Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio
Incorrect. I have referenced a number of facts.

How can you sit there and say such a thing? That statement refutes what you said earlier:

Your words: While I cannot "prove" that the theory of evolution is true any more than I can prove any other scientific theory

Last I heard, the only way to prove something is with facts.

424 posted on 05/29/2006 9:32:40 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies ]


To: taxesareforever
How can you sit there and say such a thing? That statement refutes what you said earlier:

Your words: While I cannot "prove" that the theory of evolution is true any more than I can prove any other scientific theory

Last I heard, the only way to prove something is with facts.


You again do not understand how scientific theories are supported. I do not know if this is a result of willful ignorance or a lack of adequate explanation, so I will attempt to provide an explanation for you to follow.

Scientific theories are explanations of or for observed events; the results of objects falling to earth and orbiting bodies in space are explained by the theory of gravity, and the result of diverse life forms sharing common traits and common genetic components is explained by the theory of evolution. Theories are always "tentative", in that scientists are always open to the possibility that any given theory is potentially inaccurate or wrong. This means that no theory can be called "proven".

However, it is important to understand that a "theory" is not merely wild speculation; even though a theory is not proven, a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of its statements must still be established for an explanation to be termed "theory". The basis for the explanation, and the basis for the confidence established in a theory are "facts". Facts are data points; they are explanations of single observations. Scientific theories are considered valid when a large enough collection of facts are consistent with the statements and predictions of the theory. As such, facts support theories, even though theories cannot be proven.

As it stands, I cannot understand how your statement above is supposed to be coherent or intelligible. Theories cannot be proven, but that does not mean that scientists cannot be confident in the claims of a theory as a result of facts.
425 posted on 05/29/2006 10:03:31 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson