Isn't the earth 6000 years old?

No, you are wrong. In the world of science, a theory can't go farther than a theory, ever. Yes, it may be taken up and used as a widely known fact, but it is still just a theory. It's like traditional versus relative physics. They were accepted as fact before the theory of relativity was invented, but when it was, it disproved the theories of traditional physics, and now they are, technically, false. The theory of evolution may be a fact, but it still isn't more than a theory. Learn your stuff.

Quote from: Wendigo on August 17, 2008, 08:49:44 AM

No, you are wrong. In the world of science, a theory can't go farther than a theory, ever. Yes, it may be taken up and used as a widely known fact, but it is still just a theory. It's like traditional versus relative physics. They were accepted as fact before the theory of relativity was invented, but when it was, it disproved the theories of traditional physics, and now they are, technically, false. The theory of evolution may be a fact, but it still isn't more than a theory. Learn your stuff.

Yes, even after a theory has been proven over and over again through various means, like in the case of Evolution, it will still be a theory. But that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Evolution is both theory and fact.

Theory is still a theory, but taken as fact, yes.

No, you are wrong. In the world of science, a theory can't go farther than a theory, ever. Yes, it may be taken up and used as a widely known fact, but it is still just a theory. It's like traditional versus relative physics. They were accepted as fact before the theory of relativity was invented, but when it was, it disproved the theories of traditional physics, and now they are, technically, false. The theory of evolution may be a fact, but it still isn't more than a theory. Learn your stuff.

Quote from: Wendigo on August 17, 2008, 08:49:44 AM

No, you are wrong. In the world of science, a theory can't go farther than a theory, ever. Yes, it may be taken up and used as a widely known fact, but it is still just a theory. It's like traditional versus relative physics. They were accepted as fact before the theory of relativity was invented, but when it was, it disproved the theories of traditional physics, and now they are, technically, false. The theory of evolution may be a fact, but it still isn't more than a theory. Learn your stuff.

Let me repeat.  A theory is an attempt at explaining a set of observations.  The "theory of evolution" is the attempt to explain the observed fact that life does evolve.  Regardless of whether the "theory of evolution" is correct, it's a fact that life observes.

Theories = attempts at explaining facts.

Facts = things we can all observe occurring.

Quote from: beast on August 17, 2008, 09:08:16 PM

Quote from: Wendigo on August 17, 2008, 08:49:44 AM

No, you are wrong. In the world of science, a theory can't go farther than a theory, ever. Yes, it may be taken up and used as a widely known fact, but it is still just a theory. It's like traditional versus relative physics. They were accepted as fact before the theory of relativity was invented, but when it was, it disproved the theories of traditional physics, and now they are, technically, false. The theory of evolution may be a fact, but it still isn't more than a theory. Learn your stuff.

Let me repeat.  A theory is an attempt at explaining a set of observations.  The "theory of evolution" is the attempt to explain the observed fact that life does evolve.  Regardless of whether the "theory of evolution" is correct, it's a fact that life observes.

Theories = attempts at explaining facts.

Facts = things we can all observe occurring.

After recent events, it's no longer a theory.

No, because people have actually observed evolution occurring.  There is both the fact of evolution, and the theory of it.  The fact is what has happened, the theory is the explanation of why it happens.  I feel like I'm repeating myself.

I'll have to side with Raist here. It is not possible to be certain enough of anything to call it a fact.

So there are no facts in the world?  What is the purpose of the word then?  If you can construct a hypothetical situation where observed evidence could be explained in a way that means it is incorrect, but have no evidence to support that, there is no point in believing it.  I state that it is a fact that I am writing this post onto a computer.  I state that it is a fact that George Bush is the President of the USA.  I state that it is a fact that scientists have observed physical changes in generations of animals over time - as well as genetic changes, they've observed things like changes to the length of legs and running speeds.

Quote from: beast on August 18, 2008, 04:35:40 PM

So there are no facts in the world?  What is the purpose of the word then?  If you can construct a hypothetical situation where observed evidence could be explained in a way that means it is incorrect, but have no evidence to support that, there is no point in believing it.  I state that it is a fact that I am writing this post onto a computer.  I state that it is a fact that George Bush is the President of the USA.  I state that it is a fact that scientists have observed physical changes in generations of animals over time - as well as genetic changes, they've observed things like changes to the length of legs and running speeds.

None of those are facts. They just have probabilities so close to 1 that, for all practical purposes, we need not concern ourselves with the probability of them not being true.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 19, 2008, 03:25:52 AM

Quote from: beast on August 18, 2008, 04:35:40 PM

So there are no facts in the world?  What is the purpose of the word then?  If you can construct a hypothetical situation where observed evidence could be explained in a way that means it is incorrect, but have no evidence to support that, there is no point in believing it.  I state that it is a fact that I am writing this post onto a computer.  I state that it is a fact that George Bush is the President of the USA.  I state that it is a fact that scientists have observed physical changes in generations of animals over time - as well as genetic changes, they've observed things like changes to the length of legs and running speeds.

None of those are facts. They just have probabilities so close to 1 that, for all practical purposes, we need not concern ourselves with the probability of them not being true.

Well, sure, that's correct, but to say that George Bush isn't the president of the united states would be dumb, no matter how you look at it.

Quote from: Wendigo on August 20, 2008, 01:09:00 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 19, 2008, 03:25:52 AM

Quote from: beast on August 18, 2008, 04:35:40 PM

So there are no facts in the world?  What is the purpose of the word then?  If you can construct a hypothetical situation where observed evidence could be explained in a way that means it is incorrect, but have no evidence to support that, there is no point in believing it.  I state that it is a fact that I am writing this post onto a computer.  I state that it is a fact that George Bush is the President of the USA.  I state that it is a fact that scientists have observed physical changes in generations of animals over time - as well as genetic changes, they've observed things like changes to the length of legs and running speeds.

None of those are facts. They just have probabilities so close to 1 that, for all practical purposes, we need not concern ourselves with the probability of them not being true.

Well, sure, that's correct, but to say that George Bush isn't the president of the united states would be dumb, no matter how you look at it.

Yes because that is the stance with very little evidence supporting it. You're point is still lacking....existance?

Quote from: beast on August 18, 2008, 04:35:40 PM

So there are no facts in the world?  What is the purpose of the word then?  If you can construct a hypothetical situation where observed evidence could be explained in a way that means it is incorrect, but have no evidence to support that, there is no point in believing it.  I state that it is a fact that I am writing this post onto a computer.  I state that it is a fact that George Bush is the President of the USA.  I state that it is a fact that scientists have observed physical changes in generations of animals over time - as well as genetic changes, they've observed things like changes to the length of legs and running speeds.

None of those are facts. They just have probabilities so close to 1 that, for all practical purposes, we need not concern ourselves with the probability of them not being true.

Well, by your logic it seems they do.  You say yourself that we cannot be sure of anything 100%, technically, but for practical reasons, it is still correct to say 'I am 100% sure that George W Bush is the president of USA and burning wood is hot'. That is exactly what robosteve is saying as well, but he puts more emphasis on the fact that, technically, nothing is certain, but practically, it will probably happen as it has happened countless times before.

Quote from: Wendigo on August 16, 2008, 08:01:03 AM

Theory is still a theory, but taken as fact, yes.

Wrong.

Evolution is an observed fact.  The explanation of why evolution occurs is a theory.  A theory supported by a huge array of evidence that has improved dramatically since it was first proposed 150 years ago.

Quote from: beast on August 16, 2008, 06:15:42 PM

Quote from: Wendigo on August 16, 2008, 08:01:03 AM

Theory is still a theory, but taken as fact, yes.

Wrong.

Evolution is an observed fact.  The explanation of why evolution occurs is a theory.  A theory supported by a huge array of evidence that has improved dramatically since it was first proposed 150 years ago.

This (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) is a pretty good explanation of the difference between hypothesis, theory and law.  A theory can become a law if it is generally accepted to be true all the time to all observers and is fairly narrow and mathematically defined.  Otherwise, it will remain a theory.  That doesn't mean it isn't accepted generally as good as fact.

I find it useful with evolution to separate the past from the present/future.  The proof that life evolved eons ago can really only be accomplished by something like historical proof, i.e. using evidence to show what must have happened.  Since it only happened once (at the macro level) and we can't go back in time, we can't exactly repeat anything, which is what you usually do in science.  We can however, attempt to predict the future of evolution based on the theory developed using historical evidence and see if we are correct.  We can use all kinds of scientific research to observe the present happenings and see how they feed into the future.  So the present and future of evolution can be more of a scientific theory in the traditional sense. 

If the theory of the past is consistent with current observations and future predictions, then we can probably accept that the theory as a whole is correct.  Of course, some people on this site won't accept anything if they don't see it with their own eyes, so with things like evolution or the age of the earth, it's gonna be impossible to convince them with anything but a divine revelation.

Hope that makes some sense.  I spent two years as a research assistant for an evolutionary biologist, so I do know a little about it (emphasis on little  ).
(Correction:  Technically he was a philosopher of evolutionary biology, researching and debating the development of the theory rather than doing the biology itself)

A theory can not become a law. A theory is an explanation of why. A law is a prediction of what.

Did you know there are laws that govern gravity/gravitation, but the theory of gravity is debunked?

Two different things. Fuck off and die.

Quote from: Raist on August 25, 2008, 09:58:04 PM

A theory can not become a law. A theory is an explanation of why. A law is a prediction of what.

Did you know there are laws that govern gravity/gravitation, but the theory of gravity is debunked?

I didn't say a Law had to be perfect or couldn't be wrong.  And the Theory of Relativity makes lots of "predictions of what" in addition to explaining "why" without being considered a law.
Would you be happy with the statement "a theory can result in the development of a law"?

Quote from: Raist on August 25, 2008, 09:58:04 PM

Two different things. Fuck off and die.

How mature.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 15, 2008, 02:55:27 PM

According to the religion, God always was. No beginning no end. Alpha and Omega.

But why is it that Creationists can claim that everything had to have a creator, and then turn around and say that God didn't need one? Special pleading = FAIL.

Not in the view of the christians, because there the creator is infinitely more complex than the creation.