Evolution's Brick Wall

[Kenny'sID]

*sigh* and I'm sure you have been told many times that the way science uses the term "theory" is not the same colloquial usage that you are doing here. A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

You wonder why we "aren't getting" your point. It's because you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding about what a scientific theory is. We know what you are trying to argue, but you are basically arguing against a strawman version of when we say theories are not proven. YOUR definition of theory is not the same as what we are using. So who cares if your colloquial theory is proven correct? It has absolutely nothing to do with whether scientific theories can be proven or not. Utterly irrelevant.

You aren't getting my point because your end insists on changing definitions, something that I'm sure I'VE told you all several times, I don't buy for a moment. Doing so can invite nothing but confusion with terms that have been what they are for decades, or even hundreds of years. Sorry but your brilliant scientist are just going to have to figure out new terms to add to the dictionary instead of changing the ones that are there in popular dictionaries just as they have always been and meaning just as they always have.

In all their so-called wisdom, could they not see changing definitions to work for them would cause a problem?

 

[pitabread]

*sigh* and I'm sure you have been told many times that the way science uses the term "theory" is not the same colloquial usage that you are doing here. A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

You wonder why we "aren't getting" your point. It's because you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding about what a scientific theory is. We know what you are trying to argue, but you are basically arguing against a strawman version of when we say theories are not proven. YOUR definition of theory is not the same as what we are using. So who cares if your colloquial theory is proven correct? It has absolutely nothing to do with whether scientific theories can be proven or not. Utterly irrelevant.

This is why the conversation never gets out of the starting gate. When you start getting stubborn arguments over basic terminology, everything beyond that is a lost cause.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've got no idea. You haven't even begun to suggest or imply one. Is it god's holy energy springing forth from the quantum particles within the silk?

Then don't comment on something you have no idea of... that tends to lead to you not knowing what you are talking about. You all but admitted I did imply a theory according to popular definition, when you mentioned you went by a different definition and now you say you have no idea? when you know perfectly well, according to said popular definition mine absolutely was a theory. Please be truthful if you possibly can,. otherwise I'm going to lose interest.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is why the conversation never gets out of the starting gate. When you start getting stubborn arguments over basic terminology, everything beyond that is a lost cause.

Am I not getting stubborn arguments from people that insist on changing definitions when they at lease ought to have enough sense to know that's going to cause a problem? Or are you just assuming my side is the wrong side in this? My argument is sound...yours, not so much.

Direct me to the "Book of Changed Definitions" that we can take a look, please.

 

[pitabread]

Am I not getting stubborn arguments from people that insist on changing definitions when they at lease ought to have enough sense to know that's going to cause a problem? Or are you just assuming my side is the wrong side in this? My argument is sound...yours, not so much.

Direct me to the "Book of Changed Definitions" that we can take a look at, please.

The definition of a word (i.e. the meaning of the word) is often context dependent. Many words have different meanings depending on their context.

Languages are also organic and words can take on different meanings over time. Regardless, it behooves one to learn and use the proper terminology in the context of the subject they are discussing. It's just a good communication practice.

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here as I'm sure we've already had the "how words work" conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Direct me to the "Book of Changed Definitions" that we can take a look at, please.

That'll cost you $275.00 in the college bookstore.

Then next year, after another 1000 discoveries, it'll cost you another $275.00 for the revised edition.

(Assuming no markup.)

 

[Colter]

The life that was created long ago, evolved into life as we know it. Genesis was created by Hebrew priest for public consumption.

 

[pitabread]

That'll cost you $275.00 in the college bookstore.

Then next year, after another 1000 discoveries, it'll cost you another $275.00 for the revised edition.

(Assuming no markup.)

As an aside, I do agree that modern textbooks and textbook pricing is a scam.

I remember a professor telling me I needed the 3rd edition of a Calculus textbook instead of the 1st edition I was using. I ignored him and it turned out Calculus hadn't changed in the 5 years between editions.

 

[Speedwell]

You aren't getting my point because your end insists on changing definitions, something that I'm sure I'VE told you all several times, I don't buy for a moment. Doing so can invite nothing but confusion with terms that have been what they are for decades, or even hundreds of years. Sorry but your brilliant scientist are just going to have to figure out new terms to add to the dictionary instead of changing the ones that are there in popular dictionaries just as they have always been and meaning just as they always have.

In all their so-called wisdom, could they not see changing definitions to work for them would cause a problem?

I believe that the scientific definition of "theory" we have been trying to explain to you has been in use for a couple of hundred years. It wasn't changed recently just to make creationists look bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here as I'm sure we've already had the "how words work" conversation.

Yup ...

"Child" becomes "fetus."

"Miracle" becomes "magic."

"Jew" becomes ... (skip that one).

"Heaven and earth" becomes "ylem."

Et becomes cetera.

 

[AV1611VET]

The life that was created long ago, evolved into life as we know it. Genesis was created by Hebrew priest for public consumption.

What's a UB cost? and is it trademarked?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That'll cost you $275.00 in the college bookstore.

Then next year, after another 1000 discoveries, it'll cost you another $275.00 for the revised edition.

(Assuming no markup.)

And think of the money they'll make off pre college students...I knew they had to be up to something.

 

[Colter]

What's a UB cost? and is it trademarked?

Its free on the internet, no copyright anymore. Amazon paperback is $17

 

[Kenny'sID]

I believe that the scientific definition of "theory" we have been trying to explain to you has been in use for a couple of hundred years. It wasn't changed recently just to make creationists look bad.

Hundreds of years and Webster never picked up on it? Something bad wrong with that picture. Is it ok to ask you to prove that, or is it also conveniently defined as unprovable?

First, I know the scientific definition, I simply use mainstream dictionaries and always will until you can show me an official dictionary that actually changes these terms. It's the only sensible thing to do. It's one or the other, otherwise, and once again...confusion.

I'd like to say I'm surprised you all can't put that together, but I'm not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The definition of a word (i.e. the meaning of the word) is often context dependent. Many words have different meanings depending on their context.

All while you know perfectly well mainstream dictionaries lists the different contexts, and give examples. Can you show me a mainstream dictionary that shows the term in the context in question?

 

[Job 33:6]

Am I not getting stubborn arguments from people that insist on changing definitions when they at lease ought to have enough sense to know that's going to cause a problem? Or are you just assuming my side is the wrong side in this? My argument is sound...yours, not so much.

Direct me to the "Book of Changed Definitions" that we can take a look, please.

You're very stubborn . It is clear in your aggressive tone.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations.

So Dogma is saying that explanation cannot be proven fact or fiction, as in the following... correct?

I can't even count the amount of times it was explained to you that scientific theories are never proven, only supported by evidence.

At least we all agree a theory cannot be a known fact/proven, and are only some scientists opinion that they are supported. That to me leaves us with, evolution is still, and in context, the same old theory Webster always said it was. You use whatever term you like to describe it

 

[mark kennedy]

All while you know perfectly well mainstream dictionaries lists the different contexts, and give examples. Can you show me a mainstream dictionary that shows the term in the context in question?

I'm confused, definition to what?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're very stubborn . It is clear in your aggressive tone.

You're completely blind to the stubbornness of others who won't even admit the confusion that can be caused by changed definitions, and the fact there is no mainstream dictionary for us to go by.

Again, no surprises here, and I think most have gotten over my tone, As I've given several reasons for it..it's reaction to some of the unfair/untruthful tactics here. Either way, it's trivial thing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm confused, definition to what?

Your confusion is completely understandable.

Definition of "theory", simply look it up, use it, and you will be told that is not the definition at all, and that scientists use another definition...so again, of course your confused, and thank you for helping me to make the point of how goofy it is to change definitions without making another dictionary or adding the definition to mainstream dictionaries. And sure, we have been made aware of it, but how can I help not to be suspicious of it's validity for several reasons mentioned as well as the following.

That brings up the question, why has Webster not accepted scientists definition for "theory" after all this time, and added it to the dictionary? Seems to me there is something wrong there, else they would have. Is it unacceptable?

Too many red flags.