Quote from: BADecker on August 13, 2018, 10:01:35 PM

Quote from: FroggysDoggy on August 13, 2018, 08:13:35 PM

Dear BADecker,

I totally agree with you that the Evolution Theory proved to be wrong. I know that. Period.

First, when I read your comment I was surprised, but then I got the idea: you love the word 'hoax.' Well, good for you! Wink

I love this word, too, by the way.

HOWEVER, my point wasn't whether the Evolution Theory is a mistake or not. My point was that the word 'hoax' by no means matches the context. That's it.

I hate to disappoint you here, but if you claim to be so scientifically-minded, you must know the connotation of the word 'hoax,' don't you? It has a negative connotation.

hoax:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

/American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved./

Thus, a hoax implies an intention to deceive or trick and establishing or accepting something by fraudulent means.

Which of these applies to Charles Darwin and/or his theory? (deceive,trick)
Did Darwin intend to deceive or trick anybody by his theory?
Was his theory established or accepted by fraudulent means?
Where's the proof that Darwin intended to deceive or trick people by his theory?

Don't answer. These are rhetorical questions.

Let's go on.

Now, in the given context we can discuss either a 'theory' or a 'hypothesis' vs. a 'fact.' (Remember, "scientific hypotheses are not facts?")

First, a scientist puts forward / formulates a theory in order to explain some facts or phenomena either to prove them or find some better evidence to explain his or her observations.
Look up 'theory' and you'll see: "...An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Unlike situation with 'hoax,' implying an intention to deceive, the key word here is 'assumption.'
So, 'theory' doesn't mean 'fact' or 'truth,' it's just an assumption.
In the end, if a theory proves to be correct, it becomes a 'fact' or 'knowledge,' but should it be wrong, it'll remain a 'theory' and become history.
It can become anything, but a 'hoax,' unless a person behind it intended to deceive or trick people, of course, which is very unlikely Wink

A bunch of definitions (just in case)

theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Some definitions of the 'fact'

fact:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.

a concept whose truth can be proved; Example: "scientific hypotheses are not facts."

Thanks for the discussion!

Nothing personal Wink

All these definitions are nice. And Darwin might really have been hopeful that his ideas were true. But, we are far away from the time of Darwin. We are far advanced scientifically over what Darwin's world was. And so far, everything is as you say. But watch these two videos that show that today evolution has nothing to back it at all - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsHkfWr5TEo and especially https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

As I said in a previous post, since evolution is being touted as truth by universities and other people of science, even though at the very least it is highly suspect it to not exist - since we have never found an evolution proof example/sample - why should it not be touted as it is?... highly suspect, and not known to exist by factual example?

This is why evolution is a hoax - the continual expressing that it exists when nobody knows that it exists... not because people have faith in it. What we need is some little eensy-teensy-weensy evolution fact... at least.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

I believe you're both right here, guys. A hoax isn't the perfect word, of course, but today's "universities and other people of science" should change the way they interpret it. IMO, they should teach it as a part of a history of scientific thought or something Wink