Fine Tuning

[Peter1000]

An overtly Christian site whose source is Hugh Ross. I met with him personally and wasn't impressed. I explained in detail why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails and he had no response, he only shook his head and rejected what I had to say. Perhaps that kind of response is adequate if I'm ambushing him in his personal life, say if he's out having dinner, but this was a Q&A and the topic was cosmology in the context of theology.

Hugh Ross is a fine astronomer, but he is an incompetent cosmologist.



A Wikipedia article which is the very antithesis of everything you've said. It does not mention the proton-electron mass ratio being necessary for life and in fact it says explicitly that it is unknown if the value is constant throughout the universe and for all time. Did you even read the article at all?



I need only post a random string of letters to sufficiently respond to you. I gave you the respect of reading everything you had to say and you have disappointed me greatly. Your sources about cosmological issues are a Christian astronomer and a Wikipedia article that does not even agree with your position.



I'm officially through with you. I will not be reading your responses ever again.

In post #102 you reject the idea that you need to read the OP. Now you misidentify my position. I've said at every opportunity that I think fine tuning is the best card theists can play, and I'm asking for evidence on either side. That's what the OP goes on about. I don't have a position here. I'm looking to be swayed by the evidence. If you bothered to read the OP, you'd know that.

If you fancy yourself as an apologist, then you must read what an atheist has to say when conversing with him or her. This approach of yours is utterly embarrassing and will only burn more bridges for you. Good luck on your endeavors.



The null hypothesis does not require backing. Positive claims do. Either redefine science for all of humanity, or go educate yourself on the scientific method so that you are competent for these discussions.



Like I said in the OP, which you did not bother to read, my answer is that I don't know. All of this stems from you not reading the OP. I can only wonder what else I've said to you that has gone unread. I will ensure that I return the favor to you.

It all boils down to faith. We don't exactly know how the universe got started or how life got started on earth. I just have faith that it was started by a Superior Being, of which the precision constants bear testimony of.

You have chosen to have faith in a 'random chance happening' to explain how the universe got started and how life started on earth.

I'm sorry that my sources are not up to your PhD requirements, I was sure they would not be accepted.

If you were truly interested in the constants as a sign of Superior Intelligence, you would have dug into this possiblitiy long ago and come up with your own sources. But I do not believe that you want to find out that there is a Superior Intelligence. Then you would have to listen and obey what He has to say. I figure you are not ready for that committment. Hope you come around to it one day.

If I come up with anything more interesting, I will let you know. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Peter1000]

Whoa whoa whoa, you said "complex" before. Simple self-replicating protocells did make themselves, but they looked nothing like existing unicellular organisms.

Chemicals happen, right? We don't need to invoke God to explain a pool of chemicals? Good. Now, we know that RNA can serve as both information and enzyme, carrying out the actions that it itself codes for - then couldn't a piece of RNA code for its own creation, simply by chance? If so, we now have reproduction with error (as there are errors in RNA production). Thus, evolution can occur, giving us everything we see today after a billion years or four.

It possibly could. That is the nice thing about a theory.
You just theorized about how life got started on earth.

I call it a theory, because until through the scientific method we experience this phenomena, or observe its creative power, we can not move it to factual law.
For instance you say, 'then couldn't a piece of RNA code for its own creation, simply by chance?
Well could it? Since no scientist has experienced it yet and no 2nd scientist has confirmed the 1st, then we don't know. And your extra educated thought falls into the long list of unproven theories.

Until science can show me that it happened in front of their eyes, I will still have faith that the precision constants point a finger away from 'simple chance' and directly to a 'Superior Being'.

It is interesting to me that you reject a Superior Intelligence for the same reason I reject the RNA theory. At least there are men and women who say that they have seen God and not just 1 or 2, but many.
There has never been anyone say that they have seen a strand of RNA create a simple cell, by itself, by random chance. So I, of course, lean to a Superior Being that at least men and women have said they have seen.

 

[Peter1000]

An overtly Christian site whose source is Hugh Ross. I met with him personally and wasn't impressed. I explained in detail why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails and he had no response, he only shook his head and rejected what I had to say. Perhaps that kind of response is adequate if I'm ambushing him in his personal life, say if he's out having dinner, but this was a Q&A and the topic was cosmology in the context of theology.

Hugh Ross is a fine astronomer, but he is an incompetent cosmologist.



A Wikipedia article which is the very antithesis of everything you've said. It does not mention the proton-electron mass ratio being necessary for life and in fact it says explicitly that it is unknown if the value is constant throughout the universe and for all time. Did you even read the article at all?



I need only post a random string of letters to sufficiently respond to you. I gave you the respect of reading everything you had to say and you have disappointed me greatly. Your sources about cosmological issues are a Christian astronomer and a Wikipedia article that does not even agree with your position.



I'm officially through with you. I will not be reading your responses ever again.

In post #102 you reject the idea that you need to read the OP. Now you misidentify my position. I've said at every opportunity that I think fine tuning is the best card theists can play, and I'm asking for evidence on either side. That's what the OP goes on about. I don't have a position here. I'm looking to be swayed by the evidence. If you bothered to read the OP, you'd know that.

If you fancy yourself as an apologist, then you must read what an atheist has to say when conversing with him or her. This approach of yours is utterly embarrassing and will only burn more bridges for you. Good luck on your endeavors.



The null hypothesis does not require backing. Positive claims do. Either redefine science for all of humanity, or go educate yourself on the scientific method so that you are competent for these discussions.



Like I said in the OP, which you did not bother to read, my answer is that I don't know. All of this stems from you not reading the OP. I can only wonder what else I've said to you that has gone unread. I will ensure that I return the favor to you.

Read this article on why proton masses are so precise.
The mass of the proton and neutron are fine tuned for life
Just don't notice the word 'God' at the top and you might learn something.

Did Dr. Ross not know about the KCA, or did he not want to persue that argument at the time. It is anyone's guess.

I have read his book 'The Improbable Planet' and find it very informative. He seems to know a whole lot of Cosmology.

I suspect that since he is on the side of God, to you he is tainted beyond relief. So I am not at all surprised that you would call him an incompetent cosmologist.

 

[Mobezom]

It possibly could. That is the nice thing about a theory.
You just theorized about how life got started on earth.

No, I hypothesized. If I have evidence for it (which I could certainly find), if I can test it, I could develop a theory.

I call it a theory, because until through the scientific method we experience this phenomena, or observe its creative power, we can not move it to factual law.

Theories are not Facts, laws are not Facts, and theories are not inferior to laws. And experience is not the only way to observe or test something.

For instance you say, 'then couldn't a piece of RNA code for its own creation, simply by chance?
Well could it? Since no scientist has experienced it yet and no 2nd scientist has confirmed the 1st, then we don't know. And your extra educated thought falls into the long list of unproven theories.

"Were you there?" No. I also have never been to Mars, yet I can observe the effects of its existence (the way that photons bounce off of its surface) and deduce its qualities.

Until science can show me that it happened in front of their eyes, I will still have faith that the precision constants point a finger away from 'simple chance' and directly to a 'Superior Being'.

Impossible, biased burden of proof. Nice.

It is interesting to me that you reject a Superior Intelligence for the same reason I reject the RNA theory. At least there are men and women who say that they have seen God and not just 1 or 2, but many.

So they say. Neither reproducible nor testable - they probably didn't. And what "reason" is that?

There has never been anyone say that they have seen a strand of RNA create a simple cell, by itself, by random chance. So I, of course, lean to a Superior Being that at least men and women have said they have seen.

Some guy I know said he saw God, which is much more convincing than evidence and inference by thousands of experts.
Yeaaaaaah, no.

 

[Mobezom]

It is right, from my discussions with atheists, they do not like their history of God, and they don't like the idea that there is a God that commands them what they have to do. So they reject the idea of God.

I'm not angrier at God than I am at Smaug or Bilbo Baggins. I don't believe that either exists. There is a God which I could like, which I could believe in and worship... except that I don't believe in any God, so I don't.

You seem to be making a big deal out of the word 'theory'. It really is not that difficult, even for a simpleton like me. Here is how it works.

Oh boy, this should be good.

1) the scientist makes an educated guess

Nope. First, the scientist observes the world and notices something we don't know fully - for instance, I might see that we don't know exactly where pollution is entering a river.

2) the scientist makes a hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, so yes, this is the second step.

3) the scientist makes up a theory

And you're wrong again. Third, the scientist tests his hypothesis. It might be supported by the data, or it might not. A theory is not the evolved form of a hypothesis; a theory explains the existing body of data.

4) the theory is confirmed from many other scientists

This is probably a corruption of the idea of reproducibility, testability, etc. It's not just "yep, looks good", though - it's "yep, my study confirms it."

5) the theory becomes a law.

Even more wrong! A law is a mathematical statement that corresponds to an observed pattern in the existing body of data. It does not evolve from theories. (It's funny that the Creationist is arguing for evolution...)

Until the theory becomes a law, it is still a theory, a big guess, with some research attached to it, some say yes, some say ney. When all say yes, it now becomes a law, not until. See how simple that was. Everything that we have been talking about is still in the 'theory' stage. Sorry, that how science works.

...no, it's not. You're quite funny when you try to science.

The theory will never become a law. The theory is not a big guess - it is the best explanation that we have for the existing body of data and observation. Truth is not determined by consensus, it is determined by testing. And if 1% of scientists disagree with a theory, that doesn't mean the theory isn't correct - I'd be suspicious if nobody was critical of a theory!

The theory of how the universe came into existence

Outside of science. Not a theory, not anything scientific. Not testable.

The theory of how life began

Abiogenesis, which is supported by data.

The theory of evolution

The theory of evolution, which is supported by data.

The theory of multiverses

Not a theory in the true sense. More a hypothesis than anything else, more like a model which isn't tied to reality.

The theory of everything

No such thing.

All theories, not fact or law, just theory. You can't get around it. Theory does not equal law.

Runner does not equal swimmer! You're speaking nonsense, sir, a theory is not inferior to a law.

My position is that the fine-tuning of our universe erase any inferences and points directly to a Superior Being.

Erase... inferences? What does that even mean? "Logic doesn't work anymore, because I said so"?

What inferences do you have for mulituniverses, besides Stephen Hawking says so?

There is no evidence for the multiverse. It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. But since we're talking about Creation, which is unscientific, the "most sciency" explanation for "why we're here" is the Anthropic Principle.

That is a funny. Have you seen my white flag yet. If you think you defeated me with your multiverse theory, forget it. Or maybe you would like Stephen to talk about the 'theory of everything', which is so weak, it has no credibility, except on Star Trek, the next generation.

If I didn't defeat you, why are you retreating? And the "theory of everything" doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist.

The reason it is so weak is because there is no evidence of such a condition. No scientist has been to the 2nd universe, no scientist has seen the 2nd universe, nobody has come from there and said, hi, i'm from the 2nd universe, except on Star Trek, the next generation. So if you are taking some kind of victory lap, hope you make it without stumbling and falling.

"Were you there?" Nope. Were you there when the Bible was written?

As I've said, the multiverse is unscientific in the sense that it is not supported by data. It is an atheistic metaphysical concept; it is a competitor to religion. There is no evidence for the multiverse and no evidence for God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe there is climate change. If you have read any history about climate change, you know that it does change.

And you also know that this change always has some form of cause. It doesn't just happen by itself.

The big question is: is it all man made?

In this case, Yes. There is no doubt about that.

The answer is no

Maybe in a world where "no" means "yes".

, but certain organization would have you think it is all man made,

Nope, you got that backwards as well. It's certain organizations that would like you to think it is not. Organizations with a LOT of power and lobbyists. Oil companies, to be exact. For example, internal documents have shown that the people at Exxon have known about the effects of burning fossil fuels all the way back to the seventies.

This is a multi-billion dollar industry. They are the only people with vested interest in boycotting and publicly denying this whole thing.

Moving to clean(er) energy would LITERALLY go against their business. LITERALLY.

and these organizations are being backed up by scientists who are giving them the very information they need to put their agenda's forward to 'help the planet'.

Yes, but again... you are playing at the wrong side of the net. It's companies like Exxon etc who pay scientists to cast doubt over this whole thing.

Oh BYW these organizations and the scientists are getting filthy rich as they 'help the planet'.

Indeed. The people at Exxon become and are filthy rich because of the mass drilling and burning of fossil fuels.

The climatologists who simply do their jobs and warn the world of the dangers of using oils and other rotten, polluting stuff? Not so much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You seem to be making a big deal out of the word 'theory'. It really is not that difficult, even for a simpleton like me. Here is how it works.

1) the scientist makes an educated guess

2) the scientist makes a hypothesis

3) the scientist makes up a theory

4) the theory is confirmed from many other scientists

5) the theory becomes a law.

You really need to brush up on how science works...

Until the theory becomes a law, it is still a theory, a big guess, with some research attached to it, some say yes, some say ney.

You are as ignorant about science as it gets.

NO, "really good theories" do not become laws. Or even facts. Theory is the graduation stage of any succesfully tested idea in science. There is nothing after that.

Here's what the jargon really works:

1. Facts: pieces of data, observations. eg: apples fall down and not up
2. Laws: abstractions of a set of facts. eg: object with mass attract other objects with mass
3. Hypothesis: a proposed explanation of a given set of facts AND laws, within a certain scope.
4. Theory: a succesfully tested hypothesis

And that's it. Theories don't "become" facts or laws. Instead, theories explain facts and laws. They are different things.

Please read the following: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
It's only a couple of sentences. I suggest you print it out and hang it over your bed, so that you are reminded of these basics of the basics of science every time you wake up.

When all say yes, it now becomes a law, not until.

No.

See how simple that was

"simple" is a good way to describe it, yes.
"false" is another.

Everything that we have been talking about is still in the 'theory' stage.

Here are some more things that are "still" in the theory stage:
- Germ THEORY of desease
- THEORY of relativity
- Atomic THEORY
- THEORY of plate tectonics
- ...

Sorry, that how science works.

Sorry, you don't get to lecture people on how science works, when you can't even accurately define these simple terms in a scientific context...

 

[Mobezom]

The Kinetic THEORY of Gases
Valence Bond THEORY
Music THEORY

 

[Peter1000]

I'm not angrier at God than I am at Smaug or Bilbo Baggins. I don't believe that either exists. There is a God which I could like, which I could believe in and worship... except that I don't believe in any God, so I don't.

Oh boy, this should be good.

Nope. First, the scientist observes the world and notices something we don't know fully - for instance, I might see that we don't know exactly where pollution is entering a river.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, so yes, this is the second step.

And you're wrong again. Third, the scientist tests his hypothesis. It might be supported by the data, or it might not. A theory is not the evolved form of a hypothesis; a theory explains the existing body of data.

This is probably a corruption of the idea of reproducibility, testability, etc. It's not just "yep, looks good", though - it's "yep, my study confirms it."

Even more wrong! A law is a mathematical statement that corresponds to an observed pattern in the existing body of data. It does not evolve from theories. (It's funny that the Creationist is arguing for evolution...)

...no, it's not. You're quite funny when you try to science.

The theory will never become a law. The theory is not a big guess - it is the best explanation that we have for the existing body of data and observation. Truth is not determined by consensus, it is determined by testing. And if 1% of scientists disagree with a theory, that doesn't mean the theory isn't correct - I'd be suspicious if nobody was critical of a theory!

Outside of science. Not a theory, not anything scientific. Not testable.

Abiogenesis, which is supported by data.

The theory of evolution, which is supported by data.

Not a theory in the true sense. More a hypothesis than anything else, more like a model which isn't tied to reality.

No such thing.

Runner does not equal swimmer! You're speaking nonsense, sir, a theory is not inferior to a law.


Erase... inferences? What does that even mean? "Logic doesn't work anymore, because I said so"?


There is no evidence for the multiverse. It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. But since we're talking about Creation, which is unscientific, the "most sciency" explanation for "why we're here" is the Anthropic Principle.

If I didn't defeat you, why are you retreating? And the "theory of everything" doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist.

"Were you there?" Nope. Were you there when the Bible was written?

As I've said, the multiverse is unscientific in the sense that it is not supported by data. It is an atheistic metaphysical concept; it is a competitor to religion. There is no evidence for the multiverse and no evidence for God.

You say, the theory of how the universe came into existence is:
Outside of science. Not a theory, not anything scientific. Not testable.

Now that is interesting. I was under the impression that millions of dollars are being spent by scientists around the world to answer that question.
I would agree with you, however, that because it is untestable, it becomes a scientific game of sorts, to see who's hypothesis/theory is fashionable the longest. Right now, Stephen Hawking has got center stage, and he is twirling things upside down and around and around. He is quite a showman.

Abiogenesis is supported by data? What scientist has observed the completion of a simple living cell from anything that is non-living? Abiogenesis does include the notion that a living substance ultimately came from a non-living substance doesn't it? What data confirms this?

A theory will never become a law? Interesting because you never hear normal people say the theory of gravity. You always hear, the law of gravity. This would strongly imply that a law is indeed more foundational than a theory.
You never hear anyone say the law of evolution. (except an atheist, hoping it to be a law) Normal people say the theory of evolution. Why is that?

You say, a theory trys to explain the law. Is that why it is constantly being revised, as more data becomes available. The law doesn't seem to change very often, but the theory can change often, trying to take into account changing data and changing observations, everything changes and so theories come and go and then come again, and then go again, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Mobezom]

You say, the theory of how the universe came into existence is:
Outside of science. Not a theory, not anything scientific. Not testable.

Now that is interesting. I was under the impression that millions of dollars are being spent by scientists around the world to answer that question.

Ah-ah-ah, careful. Millions of dollars are being spent to investigate the early universe, from which we can see that the universe used to be hot, dense, and tiny. (And a lot more, because this is the cutting edge of science, but I'm making it simple for the sake of discussion.)

God is before the Big Bang (if he even exists), and his causation would be the instance of the Big Bang; science cannot investigate either, but rather look at the aftermath.

I would agree with you, however, that because it is untestable, it becomes a scientific game of sorts, to see who's hypothesis/theory is fashionable the longest. Right now, Stephen Hawking has got center stage, and he is twirling things upside down and around and around. He is quite a showman.

Now why would you think that? If you define "fashionable" to mean "explains the evidence best," then this is certainly a competition of fashion. Otherwise, this is utter nonsense.

Abiogenesis is supported by data? What scientist has observed the completion of a simple living cell from anything that is non-living?

I don't need to stand on Jupiter to know that it is mostly hydrogen. Direct observation is not necessary. For instance, genetics allows us to extrapolate into the past. If I have an Aa allele for a particular gene, I know at least one of my parents had to have the A allele; if my father has the aa allele than my mother must have AA or Aa. But I have never even seen my mother - and yet I now know something about her! (Hypothetical, naturally. Not a real-life example.)

Abiogenesis does include the notion that a living substance ultimately came from a non-living substance doesn't it? What data confirms this?

Data such as: life exists. Since supernatural origins of life are untestable, life must have come from inanimate matter.

Abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's an event or a process. There are several theories for abiogenesis, including the RNA world theory (my personal favorite). Evidence for the RNA world: RNA monomers can be formed from inanimate matter, as can phospholipid membranes.

A theory will never become a law? Interesting because you never hear normal people say the theory of gravity. You always hear, the law of gravity. This would strongly imply that a law is indeed more foundational than a theory.

Aaaa! *gnashes teeth* The ignorance, the idiocy! The fire would be better than this!

1. Nothing you've said has shown that theories evolve into laws.
2. No, it wouldn't imply that! The law of gravity is the mathematical statement that accurately predicts the gravitational force vector. The theory of gravity is the explanation for the fact of gravity - things fall down. Why? Right now, relativity provides us with the Current Best Theory and the Current Best Law for gravity.
3. Laymen can be wrong, and are wrong very often. "Normal people", if by that you mean non-scientists, don't have scientific authority.

Do you even know what a theory or a law is?

You never hear anyone say the law of evolution. (except an atheist, hoping it to be a law) Normal people say the theory of evolution. Why is that?

1. Laymen.
2. No good scientist calls evolution a law, not even the EVIL ATHEISTS.
3. Watch your step, don't make an ad hominem.
4. Because evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a fact - it happened. We have a theory - why? There is no mathematical statement governing it, thus there is no evolutionary law. (There are some laws related to evolution, but no Single Big Evolution Law.)

You say, a theory trys to explain the law.

No, a theory explains the data. The facts.

Is that why it is constantly being revised, as more data becomes available.

You seem to imply that there is something wrong with that...

The law doesn't seem to change very often, but the theory can change often, trying to take into account changing data and changing observations, everything changes and so theories come and go and then come again, and then go again, etc., etc., etc.

Laws are... easier to make, sort of. If I see a pattern of blocks on the floor, that's a law. Figuring out why? Harder. I might have a "best guess," like "this is a classroom, a child probably made it," but if I see large footprints near the blocks, and a paper saying "please set out blocks in a pattern, thank you for volunteering", I might revise my theory.

But this doesn't mean that theories are "worth less than laws." And yes, they change. Science has been wrong before. You seem to imply that this means it is probably wrong now, and thus we shouldn't listen to it. I have only one quote with which to respond:

"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov

 

[Peter1000]

You really need to brush up on how science works...


You are as ignorant about science as it gets.

NO, "really good theories" do not become laws. Or even facts. Theory is the graduation stage of any succesfully tested idea in science. There is nothing after that.

Here's what the jargon really works:

1. Facts: pieces of data, observations. eg: apples fall down and not up
2. Laws: abstractions of a set of facts. eg: object with mass attract other objects with mass
3. Hypothesis: a proposed explanation of a given set of facts AND laws, within a certain scope.
4. Theory: a succesfully tested hypothesis

And that's it. Theories don't "become" facts or laws. Instead, theories explain facts and laws. They are different things.

Please read the following: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
It's only a couple of sentences. I suggest you print it out and hang it over your bed, so that you are reminded of these basics of the basics of science every time you wake up.

No.



"simple" is a good way to describe it, yes.
"false" is another.





Here are some more things that are "still" in the theory stage:
- Germ THEORY of desease
- THEORY of relativity
- Atomic THEORY
- THEORY of plate tectonics
- ...



Sorry, you don't get to lecture people on how science works, when you can't even accurately define these simple terms in a scientific context...

Please read the following: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
It's only a couple of sentences. I suggest you print it out and hang it over your bed, so that you are reminded of these basics of the basics of science every time you wake up.

Well, I read the first few sentences and what did I find?
That scientists have changed the meaning of the word 'theory' from what normal people think 'theory' is. How bout that? So for example, you say to a scientist that 'I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory', a scientist might look back to you with a puzzled expression.

So who changed the meaning, and why did they change the meaning? My guess is, scientists don't like the word 'theory', because it leaves the door too wide open. Everybody and their uncle can come up with a theory.

So science decided to change the meaning by saying 'theory doesn't mean guess, and we will find out in the future if it is true'. They say a 'theory' is the end of the discussion. There is nothing more or higher than a theory. Theory is higher than a scientific law, which is, to most normal people, a scientific fact.

So now when you say the theory of evolution, to a normal person that means evolution is still in the phase of being proved, and when all experiments and all the observations are complete, and the theory has been proven to be true, then we will no longer call it a theory. We will call it a law, because it is factually complete, and if it can be explained by a mathmatical solution then all the better.

Scientists on the other hand say, no, a theory is the explanation of how a law works. So it is higher than a law. A theory = fact. So to a scientist, when you say the theory of evolution, they think that is the end of the discussion because it is another way of saying evolution is a fact. The end. Good luck with that.

It is interesting that you can never call evolution a law.
That's because a mathmatical solution is not possible to encompass evolution? To normal people, a law is fact. To science, a law is a mathmatical solution. Interesting.

So the bottom line is, science changed the meaning of the word 'theory' because of their desire to get past the idea that evolution is just a theory. At least that is my take on it.

 

[Mobezom]

AURGRARHARARA

No, no, no, no, no, absolutely wrong.

Well, I read the first few sentences and what did I find?
That scientists have changed the meaning of the word 'theory' from what normal people think 'theory' is.

That's not the right way to look at it. Here's the etymology, for instance:

"late 16th century (denoting a mental scheme of something to be done): via late Latin from Greek theōria ‘contemplation, speculation,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’"

So its roots come from "speculation", but its original meaning in English was a plan, not a description; the current layman's usage of "theory" is a corruption of the scientific definition.

How bout that? So for example, you say to a scientist that 'I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory', a scientist might look back to you with a puzzled expression.

Yes, they will, because you aren't using the word correctly. It's like if you said "I don't believe in Einstein's relativity, because I think that God sets our morals" - that's not scientific relativity, that's moral relativism that you're disagreeing with. We'd think you had gone mad if you said that to us.

So who changed the meaning, and why did they change the meaning? My guess is, scientists don't like the word 'theory', because it leaves the door too wide open. Everybody and their uncle can come up with a theory.

...no, that's not how it happened.

You're very unclear - you say that scientists "didn't like the word 'theory'", but there are many things that sentence could mean:
1. Scientists don't like the set of phonemes that sounds like "th-ee-oh-ree"
2. ...the word "theory", the set of all its meanings and the way they can be confused
3. the word "theory", with the meaning "guess"
4. the word "theory", with the meaning "predictive explanation"

Here's how it really happened:
Englishman: "The word "theory" now means "plan"!"
Scientist: "Hmm, I have this concept of a predictive explanation, but I need a word for it. How about "theory"?"
Layman: "I hear all these scientists talking about "theories", I have my own theory too! (There's no evidence but who needs evidence anyway?!)"

So science decided to change the meaning by saying 'theory doesn't mean guess, and we will find out in the future if it is true'. They say a 'theory' is the end of the discussion. There is nothing more or higher than a theory. Theory is higher than a scientific law, which is, to most normal people, a scientific fact.

Science changed the meaning of "theory" from "plan" to "predictive explanation", not from "guess" to "predictive explanation". You've got it backwards.

There is certainly more than a theory! Laws exist too. But laws are not the same as theories, nor are they "higher forms of" theories.

Theories aren't "end of discussion," they're revised as either: a. more evidence comes in, or b. a better theory comes in.

So now when you say the theory of evolution, to a normal person that means evolution is still in the phase of being proved, and when all experiments and all the observations are complete, and the theory has been proven to be true, then we will no longer call it a theory. We will call it a law, because it is factually complete, and if it can be explained by a mathmatical solution then all the better.

And that would be wrong. William Sciencespeare: "What's in a name? A theory by any other name would be as scientific."

See, when we use words we mean things by them. And maybe that's not what the laymen would interpret it as... but that's okay. Science can be inscrutable to the untaught.

And the alternative definitions of things are irrelevant - what matters is what is meant. And when scientists say "this is a theory," they mean "this is the best predictive explanation of the data available thus far."

Scientists on the other hand say, no, a theory is the explanation of how a law works. So it is higher than a law. A theory = fact. So to a scientist, when you say the theory of evolution, they think that is the end of the discussion because it is another way of saying evolution is a fact. The end. Good luck with that.

Evolution is a fact, and a theory. Evolution happened - we know that organisms have changed. Evolution is also the name for an explanation of how this happened. Poor terminology, I agree.

A theory doesn't explain the law, it explains the data. It's not higher than a law, it's alongside a law. Laws and theories can be big or small, important or unimportant, nearly proven or just hypothetical.

It is interesting that you can never call evolution a law.

That's because it isn't. It's a predictive explanation, not a mathematical description of data.

That's because a mathmatical solution is not possible to encompass evolution? To normal people, a law is fact. To science, a law is a mathmatical solution. Interesting.

Interesting... the scientific definition of a word differs from the laymen or "normal people". Most suspicious... *lol*

So the bottom line is, science changed the meaning of the word 'theory' because of their desire to get past the idea that evolution is just a theory. At least that is my take on it.

No... the redefinition was from "plan" to "predictive explanation", and happened far before the ToE. You're wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I read the first few sentences and what did I find? That scientists have changed the meaning of the word 'theory' from what normal people think 'theory' is.

/facepalm

Newsflash: in languages, words can mean different things in different contexts.

How bout that? So for example, you say to a scientist that 'I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory', a scientist might look back to you with a puzzled expression.
So who changed the meaning, and why did they change the meaning? My guess is, scientists don't like the word 'theory', because it leaves the door too wide open. Everybody and their uncle can come up with a theory.

The scientific meaning of the word "theory" was established long before you were born, mate. It's not the fault of science or scientists that you are unaware of that fact

So science decided to change the meaning by saying 'theory doesn't mean guess, and we will find out in the future if it is true'.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the page as well, instead of only the first few sentences. That would have prevented you from saying nonsense like that.

They say a 'theory' is the end of the discussion.

No, not at all.

There is nothing more or higher than a theory.

In terms of explanation, yes.

Theory is higher than a scientific law, which is, to most normal people, a scientific fact.

As it is clearly stated in the article: laws are descriptive while theories are explanations.

These are different things. You would have known that, if you would have read the full article, instead of just the first sentences.

So now when you say the theory of evolution, to a normal person that means evolution is still in the phase of being proved

No. A normal person who isn't scientifically illiterate, would understand what it means.
And, as the article also clearly explains, theories are never considered "proven".
As it states: theory is as close to proven as it gets in science.

Science doesn't deal in certainties. Which is one of the reasons why explanations are called theories and not facts. Theories are subject to change if and when future discoveries show them to be incomplete or even just wrong.

It's called intellectual honesty.

, and when all experiments and all the observations are complete, and the theory has been proven to be true, then we will no longer call it a theory. We will call it a law, because it is factually complete, and if it can be explained by a mathmatical solution then all the better.

The entire article is an explanation about how that line of thought is incorrect.

Laws are descriptive.
Theories are explanations.

The law of gravity tells you WHAT happens. It does not tell you WHY it happens.
The theory of gravity does that.
Laws describe, theories explain.

Scientists on the other hand say, no, a theory is the explanation of how a law works.

Yes.

So it is higher than a law.

Yes. In the sense that theories provide explanations.
Explanations provide understanding. Laws do not. Laws merely describe.

A theory = fact

No. Theories explain facts.
Facts support theories.
Laws describe facts.

So to a scientist, when you say the theory of evolution, they think that is the end of the discussion because it is another way of saying evolution is a fact. The end. Good luck with that.

No.

It is interesting that you can never call evolution a law.

Because it isn't a law. Evolution theory is the explanation of the facts of biology. It explains biology. It does not describe biology.

That's because a mathmatical solution is not possible to encompass evolution? To normal people, a law is fact. To science, a law is a mathmatical solution. Interesting.

No.

So the bottom line is, science changed the meaning of the word 'theory' because of their desire to get past the idea that evolution is just a theory. At least that is my take on it.

And as we have clearly shown you: your take is nonsense.

Facts of gravity.
Laws of gravity.
Theory of gravity.

3 different things.

 

[Mobezom]

I'm tired of the argument from definition, variant argument from layman definition.

 

[Peter1000]

I'm tired of the argument from definition, variant argument from layman definition.

I agree.

It is a difficult task for an atheist to present the theory of evolution as anything accept a theory (layman def. -good guess). There are some interesting facts that do exist, but those facts are smothered by cloudy untestable questions, especially living stuff coming from non-living stuff.

If it is untestable, then it is outside the perview of science. For instance, God is untestable, so science uses that excuse not to give any credence to God. But the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth are also untestable, so science should be giving those events a cold shoulder too.

Which leads me to believe that what a lot of scientists are doing is continuing to research the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth in the hopes that they can theorize enough to find a semi-logical reason to believe that these events took place without a Suprerior Being being involved.

They should be treating these events as untestable events and push them outside of scientific research like they do God.

 

[Mobezom]

I agree.

Wait for it...

It is a difficult task for an atheist to present the theory of evolution as anything accept a theory

Wait for it...

(layman def. -good guess)

WROOOOOOOOONG, as Trump would say.

The theory of evolution is a predictive explanation that is supported by the available evidence. It's not a good guess.

Tell me Peter, do you think that it went like this?
Scientist: "Here's this crazy idea, what if everything just CHANGED into other things?"
Other Scientist: "ooh, sounds good, that's definitely a theory"
Head Scientist: "A theory is now defined as TRUE!"
Scientist: "Oh cool, I made a true theory! YAAAAY"

There are some interesting facts that do exist, but those facts are smothered by cloudy untestable questions, especially living stuff coming from non-living srtuff.

Google is your friend:
"Not quite. The claim here is misleading, suggesting that we need to be able to have 100% certainty in every idea for it to be useful science. There is a lot unknown about how abiogenesis originally occurred, but we are not without evidence. Just because we can't go back in time and record the original event, doesn't mean we can't learn things about it by the results it left behind - life!"
"
Not quite. The claim here is misleading, suggesting that we need to be able to have 100% certainty in every idea for it to be useful science.[8]

Abiogenesis is not a critical component of the theory of evolution. If a "cosmic watchmaker" dumped the raw materials down here a few billion years ago, he included with them a program--the "watch"--that they followed in order to end up where we are today. That program is evolution. This is the reason that the leaders of all the major religions find no conflict between the science of evolution and the faith in divine creation. Their god created a universe that is sufficiently orderly and logical that we can make our way in it without having to stop every ten minutes and ask for divine inspiration in dealing with this or that anomalous natural phenomenon, and being gobbled up by it while waiting for said divine inspiration. The universe runs rather elegantly on a set of natural laws and evolution is one of the many corollaries of those laws. Somewhere there may be a universe built on Lobachevskian geometry where there is no gravity, no entropy and no lightspeed limitation, and that god had to design a different set of natural laws for his creatures. (Hey, I read fantasy and sci-fi too, I just don't try to pass it off as religion.)

Abiogenesis as a distinct hypothesis (it has not been tested sufficiently to be elevated to the status of a theory) is difficult to disprove. It awaits the corroboration of finding evidence of non-DNA based life having arisen on earth and either hiding in some deeply buried cracks or being out-competed to extinction. Or of finding that same evidence on another planet. As such it's a work in progress and has not achieved the status of evolution itself, relativity, heliocentrism or gravity.

Still, disprovability is only one element of the scientific method. Another is that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation. Which assertion is more extraordinary: abiogenesis, or the existence of creatures external to a universe that reveals itself to be more orderly with every generation of scientist, which violate all the rules of that universe? The theory of abiogenesis can safely be used as a working hypothesis while we await the exploration of our solar system and then the next one. The "theory" of supernatural creation requires extraordinary substantiation before we have any obligation to treat it with respect."

In short - we cannot directly test abiogenesis yet, but we can look at its results and make testable predictions from the RNA world theory.

If it is untestable, then it is outside the perview of science.

Good news! Evolution is testable! So this is irrelevant.

For instance, God is untestable, so science uses that excuse not to give any credence to God. But the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth are also untestable, so science should be giving those events a cold shoulder too.

No scientists were alive when cheetahs had a dramatic depopulation event, and yet we find evidence of such an event happening. We can determine what long-ago was like by looking at today. Can we be sure? No, but that's normal in science.

Which leads me to believe that what a lot of scientists are doing is continuing to research the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth in the hopes that they can theorize enough to find a semi-logical reason to believe that these events took place without a Suprerior Being being involved.

...no, they're doing it because SCIENCE. Not because they don't like God.

They should be treating these events as untestable events and push them outside of scientific research like they do God.

Evolution is indirectly testable by the predictions it makes, but God isn't. That's the difference.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Does anyone have something to say about the laws of physics being finely tuned? That's kind of the topic... evolution and abiogenesis, while interesting, are not relevant.

 

[anonymous person]

Does anyone have something to say about the laws of physics being finely tuned? That's kind of the topic... evolution and abiogenesis, while interesting, are not relevant.

Their nature really speaks to me as to be evidence of the existence of something capable of causing something with incomprehensible precision. It seems almost as if someone has "monkeyed" with things a bit.

 

[Mobezom]

...or, you know, the anthropic principle...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree.

He's talking about people like YOU, who make use of that logical fallacy, mate.

It is a difficult task for an atheist to present the theory of evolution as anything accept a theory (layman def. -good guess).

What the word "theory" means in a scientific context has exactly zero relation with atheism.

There are some interesting facts that do exist, but those facts are smothered by cloudy untestable questions, especially living stuff coming from non-living stuff.

"living stuff coming from non-living stuff" is not within the scope of evolution theory and is a question about a different field of science entirely.

You should really start with informing you a bit on the basics, before coming on here pretending to be qualified to argue against these things. Because clearly, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

You are like a car mechanic who's arguing with a neurologists concerning matters of neurology. It's ridiculous.

If it is untestable, then it is outside the perview of science.

Evolution theory is very testable, mate.
If you would have bothered with learning the basics of the basics, you would have known that as well.

For instance, God is untestable, so science uses that excuse not to give any credence to God.

It's not an "excuse". It's reality. Untestable things are by definition indistinguishable from non-existant things. It's also not about "credence". It's about not being able to check how accurate or inaccurate it is. In other words: investigating unfalsifiable claims is a waste of time and resources.

But the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth are also untestable

That would depend entirely on the hypothesis being proposed, wheter it is testable or not. And I'm willing to bet a few thousands dollars that you don't even have the slightest clue what the current hypothesis under investigation actually are all about, concerning these subjects.

, so science should be giving those events a cold shoulder too.

Again, the events themselves are not the point. The events DID happen: the universe came about in some way and so did life.

The question is HOW.

Which leads me to believe that what a lot of scientists are doing is continuing to research the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth in the hopes that they can theorize enough to find a semi-logical reason to believe that these events took place without a Suprerior Being being involved.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.