Why the problem with the word 'theory'?

[AV1611VET]

There was a looser standard then. It would not have been a "theory" today. The meaning of words change over time.

I see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see.

I would say that it is good news since the standard is much higher today.

And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the application of science that refuted phlogiston.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the application of science that refuted phlogiston.

So that's a YES to my question in Post 39?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So that's a YES to my question in Post 39?

No.

Your current favorite logical fallacy appears to be this one:

Your logical fallacy is black or white

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.

Why do creationists and people who do not accept evolution always have a problem with the word 'theory'?

'Ever seeking, but never seeming to get any closer to the truth'. Paraphrased, Bible.

Those who are ever seeking are constantly turning their theories into what to them is truth. Those who have a heart for truth and thus tend to have a mind that seeks truth, by the grace of God will find same. End, theories. Terminus, theories. Nonsensical ones, anyway. If dogs don't give birth to cats, we'll make 'em do it. Method? Jargon.

But the same principles apply to us as we practice religion? We can believe the bible and it remains a closed book? Been there, done that. The difference between those who find help and assurance and those (may they be few and far between) who do not? The grace of God.
Paraphrasing Faraday:
"I am not dealing in speculations."
And, "The Bible, (meaning, God) and it (him) alone, is sufficient at all times in all circumstances ....... ."
Faraday was a humble man.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<snip>

Despite the near unread-ability of the post (which I definitely imagine is an accident), your post really does not answer the question of the OP.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Whatever the question of the OP -- ahh, opinion piece? -- the question I have is how anyone can get satisfaction out of re-hashing obvious impossibilities seemingly ad infinitum whilst actually seeming to believe what they are repeating.

Odd hobby, I guess.

When I was preparing to teach geology (and therefore touch on origins) in a school, I applied the scientific method. Wipe the whiteboard (they were replacing blackboards at the time) wipe the board clean. Set down the known facts. Do not go outside fact. Do not employ the impossible. I set down the geologic record. I set down beside it the biblical script. After a month of re-reading the biblical script, I said to the Almighty; "If I am going to teach this, you will have to explain it." You see, like most people out there, I believe science is reliable and the Creator of science is not a fool. People may start out with a theory but as science advances that theory will either be discarded or it will become a law. Immutable, mathematically provable, logic.

The outcome in relation to Origins related matters is introduced at Creationtheory dot com . The solution lay in the Bible, logic, and in advances in science. Evolution can now be introduced to the new millennium -- without never ceasing repetitive re-hashing of wishful thinking. Cheers.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Whatever the question of the OP -- ahh, opinion piece? -- the question I have is how anyone can get satisfaction out of re-hashing obvious impossibilities seemingly ad infinitum whilst actually seeming to believe what they are repeating.

Odd hobby, I guess.

When I was preparing to teach geology (and therefore touch on origins) in a school, I applied the scientific method. Wipe the whiteboard (they were replacing blackboards at the time) wipe the board clean. Set down the known facts. Do not go outside fact. Do not employ the impossible. I set down the geologic record. I set down beside it the biblical script. After a month of re-reading the biblical script, I said to the Almighty; "If I am going to teach this, you will have to explain it." You see, like most people out there, I believe science is reliable and the Creator of science is not a fool. People may start out with a theory but as science advances that theory will either be discarded or it will become a law. Immutable, mathematically provable, logic.

The outcome in relation to Origins related matters is introduced at Creationtheory dot com . The solution lay in the Bible, logic, and in advances in science. Evolution can now be introduced to the new millennium -- without never ceasing repetitive re-hashing of wishful thinking. Cheers.

In internet slang, OP means Original Post.

And... you really are not answering my question, or even making an attempt to answer it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Set down the known facts. Do not go outside fact. Do not employ the impossible. I set down the geologic record.

Good.

I set down beside it the biblical script.

Why did you break your own rules?

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Why did you break your own rules?

Whose rules did you say?
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances"-- Michael Faraday

Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. MAX Planck

After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork.
Joule

I have looked into the most philosophical systems and have found none that will work without God.

James Clerk Maxwell

If one day you have to choose between the world and love, remember this: If you choose the world you’ll be left without love, but if you choose love, with it you will conquer the world

Albert Einstein

Believe in God, in His providence, in a future life, in the recompense of the good; in the punishment of the wicked; in the sublimity and truth of the doctrines of Christ, in a revelation of this doctrine by a special divine inspiration for the salvation of the human race.

Andre-Marie Ampere

All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

Isaac Newton

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei

Science is the process of thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Johannes Kepler

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.""I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism." "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.""The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words." "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." Kelvin

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

And... you really are not answering my question, or even making an attempt to answer it.

Sure I'm answering it. Couldn't you see the blank?

Lord Kelvin has been credited with the following, but majority opinion suggests Rutherford the more likely author: "In science there is Physics. Everything else is stamp collecting."
I'm more interested in running the postal service to some benefit rather than endlessly hypothesize on how the changes in stamps over the years prove there is no postal service.
Stamp collectors, please do not be offended. No similarity exists between your ordered, intelligent, beneficial work/hobby and many of the posts at this postal err. posit? deposit? Depot?

Here, I'll answer the point raised. Again. A theory is something that either has not yet been, or cannot be, expressed mathematically thus proving in the scientific sense the pathway in Physics involved. This may come as a surprise. Gravity acts according to immutable laws. Thus, there is the law of gravity. But there is no pathway in Physics by which the cause of gravity has been, or will be, explained. There is not a scintilla of an idea as to why matter attracts matter. So people may theorize about gravity until the roof falls on 'em and they get inspiration.

Sir Richard Owen, more than a decade before Darwin-Wallace burst into print, published the Law of Progression from the General to the Particular. He was a meticulous anatomist/palaeontologist who showed in remarkable detail how the vertebrates in particular are the outcome of information driven transformation built upon an 'archetype', a super-blueprint. So detailed are his anatomic facts, and so obvious is the necessary conclusion that the biosphere was pre-programmed with Man in view, Owen can be proved to be correct in stating that it was a law that transformations were pre-pogrammed. Man being in view. He demonstrated a pathway which Physics (physical chemistry/quantum biophysics to be more accurate) ultra modern Physics can be employed to confirm.
Darwinists respond by burying themselves in stamps i.e., the verbo-pile. There are constant scratchings in, and exclamations about, these centuries old stamps. It serves to benumb them to Laws.

 

[Speedwell]

Why did you break your own rules?

Whose rules did you say?
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances"-- Michael Faraday

Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. MAX Planck

After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork.
Joule

I have looked into the most philosophical systems and have found none that will work without God.

James Clerk Maxwell

If one day you have to choose between the world and love, remember this: If you choose the world you’ll be left without love, but if you choose love, with it you will conquer the world

Albert Einstein

Believe in God, in His providence, in a future life, in the recompense of the good; in the punishment of the wicked; in the sublimity and truth of the doctrines of Christ, in a revelation of this doctrine by a special divine inspiration for the salvation of the human race.

Andre-Marie Ampere

All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

Isaac Newton

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei

Science is the process of thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Johannes Kepler

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.""I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism." "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.""The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words." "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." Kelvin

Only one of those quotes had anything to do with scripture. I'm not sure what your point is, except maybe to prove that Michael Faraday was a Protestant, but we kind of knew that already.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And... you really are not answering my question, or even making an attempt to answer it.

Sure I'm answering it. Couldn't you see the blank?

Lord Kelvin has been credited with the following, but majority opinion suggests Rutherford the more likely author: "In science there is Physics. Everything else is stamp collecting."
I'm more interested in running the postal service to some benefit rather than endlessly hypothesize on how the changes in stamps over the years prove there is no postal service.
Stamp collectors, please do not be offended. No similarity exists between your ordered, intelligent, beneficial work/hobby and many of the posts at this postal err. posit? deposit? Depot?

Here, I'll answer the point raised. Again. A theory is something that either has not yet been, or cannot be, expressed mathematically thus proving in the scientific sense the pathway in Physics involved. This may come as a surprise. Gravity acts according to immutable laws. Thus, there is the law of gravity. But there is no pathway in Physics by which the cause of gravity has been, or will be, explained. There is not a scintilla of an idea as to why matter attracts matter. So people may theorize about gravity until the roof falls on 'em and they get inspiration.

Sir Richard Owen, more than a decade before Darwin-Wallace burst into print, published the Law of Progression from the General to the Particular. He was a meticulous anatomist/palaeontologist who showed in remarkable detail how the vertebrates in particular are the outcome of information driven transformation built upon an 'archetype', a super-blueprint. So detailed are his anatomic facts, and so obvious is the necessary conclusion that the biosphere was pre-programmed with Man in view, Owen can be proved to be correct in stating that it was a law that transformations were pre-pogrammed. Man being in view. He demonstrated a pathway which Physics (physical chemistry/quantum biophysics to be more accurate) ultra modern Physics can be employed to confirm.
Darwinists respond by burying themselves in stamps i.e., the verbo-pile. There are constant scratchings in, and exclamations about, these centuries old stamps. It serves to benumb them to Laws.

I'm not going to beat around the bush: all of this is just is just nonsense that makes no attempt to even answer the question in the first post of this thread.

And I've seen what you do on other friends, so I am going to have to ask you to please stop and leave this thread.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why did you break your own rules?

Whose rules did you say?

Your rules:

Set down the known facts.
Do not go outside fact.
Do not employ the impossible.

The word fact does not appear in any of that long attempted justification you wrote.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... People may start out with a theory but as science advances that theory will either be discarded or it will become a law.

This is just wrong. A scientist will propose a hypothesis to explain observations. A hypothesis may become a scientific theory or part of a theory if it is well-established by repeated testing and confirmation - otherwise it will be modified or discarded. A scientific theory doesn't become a law. A scientific law is a concise scientific description of some well-established phenomenon.

Scientific theory → a well-substantiated explanation of some phenomenon.
Scientific law → a concise description of a well-established phenomenon.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

I would be a fool to go on answering. The responses to my entries are assertions which state or imply that past scientists, the bulk of whom espoused Christianity and the Scripture (Isaac Newton, for example wrote a short bible commentary and stated that it was more important than anything else he had attempted) did not do so:Science is not based on fact-- "The word fact does not appear .... ." And the english language is irrelevant. Don't beat about the bush -- change English. Just make it up as we go along. Gibberish. Anti science anti history anti quated pre-Aristotelian 'the gods are crazy' stuff.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would be a fool to go on answering. The responses to my entries are assertions which state or imply that past scientists, the bulk of whom espoused Christianity and the Scripture (Isaac Newton, for example wrote a short bible commentary and stated that it was more important than anything else he had attempted) did not do so:Science is not based on fact-- "The word fact does not appear .... ." And the english language is irrelevant. Don't beat about the bush -- change English. Just make it up as we go along. Gibberish. Anti science anti history anti quated pre-Aristotelian 'the gods are crazy' stuff.

No one has said anything of the sort to you. You're implying something that has not been said.

All my question in the original post asks is: why do creationists have a problem with the word theory when it's used to apply to the theory of evolution but not other theories in science?

 

[SelfSim]

I would be a fool to go on answering. The responses to my entries are assertions which state or imply that past scientists, the bulk of whom espoused Christianity and the Scripture (Isaac Newton, for example wrote a short bible commentary and stated that it was more important than anything else he had attempted) did not do so:

Are you saying that people (eg: 'past scientists') are incapable of suspending their belief-based ideologies - say for the purposes of doing science?

Gee, I suspend my beliefs whenever I watch a movie ...

Science is not based on fact-- "The word fact does not appear .... ." And the english language is irrelevant. Don't beat about the bush -- change English. Just make it up as we go along. Gibberish. Anti science anti history anti quated pre-Aristotelian 'the gods are crazy' stuff.

Just comes across like some kind of a rant ..

 

[SelfSim]

... All my question in the original post asks is: why do creationists have a problem with the word theory when it's used to apply to the theory of evolution but not other theories in science?

Hope I'm not repeating views already posted by others; but surely history shows that people were heavily persecuted for thinking beyond the bounds of religious scriptures. This is still happening in present day times.

Evolution, (like Relativity and QM - in physics), I think, represents a triumph in the human ability to think creatively, yet still somehow, ends up displaying the same extraordinary consistency and integrity produced in other scientific fields of study - by simply following the same (scientific) method .. but one has to recognise that method to see that.

Perhaps the simplicity of that method ends up being simpler for humans than believing in creation miracles .. (minus the fear of persecution when stepping beyond that)?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hope I'm not repeating views already posted by others; but surely history shows that people were heavily persecuted for thinking beyond the bounds of religious scriptures. This is still happening in present day times.

Evolution, (like Relativity and QM - in physics), I think, represents a triumph in the human ability to think creatively, yet still somehow, ends up displaying the same extraordinary consistency and integrity produced in other scientific fields of study - by simply following the same (scientific) method.

Perhaps the simplicity of that method ends up being simpler for humans than believing in creation miracles .. (minus the fear of persecution when stepping beyond that)?

To be honest, I think this is the first time I've seen this idea put forward.