wow....

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"No, it doesn't mean that, and you don't get to redefine words in the English language just because you're unhappy with the current definitions. "

Yes, it does because its not standardized then. All the languages have the same problem because they have the same definition.

 

Louis, even if the theory of evolution is one day able to explain absolutely everything, it will still be a theory.  There is no "higher" term for it to graduate to. You simply do not understand what a scientific theory is if you believe your statement that it's a theory because it doesn't explain everything yet.

 

[Morat]

  This seems like another case of "laymen's theory" meets "scientists theory".

   Don't you love that?

 

 

[nbkan67]

merriam-webster:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Goodness. Now, let's see...where would we find the scientific definition of theory? Would it be in a regular dictionary? No, that's where laymen's definitions go.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Heck, if I went by my dictionary, I'd be ever so confused. Apparantly, bridges are for walking over....

&nbsp;

 

[blader]

Actually, definition #5 is the scientific definition of theory.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

And again I say evolution explains SOME of the data but not ALL of it, thus why it is a theory. *sigh* how many times do I have to say this before you understand it? As for the AMOUNT of evidience it explains, that's the problem and why I disbelieve it.

And again I say, you have a very poor, if any, understanding of what the word "theory" means if we're talking about the SCIENTIFIC usage of the word. No "theory" explains "ALL" of the data. If that's the criteria you're using, then you are saying that the theory of evolution is on equal grounds with the theories of gravity and relativity, which is fine. A scientific hypothesis does not become a theory until a substantial amount of evidence is found to support it. Whether you believe it or disbelieve it has nothing whatsoever to do with its status as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY in science, rather than a LAYMAN'S "theory" to you.

 

[Morat]

Actually, definition #5 is the scientific definition of theory.

&nbsp;A poor one.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Morat
&nbsp;A poor one.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

True dat.

 

[LouisBooth]

"explain absolutely everything, it will still be a theory. "

Nope, by definition a theory DOES NOT explain all the evidience.

"If that's the criteria you're using, then you are saying that the theory of evolution is on equal grounds with the theories of gravity and relativity, which is fine. "

agreed. The amount of data that the 2 latter theories explains is FAR greater then the amount of data evolution explains, and it is why I don't believe in it

"Whether you believe it or disbelieve it has nothing whatsoever to do with its status as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY in science, rather than a LAYMAN'S "theory" to you."

*sigh* I know this, and evolution does explain some data, I have very clearly admited this several times. I guess you aren't reading closely enough. The point is that the data it doesn't explain is enough for me to discredit it. You can explain some of the data of earthquakes by saying, at the very middle of the earth there are giants moving the land, and I would say, yes that does explain some of the data, but not all of it, and the amount it doesn't explain leads me to believe it, too, is wrong.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"explain absolutely everything, it will still be a theory. "

Nope, by definition a theory DOES NOT explain all the evidience.

 

[lithium.]

A theory is a way to explain facts that have been tested repeatedly or alot of people accept.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

*sigh* I know this, and evolution does explain some data, I have very clearly admited this several times. I guess you aren't reading closely enough.

No actually, you are the one who isn't reading "closely" enough, because you clearly are still missing the point here. Once again, whether you believe or choose to accept the theory or not is not the question here.

The point was that as far as science is concerned, your dismissal of evolution by saying "it's just a theory" is inane. This quote from you proves that you really don't know what a scientific theory is, until hopefully now:

And again I say evolution explains SOME of the data but not ALL of it, thus why it is a theory. *sigh* how many times do I have to say this before you understand it? As for the AMOUNT of evidience it explains, that's the problem and why I disbelieve it.

LOL. If you have problems with the "amount" of evidence it explains, then you shouldn't be acknowledging it as a "theory" at all! A scientific theory doesn't become a theory unless there's a substantial amount of evidence in support of it. So unless you agree that there's a substantial amount of evidence in support of it (rather than just "some"), you should be arguing against its status a scientific theory.

The point is that the data it doesn't explain is enough for me to discredit it. You can explain some of the data of earthquakes by saying, at the very middle of the earth there are giants moving the land, and I would say, yes that does explain some of the data, but not all of it, and the amount it doesn't explain leads me to believe it, too, is wrong.

See above. Also, I would like you to give some specific examples of what you are talking about when you mention "the amount it doesn't explain." What, specifically, does it not explain? Specific examples would be nice rather than vague generalizations.

 

[lithium.]

nice post blader.

 

[MacSith]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
That's the nice thing about science. Sooner or later, frauds and hoaxes are exposed.

Someone else might have said this...

It goes on to show that humans do deliberately twist or even conjure up facts. Perhaps the person who wrote the Bible or someone copying it....awww....

My friend said it was just a "Jewish jokebook" but I don't agree. I believe the people who wrote those stories were serious to some extent in understanding their world. But they are fallible nonetheless.

 

[ocean]

The Bbible is not infallible.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by MacSith
Someone else might have said this...

It goes on to show that humans do deliberately twist or even conjure up facts. Perhaps the person who wrote the Bible or someone copying it....awww....

My friend said it was just a "Jewish jokebook" but I don't agree. I believe the people who wrote those stories were serious to some extent in understanding their world. But they are fallible nonetheless.

It has happened before. That's why scholars rely on the earliest available texts to minimize cpying errors.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The point was that as far as science is concerned, your dismissal of evolution by saying "it's just a theory" is inane. "

1. if you read my posts I never do that
2. my statement is usually that's WHY its still a theory. Hence my pointing at the defintion.
3. please read my posts before jumping on me for something you misread

thanks

"A scientific theory doesn't become a theory unless there's a substantial amount of evidence in support of it. "

and I would say that recently it has become less. That's why I tend NOT to believe it. the word "substantial" is quite relative on the observer. That is why I pointed to the amounts verses the other two theories.

 

[TheBear]

*sigh*

 

[sulphur]

Why is still called atomic theory?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by sulphur
Why is still called atomic theory?

Cuz it ain't good enough to be called a law yet. Just not enough evidence, ya know.