Quantcast
View Post
Cirio said:
Runa216 said:
Cirio said:
Runa216 said:
Cirio said:

Proof =/= Evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept while evidence is scientific. We are AWARE that evolution occurs, and we've tested it a billion times with evidence that supports this theory. I agree that Evolution occurs, but it is still a scientific theory where one cannot claim "evolution is a proven fact". His question NOW makes sense after he changed his title, but originally he asked to simply "prove evolution", which by definition is not possible because almost all scientific theories don't prove anything.

This is the kind of logic that people use to disregard anything they can.  "There are no absolutes" logic is the same kind of argument I've seen child molesters use to excuse themselves from their actions "Well 17 is no different than 18, logically, and 16 is just another step from there..." I've actually sat there and listened to a person try to philisophically justify that kind of action by saying there are no absolutes. 

Which is the same thing that's happening here..."Nothing is proven" may be technically true, but how much evidence do you need to be convinced of something?  How many supporting facts do you need?  what's the positive to negative ratio in which something is considered proven?  I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this "nothing is proven" deal.  Yes, we may be wrong, but until we find evidence to the contrary (substantial evidence), it's a VERY fair assumption that something is proven.  

I don't know where I was going with this, it's late and I worked all day. 

You're pretty much expanding on what I'm saying. Yes, evolution does exist, we have sufficient enough evidence to confidently say that evolution indeed does occur. But scientifically, we cannot say that evolution is PROVEN, even though there isn't anything besides creationists philosophy that says otherwise. I was simply commenting on his original thread title "prove evolution" because you cannot make that statement in a scientific setting. Evolution DOES occur, but one cannot say that he/she has PROVEN evolution. I'm nitpicking but I've had this discussion with my Biology professors and they tell me not to use the word "prove" in almost anything related to scientific theories.

The point I was trying to make is that you're arguing semantics. The intimate details of whether something is 'proven' or not is irrelevant, you're wasting your time arguing over a meaning of a word instead of actually debating the point at hand.  

It wasn't my intention to argue over the definition of a scientific theory. It was that other guy who called my original post "gross and a terrible misrepresentation", so naturally I had to defend my position.

That's because it is. You are arguing semantics. The biggest flaw in your logic was that stating that proof was a purely mathematical construct. IT IS NOT. Get that straight. Mathematical proofing IS a purely mathematical construct. The word "proof" when used in other fields, means, beyond reasonable double, which is obtained by presenting mountains of evidence, eventually, after enough evidence, you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that x or y thing is true. Science uses both these contructs. I talk to engineers and scientists quite often, it's my area of study right now at college, and I do dabble is research projects. I know these defintions well... Which is why, you are arguing sementics; the fact that you completely ignored my informing you of the difference between mathematical proofing and proof shows clear bias... Now, if in your original sentence, you would've said, we can't use mathematical proofing on evolution, I might be inclined to agree, but you used the word "proof" which has various meaning and interpretations depending on your field of study.