I'm back, I guess.

[Endo]

Hi. Remember THIS thread from a year and pennies ago?

A lot has changed. Mostly in me, how I see the world and whatnot. My parents haven't changed, but more on that later.

So, where to start? Well, not much of anything happened last summer, aside from finally snagging a dedicated personal computer. I spent most of the summer playing video games and not doing a whole lot. Last fall, however, I left for college. I'm a proud member of New Mexico Tech, working slowly towards Mechanical Engineering. I took an elective that explored some cosmology, and it helped instill a healthy respect for presented scientific theories.

I began listening to Stefan Molyneux's youtube series. I have no idea how he's generally received here, being quite the controversial figure and speaker. A lot of his ideas changed how I perceive government in its various forms as well as how I perceive Christianity and my childhood. I'd say that I'm now a Libertarian. I just recently STOPPED listening to his shows and unsubbed from his channel after visiting his forumsite. I read a few of the discussions, what really threw me would be the discussions on BDSM and martial arts, and the reaching hyper-analysis of each. As such, I decided to take a sort of spiritual/mental detox of sorts, and I guess I'm back here now, a return to roots, if you will.

Last semester, I took an applied philosophy/thought experiment course on failure, which got me a bit more interested in philosophy in general, besides someone just telling me that Christianity was child abuse. What's your favorite discourse on whatever topic? I'd like to branch off some thoughts, and I guess this open ended question's a good place to start.

I consider myself an atheist now, I don't fear Hell, which I guess was what was the last chain keeping me tied to Christianity. I've found myself thinking that I'd love to be called up on Judgement Day, give God the finger after unloading all sorts of hate for the confusion I went through from 12-18, and then swandive into Hell. That is, of course, "if I were wrong", but that seems unlikely to me. I can't say I've felt any desire to return to Christianity or to its g/God.

My parents are semi-aware of my "issues with faith", which is a fair litmus for future coming out of various closets. They for the most part think that this is just a phase where my faith is being challenged, and I suppose they're okay with that. Recent developments and things they've said suggest that they'd be okay with a complete reveal of my atheism, but I'm not willing to push that yet.

So, yeah. Hi.

[Violet]

Hi. Remember THIS thread from a year and pennies ago?

Nope, don't remember. Fewer than a dozen total posts on an avatar-less no-signature account would have to be astoundingly (incredibly) remarkable to have accomplished any memory-forming in my person, and I'm sure that I've no worse a memory than the next crack-smoker.

That said, welcome back

[Sejanus]

Do you now realise that Evolution is a scientific fact?

[Endo]

Hi. Remember THIS thread from a year and pennies ago?

Nope, don't remember. Fewer than a dozen total posts on an avatar-less no-signature account would have to be astoundingly (incredibly) remarkable to have accomplished any memory-forming in my person, and I'm sure that I've no worse a memory than the next crack-smoker.

That said, welcome back

A hair over a dozen, but that's just splitting hairs. Thank you.

Do you now realise that Evolution is a scientific fact?

Erm... no. Evolution has secured a place of respect and trust in my mind as a scientific theory with notable factual evidence, but being theory does not make it fact. And this is in regards of the scientific definition and qualifications necessary for a "theory", not the commonplace connotations of the word "theory" often tossed around as "It's JUST a theory". "It's the best explaination we've got at the moment" means just that to me, nothing more.

It appears I did not address that, despite being a notable part of the first discussion. Here's hoping I didn't leave anything else important out.

[ignoramus]

Hello.
For someone who has lost interest in the god notion, why would you still side with the people who have a vested interest in blurring the theory of evolution to just a "theory"? What's your other alternative?
Evolution is an absolute fact. Check out the YouTube videos on evolution and dna .
It practically makes it impossible for us to have evolved from anything other than our ancestors. Or continue to deny. Facts are facts ...they're not negotiable with skydaddy.

[Sejanus]

A scientific theory is always factual, so if something is a scientific theory, it is a fact. The two terms are interconvertible. So if you think Evolution is a valid scientific theory, you also accept that it is factual, or a fact.

fact [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

[Endo]

On the whole, yes. I can say that evolution is a scientific fact. I'm not denying that. Put in that specific light, I agree 100%.

However, there are numerous claims made by scientists all the time that fall under the banner of evolution. Some of these pan out, some don't. Thus, I am hesitant to say that every claim under the name EVOLUTION made by scientists is indeed a FACT.

Do you now realise that Evolution is a scientific fact?

Erm... no. Evolution has secured a place of respect and trust in my mind as a scientific theory with notable factual evidence, but being theory does not make it fact. And this is in regards of the scientific definition and qualifications necessary for a "theory", not the commonplace connotations of the word "theory" often tossed around as "It's JUST a theory". "It's the best explaination we've got at the moment" means just that to me, nothing more.

Please allow me to explain my thought process here, it's lead to some apparent self-contradiction on my part.

Theory: A claim or statement. This specific meaning of theory stems from the connotation that the common person has; "It's JUST a theory," equivalent to a hypothesis, an untested thought that could possibly explain something, but is otherwise unsubstantiated by evidence.

(Scientific) Theory: The "true" meaning of the word theory, as used by scientists and in the scientific process, a thoroughly tested and backed up claim or statement. Small holes or caveats are acceptable (seen in various attempts at refining various cosmological theories that are otherwise at odds into a Grand Unified Theory) are acceptable, as the theory is able to make relatively accurate, testable predictions and calculations.

Fact: For me, any claim that I can make based upon my own observations. The wall next to me is white. Fact.

Assuming my sensory facilities are operating properly and in correct context, I am able to verify observations and their continuity, making an observation a fact. If I were to see the wall at night, I would not assume that "The wall is white" is no longer factual, because the lights would be out, and my eyes would not be operating under the correct context. If I were to see the wall as being red tomorrow, then I must assume 2 things: Either the fact is discontinuous, or my observations must be in error. The latter would be quite disconcerting, but I have had the wonderful fortune of not experiencing that yet. If a person were to tell me that the white wall were painted over by workmen to be red, then that would be a questionable and testable claim, but the wall would be observed to be red, and if observed to be red tomorrow, then I could say that the wall is red. The original color of the wall could be called into question, but if it was white for more than one observation, then it is highly plausible that the wall was in fact, painted over. So, for an observer of the wall's painting, it would indeed be a fact, but for me, the painting of the wall would be a scientific THEORY.

In this way, a scientific theory is just one increment of "truthiness" below a personally observed fact for me. I hold scientific theories (evolution included) in high regard and consider properly vetted theories worthy of that term just as viable in making statements about the universe and nature as my own observations.

[ignoramus]

Let's talk about what you're not happy with, that's why we're here.
In fact most of us here are equally fascinated by the "glitches" in evolution as well as the obvious stuff. The genetic reproduction process is imperfect and I love seeing the "exceptions" to the rule.

[Endo]

Let's talk about what you're not happy with, that's why we're here.
In fact most of us here are equally fascinated by the "glitches" in evolution as well as the obvious stuff. The genetic reproduction process is imperfect and I love seeing the "exceptions" to the rule.

That was more of a generalization than any specific "attack" on evolution, I believe all theories are subject to "holes". I think my expanded comment should clear up my thoughts on the subject, as it was finished being edited after you posted this comment.

And I'd actually say that the imperfection in reproduction is part of what drives random mutation, I recall something about some 50 genes being different from either parent during the procreation process.

[rexbeccarox]

---

On the whole, yes. I can say that evolution is a scientific fact. I'm not denying that. Put in that specific light, I agree 100%.

However, there are numerous claims made by scientists all the time that fall under the banner of evolution. Some of these pan out, some don't. Thus, I am hesitant to say that every claim under the name EVOLUTION made by scientists is indeed a FACT.

Erm... no. Evolution has secured a place of respect and trust in my mind as a scientific theory with notable factual evidence, but being theory does not make it fact. And this is in regards of the scientific definition and qualifications necessary for a "theory", not the commonplace connotations of the word "theory" often tossed around as "It's JUST a theory". "It's the best explaination we've got at the moment" means just that to me, nothing more.

Please allow me to explain my thought process here, it's lead to some apparent self-contradiction on my part.

Theory: A claim or statement. This specific meaning of theory stems from the connotation that the common person has; "It's JUST a theory," equivalent to a hypothesis, an untested thought that could possibly explain something, but is otherwise unsubstantiated by evidence.

---

(Scientific) Theory: The "true" meaning of the word theory, as used by scientists and in the scientific process, a thoroughly tested and backed up claim or statement. Small holes or caveats are acceptable (seen in various attempts at refining various cosmological theories that are otherwise at odds into a Grand Unified Theory) are acceptable, as the theory is able to make relatively accurate, testable predictions and calculations.

---

Fact: For me, any claim that I can make based upon my own observations. The wall next to me is white. Fact.

Assuming my sensory facilities are operating properly and in correct context, I am able to verify observations and their continuity, making an observation a fact. If I were to see the wall at night, I would not assume that "The wall is white" is no longer factual, because the lights would be out, and my eyes would not be operating under the correct context. If I were to see the wall as being red tomorrow, then I must assume 2 things: Either the fact is discontinuous, or my observations must be in error. The latter would be quite disconcerting, but I have had the wonderful fortune of not experiencing that yet. If a person were to tell me that the white wall were painted over by workmen to be red, then that would be a questionable and testable claim, but the wall would be observed to be red, and if observed to be red tomorrow, then I could say that the wall is red. The original color of the wall could be called into question, but if it was white for more than one observation, then it is highly plausible that the wall was in fact, painted over. So, for an observer of the wall's painting, it would indeed be a fact, but for me, the painting of the wall would be a scientific THEORY.

In this way, a scientific theory is just one increment of "truthiness" below a personally observed fact for me. I hold scientific theories (evolution included) in high regard and consider properly vetted theories worthy of that term just as viable in making statements about the universe and nature as my own observations.

---

Welcome back! I don't remember you from before, but I was traveling a lot last year...

You're wrong in saying a scientific theory is a "claim". Rather, it's a series of explanations and predictions. Maybe you should start a thread about it; we're not supposed to get debate-y in the Intro forum