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.
Thanks for the definition. I think because words in english have different meanings depending on discipline, it may be the cause of many misunderstandings.Not quite. In science, a theory is an explanation for what is observed.
I was thinking that the selective breeding to be more like "adaptation" and the laboratory application as evolution since it results in an entirely new thing not naturally occurring.Well, genetic engineering has been in widespread use for quite a while and now - there are a lot of medical uses, but not all I would consider evolutionary in nature. I'd consider pretty much all selective breeding that has been going on for millennia to be applied evolution as well as GMOs.
Emotional resonance that Hypersensitive People (HSP) can perceive makes people "feel" like they're full of "energy" good or bad.What?! Energy and work have specific technical meanings in science. But for me, energy means waves of happiness that come from my crystals!
Most specialist domains of knowledge have their own 'language' of custom words and special meanings for common words - it's called 'jargon'. One can only assume they are not familiar with the concept of jargon or of specialised domains of knowledge...The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.
Why do creationists and people who do not accept evolution always have a problem with the word 'theory'?
They say it's been 'hijacked' by scientists. They say that since it's 'just a theory', then it's worthless, even though in the same breath they'll say they have no problem with germ theory or the theory of gravity.
But it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, isn't it? And you really do not need to be a boffin to go and study the history of the term theory to see how it was used, from the old natural philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome, to the first scientists of Europe and Middle East, up to the modern period.
To wit, the word theory, like several hundred words in the English language (the glorious mess that it is), has several definitions dependent on how it is used. And, like many words in the English language, context is key.
For example, if we use the example definitions given by Dictionary.com, there are 7 definitions that can be used:
So why is there such a continuous fixation on the word 'theory' solely when it refers to the theory of evolution?
(by the by, I do feel that this is a bit of rhetorical question since the answer has been made plain in many threads as to why many opponents of evolutionary theory and the theory of evolution take umbrage with the word 'theory'... But I felt that it was an issue that needed to be discussed)
I think it's called the backfire effect.Someone posted a link on the forum recently, IIRC, to some research that indicated conspiracy theorists (whom I understand have some characteristics akin to YECs) find evidence contrary to their beliefs simply strengthens those beliefs.
If I can find the link, I'll post it here.
I think that is most likely explanation for what you describe and why attempts like this will nearly always fail to convince your 'target'. However, it is still worth making the argument, since it may help a fence sitter, or those uninformed, but open to learning.
The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.
Why do creationists and people who do not accept evolution always have a problem with the word 'theory'?
They say it's been 'hijacked' by scientists. They say that since it's 'just a theory', then it's worthless, even though in the same breath they'll say they have no problem with germ theory or the theory of gravity.
But it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, isn't it? And you really do not need to be a boffin to go and study the history of the term theory to see how it was used, from the old natural philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome, to the first scientists of Europe and Middle East, up to the modern period.
To wit, the word theory, like several hundred words in the English language (the glorious mess that it is), has several definitions dependent on how it is used. And, like many words in the English language, context is key.
For example, if we use the example definitions given by Dictionary.com, there are 7 definitions that can be used:
So why is there such a continuous fixation on the word 'theory' solely when it refers to the theory of evolution?
(by the by, I do feel that this is a bit of rhetorical question since the answer has been made plain in many threads as to why many opponents of evolutionary theory and the theory of evolution take umbrage with the word 'theory'... But I felt that it was an issue that needed to be discussed)
Proofs, disproofs, falsifiability and confimation aren't part of science. Such notions stem from philosophical logic.... A good theory must be falsifiable. ... If the prediction is falsified, .. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory ... A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt ... a theory can be disproven ...
so ... God says He created the universe and everything in it ... and we are to believe it or not ... accept His written Word as truth ... or not. So from a christian/biblical perspective ... why do we christians debate about how mankind and other living things came to be? That's not the debate/argument ..... Universe ... how did the universe and everything in it come to be?
Does your point apply to Phlogiston theory as well?The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.
Thank you, my friend!AV1611VET ---- Welcome back. Long time, no see. We were preparing to send out a search party. I do hope you have been well and are still trying to be good.
Thank you, my friend!
Yup ... still alive and kickin!
CF was gracious enough to let me back in!
Thank you, thank you, sir! It's good to be back!Welcome back AV, we've missed you! The science people have been getting kinda uppity.
Now back to the thread...
Excellent example. Though not quite a theory it was still testable and guess what? It was refuted by applying the scientific method. In other words the use of the scientific method, developing hypotheses and testing them which ultimately lead to theories is the most reliable route to understand the universe that we live in.Does your point apply to Phlogiston theory as well?
How did it make it all the way to "theory"?Excellent example. Though not quite a theory it was still testable and guess what? It was refuted by applying the scientific method. In other words the use of the scientific method, developing hypotheses and testing them which ultimately lead to theories is the most reliable route to understand the universe that we live in.
There was a looser standard then. It would not have been a "theory" today. The meaning of words change over time.How did it make it all the way to "theory"?
Are you implying the scientific method created it, then the scientific method pwned it?
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?