Why Did Old Testament People Live So Long?

[Gray]

Well, thats the theory anyways.

That's the observable fact.

[The Nehor]

I am not lying or misrepresenting scientific study. I am nailing it square on its head. Give up the whole "theory" thing so we can move on people. You look up any textbook on scientific theory and not one says that it is indisputable fact. Why are people so uptight about evolution from common descent beibg a theory and thus possibly not true? Its not a fact such as a law so why treat it as such? Its as if you are so afraid it may indeed be false that you protect it at all cost even if it means pretending its a fact.

 

Okay, memorize this:

 

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

 

These are the correct definitions. Use these.

 

Of course a theory is not a fact. It is an explanation of facts.

[Rob Osborn]

No, it isn't. You say that and are using non-scientific definitions for the word theory and fact.

 

Using the scientific definitions the evidence supporting evolution is a fact and the explanation for how that evidence tied together is a proven theory. Of course it is all subject to overthrow if new data later contradicts these findings. That is true of all scientific data. It is THAT simple.

Yeah, thats why we call it a "theory", it may not be a fact.

[The Nehor]

BTW, just so everyone thinks I dont have a double standard I believe special Creation by God is a theory too. I have no problem with separating fact from theory.

 

Yep, you definitely know what a scientific theory is.

 

[Rob Osborn]

That's the observable fact.

Science has neither observed nor tested man evolving from a lower oder of species- that my friend is the facts!

[The Nehor]

Yeah, thats why we call it a "theory", it may not be a fact.

 

Scientific theories aren't facts. They are never facts even if they are correct. Look at the definitions. They are based on facts.

 

Saying a theory is not a fact is like saying black is not white. While technically true you are talking nonsense. Either that or you imagine that when theories are true they are facts which is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, thats why we call it a "theory", it may not be a fact.

 

The imposition of any God or Godlike force is forbidden in science. The reason is simple. God is omnipotent. That the results of ANY experiment that posits any God or Godlike force negates the results of that test. Whether he/she/it knows all the laws or not. It doesn't matter. In fact it makes it worse. It makes God deceptive. I've given you dozens of examples, used the dictionary for the definitions of words, Linked to numerous actual scientists, and you persist in this asinine idea that all the sciences from Astronomy to Zoology is wrong. That only your special definition of words along with your ideas about God are right.

[Ahab]

Stop misusing words. There is a difference between a scientific theory and the usual use of the word theory.

scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Now stop it. This is not the first time people have told you this.

So if Rob replaced his use of the word "fact" with "truth" would you be appeased?

It is a fact that there are things called "scientific theories" so we all should feel comfortable saying that scientific theories are facts, in that sense.

What Rob has been saying is that he doesn't buy into those explanations.

[thesometimesaint]

Science has neither observed nor tested man evolving from a lower oder of species- that my friend is the facts!

 

Incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

[thesometimesaint]

So if Rob replaced his use of the word "fact" with "truth" would you be appeased?

It is a fact that there are things called "scientific theories" so we all should feel comfortable saying that scientific theories are facts, in that sense.

What Rob has been saying is that he doesn't buy into those explanations.

 

Here is the difference. A fact is a simple statement of reality. Like 2+2=4, that is a absolute fact. The reasons behind that fact is a theory.

IE; Number Theory(Arithmetic). 

 

Ps; BTW no one has ever seen a number. What we use are numerals. The expression of those numbers.

Edited March 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

Here is the difference. A fact is a simple statement of reality. Like 2+2=4, that is a absolute fact. The reasons behind that fact is a theory.

IE; Number Theory(Arithmetic). 

 

Ps; BTW no one has ever seen a number. What we use are numerals. The expression of those numbers.

 

Said it better then I could.

[danielwoods]

So if Rob replaced his use of the word "fact" with "truth" would you be appeased?

It is a fact that there are things called "scientific theories" so we all should feel comfortable saying that scientific theories are facts, in that sense.

What Rob has been saying is that he doesn't buy into those explanations.

It is my experience that it is better to use the word "model" rather than theory.

However, even that doesn't satisfy the dogmatic crowd, because they don't allow any other interpretation of the data, only their own.

[The Nehor]

What Rob has been saying is that he doesn't buy into those explanations.

 

No, he also denies the scientific facts upon which the scientific theory is based.

[Rob Osborn]

Here is the difference. A fact is a simple statement of reality. Like 2+2=4, that is a absolute fact. The reasons behind that fact is a theory.

IE; Number Theory(Arithmetic). 

 

Ps; BTW no one has ever seen a number. What we use are numerals. The expression of those numbers.

Heres the deal-

Suppose the wind is blowing outside hard enough that it is knocking down trees and power lines. Meteorologists do not say "its a theory that the the wind may be knocking down the trees and power lines." No, they don't speak that way concerning actual observable indisputable facts in nature. Now there may indeed exist a theory as to what may cause the wind to blow hard but it actually blowing and observing it blowing is not a theory it is a fact when directly and indisputably documented.

This is where the semantics of it come into play and how the theory of evolution needs to be viewed. When we are discussing the theory of evolution here on this board we are using it in the sense of the theory as it pertains to the mechanism assumed that accounts for all life coming from a common ancestor. The entire free world knows that this "theory" is a way of explaining something which may or may not be true. We are not equating this mechanism with 2+2=4, no, we are basically equating this with 2+x=y where "x" and "y" are unknown. Thus we put forth "theories" to say what we may think x and y are.

Whether science has a more rigorous set of parameters or not to define "theory" it still boils down to te fact that "Theory" is always used in the context of "the unknown" in some extent. my father who studied atomic theory when he was in nuclear navy school was telling me about the theory and how some of the "unknowns" have changed when the theories were modified according to more evidence. While we know a lot about atomic theory there are still "unknowns" which thus makes it a theory in approach and in testing. As a nuclear student he told me in scientific terms that when they use the word "theory" in the fields of science they are using it in context of trying to solve unknowns with testable observable procedures and ideas.

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

I will say it again- NO scientific group, person, entity, etc, has ever documented a human coming from a lower order of animal. It is also not testable at this point either or has not been tested. All of our study of observation and testing shows that humans only come from humans and other animals such as monkeys only come from monkeys. Now one can propose a "theory" as to "if" humans came from something other than humans at some point in the past but in all honesty- it has never been documented or observed and as such remains a theory.

[Ahab]

I will say it again- NO scientific group, person, entity, etc, has ever documented a human coming from a lower order of animal. It is also not testable at this point either or has not been tested. All of our study of observation and testing shows that humans only come from humans and other animals such as monkeys only come from monkeys. Now one can propose a "theory" as to "if" humans came from something other than humans at some point in the past but in all honesty- it has never been documented or observed and as such remains a theory.

Watch it there, bud. All it takes to document the scientific theory that beings evolve is for someone to write that in a document. Not hard to do. I agree with the gist of what you mean to say, though. Edited March 27, 2014 by Ahab

[Rob Osborn]

Yeah. The evolution of man from a lower order of species very well could have happened. I just think that evolutionary science tends to paint the picture to the general public that this isn't a matter of dispute- that it factually happened but they are just unsure exactly how. This is not truthful.

[erdoch]

Yeah. The evolution of man from a lower order of species very well could have happened. I just think that evolutionary science tends to paint the picture to the general public that this isn't a matter of dispute- that it factually happened but they are just unsure exactly how. This is not truthful.

 

Rubbish. DNA sealed the deal years ago, if in fact the fossil record combined and observed evolution on a smaller scale had not already. 

[thesometimesaint]

Heres the deal-

Suppose the wind is blowing outside hard enough that it is knocking down trees and power lines. Meteorologists do not say "its a theory that the the wind may be knocking down the trees and power lines." No, they don't speak that way concerning actual observable indisputable facts in nature. Now there may indeed exist a theory as to what may cause the wind to blow hard but it actually blowing and observing it blowing is not a theory it is a fact when directly and indisputably documented.

This is where the semantics of it come into play and how the theory of evolution needs to be viewed. When we are discussing the theory of evolution here on this board we are using it in the sense of the theory as it pertains to the mechanism assumed that accounts for all life coming from a common ancestor. The entire free world knows that this "theory" is a way of explaining something which may or may not be true. We are not equating this mechanism with 2+2=4, no, we are basically equating this with 2+x=y where "x" and "y" are unknown. Thus we put forth "theories" to say what we may think x and y are.

Whether science has a more rigorous set of parameters or not to define "theory" it still boils down to te fact that "Theory" is always used in the context of "the unknown" in some extent. my father who studied atomic theory when he was in nuclear navy school was telling me about the theory and how some of the "unknowns" have changed when the theories were modified according to more evidence. While we know a lot about atomic theory there are still "unknowns" which thus makes it a theory in approach and in testing. As a nuclear student he told me in scientific terms that when they use the word "theory" in the fields of science they are using it in context of trying to solve unknowns with testable observable procedures and ideas.

 

If I see the wind knocking down trees and power lines that is a observation. IE: A simple fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory. Which has repeatedly been confirmed by other observations.

 

We have the observation that 2+x=4. The rules of arithmetic demand that the variable on one side of the equation must equal the other side of the equation. Subtracting 2 from both sides puts x(the variable) making  x=2. 2+2=4

 

That is why scientists have a very specific definition of the word theory. It is a explanation of an observation repeatedly confirmed by testing. IE; Einstein's theories did not do away with Newton's theories and Quantum Mechanics didn't do away with Einsteins theories. They more accurately describe what is observed.

 

The confirming observations for evolution are that all life, including human, are slightly different than the parents.That those differences accumulate over time. That given enough time those changes result in individuals not being able to produce viable offspring with the parent generation. That this is more apparent in isolated communities. That species come and go.That's it, the observations. Those are the facts. The explanation of those facts is the theory of evolution. For the last 150 plus years every test so far developed has confirmed those observations. The mechanism is well know it is changes in DNA allele frequency. So called micro-evolution is exactly the same process as so called macro-evolution. It is all evolution.

 

A theory is not something unknown. It is the explanation of the observation that repeated testing has shown to accurately describe the observation.

[The Nehor]

Whether science has a more rigorous set of parameters or not to define "theory" it still boils down to te fact that "Theory" is always used in the context of "the unknown" in some extent. my father who studied atomic theory when he was in nuclear navy school was telling me about the theory and how some of the "unknowns" have changed when the theories were modified according to more evidence. While we know a lot about atomic theory there are still "unknowns" which thus makes it a theory in approach and in testing. As a nuclear student he told me in scientific terms that when they use the word "theory" in the fields of science they are using it in context of trying to solve unknowns with testable observable procedures and ideas.

 

Scientific theory is not in the context of the "unknown". It is an explanation for the "known".

 

It sounds like your father was confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Even then that is wrong. People do tests do discover scientific facts. They can then create theories to explain those facts. Sometimes theories lead to new hypotheses which are tested to discover new facts.

 

To be clear, in the scientific world a hypothesis is often roughly equivalent to what a theory is in the non-scientific meaning. The scientific meaning and the common use of the word theory have little in common.

 

You can't dogheadedly keep redefining the word because it is convenient for you.

[Rob Osborn]

Rubbish. DNA sealed the deal years ago, if in fact the fossil record combined and observed evolution on a smaller scale had not already.

No, it didn't seal no deal. All it shows is that there are similarities

[Rob Osborn]

If I see the wind knocking down trees and power lines that is a observation. IE: A simple fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory. Which has repeatedly been confirmed by other observations.

 

We have the observation that 2+x=4. The rules of arithmetic demand that the variable on one side of the equation must equal the other side of the equation. Subtracting 2 from both sides puts x(the variable) making  x=2. 2+2=4

 

That is why scientists have a very specific definition of the word theory. It is a explanation of an observation repeatedly confirmed by testing. IE; Einstein's theories did not do away with Newton's theories and Quantum Mechanics didn't do away with Einsteins theories. They more accurately describe what is observed.

 

The confirming observations for evolution are that all life, including human, are slightly different than the parents.That those differences accumulate over time. That given enough time those changes result in individuals not being able to produce viable offspring with the parent generation. That this is more apparent in isolated communities. That species come and go.That's it, the observations. Those are the facts. The explanation of those facts is the theory of evolution. For the last 150 plus years every test so far developed has confirmed those observations. The mechanism is well know it is changes in DNA allele frequency. So called micro-evolution is exactly the same process as so called macro-evolution. It is all evolution.

 

A theory is not something unknown. It is the explanation of the observation that repeated testing has shown to accurately describe the observation.

You know, this is just going to go back and forth forever. The whole world knows what a theory is. In any theory there is the aspect of figuring out the unknown. If we knew it, it wouldnt be a theory. Get over it already, the theory of evolution from common descent involves unknowns and may be modified, changed or even proven outright as false. Get used to that fact. Lets move on, this is BS

[Rob Osborn]

Scientific theory is not in the context of the "unknown". It is an explanation for the "known".

 

It sounds like your father was confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Even then that is wrong. People do tests do discover scientific facts. They can then create theories to explain those facts. Sometimes theories lead to new hypotheses which are tested to discover new facts.

 

To be clear, in the scientific world a hypothesis is often roughly equivalent to what a theory is in the non-scientific meaning. The scientific meaning and the common use of the word theory have little in common.

 

You can't dogheadedly keep redefining the word because it is convenient for you.

I dont know whats smarter, talking to you guys on this board or a bag of hammers?

For the last time- a theory is not a thing which has been proven as fact.

[MiserereNobis]

Here is the difference. A fact is a simple statement of reality. Like 2+2=4, that is a absolute fact. The reasons behind that fact is a theory.

IE; Number Theory(Arithmetic). 

 

Ps; BTW no one has ever seen a number. What we use are numerals. The expression of those numbers.

 

Ahhh, you've stumbled upon one of the persuasive arguments for the reality of things that are immaterial:  abstract numbers.

 

They're real, yes, but can you ever go find one?  Experience one with your senses?  If one wanted to quest for the number 5, where would one go?

 

(here is the cue for post-modernist apologists to argue that the reality of numbers is simply a linguistically based confusion and is therefore not real at all...)

[MiserereNobis]

Heres the deal-

Suppose the wind is blowing outside hard enough that it is knocking down trees and power lines. Meteorologists do not say "its a theory that the the wind may be knocking down the trees and power lines." No, they don't speak that way concerning actual observable indisputable facts in nature. Now there may indeed exist a theory as to what may cause the wind to blow hard but it actually blowing and observing it blowing is not a theory it is a fact when directly and indisputably documented.

This is where the semantics of it come into play and how the theory of evolution needs to be viewed. When we are discussing the theory of evolution here on this board we are using it in the sense of the theory as it pertains to the mechanism assumed that accounts for all life coming from a common ancestor. The entire free world knows that this "theory" is a way of explaining something which may or may not be true. We are not equating this mechanism with 2+2=4, no, we are basically equating this with 2+x=y where "x" and "y" are unknown. Thus we put forth "theories" to say what we may think x and y are.

Whether science has a more rigorous set of parameters or not to define "theory" it still boils down to te fact that "Theory" is always used in the context of "the unknown" in some extent. my father who studied atomic theory when he was in nuclear navy school was telling me about the theory and how some of the "unknowns" have changed when the theories were modified according to more evidence. While we know a lot about atomic theory there are still "unknowns" which thus makes it a theory in approach and in testing. As a nuclear student he told me in scientific terms that when they use the word "theory" in the fields of science they are using it in context of trying to solve unknowns with testable observable procedures and ideas.

 

Out of curiosity, did you ever read the articles I linked in a former thread?  The ones from very prominent philosophers of science that argue for what constitute scientific theories and facts and the problems with various ideas on that?

 

You are arguing philosophy of science here, so I am going to point out that because your father is a scientist does not make him a philosopher of science.  The two are separate fields.  A person could be a great philosopher of science and a terrible scientist and vice versa.

 

Unfortunately, science and the philosophy of science are often thought of as being the same thing, so when questions arise for which philosophers of science are a better resource, often scientists are consulted.

 

If I wanted understand to the exact mathematical and physical details of the theory of relativity, and could choose to ask Sir Karl Popper or Stephen Hawking to explain them to me, I'd ask the latter.

Edited March 27, 2014 by MiserereNobis