About 50 years ago....were you sleeping? Before we waste time on this, do you understand the difference between a theory and a 'scientific Theory'?
Well... sorry, true science is a fact-finding mission. The word theory is not going to be twisted around by you in this thread. The original scientific process will not allow you. Please notice, the word belief is like faith. Faith is something done with or without facts. But since true science is a fact-finding mission, and is a demonstrable, repeatable process, the facts of true science are indisputable. But faith ( belief ) is something practiced with or without facts. Those who preach ( correct term ) Evolution are no different than those who preach Creationism. They are priests, not scientists. It is a religious thing. Neither side can prove themselves right because neither side has demonstrable, repeatable facts/evidence/conclusions. Dont worry, I know where this all ends up. It ends up me asking you for true scientific facts, you not being able to produce them, and me being called names. Onward....
What aspect of evolution do you feel has not been proven? Considering the time spans involved, demonstrating evolution by natural selection in a single lifetime seems as though it would be difficult, though evolution by selective breeding has been demonstrably repeatable for a very, very, very, very long time. Evolution by means of bio engineering is much newer, but equally demonstrable and repeatable. At least we can agree that ID/Creationism is not provable. How would one go about testing something that is not scientifically falsifiable. I was talking with my dead uncle yesterday, and he agreed.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible (ID/Creationism), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes.
Friends who think evolution is wrong, might want to read this page http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php
Nope! Facts have verifiable and objective evidence to support them. Faith is obsolete when dealing with facts. Faith has no verifiable, objective evidence to support it....that's why it's called 'faith Faith is believing something is true when there is no evidence for it. I think you need to catch up a little!
I found the link you provided rather interesting. Another link that a number of people really need to read is HERE . . it defines what actually constitutes a scientific theory. Throughout threads discussing this subject many of those arguing the most vehemently against evolution cannot even define what criteria is necessary to elevate a hypothesis to the status of a scientific theory (so good luck refuting a scientific theory). I wince every time I hear someone attempt to replace the meaning of the word "theory" in scientific usage with the word "theory" in common usage, which ultimately have two distinctly different meanings. In common usage it simply means that someone has come up with an idea or notion that is unproven or speculative. The scientific term hypothesis is a much closer approximation to the common usage of the word theory but even that is not completely accurate. The two usages of the same word "theory" are not interchangeable though we see it over and over again where someone will use this incorrect word replacement as the basis of their argument. It is particularly sad when this common error is so easily corrected by doing a little reading.
First, you have admitted here that your original link did not answer my question - good for you! Second, every single sentence you wrote above is wrong. And as usual, you are incapable of backing up what you wrote. Have a nice day. Let me put my two college degrees in science to work and assist you in what you do not understand: An Hypothesis is pure conjecture, not proven or disproven. A Theory is an hypothesis that has been proven by experimentation or examination. A Law is a Theory that has been used to accurately predict a result or event. And one more: A non-scientist is someone that thinks if it isn't on the internet, it isn't true. For example: - Einstein put forth the idea of Relativity and the mathematics behind it. - As an hypothesis, it was used to observe certain phenomena so that once the mathematics of it was proven, it became a Theory. - When the orbit of the planet Mercury could not be accurately calculated by Newtonian physics, it was suggested that the gravitational pull of the Sun was affecting time in the area so that it affected Mercury's orbit. When Einstein's equations were used to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, that was one of many uses that made Relativity a Law of Science. - Evolution was first put forth as an hypothesis that Man evolved from lower animal forms by the mechanism of Survival of the Fittest - When evidence was found of intermediate steps in man's evolution, it became a Theory. - And because other intermediate stages of Man's evolution was accurately predicted BEFORE they were unearthed, Evolution is considered by many to be a Scientific Law. BTW, most Christian spiritual teachings, including Catholicism and Protestantism, say Evolution does not contradict Church teachings. Baptist is one of the few that does not.
Ummm....sorry! Am I missing something here? Do you see something that gives the impression we disagree that a theory is not the same as a scientific theory...that the latter has mountains of objective and verifiable evidence to support it?? That depends on whether or not you subscribe to a 'literal' Bible I suppose. BTW...someone with two degrees ought to be able to spell 'college'...or have standards of US education plummeted somewhat? Jus' sayin'
Let me put put the fact that I once passed a biology exam at a real "college" to work to expand on this: Once a hypothesis is elevated to the status of a scientific theory it remains as a theory in perpetuity. There is no such thing as a "proven" status as many non scientific people have attempted to use as an argument. The point missed however is that the vast majority of people who speak the English language use the word "theory" differently than the way it is used in science. The common usage of the word theory is not interchangeable with the scientific usage. In common usage; speculation or guess are its closest meanings. In scientific usage; a hypothesis has through its own merit, been elevated to a theory after rigorous testing, scrutiny and peer review. To dismiss this process with the words "it's just a theory" does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of education on the part of anyone thinking that this is a valid argument.
Beacuse you said that you don´t have TIME to read the link, on the next post I tried to make it simple for you like those books for dummies but now you claim that my link didn´t answer your questions. The link exactly answer your question but I am sorry no matter how simple I try to make it, your two collage degrees won´t help you to understand it.
You seem to be missing something here. "Theory" is one word, a scientific term that has one specific scientific meaning. If you are using the word "theory" in any other way, then you are using it in an inexact method and therefore you are using it incorrectly. Not your fault, it's a common mistake. edit: I will admit, as an engineer, I have a bias in this case. I only use the word "theory" one way. Except for the life of Christ and His disciples, Catholicism does not subscribe to a "literal' Bible. Neither does Protestantism. In general, Judaism does not believe in a 'literal' Old Testament.
That is correct but in light of the fact that the common use of the word, albeit incorrectly, has found its way into daily English vernacular with a different meaning, you will see a number of dictionaries now including both meanings. Languages "evolve" as do the commonly accepted meanings of words and phrases. At this stage (once the meaning in common usage of a word begins appearing in dictionaries as secondary definitions) science would be better served finding themselves a new word to replace theory. The other choice is to spend eternity telling non science people they are using the word wrong.
My only point was that the word 'theory' in everyday layman's terms does not have the same meaning as it does in scientific terms and when creationists say 'Evolution is only a theory' they are are using the word, not in a scientific context but in layman's term....to mean 'just guesswork'. Do you not agree?
I've gotten to a point with those people that I have no problem belittling their lack of education, especially the copy and paste zombies who will drop something like the following in a thread: "Theory = 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." . . . the number 6 denotes that it is the 6th most relevant definition of the word and as I mentioned in a previous post, this is an example of dictionaries now acknowledging the common usage of the word theory. The unfortunate result of that acknowledgment is it gives the woefully ignorant another bit of seemingly legitimate endorsement they can latch onto.
If we are having a scientific discussion on Evolution then we must use scientific language. Anyone who uses the informal use of the word "theory" in this context is using it incorrectly, and by implication completely misunderstands the scientific basis of "evolution" and should either correct themselves or walk away from the discussion. Science relies upon, and depends upon, a common vocabulary. Even business communications teaches that.