A theory is not a guess.

[rjw]

For those who think a theory is a guess then consider that:-

1) The germ theory of disease is also a guess.

2) The atomic theory of matter is a guess.


In actuality these "guesses" are called theories because they have a lot of evidence in support of them, so much so, that scientists consider them to be correct, and as such worthwhile to accept as a means for learning more about issues and ideas associated with them.

Thus, the atomic theory of matter has a lot of evidence in support of the idea that matter is made of atoms. And so, scientists accept the idea as true. From there they use the theory to try and work out more about these atoms and the matter they are deemed to make up.


A theory might be considered and opinion. But unlike an opinion that is a guess, a wild guess, it's an opinion that has a lot of evidence in support of it.

 

[DennisTate]

What is your opinion on The Anthropic Principle?

Do you believe the Cyclic Model of the Universe is a logical theory?

Do you think that I am silly to believe that evolutionary theory in some form should be expanded to include infinite time in the past and not be limited merely to four dimensional space time and 4.5 billion or 13.7 billion years??!!

Dogmatic Atheists Lack Mathematical Aptitude.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Do you think that I am silly to believe that evolutionary theory in some form should be expanded to include infinite time in the past and not be limited merely to four dimensional space time and 4.5 billion or 13.7 billion years??!!

I prefer "uninformed" rather than "silly".

1) The Theory of Evolution refers to change in allele frequencies in living organism populations over time. So it has ZERO to do with "infinite time in the past" and dimension limits.

2) If you wish to propose a theory which denies the age of the earth and/or the universe, you need EVIDENCE. What is your evidence???

So, frankly, I don't understand the basis for your "wish". (I'm looking for the right term. I'm not trying to be fair and neutral about such a term. And because I don't know where you are headed with this, I can't really determine where you are wanting to head with this. But welcome to the forum threads!)

 

[DennisTate]

I prefer "uninformed" rather than "silly".

1) The Theory of Evolution refers to change in allele frequencies in living organism populations over time. So it has ZERO to do with "infinite time in the past" and dimension limits.

2) If you wish to propose a theory which denies the age of the earth and/or the universe, you need EVIDENCE. What is your evidence???

So, frankly, I don't understand the basis for your "wish". (I'm looking for the right term. I'm not trying to be fair and neutral about such a term. And because I don't know where you are headed with this, I can't really determine where you are wanting to head with this. But welcome to the forum threads!)

Thank you for your obviously extremely well informed response ThouShaltNotPoe!

Basically you are talking to a guy who back in 1988 believed very firmly in "soul sleep" as taught by TV evangelist Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong. My dad died on January 1, 1990 and around that time I ran into near death experience accounts in an issue of Psychology Today.

Here is one where what appears to me to be a brilliant explanation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe is given.

How in the world do ordinary people, who have had a brush with death, end up writing such accounts that seem to fit so amazing well with String Theroy, and the Cyclic Model of the Universe??????!!!

Mellen-Thomas Benedict - near-death experiences

I felt and heard several velvety sonic booms again. My consciousness, or being, was expanding to interface with the entire holographic universe and more.

As I passed into the second light, the awareness came to me that I had just transcended the truth. Those are the best words I have for it, but I will try to explain. As I passed into the second light, I expanded beyond the first light. I found myself in a profound stillness, beyond all silence. I could see or perceive FOREVER, beyond infinity. I was in the void. I was in pre-creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time - the first word - the first vibration. I was in the eye of creation. I felt as if I was touching the face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply I was at one with absolute life and consciousness.

When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That's a mind-expanding thought, isn't it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event which created the universe. I saw that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by supercomputers using fractal geometry equations.

 

[Lethe]

1) Theories fit facts
2) Theories are sometimes limited by scope or context. That is they explain facts within a certain set of conditions, such as classical dynamics explaining non-relativistic, non-atomic scale mechanics.
3) Are parsimonious: the simplest theory that explains the most facts, is preferred.

Corollary to three: Successor theories swallow their predecessors whole and then some. They explain all the facts the prior theory explained, and then more, and at the same time are usually simpler.

Number three there is very important. It's the primary razor with which it is possible to slash through nonsense. If you find your beliefs require a laundry list of exemptions to established observations and scientific laws, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Strathos]

Everyone who has actually looked into the scientific definition of "theory" knows this. I'm sure all of the creationists here have been told this many times, but if they repeat the "evolution is just a theory" argument, they obviously won't listen.

 

[Michael]

For those who think a theory is a guess then consider that:-

1) The germ theory of disease is also a guess.

2) The atomic theory of matter is a guess.


In actuality these "guesses" are called theories because they have a lot of evidence in support of them, so much so, that scientists consider them to be correct, and as such worthwhile to accept as a means for learning more about issues and ideas associated with them.

Thus, the atomic theory of matter has a lot of evidence in support of the idea that matter is made of atoms. And so, scientists accept the idea as true. From there they use the theory to try and work out more about these atoms and the matter they are deemed to make up.

A theory might be considered and opinion. But unlike an opinion that is a guess, a wild guess, it's an opinion that has a lot of evidence in support of it.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, particular as it relates to EV theory, but actually, in many cases, a theory is in fact nothing more than a "guess". At the macroscopic level M(String)-theory comes to mind. At the low end of the spectrum, SUSY theory comes to mind. Is there *really* evidence of extra dimensions?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

I don't mean to rain on your parade, particular as it relates to EV theory, but actually, in many cases, a theory is in fact nothing more than a "guess". At the macroscopic level M(String)-theory comes to mind. At the low end of the spectrum, SUSY theory comes to mind. Is there *really* evidence of extra dimensions?

Can't we ALL simply admit the obvious: that even scientists at times use the word "theory" in rather casual and not-according-to-the-formal-definition way? After all, a formal SCIENTIFIC THEORY is far more than merely a guess. It is an explanation of the data that has survived rigorous scrutiny and efforts to falsify it, in many cases receiving nothing but further confirmation for centuries. In contrast to that, there are scientific HYPOTHESES to which the word "theory" becomes associated where there is still a glaring lack of consistent evidence and the scientific method is still at work simply establishing whether that "theory" [casual use of the word] can survive years of peer-review.

Obviously, many creationist leaders have tried for many years to use the guess-aspect of the general public's casual use of the word "theory" to give the false impression that The Theory of Evolution is NOT one of the most rigorously tested and affirmed FACTS in all of science. When I was a young earth creationist teaching Sunday School in the church of my childhood, I would have considered that sentence "fightin' words!" and some kind of sick exaggeration. Not until years later did I research for myself the fact that the mountains of evidence for evolutionary processes are indisputable. NESTED HIERARCHIES alone were enough to convince me, even if genome mapping and an explosion in the number of "transitional fossil form" discoveries hadn't happened in the decades which followed.

As a former young earth creationist who used to absolutely abhor the statement "Biological evolution and COMMON DESCENT are FACTS.", I would plead with my evolution-denying Christian brethren to at least stop sabotaging their own credibility---and start by ENDING THE SILLY "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY!" tactic. Even ardent YEC professors like Dr. Todd Wood has been begging his creationist readers of his blog to stop undermining his anti-evolution-theory efforts by forever repeating such mind-numbing obfuscations and traditional YEC slogans and factoids which make the entire movement sound like science-illiterates and gullible urban legend victims.

 

[RickG]

...... which make the entire movement sound like science-illiterates and gullible urban legend victims.

I will add "willfully science-illiterates", as even when presented with legitimate science, most will just tune it out and ignore it.

I know I have posted this a few times before, but it has been a while and I think worth mentioning again. Several years ago I had a discussion with an anti-evolution person who had presented a quote mine from Henry Gee's book, "In Search of Deep Time". Dr. Gee in one of the chapters presented a what if scenario questioning evolution. After doing that, he then goes on to explain the caveats of that scenario and how we know them to be wrong. This person of course took the scenario and presented it as if Henry Gee, biologist and paleontologists, was showing how evolution is false. I even went to the trouble of obtaining the book and reading it myself, not just that chapter, the entire book. I then presented exactly what Dr. Gee was doing and how the person making the claim was wrong. The person actually accepted the fact that it was a quote mine and that Gee was not making an argument against evolution. What still boggles my mind to this day, is that this person kept saying that, "well, he did say it". I mean really, how willfully ignorant can one get? They accept it as a quote mine, but somehow still think it to be true because, "he did say it".

 

[rjw]

What is your opinion on The Anthropic Principle?

I'd say it's more of an interesting philosophical idea than a scientific theory.

Do you believe the Cyclic Model of the Universe is a logical theory?

It's a scientific theory that is not so well accepted these days.

Do you think that I am silly to believe that evolutionary theory in some form should be expanded to include infinite time in the past and not be limited merely to four dimensional space time and 4.5 billion or 13.7 billion years??!!

No, you are not necessarily silly. But if you can do it in a manner that is convincing to most scientists then good luck. Then you will have a theory in the scientific sense.

 

[Michael]

Can't we ALL simply admit the obvious: that even scientists at times use the word "theory" in rather casual and not-according-to-the-formal-definition way?

Well, I don't know about "all" of us, but you could get *me* to agree to that statement.

 

[mylastbreath]

What still boggles my mind to this day, is that this person kept saying that, "well, he did say it". I mean really, how willfully ignorant can one get? They accept it as a quote mine, but somehow still think it to be true because, "he did say it".

Creationists do the same with Darwin. When discussing evolution in the Christian community, I have, on multiple occasions, encountered people who cite the chapter in Origin where Darwin describes the evolution of the eye as a seemingly insurmountable objection to the theory of natural selection. "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Of course, anyone who has actually read the book knows that this quotation was simply illustrating how our own intuition, shaped by a decades-long human life span, is inadequate for comfortably coming to terms with the gradual change of evolution over millenia. Following this quotation, Darwin goes on the describe, in minute detail, a process by which evolution can explain the development of the eye, demonstrating that intuition alone is a poor guide for assessing scientific theories. Especially interesting is that—though Darwin's proposed evolutionary sequence was purely hypothetical to show that it could be done—we've since found extant examples of each stage, suggesting that it actually is how the process occurred in nature. If only Darwin had known that one of his most impressive predictions would be decontextualized to argue against his theory, he might have chosen his words more carefully!

 

[hedrick]

They accept it as a quote mine, but somehow still think it to be true because, "he did say it".

It seems reasonable that people would treat Darwin consistently with the way they treat the Bible.

 

[DennisTate]

I'd say it's more of an interesting philosophical idea than a scientific theory.

It's a scientific theory that is not so well accepted these days.

No, you are not necessarily silly. But if you can do it in a manner that is convincing to most scientists then good luck. Then you will have a theory in the scientific sense.

I suspect one of the reasons why the Cyclic Model of the Universe is not so well accepted is partly because many scientists do not wish to face the probability that intelligence would almost certainly originate in fundamental energy....not in a biological form confined to four dimensions of space-time??!!


Mellen-Thomas Benedict - near-death experiences

When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That's a mind-expanding thought, isn't it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event which created the universe. I saw that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by supercomputers using fractal geometry equations.

(Mellen Benedict)

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

A theory is an educated guess.

"Educated" being a relative term.

No, it's not.

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, that's just your theory.

No, no it's not.

 

[Non sequitur]

A theory is an educated guess.

"Educated" being a relative term.

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

 

[Aconba]

...