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.
I repeat...Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Obviously you and your ilk interpret facts as suppositions, but that doesn't make you correct, or the facts wrong...Do you get it now, or are you really that dense?
Of course your right sanspeur, yet who is the final judge as to what is an accurate fact? There is the reality of truth. And there are obvious facts that all can agree on. Yet often the theories we speak of do display such obvious facts. And that is when such interpretation is applied.
Of course your right sanspeur, yet who is the final judge as to what is an accurate fact? There is the reality of truth. And there are obvious facts that all can agree on. Yet often the theories we speak of do display such obvious facts. And that is when such interpretation is applied.
I will waste no more words on you....
Quote:
Is the Theory of Evolution a true scientific theory?
The Theory of Evolution is a true scientific theory because it passes the test of having several independent arguments based on evidence all leading to the same conclusion. Furthermore the Theory of Evolution has demonstrated its ability as a powerful tool for making sense of the evidence that surrounds it. The Theory of Evolution has proven itself to be one of the most important of all scientific theories.
If the Theory of Evolution is a true scientific theory, then why is there still controversy?
Almost everyone believes that they are open to new ideas, and yet in reality, many if not most people are unwilling to adjust their fundamental beliefs. Many people see the Theory of Evolution as an affront to their belief that human beings are uniquely gifted apart from the other species of the planet. However there is no scientific evidence supporting the belief that we are endowed with an ancestral lineage separate from that of the other species. This truth upsets many people such that they would rather ignore the overwhelming evidence than to give up their belief.
By closing their minds to the overwhelming evidence, they envision that the Theory of Evolution is only a hypothesis so that there might remain hope that it can be defeated. In attacking evolution, often times by distorting the truth, their intention is not to promote better science but instead to fulfill their wishful agenda. While constructive criticism is welcome by all of us who seek improvement, it is clear that these critics of evolution promote an anti-science philosophy that is damaging to the success of our culture.
And of course, the only credible sources are the one's that agree with you. What known hoaxes are you taking about? Here again, we see these vague general statements, yet it's rare that any such details are supplied.
Thanks. Our point proven again. By you, in person, right here, right now. We always provide the details, but you won't read them or respond. All proven, time and again. And again. And again.
The points so many of us make here are always fully supported with masses of reproducible results, but then you know that. But as Jack Nicholsen yelled...
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
A hypothesis is a guess, but it is an educated guess based on observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but it cannot be proven because there is no way to test every single instance where they hypothesis applies.
A scientific theory gives a summary of a hypothesis or several hypotheses that has been supported by repeated testing. It also makes useful predictions about what *will* be found. Theories are valid as long as there is no evidence disputing them. They can also be disproven, but as evidence accumulates, theories become accepted. Newton's law of gravity was actually explained by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. That was when we began to understand why gravity worked (curvature of space-time around mass).
A law generalizes a body of observations. Scientific laws, like the law of gravity explain things, but do not describe them and do not answer the why questions.
It's not that difficult, but you do have to realize that science uses these words in a very specific way and that it is not the same way that they are used in daily life.
Recently I had a believer tell me that a certain scientific topic of discussion "is just a theory'. When I suggested that he didn't know the proper definition of the word theory when applied to science, he hotly proclaimed something to the effect of "I have a science degree, I know what a theory is!"
Unfortunately, his claimed "science degree" failed to teach him that the word “theory” has a considerably different meaning in normal conversation than in a scientific context. In daily non-scientific discourse the connotation for “theory” is that of a belief or a passing thought and not comparable to what you learn in a quantum mechanics class.
There is a misconception fondly held by believers about the difference between this “theory as belief” and “theory as science”. Certain theories and ideas are themselves labeled as requiring faith by people here who oppose the beliefs (usually the Big Bang and evolution) in an attempt to detract from their importance, and to make those theories appear as opinion rather than solid science. It is comical to watch this line of thinking being used by people arguing for the superiority of religion over science, because faith has nothing to do with scientific theory.
Before something is accepted as a scientific theory, it must be an idea that is peer reviewed, tested by multiple independent methods, have repeatable and consistent results observed, and be intensely scrutinized by some of the brightest minds in the field. This is where scientific theory and a simple belief are wildly different. A religious person can hold to certain beliefs his whole life and never test them, but science only survives and is useful if it is tested again and again.
In the USA and much of the world, a person is free keep an unsubstantiated belief that makes them feel good; to stubbornly hang onto it whether or not it is objectively true. However, in science if it is false, science rejects it. It is either revised or completely thrown away and not revisited.
A theory is not something that you believe in or not, but a solid framework to explain a subset of the universe and its validity is entirely objective. Religion and faith on the other hand, are entirely SUBjective. When a believer scoffs and says "it's just a theory", all they're doing is making themselves appear uneducated and ignorant about what the word really means.
Here's the original post. The thread topic is about the misuse of the word theory by the uneducated. It has nothing to do with god, religion, evolution or any other weird tangent that an IDer decides to divert the thread topic onto. I don't see what is so incomprehendable about what the OP is talking about. It's not like they're asking someone to learn Calculus 3. Maybe the concept is just to complicated. I mean learning the difference between a theory in science and a theory in layman's terms is completely mind boggling. The most brilliant minds in science and philosophy have contemplated this, spent decades researching it and yet still have not discovered it. Explaining it is like speaking japanese to a simpleton whom only speaks english.
In actuality, it is not that hard to understand and it has been clearly explained multiple times, yet it seems to get completely ignored.
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.
