice guy but honestly, this just comes across as petulant whining.

Nobody is claiming they 'know everything'. They just know about the unequivocal evidence about this specific issue. That's not arrogance, it's just having knowledge, and the people who deny it exists are just that; in denial.

[amime]

(Original post by Crystalle)
This is what you said anime (my underlines): 'The term theory is use to describe how the fact of evolution works.... Not whether evolution occurs.
This can be applied to many other Scientific theories. Gravity is a fact, Theories are used to explain how gravity works.'
I would correct that to say 'describe how evolution might work' As it is a theory right? Based on you most recent post, it seems we are indeed on the same page about the meaning of the term theory anyhow!

Not sure I get your point.

There are 'two' things we're talking about here.

There is evolution. This is undeniable.
"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations". There is no denying that biological populations change over time. It is the reason you might inherit some things from your mum/dad and why antibiotics work.

Then there is 'The theory of evolution'.
The theory is used to explain why evolution occurs and how it occurs. I.e natural selection etc.

[Deeksie]

"Survival of the fittest" or as I like to call it: "things that are more likely to survive, will probably survive." It seems obvious to me that this is true, and therefore that survival of the fittest (basically evolution) is occurring right now.

I expect if the basic theory of evolution was explained like this everyone would believe it is currently happening; it's practically an axiom. I think the real question is "did everything biological come to exist through the process of evolution?" I try not to pick sides, as in my opinion there is very little discussion between those who say "yes" and those who say "no." Instead most conversations on this topic are not conversations at all, but shouting matches. Each person assuming the other to be stupid, brainwashed, dogmatic, illogical, closed minded, angry, a zealot, mislead, poorly informed etc.

I think therefore that a better question to ask first is "why does this shouting match exist?"

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Changing the meaning of a word to suit an argument is not ok. Proof means proof and theory means theory. Theory does not mean fact, as illustrated by its etymology, and commonly held meaning. Proof tends to suggest irrefutable evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Give that link I provided another quick read....

I would wittily remark that you should give that post I provided another quick read (thus turning your words against you) but this would be a misplacement of the word 'another' since it appears you never even bothered to read my post in the first place. I say it appears thusly because it only made one point, and yet you have first managed to completely ignore this point, and second convinced yourself that I made a completely different point, responding to that instead. I'm sure your definitions of the words are lovely. I'm sure your etymology page says wonderful things about where they came from. However, I never actually questioned any of these things.

Please, if you're going to enter into discussion with me, at least bother to read what I have to say. Otherwise the entire exercise will be somewhat futile.

[Crystalle]

(Original post by Bobifier)
I would wittily remark that you should give that post I provided another quick read (thus turning your words against you) but this would be a misplacement of the word 'another' since it appears you never even bothered to read my post in the first place. I say it appears thusly because it only made one point, and yet you have first managed to completely ignore this point, and second convinced yourself that I made a completely different point, responding to that instead. I'm sure your definitions of the words are lovely. I'm sure your etymology page says wonderful things about where they came from. However, I never actually questioned any of these things.

Please, if you're going to enter into discussion with me, at least bother to read what I have to say. Otherwise the entire exercise will be somewhat futile.

Bobifier I've looked at your previous posts on other threads and it seems you have a habit of being deliberately inflammatory towards other people. So from this post on I shall disengage.

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Crystalle)
Who said anything about faith? I'm agnostic! And why did you need to put these words in such large letters and so many times?
As for evidence. Evidence remains human evidence. Tiny human evidence on a tiny planet in a vast universe. We can barely see beyond the end of our noses.
So I take the phrase 'scientific evidence' with a pinch of salt, just as I do 'blind faith'. I hope you can understand that.
I'm not unscientific - I was in top set throughout school for science and tended to be a straight A student. I just don't have my head so far up my own arse that I believe I know everything based on what my tiny, fallible human eyes see. And that people who have what they feel to have been spiritual experiences are all idiots.
I think we make our own decisions about what we personally believe based on our fallible human perceptions and that's all there is to it.

Congratulations you. I see now that you have undergone the most rigorous of all scientific trainings.

That was sarcastic. Your post is a prime example of why being in the top set in no way correlates with actually being intelligent. Specifically, I infer from your use of being in the top set as evidence that you have no actual experience of science (GCSE does not count), which would explain why you don't understand the strength of scientific evidence. Specifically, you have failed to appreciate that regardless of the size of the universe and of our position in it, physics has always been locally consistent to us. This is something nobody will dispute unless they are from Texas. Since we are discussing evolution purely on a local basis, it seems irrelevant how big the rest of the universe is. Can you in any way justify your claim that the size of the universe somehow implies a weakness in our scientific evidence? Don't worry, I already know you can't

[Crystalle]

(Original post by amime)
I brought faith into it because that is the most common reason as to why people reject Evolution.

I can totally see that, you just seemed to be assuming that about me with that post! For some people who do have a religious or spiritual faith though you know, their personal experiences serve as very strong evidence for them, and for many these experiences feels so real that they are life changing. So for some, not all evidence needs to be solid and physically apparent for it to hold value. Maybe for scientists it does, but for the general populaton I think evidence can be a very subjective thing.