See We're not religious nuts!.....

[Diamond]

Everything seems relative. Think about it, to Christians, Christianity is a proven fact(in their own way). Science itself does not claim its theories as facts. It is up to us to believe what we want to oblviously.

You can't "believe something to be a fact", but rather "believe something to be true". Fact is a mere empirical evidence. Science != fact. What you believe is what you believe, but a definition of "fact" is another beast.

 

The argument was "Is evolution a fact?". The answer is "No" (as for any scientific theory).

[WITHTEETH]

Language is a tango. One person can believe in a fact while another does not have to call it a fact. Facts are just stuff known to be true. What is truth? Truth is subjective by nature. Every single human being has a different reality. This facts differ from person to person. They differ from country to country.

 

We have different definitions for fact as well, Ironic?

 

 

A person can create his own facts of life. A person can do whatever he wants with his/her world.

You are right. science does not claim theories as facts. Still, people can claim them as facts if they choose too.

 

Who claims that facts are facts? Does everybody agree that they are facts? No, people have different perspectives. I do no beleive science to be fact, and science states that theories are definatly not facts. Science is just statistics, its just how we read that makes the difference. Its how we read the world that makes the difference.

Edited November 12, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Diamond]

That is the issue of this thread.

 

There cannot be differenct definitions of "fact", since fact is a fact, not a belief, not a theory, not a proposition.

 

From the dictionary:

[n]  a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"

[n]  a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

[n]  a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

[n]  an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

 

 

What you are describing is not fact, but a view/opinion/belief.

[random evil guy]

do you consider gravity to be 'subjective'? remember, i'm not talking about the theory of gravity, but the physical phenomenon of gravity.

 

keep in mind, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. one is the actual physical process, while the other tries to explain it...

 

You refer to gravity as an empirical term (you feel it) and try to compare it to evolution which is abstract, so it is not appropriate.

 

Evolution theory is a theory, it can't be observed, since it is abstract, not empirical. What you observe in nature supports theory of evolution, but doesn't prove it. No science have "proofs" aside from abstract disciplines as mathematics and computer science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

actually, evolution is observed and a fact. microevolution is just mutation and macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution. same principles. creationists disagree on the latter...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[WITHTEETH]

Ok, now that you defined your definition of fact, you have to perfectly translate that into 200 different languages. Then your definiation wont be subjective. Then again, what are words? words are just symbols we relate things too. Can you describe the color red? Hard without using other colors, or pointing isn't it? Welcome to the world of assumptions Diamond, where everything is an assuomption. where you can't prove anything without a leap of faith. Where 1+1=2 doesn't have to be. Everything is an assumption. Its all on how you read the world.

:cool:

 

Trippy huh?

[Diamond]

actually, evolution is observed and a fact. microevolution is just mutation and macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution. same principles. creationists disagree on the latter...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

From same site:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

So we are talikng about different things. The initial point of discussion was about theory of evolution.

 

PS

I am not creationist

[Baley]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

[Diamond]

Ok, now that you defined your definition of fact, you have to perfectly translate that into 200 different languages. Then your definiation wont be subjective.

Isn't an issue.

 

Then again, what are words? words are just symbols we relate things too. Can you describe the color red? Hard without using other colors, or pointing isn't it?

Words are either description of empirical phenomenon (eg, color), or a definition of something abstract (eg, fact), which is limited only by the way of reasoning of a human being.

 

Welcome to the world of assumptions Diamond, where everything is an assuomption. where you can't prove anything without a leap of faith. Where 1+1=2 doesn't have to be. Everything is an assumption. Its all on how you read the world.

:cool:

 

Trippy huh?

Going further, your interpretation is also based on human's way of reasoning, i.e. our brain. But we are going out of the scope already.

[WITHTEETH]

You may think im over analyzing. Thats fine. but your not welcome anymore to the world of assumptions then

[Diamond]

but your not welcome anymore to the world of assumptions then 

:'(

[LoneWolf16]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My first thought: So ****ing what? He's an old man with a funny hat.

[Commissar]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My first thought: So ****ing what? He's an old man with a funny hat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget former Nazi.

[Cantousent]

Apparently, membership was mandatory for the, then 16 year old, Ratzinger.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cardin...E2.80.931945.29

 

He was also required to serve in the military. Hmmm.

 

You guys are right, though. Like Stalin asked, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?" He's just a guy in a funny hat.

[Commissar]

Apparently, membership was mandatory for the, then 16 year old, Ratzinger.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cardin...E2.80.931945.29

 

He was also required to serve in the military.  Hmmm.

 

You guys are right, though.  Like Stalin asked, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"  He's just a guy in a funny hat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it was also mandatory for 16 year-old Warsaw Jews to get on the trains.

 

But some of 'em took a stand.

[J.E. Sawyer]

>_

 

Learn your geography.

 

That's the midwest, not the south.

 

Besides, that's Kansas... they're kinda weird out there (and as someone from Missouri I'm entitled to that opinion)

At best, Kansas has marginal claims to being part of the Midwest. As I only grudgingly allow Missouri to claim membership, Kansas sure isn't getting in on my watch.

 

Well, it was also mandatory for 16 year-old Warsaw Jews to get on the trains.

 

But some of 'em took a stand.

A tiny number of Jews of any age resisted, even though many of them knew exactly what was happening. Expecting a 16-year old living in a fascist totalitarian nation to clearly comprehend the morality of what was going on around him is asking a bit much.

[Commissar]

A tiny number of Jews of any age resisted, even though many of them knew exactly what was happening.  Expecting a 16-year old living in a fascist totalitarian nation to clearly comprehend the morality of what was going on around him is asking a bit much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. It's probably something of a normal human response.

 

Good to know that the leader of the Catholic church is nothing but normal, though. You wouldn't expect an exceptional man to hold such a post. Nothing of the hero...the commoners like a man of the people. Strong moral compasses are for sissies, not leaders of the faithful.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Do you not understand Christian soteriology?

[Commissar]

Do you not understand Christian soteriology?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Soteriology, likewise, is for sissies.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Soteriology, likewise, is for sissies.

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, but the entire basis of Christian redemption comes from rising above a history of error. It's why the father is joyous at the return of the prodigal son.

[WITHTEETH]

The father is the son. He sacrificed himself, to himself.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The father is the son. He sacrificed himself, to himself.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the prodigal son is not Jesus Christ.

[Commissar]

Soteriology, likewise, is for sissies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, but the entire basis of Christian redemption comes from rising above a history of error. It's why the father is joyous at the return of the prodigal son.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but the prodigal son never became God's representative on earth. Since you seem to want to discuss this in a serious manner, I suppose I'll actually have to throw out an argument.

 

In order to be beatified, a person must have lived a life above any possible moral reproach; should the standards be lower for the head of the actual church?

Edited November 12, 2005 by Commissar

[WITHTEETH]

Who is the son? is he suppose to be divine also, was he moses? Any info, this is intresting.

[Commissar]

Who is the son? is he suppose to be divine also, was he moses? Any info, this is intresting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a parable, from Luke, if I'm not mistaken.

[WITHTEETH]

OK i do not see how this makes any sense to me. In christianity man cannot be perfect with out the help of god. In judaism it is possible, just difficult. How is this parable relevent? im lost.