- Feb 10, 2013
- 35,166
- 20,378
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry. I went off topic.As in not phys sci with reference for stated facts.
I've been asking that forum rules be observed in that regard.
You're fine. No apology needed. We all go off topic.Sorry. I went off topic.
Meanwhile back on topic...We get what we're willing to tolerate from
bratty kids of any age.
I did request that forum rules be respected.
Posts that do not are fair game for anyone to report.
I recently discovered that the use of the word 'evolution' in a biological sense actually predates Darwin.
You heard right.
It is time YOU all spoke science or moved on.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.
There is also a conceptual problem that presenting any TOE as an alternative to creation is comparing apples and oranges.
They do not occupy the same logical space.
Mike, you are doing,, have been doing all the things IIt is time YOU all spoke science or moved on.
I am explaining what a theory is.
it seems the OP on the last thread had no idea.
A Theory in science is a hypothesis sufficiently well defined to allow experimental test, and if confirmed it becomes a theory
There is no single TofE , and certainly darwins thesis is more of an experimental law, ( like ohms law it is certainly not inviolate) and like ohm, is certainly not a theory.
So before decide whether your TofE is “ just a theory”
First define it,
what precisely is the hypothesis you say is verified so is the theory on which you base the thread?
Its a fair question. Answer it.
There is also a conceptual Problem that presenting any TOE as an alternative to creation is comparing applesabd oranges. They do not occupy the same logical space.
It is not even a theory in the scientific senseMike, you are doing,, have been doing all the things I
requested you refrain from, and adding mote besides.
The topic is, why the use of the word " just"
(when trying to disparage a theory). Just that.
It appears to be a low rhetorical trick used by
certain creationists to disparage science .
Perhaps someone can explain why they do it anyway.
Going o,t. Is going against forum rules
Evolution is not the topic.
It isn't religion.
It isn't any of the things you made up and
falsely attribute to me.
It's not a platform for you to make demands.
It's not a thread intended for quips from usual
suspects who also dont care where they and their efforts to derail every thread about science , are not welcome.
" Not even a theory"It is not even a theory in the scientific sense
I am replacing the word "just" with "not even" which is the real question.
The word just on the original OP gave the false impression it was a theory.
That should matter on a science forum. So far from derailing the thread it is bringing it back to science
The thread context is use or misuse or qualification of the phrase "theory of evolution".
It is high time people talked about that from a science perspective, not populist misuse of the phrase..
Dont you care about the scientific view of all this?
Your OP is this: Why " JUST" a theory?Now, again, your post is 99% off topic, and again, please go.
I dont like to resort to reporting but enough is enough.
Odd, how while Christians consider humility, a prime virtue ...
... so many display a transcendent level of arrogance.
Contained within those few words is the assertion of infallible knowledge of the existence of a personally selected God, and of the One True reading of the book claimed to be about said God.
All other religions, all other Christians' interpretations are wrong.
MOREOVER, it's a claim to know more than every actual scientist / rexearcher on earth- a stunning feat accomplished with no study, no effort, no data.
It's a level of pride and arrogance that delves deep into the realm of delusion.
ANY theory that doesn't fit with the infallible knowledge of any creationist is, ipso facto, "just" a theory, or in
extreme cases, not even a theory at all.
Evolutionary theory doesn't explain life. It merely explains how living populations change over time.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?
No. They are considered true when evidence repeatedly confirms their predictions.Aren't theories rated by strength?
Evolution, like gravity, is something we directly observe happening. Evolution is somewhat more certain than gravity.Surely people have tried to. But I dont actually know.
Some people will never learn-Evolutionary theory doesn't explain life. It merely explains how living populations change over time.
No. They are considered true when evidence repeatedly confirms their predictions.
Did Lamarck ever use the word evolution, or its French equivalent?I recently discovered that the use of the word 'evolution' in a biological sense actually predates Darwin. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary it was first used by geologist Charles Lyell back in 1832. Darwin himself only ever used 'evolution' once in print. It occurs in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species published in 1859.
I suppose that by the modern definition of a planet, Pluto was a planet from 1930 to about 1992. It is in orbit around the Sun and it is large enough and massive enough to be spherical. Before 1992 nobody knew that there were other 'planetary' bodies in the same region of the solar system, so Pluto's region of space was supposed to be empty. It was only when large numbers of objects were found in the trans-Neptunian region that it became clear that Pluto has not cleared its orbit and that it is therefore a dwarf planet.Anyone -- anyone -- who would have dared say Pluto wasn't a planet during those years, would have been "corrected".
According to my AI (Copilot), Lamarck didn't use the term evolution or a French equivalent. While the current French word for evolution is évolution it appears, Lamarck didn't reduce his ideas, now known as Lamarckism, to a single term.Did Lamarck ever use the word evolution, or its French equivalent?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?