It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113063 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you understand it, then certainly you can explain the harmony in the following:
"These things are true, part of reality."
and
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final."
BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?

The first statement is common vernacular, the second is scientific.



For example is evolution a fact or a theory?

Answer: Yes!

In the "real world" we accept certain things as facts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113064 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?

Yes. When speaking and thinking in those terms.

But not in science.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113065 Mar 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
As to be beyond doubt. We can be without doubt yet still be convinced by evidence to the contrary. Clearly you don't understand what "doubt" means.
I understand that, since doubt is uncertainty, to be without doubt about something, and yet acknowledge it may not be so, is to falsify the lack of doubt. That's not to take anything away from your keen ability to do just that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113066 Mar 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The first statement is common vernacular, the second is scientific.
For example is evolution a fact or a theory?
Answer: Yes!
In the "real world" we accept certain things as facts.
Do you accept as fact Earth not being cubic in shape?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113067 Mar 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. When speaking and thinking in those terms.
But not in science.
In this case I side with the scientists' position that there are certain things which are beyond doubt (i.e., we know for certain what the reality is). Earth not being cubic in shape is one of them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113068 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept as fact Earth not being cubic in shape?
Speaking in general or scientifically?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113069 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case I side with the scientists' position that there are certain things which are beyond doubt (i.e., we know for certain what the reality is). Earth not being cubic in shape is one of them.

That is a general proposition. Not a scientific one.

When are you going to answer my questions about your cult and why they tell lies?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113070 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept as fact Earth not being cubic in shape?
That is not what the fact is. A fact is not a negative but a positive, thus, the fact is not that the Earth is not cubic, but that the Earth is a lopsided spheroid.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113071 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that, since doubt is uncertainty, to be without doubt about something, and yet acknowledge it may not be so, is to falsify the lack of doubt. That's not to take anything away from your keen ability to do just that.
I don't doubt that OJ Simpson killed two people, because the evidence is so damning. However, if a video were presented that shows Ron and Nicole being slain by someone else, I would be convinced that he didn't. I accept the evidence as valid, find it compelling, and have been convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it still conceivable that he could be innocent? Yes, through an amazing series of coincidences and improbabilities. But, that doesn't mean I doubt his guilt. It could have been unicorns and leprechauns that did it. Doubt and certainty aren't perfect antonyms, though colloquially they may seem to be.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113072 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that, since doubt is uncertainty, to be without doubt about something, and yet acknowledge it may not be so, is to falsify the lack of doubt. That's not to take anything away from your keen ability to do just that.
Wrong.

You simply don't understand the difference between certainty and being without doubt.

Is it possible that Earth is not generally spherical in shape? It's extremely unlikely, given all the evidence and the fulfilled predictions based on it being generally spherical. But, is it POSSIBLE? Yes. Therefore, it's not a certainty, but scientists do not doubt its form.

Or, to put it another way: you accept the Bible as inerrant, as is the way of the Jehoveh's Witnesses. You do not doubt that it is the word of God and perfect. However, that doesn't mean you don't accept that there is a possibility that it could be imperfect or in some way untrue.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113073 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you understand it, then certainly you can explain the harmony in the following:
"These things are true, part of reality."
and
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final."
BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?
There is a vanishingly small chance that you could put 4 marbles into an empty bag and pull out 5 and overwhelming odds that you could pull out 3. Probabilities *approach* absolute zero or absolute 100.
These things are true, part of reality.
You maintain (through your faith in your religion and a Book) that your God manifests absolute 100. That in no way makes your belief a certain reality.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#113074 Mar 30, 2013
ABC had a show on this morning about the Atacama Desert. I'm sure KAB would have enjoyed it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113075 Mar 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking in general or scientifically?
Just give me the real world answer, where certain things are facts whether we accept them or not, and whether considered generally or scientifically.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113076 Mar 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a general proposition. Not a scientific one.
When are you going to answer my questions about your cult and why they tell lies?
You provide the questions one at a time, and as I see them I will answer them one at a time as I have been.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113077 Mar 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what the fact is. A fact is not a negative but a positive, thus, the fact is not that the Earth is not cubic, but that the Earth is a lopsided spheroid.
Your side is so into its assertion-only syndrome that you don't even check the simplest of things for confirmation before spewing.
Form Webster's Online,

Fact:
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Here's a piece of info for you. Earth is not cubic in shape. Get use to reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113078 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just give me the real world answer, where certain things are facts whether we accept them or not, and whether considered generally or scientifically.

Hummm..... tricky.

In fact there are only two facts (irony intentional) that are 100% certain.
1. Cogito ergo sum
2. First person (psychological) reports.(I think, I feel, I sense (though the object of senses may or may not be real). It is not possible for either of these to be not true.

Beyond that there are lessor facts which can never be 100% certain.

Lessor "facts" include KAB, water, GPS satellites, oblate spheroid planets, evolution, apples. These are all over 99% certain but less than 100%.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113079 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You provide the questions one at a time, and as I see them I will answer them one at a time as I have been.

I tried that. Didn't work.

Okay here is ONE question.

What makes you think you are in the truth when your cult encourages witnesses to lie?

Many references to this. Here is one interesting one.

"the Watchtower teaches that "to lie and deceive in the interest of their religion is Scripturally approved" (Kotwall, 1997:1). Jehovah's Witnesses do not always lie outright, but they often lie according to the court's definition--not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth," which means the court requires the whole story, not half-truths or deception (Bergman 1998). In the words of Raines, theocratic warfare in practice means "deceiving" to protect and advance the interests of "God's people" especially God's "organization the Watchtower" (Raines, 1996:20)."

http://www.seanet.com/~raines/eisenhower.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113080 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your side is so into its assertion-only syndrome that you don't even check the simplest of things for confirmation before spewing.
Form Webster's Online,
Fact:
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Here's a piece of info for you. Earth is not cubic in shape. Get use to reality.

Is this a lie or did you not actually read KKs post?


KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what the fact is. A fact is not a negative but a positive, thus, the fact is not that the Earth is not cubic, but that the Earth is a lopsided spheroid.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113081 Mar 30, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't doubt that OJ Simpson killed two people, because the evidence is so damning. However, if a video were presented that shows Ron and Nicole being slain by someone else, I would be convinced that he didn't. I accept the evidence as valid, find it compelling, and have been convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it still conceivable that he could be innocent? Yes, through an amazing series of coincidences and improbabilities. But, that doesn't mean I doubt his guilt. It could have been unicorns and leprechauns that did it. Doubt and certainty aren't perfect antonyms, though colloquially they may seem to be.
If you recognize/acknowledge the possibility that OJ didn't do it, then your lack of doubt regarding him is misplaced. You should rather be doubting his innocence. However, I agree that such a position is characteristic of your side and goes a long way toward explaining why it is so difficult for us to make progress toward resolving issues.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113082 Mar 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you recognize/acknowledge the possibility that OJ didn't do it, then your lack of doubt regarding him is misplaced. You should rather be doubting his innocence. However, I agree that such a position is characteristic of your side and goes a long way toward explaining why it is so difficult for us to make progress toward resolving issues.

Gee, and all this time I though it was because you were an ignorant, brainwashed, zealot.

Silly me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min dirtclod 141,939
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr Strel 787
Darwin on the rocks 5 hr The Dude 832
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr thetruth 14,507
Science News (Sep '13) Mon Ricky F 2,961
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... Sun NoahLovesU 5
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Sun -TheExam- 13,957
More from around the web