yes I agree. but it is tiresome when those opposing evolution can only attack the "Fact" that it is a theory.

NO, me and Mr Hawking agree.

Observations are facts. The change in allele frequencies in populations over time is a documented observation: fact.

Evolution if defined as the change in allele frequencies over time in a population is a fact.

I am no evolutionary biologist, but the man in the video I linked is, and he claims that that definition is the simplest one that is scientifically accurate, and myself, him and Mr Hawking agree that observations are facts.

There fore at its simplest evolution is a fact. The theory itself is really a few sub theories working together to explain the diversity of species which can have parts that are not correct, or accurate, after all every theory is an explanation which could possible always be a little wrong.

Do you guys know what an asymptote is? Explanations move toward truth, perhaps in half steps for infinity, but toward truth it does as long as we keep working hard and honestly.

Its explanations that cannot be proven, observations need no proof only accuracy.

gonna parrot wux on this one. for bushy and nova, it's that agnostic monster in me. if a fact is something that is known to be fact because it can be observed, then it's a fact that facts do not exist other than what i myself observe as nothing is knowable outside of what i experience. if a fact is derived from observation, then what i observe is indeed fact. as i've not observed evolution, it cannot be fact. i can observe factual evidence. i can test it, experiment on it, even lick it to see what it tastes like. if evolution is fact and not theory, somebody tell me what it tastes like.

I think Bushi simply needs to quaify this statement: "Observations are facts".

Now I think he took a step toward doing that with "observations need no proof only accuracy". But I think coming up with an objective standard for determining "accuracy" is going to be problematic.

And I think that is exactly the basis of why Jeannie says that facts are fundamentally agreements - agreemsnts not necessarily always on the facts themselves, but at least agreements on the standard by which accuracy, and thus the "factualness", is determined.

Also, note that "accuracy" is not absolute. So the involvement of "accuracy" in the determination of fact, would imply that there are "degrees of factualness". That is, some facts are more factual than other facts.

Anyway, I'll leave it to Bushi to get out his Ginsu Knives and slice all that to ribbons. Or get out his Easy Bake oven and combine all the ingredients with some spices and cook it all into a nice palatable meal for everyone. And I'll bring the wine

yep. but take it a step further. what i observe is fact. what someone tells me that they observe is testimony. i can accept what someone says who i deem credible as fact i suppose but that's realy a missnomer. what i've actually done in such a case is to put faith in what they told me. but i put faith in nothing. question everything so there fact falls short again.



yes. bean got it right in this respect. what we call fact is reached by agreement. and there are more christians in the world who agree that genesis got it right than there are astrophysicists who disagree. so by that standard genesis is fact, the big bang is fallacy. unless you're trying to "prove" a point, facts are meaningless. and of course no point can be proved sooooooooo.................



uh huh.



i'll bring cookies if store bought's ok. haven't been around an easy bake oven since i threw my sister's against the wall half a century ago. damn she could piss me off at times.