Well Gravity is not a fact, but there is so much evidence to support it...

...that it may as well be considered so. Ditto, evolution.

I am perfectly aware that a scientific theory can *NEVER* be proved in a mathematical sense, but evidence can be accumulated to the point it can generally be considered a fact to all rational parties.

Posted By: yarmyyarmy on January 26th 2006 at 16:19:22

Message Thread

This whole debate about creationism vs Darwinian theory (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:39:30
- Philosophy (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:07:55
  - Bingo, innit. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:11:48
  - But current theories *are* constantly challenged and refined... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:10:26
- But why not give equal time the creation myths of the Eskimos (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:07:14
  - As is evolution if you choose to view it in that manner. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:10:14
    - So why should ID (with no evidence) be given equal time as... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:14:01
      - ID shouldn't (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:22:36
        
        Again, bingo. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:27:58
      - At which point did I say equal time? (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:15:57
        
        I agree (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:27:35
        
        Well Gravity is not a fact, but there is so much evidence to support it... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:19:22
        
        But gravity is a fact. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:26:58
        
        None of them are wrong. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:33:28
        
        Newtonian mechanics was shown to be inconsistent with observation. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:45:24
        
        I didn't say it was true. I said it wasn't wrong. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:51:13
- Yes, With You There Steve... (NCFC) - Martin Peters, Jan 26, 15:59:48
- I did RE at GCSE... (NCFC) - Brom, Jan 26, 15:54:33
  - The RE I did (pre-GCSE only) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 16:02:04
- Hugely dissappointed SiH (NCFC) - Tomblander, Jan 26, 15:48:20
  - Sorry, mate. Old Git's gonna do it in a while apparently. (n/m) (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:49:14
    - Hurry up Old Git, my Coffee's getting cold (n/m) (NCFC) - Tomblander, Jan 26, 15:51:54
- That's not a very sophisticated analysis (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Jan 26, 15:47:26
  - Yeah well I had to give pants a chance. (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:48:36
- Again though, ID is not a theory because it's not testable and doesn't make predictions. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 15:44:56
  - Would you say evolution was really testable ? (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:46:59
    - Agreed. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 15:49:20
      - Yup. With you there. (n/m) (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:50:17
  - important not to confooze Theory and Theology (n/m) (NCFC) - Hull Canary, Jan 26, 15:46:37
  - Exactly. See below - that why "Teach the controversy" is so clever. (n/m) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:45:56
- I.D. is a relatively new idea. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:43:57
  - It's not. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 15:46:44
    - Nope. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:03:58
      - It is the same to my mind. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:07:34
    - No, I know, but the specific framework of I.D., and the specific terms are new(ish) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:50:17

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.