Re: Evolution and Observation Gap

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142917500.963156.323000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes. Fact requires direct observation.

You have been provided a variety of different scientific findings that
are
considered fact. This includes the existence of the atom, that the atom
is
comprised of smaller components, the orbit of Comet Halley, the movement
of
the Earth, the measurement of the Earth's orbit by observing the transit
of
Mercury, dinosaurs, Solar fusion, how geologic strata are formed, the Ice
Age. All of these *facts* were originally determined without the ability
to
directly observe them.

They were determined to be the most likely explanation before full
observation. That is not the same as "fact".



Galileo was wrong when he claimed as fact that the Earth moved. Newton was
wrong when he calculated escape velocity. Halley was wrong when he predicted
the return of a comet. Franklin was wrong when he claimed that lightning was
electricity. Einstein was wrong when he demonstrated the actual existence of
the atom, but never took a photo. Cook wasted his time traveling halfway
around the world to observe the transit of Mercury. Fossilized dinosaur
bones are nothing but old bones, and may not even that.

You will convince no one but yourself. Try and grapple with the evidence.

In place of "fact" try using "scientific fact". It might help you understand
the distinction. The Earth moves is a scientific fact. Galileo and
Copernicus determined that. By Newton, it would have been perverse to
withhold assent for this proposition. By the time of Comet Halley's return,
it was accpeted as a matter of course, even by the illiterate. Yet, no one
had yet seen the Earth move.





However, because there is no
Central Language Authority to establish the definition, such probably
will never be settled.


You clearly have little understanding of the inductive process we refer
to
as the scientific method. You just wave your hands, and care not a whit
for
the evidence. To you, the fossils of dinosaurs are just rocks. But to
anyone
willing to study them, they are evidence of ancient life. Dinosaurs
existed
even if we can't directly observe them. And that's a fact. To claim
otherwise is simply perverse.

You seem to be confusing rejecting the label of "fact" and rejecting
the likelyhood of a theory. In other words, you seem to be trying to
paint this as a black-and-white thing when it is really lots of shades
of grey. There are a lot of good theories floating around, even if they
don't qualify as "fact" yet.,



You clearly do not understand the nature of "scientific fact". All
scientific findings are considered tentative and subject to revision upon
the discovery of new facts. That includes the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic
Theory, and the Theory of Evolution. Some theories are considered to be more
strongly supported than others. The basic assertions of the Theory of
Evolution are as strong or stronger than those that underly the Theory of
Gravity or Atomic Theory. Evolution is a fact. Common Descent is a fact. To
withhold agreement is simply perverse. Only with new evidence would the
Theory of Evolution be modified or discarded.

There is a huge body of scientific knowledge supporting the Theory of
Evolution. It includes everything from biochemistry to genetics to biology
to ecology to paleontology to geology. Let us know when you have some
contradictory evidence.


You are making a serious mistake when you try to defend a historical
science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics.
It's a commonly used practice, but also one that is logically, if not
intellectually, bankrupt.

As someone else on this thread has noted, physics (and math, and
chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis,
Experiment, Observation.

When Newton developed his Theory of Gravity, he didn't do it overnight.
He proposed the theory (along with his three laws of motion), then he
and other folks effectively said, "Ok, let's see where this leads us."
They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the
predictions came true. Each time that a prediction proved true, it
added to the confidence in the theory.

By contrast, Darwin proposed a theory. All of his followers said
"Sounds good to us," and have been saying so ever since.

Show me your math; show me your predictions; show me how your
observations match your predictions. Otherwise, stop going on about
your "science."

Jack

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A really good movie
    ... definite predictions about the results of future observations." ... Where is the physical or observed evidence for ... another type of vertebrate with out that vertebrate being ... evolution is at a stopping point right here (according to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A really good movie
    ... definite predictions about the results of future observations." ... Where is the physical or observed evidence for ... another type of vertebrate with out that vertebrate being ... So the provisional theory of evolution is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the best SALT? IO facts !!
    ... > limits on variety of the breeder's genetic stock (true natural selction ... and limits on your understanding of what evolution ... > those predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. ...
    (rec.aquaria.marine.reefs)
  • Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
    ... much more unreliable than empirical evidence that exists independently ... And, of course, predictions of the consequences of a particular ... observable in time frames that we can observe? ... reasonably consistent pattern of relationship between organisms (no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the best SALT? IO facts !!
    ... limits on what pressures you can put on the population ... understanding of what evolution predicts (guppies won't evolve into ... A hypothesis is proposed that can be used to make certain predictions, ... predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. ...
    (rec.aquaria.marine.reefs)