Copyscape

Protected by Copyscape Duplicate Content Checker

IMPORTANT GENERAL MESSAGE TO ALL

PLEASE SUPPORT ME IN MY CONTINUED ADVANCE IN LOGIC STUDIES FOR THE PROGRESS OF HUMANITY BUT NOT FOR CONTROVERSY !
******** WORLD OF "Normal" HUMANS, PLEASE LIVE YOUR LIVES AS YOU DO, AND YOUR RELIGIONS AND ACADEMIA, ETC ! I WILL LIVE MY more normal free LIFE IN "COMPLETE PEACE" WITH MYSELF AND THE MAXIMUM LOGIC OF "PURE LOGIC" ! - MANY THANKS TO ALL !
PURE LOGIC IS HOW TO ANALYZE AND IF IT IS WRONG OR RIGHT UNDER MOST SCENARIOS AND WHY, NOT IF ACADEMIA OR HUMANS ARE GOING TO EMPLOY IT...!

Maximum limit of CO2 350ppm...!

CO2 World Ocean Acidification...!

##
World CO2
since 1750 (cubic feet)

zFacts.com - CO2 Global Warming

UNIVERSAL STANDARD TIME - UTC - GMT [Greenwich-UK ! ] - Date Line Pacific FIJI



7 TIMES - do they do for you ? - 7 HORAS = LE SIRVE ALGUNO ?

COUNTDOWN TO WORLD "OVER-POPULATION" OF 7 BILLION

WORLD POPULATION CLOCK USA GOV

PoodWaddle World Population and Productive Land Count !

YOUR CUTE unforgettable games online

YOUR CUTE unforgettable games online http://tetris-it.blogspot.com

Other web addresses


Other Web sites:


JOINTQUEST.COM ; GeorgeFrederickThomsonBroadhead.com ; DatJot.com
http://twitter.com/CoolerDrink
https://Facebook.com : Pure Logic Book
https://Facebook.com : George Frederick Thomson Broadhead
http://thepurelogic.wordpress.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/BookOfPureLogic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Forever_true
http://en.metapedia.or/wiki/User_talk:George1963#Articles
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/newbooks/07/g4-100e.html
DO NOT FORGET THE RECENT BUT FORGOTTEN "LINK":
http://www.DatJot.com

Blog of Venezuela - A country gone to another reality ! AND eve-nt !

DO NOT MISS the "Modern" Efforts of a ancient violent dead God and Jesus !

http://www.y-jesus.com
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.godresources.org/index.php?p=home

Monday, May 25, 2009

...Tim Vickers, a logical dud...by: tim_vickers_DUD

tim_vivkers_DUD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Source_of_ambiguity
Source of ambiguity

It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on theory/fact (in the previous section, and perhaps this one as well) may be a misunderstanding of what the article is all about. The only reason this article exists is because of the efforts of creationists to find any method to confuse issues surrounding evolution. One technique involves switching between disputing the facts and the theories of evolution. The first sentence of the article has seven references. Reading them shows that reliable sources have written in exactly the terms addressed by the article. The Gould article is a good first choice.
The recent edit which changed "disputing the validity of evolution" to "disputing the validity of the theory of evolution" has missed the point. Creationists want to deny the fact and the theory (see above Gould article), and they want to take any minor disagreement about a particular theory as an attack on the fact, and any questioning of a particular fact is taken as evidence against the theory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the misunderstanding, if you say creationists are conflating fact and theory? That's exactly the ambiguity I pointed out. Whether creationists don't understand the difference, or willfully ignore it, is kinda beside the point. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Is there something in the article that should be improved? What? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Yes, the second sentence of the article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the explanation given above has not changed your mind from your initial comment, and you don't want to discuss the replies. In that case, all I can do is to refer you to the seven references. Read the first few paragraphs of the Gould article and then say in what way the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is disagreeing with the sources, or suggest some alternative wording. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the Gould article. But I'm beginning to suspect this is more of a terminological dispute than a substantive one. (And therefore, not really an interesting dispute). Creationists, according to the wiki article, conflate "Theory of Evolution" and "Fact of Evolution"; the article says this plays on an ambiguity in the term "evolution", I think the ambiguity is in the term "theory". But I'm not convinced this changes any of what follows in the article. Hairhorn (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This article i on the ambiguity in the word "evolution." Discussion of an ambiguity in the word "theory" belongs in a different articl. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You've missed my point, that this article - or at least the second sentence - gets it wrong. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you miss everyone else'spoint - this article is about one particular misunderstanding. You keep bringing up a different misunderstanding. Look, the ketchup article links to "tomato" and to "vinegar." Are you going to go to the article on "tomato" and insist that ketchup has vinegar in it? Yeah, that is correct, but what does it have to do with the article on ketchup? This article is on evolution as (1) theory and (2) fact. Its purpose is to explain what this means. You want to argue some other point, fine, but it is not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite it, but the point's been beaten to death already. You yourself point out that there are ambiguities both with "evolution" and "theory" below. Hairhorn (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems: creationists do not understand what scientists mean by "theory," and they do not understant that while scientists talk of the theory about evolution, scientists also consider evolution itself to be a fact. This is an imposrtant distinction in science, between a model of some part of the world, and the observational consequences of propositions derived from that model that can be checked through experiment or observation in nature. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing more ambiguous in logic than Evolution. Have you guys upgraded your knowledge and Science, to the latest available publications ? Because all this that you are using to explain ambiguous, sounds a bit weak in convincing capability,

to anybody with any capacity to determine facts and truth !(Tim vickers DUD (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC))