Why " JUST" a theory?

[Astrid]

For those who wish to actually discuss it.
Note this is phys sci, not religion 'n quips.

 

[Astrid]

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Mountainmike]

Having established the posters on the other thread don’t understand the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word theory, and the posters all seem to believe in a non existent single theory of evolution that somehow explains life, what’s the point in this thread?

If you want to discuss it first state your SPECIFIC hypothesis of evolution, and so the experimental evidence you claim Demonstrates the hypothesus , to promote it to the word theory. So Let’s discuss SCIENCE

Failing That can You even pass the basic test of scientific knowledge
: what SPECIFICALLy was Darwins thesis - and confirm the status - whether you think that is conjecture hypothesis or theory ? Nobody else seems to be able to answer basics.

Trouble is on most of these threads atheists don’t want to discuss science, they just want to discuss their belief in an unspecified process that somehow produced life, wrongly claiming it as a “ theory” that somehow competes with “ creation” which does little to prove other than they don’t understand scientific process , the word “theory” Or even the scope of evolution.

So let me correct your thread title,
you mean “ not even a theory “ not “ just a theory”

 

[BCP1928]

Having established the posters on the other thread don’t understand the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word theory, and the posters all seem to believe in a non existent single theory of evolution that somehow explains life, what’s the point in this thread?

If you want to discuss it first state your SPECIFIC hypothesis and the experimental evidence you claim Demonstrates it to promote it to the word theory.

meanwhile can You pass the basic test of scientific knowledge : what SPECIFICALLy was Darwins thesis - and confirm the status - whether you think that is conjecture hypothesis or theory ?

Trouble is on most of these threads atheists don’t want to discuss science, they just want to discuss their belief in an unspecified process tgat somehow produced life, wrongly claiming it as a “ theory” which does little to prove other than they don’t understand scientific process.

Christians and other theists like to discuss it because while abiogenesis may at present be an "unspecified process" It is within the scope of science to study it and some progress is being made.

So let me correct your thread title,
you mean “ not even a theory “ not “ just a theory”

Sure. Abiogenesis is not a theory in the scientific sense, and nobody ever claimed it to be.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you want to discuss it first state your SPECIFIC hypothesis of evolution, and so the experimental evidence you claim Demonstrates the hypothesus , to promote it to the word theory

No. None of that nonsense please. The vast majority of all biologists accept evolutionary theory. Any debate revolves around details and nuances, not the big picture. And those biologists include atheists, agnostics, Christians of many denomimations, so you are the outlier, the oddball, the exception. Thus the onus is on you is to specify what is wrong with evolutionary theory.

You have the opportunity now to detail, with peer reviewed papers from authoratative journals, any aspect of current evolutionary theory you think is flawed. If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do that, then that tells us all we need to know.

 

[Mountainmike]

Christians and other theists like to discuss it because while abiogenesis may at present be an "unspecified process" It is within the scope of science to study it and some progress is being made.

Sure. Abiogenesis is not a theory in the scientific sense, and nobody ever claimed it to be.

Of course abiogenesis is within the scope of science to study.
The first problem in studying it is definition of ”life” which is profound and difficult.

But other threads were commenting instead , on an unspecified amorphous” theory of evolution” , indeed questioning whether it is “ just a theory”. My comment is no such wide ranging theory encompassing the development of life exists in science. So “ not even a theory” is more accurate.

Yet none of those who attack that statement can provide any definition of their hypothesis!, they claim is confirmed as a theory.
so they attack the poster instead.

 

[BCP1928]

Of course abiogenesis is within the scope of science to study.
The first problem in studying it is definition of ”life” which is profound and difficult.

"Life" has a succinct definition in biology. The trouble is, it doesn't admit of a hard boundary between living and non-living.

But other threads were commenting instead , on an unspecified amorphous” theory of evolution” , indeed questioning whether it is “ just a theory”. My comment is no such wide ranging theory encompassing the development of life exists in science. So “ not even a theory” is more accurate.

Yet none of those who attack that statement can provide any definition of their hypothesis!, they claim is confirmed as a theory.
so they attack the poster instead.

What? That life maintains and adapts itself through randomly distributed reproductive variation acted on by natural selection? That's somehow not right?

 

[Ophiolite]

Yet none of those who attack that statement can provide any definition of their hypothesis!,

You specifically asked for a definition of Darwin's theory. I gave it to you. You ignored it. The attacks are being made on your infantile rhetoric, not on you. I don't know you. I'm attacking the illogical empty assertions you make.

 

[Mountainmike]

You specifically asked for a definition of Darwin's theory. I gave it to you. You ignored it. The attacks are being made on your infantile rhetoric, not on you. I don't know you. I'm attacking the illogical empty assertions you make.

I didn’t see it . That thread got closed, so I stopped reading it.
it was not answered by the OP.

My rhetoric is scientific, you can keep “infantile.” That is your last insult to me, if you cannot post without insult, don’t expect a conversation

you illustrate a problem however: , Darwin did not have a theory in scientific terms. It was a thesis. Not even a hypothesis since it could never be demonstrated experimentally except in recent life. So your claim of a theory is WRONG understanding of the meaning of theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn’t see it . That thread got closed, so I stopped reading it.
it was not answered by the OP.

My rhetoric is scientific, you can keep “infantile.” That is your last insult to me, if you cannot post without insult, don’t expect a conversation

you illustrate a problem however: , Darwin did not have a theory in scientific terms. It was a thesis. Not even a hypothesis since it could never be demonstrated experimentally except in recent life. So your claim of a theory is WRONG understanding of the meaning of theory.

Ignoring the central point of my post is not the way to have a respectful conversation. Continuing to make unsupported assertions is not the way to have a respectful conversation. Accusing people of insults, when they are expressing heartfelt opinions is not the way to have a respectful conversation. When you are ready to act respectfully we can proceed.

 

[Astrid]

I didn’t see it . That thread got closed, so I stopped reading it.
it was not answered by the OP.

My rhetoric is scientific, you can keep “infantile.” That is your last insult to me, if you cannot post without insult, don’t expect a conversation

you illustrate a problem however: , Darwin did not have a theory in scientific terms. It was a thesis. Not even a hypothesis since it could never be demonstrated experimentally except in recent life. So your claim of a theory is WRONG understanding of the meaning of theory.

Sooo, Mike.

I opened this thread, as the previous one was
ruined by the usual suspects and mods had to
shut it down.

There is deep ignorance re most basic science among
our posters..

This thread, as per the attached article, is intended to
be educational, that those with doubts, contrary ideas about ToE or other theories can avoid wasting time on basics and get to something with possible content.

Your intent appears to be something entirely different.

If you are not going to post on topic, with facts / data
rather than such as sweeping generalizations about persons unknown, i must ask you to leave.

OT posts with no demonsteable substance are not allowed
in phys sci.
Plz cease this behaviour.
I won't allow it.

Plz cooperate or be gone.

 

[durangodawood]

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

www.scientificamerican.com

Yes. "Theory".

So often equivocated to its colloquially downgraded meaning in order to denigrate well tested scientific findings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. "Theory".

So often equivocated to its colloquially downgraded meaning in order to denigrate well tested scientific findings.

Aren't theories rated by strength?

 

[durangodawood]

Aren't theories rated by strength?

I think it would be interesting to compare the strength of accumulated evidence for various scientific theories.

Surely people have tried to. But I dont actually know.

 

[rturner76]

I think people get confused when considering "what is life?" And "What is the meaning of life?" These are not the same things

 

[Bradskii]

One answer to the question posed in the thread title: Ignorance.

And there are two types. Genuine ignorance: 'Oh, I didn't know that'. And willful ignorance: 'I refuse to listen to that'.

In a forum some time ago (Catholic Answers I think), there was one guy with whom I used to discuss evolution. He denied it. But he wasn't the type who stuck his fingers in his ears and sang la la la. He know a lot about evolution, but disagreed with it. And far from the usual claptrap of 'if we evolved from monkeys...', he put forward well thought out arguments against it. They were wrong, but at least he knew what he was talking about. And you had to know, or find out, how to refute what he presented. I learnt a lot because of that.

I miss discussions like that.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think people get confused when considering "what is life?" And "What is the meaning of life?" These are not the same things

Since this thread is about biological evolution the question raised earlier was about the biological definition of life. This has nothing to do with the meaning of life.

The short answer is that the demarcation between life and not-life is fuzzy. There is no clear definition.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

One answer to the question posed in the thread title: Ignorance.

And there are two types. Genuine ignorance: 'Oh, I didn't know that'. And willful ignorance: 'I refuse to listen'.

In a forum some time ago (Catholic Answers I think), there was one guy with whom I used to discuss evolution. He denied it. But he wasn't the type who stuck his fingers in his ears and sang la la la. He know a lot about evolution, but disagreed with it. And far from the usual claptrap of 'if we evolved from monkeys...', he put forward well thought out arguments against it. They were wrong, but at least he knew what he was talking about. And you had to know, or find out, how to refute what he presented. I learnt a lot because of that.

I miss discussions like that.

Pwned him good, didja?

 

[Occams Barber]

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

www.scientificamerican.com

"Just a theory" has always been a standard Creationist criticism of Evolution although, over time, it appears to be used less. If a Creationist uses the 'Just a theory' argument it's a sure sign that they know little or nothing about evolution. Even Answers in Genesis (AIG) accepts that the word "Theory" can be used with its specific scientific meaning although it maintains that Evolution does not qualify as a legitimate scientific "Theory".

The 'theory' issue also becomes confused when Creationists conflate Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution under the one heading - usually 'Origins' or 'Evolution'. While Big Bang and Evolution are established scientific theories, Abiogenesis has not yet reached the status of 'theory' - it's still a hypothesis.

Incidentally, mainstream Creationism has also shifted its position somewhat by adopting the concept of 'microevolution' which allows that evolution occurs but limits its effect to change within species. The point where microevolution ceases appears to be arbitrary. Change beyond the species level is known as 'macroevolution' and is not accepted by Creationists. There is no explanation of how or why evolution stops once it achieves microevolution.

OB

 

[rturner76]

Since this thread is about biological evolution the question raised earlier was about the biological definition of life. This has nothing to do with the meaning of life.

The short answer is that the demarcation between life and not-life is fuzzy. There is no clear definition.

OB

Perhaps that is true when considering the philosophy. I mean, is a rock alive? Some say they are, some say they are inanimate objects. I noticed that you specified life and not life rather than life and death. In that regard, I would consider something dead if it rotten or in active decay.