• 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.

Why " JUST" a theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
You mean the mixture of theories, hypothesis and speculation that reside under the colloquial misnomer umbrella “ theory of evolution” which is not a theory in scientific sense “ goes some way to explaining how RECENT populations change over time “ . The more recent the more is known.

“ theory of evolution” is not - and never was a single theory. Nor is the most celebrated part of it - Darwin - is not even a theory.

Then : Recognising little or nothing is known of development prior to the minimum known cell which is hideously complex , what is known at best accounts for lessthan 1% of the puzzle , not the 99 % that preceded it.

in short atheists such as Dawkins way overplay their hand on what is known about life.

Nor is the colloquial misnOmer“ theory of evolution” an Alternative to “ creation” which tackles a different issue completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QvQ
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You mean the mixture of theories, hypothesis and speculation that reside under the colloquial misnomer umbrella “ theory of evolution” which is not a theory in scientific sense “ goes some way to explaining how RECENT populations change over time “ . The more recent the more is known.

“ theory of evolution” is not - and never was a single theory. Nor is the most celebrated part of it - Darwin - is not even a theory.

Then : Recognising little or nothing is known of development prior to the minimum known cell which is hideously complex , what is known at best accounts for lessthan 1% of the puzzle , not the 99 % that preceded it.

in short atheists such as Dawkins way overplay their hand on what is known about life.

Nor is the colloquial misnOmer“ theory of evolution” an Alternative to “ creation” which tackles a different issue completely.
I don't suppose you can come up with any way
to falsify any aspect of ToE.


The way things work in science is, if you think any
hypothesis/ law / theory is wrong, you apply facts to
falsify it, if you can.

ToE, BB, deep time are all unpopular with "creationists",
who favour stories that have no facts, and in many
aspects readily falsified by facts.


Your posts just rehash the same irrelevancies
over and over.

In a phys sci forum discussion you need facts.


Reminding you once again this thread is not about evolution.
its about all theories that people try to denugrate
with that ignorant designation.

Isn't it about time you courageously step forth
with at least one fact that falsifiedsany of the theories
that contradict whatever " creation" story you choose to favour?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

So are you agreeing with what I said?

Or are you disagreeing?
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't suppose you can come up with any way
to falsify any aspect of ToE.


The way things work in science is, if you think any
hypothesis/ law / theory is wrong, you apply facts to
falsify it, if you can.

ToE, BB, deep time are all unpopular with "creationists",
who favour stories that have no facts, and in many
aspects readily falsified by facts.


Your posts just rehash the same irrelevancies
over and over.

In a phys sci forum discussion you need facts.


Reminding you once again this thread is not about evolution.
its about all theories that people try to denugrate
with that ignorant designation.

Isn't it about time you courageously step forth
with at least one fact that falsifiedsany of the theories
that contradict whatever " creation" story you choose to favour?

it’s hard for me to discuss withsomeone who clearly doesn’t get either the process of science or
the status or evolution science . Don’t worry - you are like most atheists on that , deluded by the unsubstantiated assumptions of such as Dawkins.

As a scientist I don’t favour anything - you dont get science, or the SCIENTIFIC meaning of hypothesis ‘ or “theory” . I go as far as evidence let’s me.

As for personal beliefs we all have them : you seem to believe as unsubstantiated belief that life is essentially explicable by known or assumed evolutionary process.

If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!

None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.

Where life came from is an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
it’s hard for me to discuss withsomeone who clearly doesn’t get either the process of science or
the status or evolution science . Don’t worry - you are like most atheists on that , deluded by the unsubstantiated assumptions of such as Dawkins.

As a scientist I don’t favour anything - you dont get science, or the SCIENTIFIC meaning of hypothesis ‘ or “theory” . I go as far as evidence let’s me.

As for personal beliefs we all have them : you seem to believe as unsubstantiated belief that life is essentially explicable by known or assumed evolutionary process.

If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!

None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.

Where life came from is an opinion.
Any actual scientist recognizes that
a theory is going to be supported by many
strands of evidence. Plate tectonics for
example, which like evolution can be defined many
different ways, is formed from, reliant on many
other theories, including the biggie- how exactly do the
plates move.
Going on and on about a characteristic of all
theoies tahat you claim as weakness in ToE
deeply undercuts your internet rando claim of
being a scientist. As does your your constant dodging of questions about the fact that you nor
anyone has one datum point to falsify ToE.

"Nothing to disprove" is the second most most lame excuse ever. After "embedded age".

Actual scientist don't go for making things up, such
as you keep doing about me. And, evidently, about yourself as a " scientist".
Honest and knowledgeable people have no need
of fiction to support their arguments.


Actual scientists know that abiogenesis is no more a.
part of ToE than origin of the gas laws is essential to
the study of auto mechanics.

The thread concerns the use of the word " just" to describe theories people ( usually creationists) dont like.a

You've not said one word on topic, nor offered one word
of factual material with any reference to a source.
Omly multiple violations of forum rules including your making this into " evolution v creationism".

A modicum of respect for the forum, please.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The thread concerns the use of the word "just" to describe theories people (usually creationists) don't like?

Since you seem to not like we using the word "just," how about we use the word "only" instead?

Would that be better?

Evolution is only a theory.

Does that sound better?

I certainly like it.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,421
4,195
82
Goldsboro NC
✟257,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
it’s hard for me to discuss withsomeone who clearly doesn’t get either the process of science or
the status or evolution science . Don’t worry - you are like most atheists on that , deluded by the unsubstantiated assumptions of such as Dawkins.

As a scientist I don’t favour anything - you dont get science, or the SCIENTIFIC meaning of hypothesis ‘ or “theory” . I go as far as evidence let’s me.

As for personal beliefs we all have them : you seem to believe as unsubstantiated belief that life is essentially explicable by known or assumed evolutionary process.

If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!

None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.

Where life came from is an opinion.
If you really were into the scientific method you would realize that Dawkin's atheism really isn't an issue in this discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,569
16,270
55
USA
✟409,398.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!

None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.
Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis. The lack of a satisfactory theory of the origin of life cannot falisify Darwin's theory of speciation by natural selection, because it has nothing to do with it.
Where life came from is an opinion.
And it is not part of evolutionary theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you really were into the scientific method you would realize that Dawkin's atheism really isn't an issue in this discussion.

Or anyone else's atheism.
Like religion or lack of is the decisive factor for educated
people in their understanding of science.

Religion is the totality of it for some though,as seen
yet again in this thread: Ifn it don't match with god- inspired readin' of the Bible, it's wrong.

The refined essence of, yes, intellectual dishonesty.

Attributing such dishonesty to atheists is
the most naively self revealing sort of projection .
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis. The lack of a satisfactory theory of the origin of life cannot falisify Darwin's theory of speciation by natural selection, because it has nothing to do with it.

And it is not part of evolutionary theory.
As any scientist would know.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Attributing such dishonesty to atheists is the most naively self revealing sort of projection.

Not really.

Atheists are so wrong when it comes to discussing life on the earth, they all see themselves as the honest ones, and everyone else looks dishonest to them.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Not at all; confirmation happens in the lab and in the field, with actual data.
One can guess w/o reading, its the inevitable
for ten thousanth time, " only on paper".

As if that didn't exactly describe all religious texts.

Good timing since "projection" is a current
topic.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As any scientist would know.

"Any scientist" would also know that biological evolution is one phase of cosmic evolution out of seven.

Abiogenesis may not be categorized in the biological phase, but that's because it is cataloged in the chemical phase.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Or the telescope.

The telescope confirms biological evolution, does it?

Doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure you can make a paper clip confirm evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
So are you agreeing with what I said?

Or are you disagreeing?
I agree with you that before 1992 it was reasonable to call Pluto a planet. The discovery, from 1992 onwards, of large numbers of trans-Neptunian objects, some of them of similar size to Pluto, forced astronomers to re-consider the definition of a planet, and to separate spherical bodies that had not cleared their orbits, such as Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake and Ceres, from planets on the one hand and from asteroids on the other.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.