Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the most amusing points to which all of Darwin's monkies incessantly profer is how their opinions, speculations, and conjecture are based on "hard science", and "proven". But the very nature of ANY theory is that it is NOT proven. A proven theory ceases to be a theory, and becomes a "law" the moment it becomes proven. Therefore, evolution theory is not proven, but just speculation.
"Theories cannot become laws because each serves a different purpose. Let me explain (and yes, this is a simplified explanation). Theories are a set of ideas that help to explain how or why natural phenomena occur. Laws are usually mathematical relationships that describe what happens."
Are you trying to argue semantics? It would be proper, and helpful to specify what you claim is wrong, rather than just say "wrong".
So I'm left to guess that you are referring to the fact that NO theory is actually provable, and can only be disproven?
Fine ... split those hairs. Replace "proven" with "generally accepted and never disproven", if that makes you happy. And while I remain in such an accomodating mood, another difference between a theory and a law is that while all scientific laws are based on theories, laws don't get into explanations about "why" a thing is ... only that it is.
You got it backwards. Theories are based on the laws. I digress. You are correct, No scientific theory is actually provable such as mathematical axioms, and can only be disproven? Only because it is about the natural world. That's falsifiability. However, what I was referring to as wrong was your conflating the idea that "theory" is a particular level on some scale of certainty (you seem to be putting it somewhere between guess and law). That is not what it is. Scientific Theories don't "move up" this scale when confirmed. They still retain the title Theory, because they are still the explanation of the Laws and other observations. They don't become laws when confirmed, that would be in a sense a down-grade to a constituent of the whole. Laws are merely observations that are so consistent and reliable that they can be expressed as a mathematical expression - Laws of Thermodynamics, Newtons Laws of Motion - differential equations used for determining the paths of celestial bodies. Or Einstein's field equations that are part of his General Theory of Relativity (our current Theory of Gravity). Those are the "laws" of gravity. It is the "laws" that support the overarching Theory.
Have you ever taken machine shop? In it we studied Internal Combustion Engine Theory. It is the explanation of how and why internal combustion engines work. It is not speculation. They work very well, it is the Theory that explains it. Since we know the how and why of its working, it is not called Internal Combustion Law, it retains the title Theory. We know it as fact yet we still call it theory. How about that.
Have you taken Music Theory? in the simplest terms, the Theory breaks down music to its fundamentals and explains ways of using them and putting them back together to get the desired results. Why would anyone say that music is just guess work, mere speculation because it is called a theory and not a fact. Should I have told my music theory teacher that this Music theory being taught as fact is just a bunch of hooey and since it is just a theory, I don't believe it, because it it were true, it wouldn't be called theory any more and the class would be called Music Law.
These theories will always be called theories and using using them, symphonies will still get written, and internal combustion engines will still get built. See how silly that is? The study of Semantics is important because words mean things, and when you conflate the usage of terms from different arenas (science as opposed to the vernacular) meanings are lost, revealing that the purveyor really doesn't know what they are talking about. It's a dead giveaway. Yet this objection is repeated over and over as wrong as it is.
Yet you don't possess the intellectual capacity to reach your own rational and common sense conclusions, which would immediately identify the dubious nature of such an absurd statement.
The hard cold facts are, laws must first start out as a hypothesis, then graduating to theory, before becomming accepted as a law.
My god ... how dense can a person be who is able to operate a computer?
Do you think Newton's laws of gravitational forces sprang into existence without first having formed the hypothesis, then a theory about the force labeled gravity?
Public education. The damage is greatly underestimated.
Are you trying to argue semantics? It would be proper, and helpful to specify what you claim is wrong, rather than just say "wrong".
So I'm left to guess that you are referring to the fact that NO theory is actually provable, and can only be disproven?
Fine ... split those hairs. Replace "proven" with "generally accepted and never disproven", if that makes you happy. And while I remain in such an accomodating mood, another difference between a theory and a law is that while all scientific laws are based on theories, laws don't get into explanations about "why" a thing is ... only that it is.
You have spent a lot of time attempting to refute evolution, and now it is your turn to argue your case.....I am very patiently waiting for you to present your evidence for creation...Do you have any?
The hard cold facts are, laws must first start out as a hypothesis, then graduating to theory, before becomming accepted as a law.
So since it is called "cell theory" and not "law" does that mean that existence of cells is still up in the air? Or I suppose that since "germ theory" is still "just a theory" scientists are still unsure of whether cholera is caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholerae or "bad air", as once thought?
Laws do start as hypotheses, but they do not provide a mechanism to explain what they are describing. Boyle's law was developed to describe the relationship between pressure and volume of a gas at a fixed temperature, but provided no mechanistic explanation for it. It would take the kinetic theory of gases to explain why that relationship exists.
Yet you don't possess the intellectual capacity to reach your own rational and common sense conclusions, which would immediately identify the dubious nature of such an absurd statement.
The hard cold facts are, laws must first start out as a hypothesis, then graduating to theory, before becomming accepted as a law.
My god ... how dense can a person be who is able to operate a computer?
Do you think Newton's laws of gravitational forces sprang into existence without first having formed the hypothesis, then a theory about the force labeled gravity?
Public education. The damage is greatly underestimated.
See, there you go again. I was hoping you were straightened out on that error. It just keeps repeating.
Well the Mormons did manage to retract all the stuff about black people...
All what stuff about black people? There is nothing in the Bible about "black people."
Besides, the Mormons also use a Book called "The Book of Mormon," written by Joseph Smith (who is their "prophet," if I remember correctly). I have no idea what might be in there, but whatever it is, it is not part of the Gospel of Christ, or the Old Testament Scriptures. The final Revelation was given long before, as recorded in the Bible. Anything else is heresey.
But, since I suspect you are an unbeliever, I doubt you give that any credence either.
You have spent a lot of time attempting to refute evolution, and now it is your turn to argue your case.....I am very patiently waiting for you to present your evidence for creation...Do you have any?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
