(December 3, 2008 at 6:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 3, 2008 at 6:27 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Sorry but evolution is a scientific fact. Also evolution is not 'just a theory'. Its a theory in the same way that the the theory of gravity is a theory. Its a scientific fact.

Errrmmmm....welllll...

Corrections:

Evolution (the genetic changes within a species due to mutation) is a fact, we've observed it happen (Lenski experiments, croatian island lizards etc).

The Theory of Evolution is a theory (hence the name). This is simply an explanation of Evolution (the fact, see above). It's how we reckon it all works, and the key of the theory is Natural Selection.

So your analogy about gravity is slightly wrong. Gravity (the scientific fact) is a fact, whilst the theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact.

Well I was just going by Dawkins who I respect as a biologist. When Rabbi Gluck said to him on the Root Of All Evil? episode 2: "[...]its still called the theory of evolution" Dawkins responded with "Well it is called that but thats in a very technical sense". And the Rabbi said :"But still its called that. And its not called the law of evolution." And Dawkins said "Well I will call it the fact of evolution."
By the way, Gluck, at least at the time of the interview believed that the earth is 5000 years old.
Have you seen The Root of All Evil? Adrian?
And I will also note that Dawkins objected to the title of the program (The Root of All evil?) in TGD. Saying, and I paraphrase: "Nothing is the root of all anything."

Dawkins was trying to get across the point about scientific facts and theories to an ignorant fool, hence him playing about with words. There is a vast difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The "technical sense" is in the definition of a scientific theory, which isn't something simply dreamed up by someone, but a well researched explanation of the facts. Like Eugenie Scott says, science cares very little about the hypothesis, the facts, the laws. Science is focused on the theories more than anything.

And yes, I've seen the documentary many times.

(December 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Dawkins was trying to get across the point about scientific facts and theories to an ignorant fool, hence him playing about with words. There is a vast difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The "technical sense" is in the definition of a scientific theory, which isn't something simply dreamed up by someone, but a well researched explanation of the facts. Like Eugenie Scott says, science cares very little about the hypothesis, the facts, the laws. Science is focused on the theories more than anything.

And yes, I've seen the documentary many times.

Yes. I know evolution is a scientific theory.
But I was calling it a fact for the exact same reason as Dawkins was. That's why I was showing you that perhaps its ok to call it a fact on some occasions. But I've given it away now
I thought I'd start by calling it a fact.

I have no problems with you calling it a fact, as long as you distinguish between what is the fact and what is the theory. Your line looked like you were trying to imply that the theory was a fact, which it rightly isn't.

(December 3, 2008 at 7:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I have no problems with you calling it a fact, as long as you distinguish between what is the fact and what is the theory. Your line looked like you were trying to imply that the theory was a fact, which it rightly isn't.

Yes its a theory. Technically speaking. That's why its called a theory. And thats why Dawkins says that it is in the very technical sense.
But just you try using the word "theory" to a believer.
I guess its like how technically speaking "I am almost certain there is no God". But then I might not bother with the "almost" on some occasions.

This person is obviously very disturbed, and should undergo mental evaluation.

This is NOT how Jesus Christ wanted his followers to treat people

(December 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: This person is obviously very disturbed, and should undergo mental evaluation.

This is NOT how Jesus Christ wanted his followers to treat people

EvF isn't one of Jesus' followers Does that exclude him from Jesus' rules?

Jesus said the Golden Rule and I like that, so I guess I follow Jesus to at least a very small extent. But do I? Because others said it before Jesus so does that count?

(December 6, 2008 at 2:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Jesus said the Golden Rule and I like that, so I guess I follow Jesus to at least a very small extent. But do I? Because others said it before Jesus so does that count?

Reword it slighty, make it your own

Ok here goes : "Respect and be nice to people if they deserve it. Respect and be nice to yourself if you deserve it. Moral justice and generosity goes a long way." - me.