#1 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

I've always had so many questions that need answering. I can't come up with all of them off the top of my head right now but I'll keep editing the thread whenever I have more. Now this isn't to create argument but I'm just seriously wondering about these things. You don't have to answer everything at the same time. Just answer what you feel like at the time.

April 30

-Why is it that it's proven that it's proven that hominids or humans have been here for less time than lot's of other animals/species, yet we're the ones that have developed this higher sense of thinking with civilizations and what not? Why didn't it happen with other species?

-Do you think other life forms exist in the Universe? What do you think they're like? Do you think they've tried to contact us?

-Why do you think the bible doesn't talk about all of these other planets and stars? What do you think was God's purpose with these things?

-Why did God bring all those Hebrews out to the desert under Moses just to kill them? Wouldn't they just have been better off in the slavery of those Egyptians? I guess that's also a question on his omnipotence?

#2 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

I guess I might as well bump this

#3 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7499 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14:

1. evolution is pretty random, that kind of stuff happens, why are termites the only ones whoshoot acid from their head?

2. probably other life-forms, not sure if any are even aware of life on Earth (any signs visible from space are recent enough that they shouldn't have gone that far) as for what their like, it's pretty much impossible to answer that

3. I mean, if you beleive that sort of thing, I don't geuss it would be relevant to anything God was trying to do

4. are you questioning the actions of Jewish god? that might not be a good idea

#4 Posted by cyberninja (10383 posts) - - Show Bio

1: False, the tuatara is the highest evolving animal. As for "civilization" and the environment around us, humans are the worst specie on this planet. To quote my favorite movie "Every specie on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. We move to an area and we multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area.There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

2: There are 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also! Honesty I find it hubarus to even think we're alone and that the universe revolves around us.

3: Really? Let's do one better, let's talk about unicorns and mermaids.

4: Read my 3rd answer.

#5 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

#6 Edited by Illuminatus (9489 posts) - - Show Bio

It's a statistical certainty that "lifeforms" exist on other planets, but the real question is this: Just how evolved are those lifeforms?

There's evidence of single-cell organisms on Mars currently. Anything beyond that? Hard to tell.

#7 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

This,first of all....

also regarding 3 and/or 4 I believe that those actually ARE addressed in the bible.If you really want to know,why not Google it or ask someone (maybe someone online) who is familiar with the bible since topics like these always end up in flames.

#8 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

-Why is it that it's proven that it's proven that hominids or humans have been here for less time than lot's of other animals/species, yet we're the ones that have developed this higher sense of thinking with civilizations and what not? Why didn't it happen with other species?

Because a large brain, or the ability to think are not the goal of evolution. Evolution is not a directed process... which is to say, there is no preset final form for a species to evolve into. Evolution happens with natural selection as the driving force. Natural selection only works to propagate the survival of individuals so they can reproduce. If being small and fast helps this, then there will be a bias towards that. If a large brain helps, then this. But, there's no reason why any animal will have to evolve to be smarter or anything like that.

We happen to have larger brains because at some point in the past there were mutations and changes in our DNA to allow this, and there were environmental advantages, so those individuals with larger brains lived longer and reproduced more... and so on.

-Do you think other life forms exist in the Universe? What do you think they're like? Do you think they've tried to contact us?

From what we know about how life works, and how large the universe is... I'd say that it's a mathematical certitude that yes there is life elsewhere in the universe.

-Why do you think the bible doesn't talk about all of these other planets and stars?

Because the Bible was written a long time ago when people didnt know what stars and planets where. The people that wrote the Bible really had little to no knowledge about the universe in general.

-What do you think was God's purpose with these things?

I dont think there are any gods. Your question assumes that there is a God, but as far as I know there is zero evidence for this... so it's an unfounded assumption.

-Why did God bring all those Hebrews out to the desert under Moses just to kill them? Wouldn't they just have been better off in the slavery of those Egyptians? I guess that's also a question on his omnipotence?

Again, a meaningless question unless you can give evidence for your initial assumption about a god or gods.

My turn to ask questions for you: Why did Prometheus create humans? Also, why did the God of the Bible come along later and try to take credit for this?

#9 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

Congrats, you just made it one.

#10 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

Congrats, you just made it one.

lol I haven't just putting it out there as all.

#11 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Superman needs to intervene here before things get bad...

#12 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Superman needs to intervene here before things get bad...

That picture always cracks me up,it never gets old.

#13 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Of course my question assumes their is a god. It is in the thread title right?

#14 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

@willpayton:

Of course my question assumes their is a god. It is in the thread title right?

No, the thread title says that you have questions about God, but that doesnt imply that you are assuming there IS a god. I can very well ask questions about Santa Claus... do you think that means that I assume that Santa Claus is a real person?

In any case, I was just pointing out that your question has an obvious assumption, which IMO is an unfounded one. What would be the point in speculating about the motivations of non-existent characters?

#15 Posted by pooty (11715 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: Why do you think the bible doesn't talk about all of these other planets and stars?

The Bible is not a science book. It is a book of stories and morals. The Bible was written to help people live better. Knowing about planets and stars does not really promote the central theme of the Bible.

What do you think was God's purpose with these things?

The Bible says those creations bring glory to God and show his immense power. also he is imaginative and creative.

Why did God bring all those Hebrews out to the desert under Moses just to kill them?

That is not the reason God brought them into the desert. He was bringing them to the Promise Land flowing with milk and honey.

Wouldn't they just have been better off in the slavery of those Egyptians?

No. When the Hebrews did God's will he blessed them with food, gold and victory in war. When they rebelled and complained is when they suffered.

I guess that's also a question on his omnipotence?

How so?

Question for you. Have you ever read the Bible or any other religious book?

#16 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7043 posts) - - Show Bio

Flagged. Flagged. Flagged.

#17 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

Flagged. Flagged. Flagged.

You flagged it three time? wow

#18 Posted by Pyrogram (41269 posts) - - Show Bio

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

#19 Posted by kuonphobos (4904 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14:

You may wish to pose your questions in a different thread:

Religion...What Do You Think?

I know that the title seems pretty specific but all the issues you have raised have been debated there in some form or fashion.

#20 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14:

You may wish to pose your questions in a different thread:

Religion...What Do You Think?

I know that the title seems pretty specific but all the issues you have raised have been debated there in some form or fashion.

Probably more than once too....

#21 Posted by AweSam (7376 posts) - - Show Bio

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

It won't be, because evolution always wins.

#22 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:
@mrdecepticonleader said:

If this becomes another evolution vs creation thread I might just quit.

It won't be, because evolution always wins.

Yes but try and tell that to people who where posting in the last one who are convinced by creationism.

#23 Edited by kuonphobos (4904 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

#24 Edited by dccomicsrule2011 (26850 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution should not even be debated, it is fact period. There is no, if ands, or butts about it if you don't believe it you are either:

A) Not familiar with said subject and only know what was taught to you from birth.

B) Just ignorant to facts and think you know more then guys that are most likely smarter then you and has 150+ years of evidence to back it up.

or

C) Just can't accept the fact that we are cousins with chimps and is share a common ancestor with Apples, Bananas and Pairs, Oh my!

#25 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

#26 Edited by dccomicsrule2011 (26850 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@kuonphobos said:

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

Because it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

#27 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@kuonphobos said:

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

Because it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

Which is fine,and there is no doubt that it is not solid,but there is still evidence and proof added to it and it DOES get tweaked a little if new evidence were to arise.But as it is now,it is not wrong,just not complete.So it's not the complete story of our origin

#28 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (26850 posts) - - Show Bio

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

@cameron83 said:

@kuonphobos said:

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

Because it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

Which is fine,and there is no doubt that it is not solid,but there is still evidence and proof added to it and it DOES get tweaked a little if new evidence were to arise.But as it is now,it is not wrong,just not complete.So it's not the complete story of our origin

Of course, it does not explain how life started as a whole, but it does explain how we (homo-sapiens) evolved, that much is fact and there is tons of evidence to prove so.

#29 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

@cameron83 said:

@kuonphobos said:

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

Because it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

Which is fine,and there is no doubt that it is not solid,but there is still evidence and proof added to it and it DOES get tweaked a little if new evidence were to arise.But as it is now,it is not wrong,just not complete.So it's not the complete story of our origin

Of course, it does not explain how life started as a whole, but it does explain how we (homo-sapiens) evolved, that much is fact and there is tons of evidence to prove so.

I know that,I never denied that fact.

#32 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (26850 posts) - - Show Bio

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

@cameron83 said:

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

@cameron83 said:

@kuonphobos said:

Evolution always wins until it loses.

I think this is called a tautology.

What is it exactly that evolution wins? A stuffed teddy bear? And how could it lose?

Evolution is only as true as the next "truer" truth which is discovered by science replaces it.

Is "truer" even a word?

agreed,although I don't hold evolution as false,I know that it is most likely true....however,in it's current state....no.

People assume that Evolution,as it is now,is a fact...which is not true,there is still much more to be added to it.But that doesn't mean I think it's false,just that it needs improvement....I don't think many people understand the concept of science.But I do think it's mostly true.

Because it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

Which is fine,and there is no doubt that it is not solid,but there is still evidence and proof added to it and it DOES get tweaked a little if new evidence were to arise.But as it is now,it is not wrong,just not complete.So it's not the complete story of our origin

Of course, it does not explain how life started as a whole, but it does explain how we (homo-sapiens) evolved, that much is fact and there is tons of evidence to prove so.

I know that,I never denied that fact.

Cool.

#33 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

I read exactly what you said... "People assume that Evolution, as it is now, is a fact... which is not true". Evolution IS a fact.

#34 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

I read exactly what you said... "People assume that Evolution, as it is now, is a fact... which is not true". Evolution IS a fact.

maybe we need to look at the conversation between me and dccomicsrules:

ecause it is there is a tons of evidence that proves we evolved over millions of years. And also according to NewsWeek magazine 99% of American Earth and Life scientist accept evolution as fact.

Which is fine,and there is no doubt that it is not solid,but there is still evidence and proof added to it and it DOES get tweaked a little if new evidence were to arise.But as it is now,it is not wrong,just not complete.So it's not the complete story of our origin

Of course, it does not explain how life started as a whole, but it does explain how we (homo-sapiens) evolved, that much is fact and there is tons of evidence to prove so.

I know that,I never denied that fact.

.......I think I was being clear that I didn't deny evolution,but it's not complete.So the theory is true,but it is NOT a complete fact where we are done with adjusting/tweaking it if the evidence were to show.There is still to be added to it,so it is not done...it is not a COMPLETE truth.Unless,I am mistaken about it being incomplete...

#35 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

You are correct it's not complete yet, and may never be "complete". Regardless, it's still a fact, even if it's not a "complete" fact. For example, "my car is red"... that is a fact, even if I havent examined every single square centimeter of my car. Is it possible that somewhere there's a small part of my car that's not red? Yes. Does that mean that it's not a fact that my car is red? No.

Evolution will be improved and better understood as we get more evidence, but it will almost certainly, 99.999999%, not be overturned. It's a fact to any reasonable definition of that word.

So, even though what you're saying about it not being "complete" is true, what you said about it not being a fact is not true.

#36 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

You are correct it's not complete yet, and may never be "complete". Regardless, it's still a fact, even if it's not a "complete" fact. For example, "my car is red"... that is a fact, even if I havent examined every single square centimeter of my car. Is it possible that somewhere there's a small part of my car that's not red? Yes. Does that mean that it's not a fact that my car is red? No.

Evolution will be improved and better understood as we get more evidence, but it will almost certainly, 99.999999%, not be overturned. It's a fact to any reasonable definition of that word.

So, even though what you're saying about it not being "complete" is true, what you said about it not being a fact is not true.

But I know that evolution is true,I was just trying to make the point that it's not complete.And it being tweaked by new arisen evidence doesn't mean it's going to take a 90 degree turn in the other direction.

#37 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

You are correct it's not complete yet, and may never be "complete". Regardless, it's still a fact, even if it's not a "complete" fact. For example, "my car is red"... that is a fact, even if I havent examined every single square centimeter of my car. Is it possible that somewhere there's a small part of my car that's not red? Yes. Does that mean that it's not a fact that my car is red? No.

Evolution will be improved and better understood as we get more evidence, but it will almost certainly, 99.999999%, not be overturned. It's a fact to any reasonable definition of that word.

So, even though what you're saying about it not being "complete" is true, what you said about it not being a fact is not true.

But I know that evolution is true,I was just trying to make the point that it's not complete.And it being tweaked by new arisen evidence doesn't mean it's going to take a 90 degree turn in the other direction.

And I agree with that. But, you have to be careful when you say something like "it's not a fact" because maybe you mean that it's still subject to change and improvement, which it is, but a lot of uninformed people will look at it and say "ahah... so evolution hasnt been proven, it's not a fact!" I get tired of dealing with those people over and over in the other threads, and even though it has been discussed to death several times, I guarantee that within a month someone else will show up in one of those religion/evolution threads claiming that evolution has not been proven.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, ... you name it.

#38 Edited by kuonphobos (4904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know, I know this will most likely induce an eyeroll but is it possible that you might indulge me for a moment and in as simple as possible in a somewhat syllogistic form explain to me how it is that one can conlude that evolution is a fact? Perhaps defining what it is you mean by the term "fact" might be helpful. As opposed to "statistical probability" or "statistical certainity" (a term I struggle with).

I am asking only because I am not aware that anyone has ever actually witnessed something "evolve" per se (in the strict biological meaning of course) let alone been able to predict and replicate an actual "evolution" event. I am aware that there is a slight difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution and would welcome any elaboration on those terms and their significance if any.

Now let me say that I am not at all adverse to evolution or more specifically adaptation (which is certainly demonstrable and repeatable) and I am truly interested. This seemed like as good a place as any if you are willing. You are perhaps most qualified on CV. I promise that I will make every effort to totally suspend any discussion of God or creation.

Of course I would completely understand if you don't want to get into all that because of past efforts and frustration.

#39 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@willpayton said:

You are correct it's not complete yet, and may never be "complete". Regardless, it's still a fact, even if it's not a "complete" fact. For example, "my car is red"... that is a fact, even if I havent examined every single square centimeter of my car. Is it possible that somewhere there's a small part of my car that's not red? Yes. Does that mean that it's not a fact that my car is red? No.

Evolution will be improved and better understood as we get more evidence, but it will almost certainly, 99.999999%, not be overturned. It's a fact to any reasonable definition of that word.

So, even though what you're saying about it not being "complete" is true, what you said about it not being a fact is not true.

But I know that evolution is true,I was just trying to make the point that it's not complete.And it being tweaked by new arisen evidence doesn't mean it's going to take a 90 degree turn in the other direction.

And I agree with that. But, you have to be careful when you say something like "it's not a fact" because maybe you mean that it's still subject to change and improvement, which it is, but a lot of uninformed people will look at it and say "ahah... so evolution hasnt been proven, it's not a fact!" I get tired of dealing with those people over and over in the other threads, and even though it has been discussed to death several times, I guarantee that within a month someone else will show up in one of those religion/evolution threads claiming that evolution has not been proven.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, ... you name it.

oh ok....I never go on that Religion thread because it's pure controversy with only a streak of good.There's ignorance on both sides of the arguments that I hear from most people.

#40 Edited by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know, I know this will most likely induce an eyeroll but is it possible that you might indulge me for a moment and in as simple as possible in a somewhat syllogistic form explain to me how it is that one can conlude that evolution is a fact? Perhaps defining what it is you mean by the term "fact" might be helpful. As opposed to "statistical probability" or "statistical certainity" (a term I struggle with).

I am asking only because I am not aware that anyone has ever actually witnessed something "evolve" per se (in the strict biological meaning of course) let alone been able to predict and replicate an actual "evolution" event. I am aware that there is a slight difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution and would welcome any elaboration on those terms and their significance if any.

Now let me say that I am not at all adverse to evolution or more specifically adaptation (which is certainly demonstrable and repeatable) and I am truly interested. This seemed like as good a place as any if you are willing. You are perhaps most qualified on CV. I promise that I will make every effort to totally suspend any discussion of God or creation.

Of course I would completely understand if you don't want to get into all that because of past efforts and frustration.

I dont mind answering this, although you are correct that it has been rehashed many times in other threads.

I also dont have a lot of time right now, so maybe I'll give a very short answer...

On what a fact is (from Dictionary.com):

Main Entry: scientific fact
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

That sums it up well enough, so I'll go with that. As far as evolution, there are actual observed cases of speciation (evolution from one species into another). You can Google it if you want the actual examples. Regardless, even if we didnt, observed examples are not needed because evolution works usually on such long time scales, and because we have such overwhelming evidence to support it.

An example of knowing something without direct observation is the structure of the Sun's interior. We have very good models of how the inside of the Sun (and other stars) works, and how Hydrogen is fused into Helium, etc. We cant possibly see this directly, but we can observe the resulting evidence.. emitted radiation and particles, mass and size of stars, etc. Due to everything we know about physics, the evidence can only be explained by one thing, the fact that a star emits radiation by fusing atoms like Hydrogen into heavier ones. It's a fact. The models themselves can and will improved over time, and small parts will change or be thrown out, but the overall fact will stay the same and stay true.

As far as why evolution is a fact: Simply, because there is such a large amount of evidence to support it, and no evidence that refutes it. The amount of evidence is not just large, it comes from many different types such as genetic (DNA), fossil record, and morphological. And, within each of those there are sub-types of evidence. And lastly, all those point to exactly the same results. This is why evolution is accepted as a fact by almost every single scientist on the planet for more than 100 years.

#41 Posted by kuonphobos (4904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Thank you.

I found an article here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html which basically alluded to what you have said here.

I wanted to quote an excerpt and comment on it. Reply if you like.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

As I stated in my original question to you above I have issues with the concept of "statistical certainty". This quote has somewhat helped me understand why. My background is in philosophy and theology so I guess if I am being honest I would say that up to this point my mind just won't allow me to concede the use of the word "fact" to something that isn't 100% certain or demonstrable/observable. And I bristle when science seems to co-opt the definition of fact as 100% and apply it to fact as 99.99999% and then turn and defend it as if it were fact as 100%. I think that this is indeed be nit-picking but if a materialist/empiricist could take off his hat for one moment and put on the hat of one who leaves a little wiggle room in reality for the supernatural (miracles) they might begin to understand why the supernatural thinker sees the transformation of "statistical certainty" into "fact" as problematic. See we think there is more to reality beyond matter which accounts for the .00001% that falls outside the scientific "fact". I don't know if that is at least understandable.

Now the issue with "creationists" and "creationism" is not mine. That is not even in my mind. I am personally just trying to understand why my mind rebels against what I have discussed above.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

#42 Posted by WillPayton (9817 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Thank you.

I found an article here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html which basically alluded to what you have said here.

I wanted to quote an excerpt and comment on it. Reply if you like.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

As I stated in my original question to you above I have issues with the concept of "statistical certainty". This quote has somewhat helped me understand why. My background is in philosophy and theology so I guess if I am being honest I would say that up to this point my mind just won't allow me to concede the use of the word "fact" to something that isn't 100% certain or demonstrable/observable. And I bristle when science seems to co-opt the definition of fact as 100% and apply it to fact as 99.99999% and then turn and defend it as if it were fact as 100%. I think that this is indeed be nit-picking but if a materialist/empiricist could take off his hat for one moment and put on the hat of one who leaves a little wiggle room in reality for the supernatural (miracles) they might begin to understand why the supernatural thinker sees the transformation of "statistical certainty" into "fact" as problematic. See we think there is more to reality beyond matter which accounts for the .00001% that falls outside the scientific "fact". I don't know if that is at least understandable.

Now the issue with "creationists" and "creationism" is not mine. That is not even in my mind. I am personally just trying to understand why my mind rebels against what I have discussed above.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

A fact has never been a thing that has to be proven 100%, because that's impossible and a completely useless standard.

The problem with trying to define "facts" as something that has been proven 100% is not just that it's a useless definition of "fact", but more to the point that it's a way to make a fallacious argument. It goes like this: "Can you prove your argument 100%? No. Ok, so you cant prove your argument 100%, and neither can I prove mine 100%, therefore they are both equally believable or at least plausible!" <-- Wrong!

Anything in life is judged by how confident we are that it's true. We can never know anything with 100% confidence. If I walk outside I'm pretty confident that if I take a step it will be solid ground. Is it 100%? Isnt there some possibility that the ground in front of me is some hologram and if I step on it I'll fall to my death? What exactly is the point of speculating on this? I am 99.99999999999% that the ground is solid, so I proceed as if it's true. That's a fact. If I wait until I'm sure that the ground is 100% solid, then I'll just stand there immobile for the rest of my soon-to-be short life.

Talking about philosophy is mostly useless, especially when we're trying to determine actual knowledge about the universe. How many scientific discoveries have been made through philosophy? How many diseases have been cured through philosophy? How many buildings, machines, bridges, or anything else of substance have been created by philosophy? Science is the best way we have to know how the universe works, religion and philosophy dont even come close... which is why it's so sad and pathetic watching people like William Lane Craig make their tired arguments, with his claims of "I'm a professional philosopher!". LOL... yeah, ok!