Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Fact is A Theory!!!
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/31/08
the fact is A Theory in the science standard is the closest thing you can get to being a fact. For a science Theory has mountains of research, facts, and has yet to fail any form of testing. If it ever failed or been shown to have holes it goes back to the chop block. Hypothesis is an Idea that has yet been proven one way or another. Thats what people keep mistaking theories as.

For those people that like to say its just a theory. Let it be known to you! That a science theory is an explanation for a fact, using research, and mountain of evidence to back it up. If it even fails once through testing, the theory is taken down and removed.
So to say it is just a theory is the same as to say it just never Failed yet no matter how many time people studied and tested it out in a lab.

Scientist Moderator
digs 
35157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08
Well, the fact that something is still a theory means that there is not complete conclusive evidence of the theory or that there are unexplained holes in the theory. Theories are not facts, because if that was so facts wouldn't exist (in that some theories contradict the other, and if both are fact then neither are fact) theories can have wide support or bias in their favor, but it still doesn't make them fact.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

digs wrote:

Well, the fact that something is still a theory means that there is not complete conclusive evidence of the theory or that there are unexplained holes in the theory. Theories are not facts, because if that was so facts wouldn't exist (in that some theories contradict the other, and if both are fact then neither are fact) theories can have wide support or bias in their favor, but it still doesn't make them fact.


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IX1LY-9Y8Tg



Theory is an explanation for a fact.
I hope the Video helps.
I know listening to Scientist talk about it may help you understand better than I could.

Scientist Moderator
digs 
35157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08
But if the fact isn't confirmed then the theory is not valid. I know that theories are valuable, but my point is this. Say the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Neither has been proven, and each has holes and each contradicts the other. The fact is that the universe exists and there is life, but the two theories contradict each other. If both are fact, then neither are fact. Same thing with the hypothesis of global warming (accept this is hypothesis status) There is the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man's carbon emissions, yet there is also a theory that talks about sun cycles and how carbon is absorbed by the oceans and recycled to oxygen by plankton/algae. If both are fact, then neither are fact because they contradict. A theory is merely a hypothesis that has escalated to the experimental stage
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

digs wrote:

But if the fact isn't confirmed then the theory is not valid. I know that theories are valuable, but my point is this. Say the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Neither has been proven, and each has holes and each contradicts the other. The fact is that the universe exists and there is life, but the two theories contradict each other. If both are fact, then neither are fact. Same thing with the hypothesis of global warming (accept this is hypothesis status) There is the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man's carbon emissions, yet there is also a theory that talks about sun cycles and how carbon is absorbed by the oceans and recycled to oxygen by plankton/algae. If both are fact, then neither are fact because they contradict. A theory is merely a hypothesis that has escalated to the experimental stage


There is no "theory of intelligent design". It has no evidence backing it up.
Evolution is backed up with microbe changes as well as the human genome. As natural selection is an undirected process, the evidence of evolution directly disproves intelligent design of life.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
35157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

the_glob wrote:


digs wrote:

But if the fact isn't confirmed then the theory is not valid. I know that theories are valuable, but my point is this. Say the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Neither has been proven, and each has holes and each contradicts the other. The fact is that the universe exists and there is life, but the two theories contradict each other. If both are fact, then neither are fact. Same thing with the hypothesis of global warming (accept this is hypothesis status) There is the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man's carbon emissions, yet there is also a theory that talks about sun cycles and how carbon is absorbed by the oceans and recycled to oxygen by plankton/algae. If both are fact, then neither are fact because they contradict. A theory is merely a hypothesis that has escalated to the experimental stage


There is no "theory of intelligent design". It has no evidence backing it up.
Evolution is backed up with microbe changes as well as the human genome. As natural selection is an undirected process, the evidence of evolution directly disproves intelligent design of life.


It has mounts of evidence and the holes in evolution support it. Evolution is not backed up by much. Have they ever successfully observed an evolution? And for evolution to be correct, it has to start with the fundamental of how the first cell came to be. And even before that, how the universe came to be. Our of all the random chances and scientific laws that would have to be broken, evolution has a lot of explaining and further experimentation to go before it can advance. Scientists even bicker about evolutionary theories within evolution. It's just a propaganda to remove a creator from the aspect of the creation.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

digs wrote:
It has mounts of evidence and the holes in evolution support it. Evolution is not backed up by much. Have they ever successfully observed an evolution? And for evolution to be correct, it has to start with the fundamental of how the first cell came to be. And even before that, how the universe came to be. Our of all the random chances and scientific laws that would have to be broken, evolution has a lot of explaining and further experimentation to go before it can advance. Scientists even bicker about evolutionary theories within evolution. It's just a propaganda to remove a creator from the aspect of the creation.


Then show your evidence.

You are still in the 1900s to think that evolution is "not backed up by much". Even in the 1900s, virus mutation and adaption towards medicines was cataloged and recognized. The human genome project identified the unactivated genome for a tail. There is a project mapping the genome of the chimpanzee that will complete within the next few years. Even though i see that no one is arguing that man is what 6000 years(?) old anymore, The chimpanzee genome project will spell out the similarities and differences between man and monkey thus discrediting more of the intelligent design rubbish

The very fact that you are forced to go back to the primodial soup shows you know your "theory of intelligent design" cannot hold. The history of proponents of intelligent design is littered with false statements that are discarded when they find that evidence is overwhelming (dinosaurs living together with man, earth is 6000 years old, etc). Hold tight to your statement of "first cell", because in another decade, it too will be rubbished
Scientist Moderator
digs 
35157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08 , edited 12/31/08

the_glob wrote:


digs wrote:
It has mounts of evidence and the holes in evolution support it. Evolution is not backed up by much. Have they ever successfully observed an evolution? And for evolution to be correct, it has to start with the fundamental of how the first cell came to be. And even before that, how the universe came to be. Our of all the random chances and scientific laws that would have to be broken, evolution has a lot of explaining and further experimentation to go before it can advance. Scientists even bicker about evolutionary theories within evolution. It's just a propaganda to remove a creator from the aspect of the creation.


Then show your evidence.

You are still in the 1900s to think that evolution is "not backed up by much". Even in the 1900s, virus mutation and adaption towards medicines was cataloged and recognized. The human genome project identified the unactivated genome for a tail. There is a project mapping the genome of the chimpanzee that will complete within the next few years. Even though i see that no one is arguing that man is what 6000 years(?) old anymore, The chimpanzee genome project will spell out the similarities and differences between man and monkey thus discrediting more of the intelligent design rubbish

The very fact that you are forced to go back to the primodial soup shows you know your "theory of intelligent design" cannot hold. The history of proponents of intelligent design is littered with false statements that are discarded when they find that evidence is overwhelming (dinosaurs living together with man, earth is 6000 years old, etc). Hold tight to your statement of "first cell", because in another decade, it too will be rubbished


http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

http://www.icr.org/

Lots of info on these sights. Intelligent design is a theory that is being studied and tested. Evolution has yet to even teach about the holes in the theory or address counter arguments. From a scientific standpoint, both are theories.

The fact that evolution can't explain something so simple as "primordial soup" means that they haven't completely and adequately explained their theory. It had to start somewhere, better start from the beginning so science can understand the present. Going backwards leads to confusion and mass contradictions along the road.

I respectfully as that we not turn this thread into an evolution vs creationism debate. Arguing on the internet doesn't get people many places. I respect your views and above is just some information regarding mine.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

digs wrote:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

http://www.icr.org/

Lots of info on these sights. Intelligent design is a theory that is being studied and tested. Evolution has yet to even teach about the holes in the theory or address counter arguments. From a scientific standpoint, both are theories.


From your link http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
"That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design." So they start off by saying, we have no evidence.

Then SETI is brought out as support that "evidence is not needed, just inference", while not even aware that the man behind SETI admitted in an interview with Discover that he had no idea what the return signals would be like and thus can only hope for the best. So apparently, since a project that is based on "best guess" (and is well aware of that) is operating, intelligent design should also be fine? Massive logic leap, that

Forensics is then brought out as more support that "evidence is not needed, just inference", while incredibly oblivious to the fact that forensics works on evidence (nail, skin, autopsy, cell tests, etc).

There is no evidence of intelligent design at all. The entire thing is a poor attempt to convince people evidence is not needed. That alone has shown you do not have evidence at all.

From your link http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
Jonathan D. Sarfati has advanced degree in chemistry
Walt Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
This is the first standard tactic by creationists. Get someone who has no knowledge, put a Dr. in front of their name and never state their actual major. Perhaps mr Brown could also be a medical doctor in that case.

The second standard tactic is to take things spoken by famous people out of context. eg "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.


digs wrote:
The fact that evolution can't explain something so simple as "primordial soup" means that they haven't completely and adequately explained their theory. It had to start somewhere, better start from the beginning so science can understand the present. Going backwards leads to confusion and mass contradictions along the road.

I respectfully as that we not turn this thread into an evolution vs creationism debate. Arguing on the internet doesn't get people many places. I respect your views and above is just some information regarding mine.


You must be joking. Start from the beginning? Here using your idea, tell me, when you were born, what did you see? Since it was the start of your life, we better "start from the beginning". It must be easier than you remembering what you saw 5 minute ago eh? Ever wonder why science has so many "observations"?

If you do not want people to call you out on your "theory of intellligent design" then i respectfully ask that you do not attempt to spread such ignorance.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/31/08
anybody that uses conservapedia as a source lose the debate automatically
2140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

the fact is A Theory in the science standard is the closest thing you can get to being a fact. For a science Theory has mountains of research, facts, and has yet to fail any form of testing. If it ever failed or been shown to have holes it goes back to the chop block. Hypothesis is an Idea that has yet been proven one way or another. Thats what people keep mistaking theories as.

For those people that like to say its just a theory. Let it be known to you! That a science theory is an explanation for a fact, using research, and mountain of evidence to back it up. If it even fails once through testing, the theory is taken down and removed.
So to say it is just a theory is the same as to say it just never Failed yet no matter how many time people studied and tested it out in a lab.



This thread FAILS at extended discussion.

Is this a topic or a lecture? We have school for stuff like this.
13262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 12/31/08 , edited 12/31/08
a fact is a fact thats why its called a fact can't get any more simpler than that

EDIT: LOL i just rhymed like dr seuss
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 12/31/08 , edited 12/31/08
Well technically, a fact is a near-conclusive interpretation of phenomena after many different observations for some certain cause <-> effect system.
Here is a chart for better understanding:


Name_____|____Probability of it being true__|____Interpretation

Truth_________100%______________________Always true for any instance.

Fact__________99.99999999999%___________True for all practical purposes, I would stake my life on it

Theory________80 - 99%___________________Probably true, but I wouldn't stake my life on it

Hypothesis_____51 - 80%___________________Might be true, not enough information to be conclusive
(The above figures are approximated)

While the conventional understanding of the meaning behind the word fact could be a little distorted, nevertheless we must still live by the guidelines it provides us. As it has provided clarity and efficiency for labors both cognitive and physical, just because we've insinuated doubt into its incorruptible nature, does not mean it should be abolished all-together.
Posted 12/31/08 , edited 12/31/08
All your trying to say is that nothing is ever a fact because when further information is presented it could possibly be proven wrong.

I beg to differ!

The abstract number 1, not given mass, or any sort of unit of measurement combined with another abstract number 1 shall always equate to the abstract number 2.

Even given the event that in some space 1 + 1 = 3 there would have to be a phenomena that would have occurred to allow that to happen. One explainable by some more science.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

dmitsuki wrote:


Actually, I didn't claim nothing is ever a fact. In fact, I claimed many things in the world are facts. I also claimed there are some truths in the world that hold true for all instances. I don't see where you're getting at with your post.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.