Ceeboo wrote:I was just giving SS a little friendly ribbing.
Friendly ribbing! Well! ...I believe that coming from you.
However, that's dangerous ground you're covering, mister. We respecters of science have an obligation to jump all over the "just a theory" argument whether it's believed by the arguer or not!
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Friendly ribbing! Well! ...I believe that coming from you.
Good! (Considering it was you who posted it, I couldn't resist the "at least you are calling it a theory" swipe)
However, that's dangerous ground you're covering, mister. We respecters of science have an obligation to jump all over the "just a theory" argument whether it's believed by the arguer or not!
Understood (And for the most part, I agree)
by the way: I understand that a theory can not be proven or it would no longer be called a thoery (It can only be disproved and thus ending the "theory") and I am also very aware that things like gravity are labeled as a theory (with certain laws as parts of the theory).
Anyhoo, as always, it is a pleasure to have these discussons with you silly atheists.
Ceeboo wrote:Understood (And for the most part, I agree)
by the way: I understand that a theory can not be proven or it would no longer be called a thoery (It can only be disproved and thus ending the "theory") and I am also very aware that things like gravity are labeled as a theory (with certain laws as parts of the theory).
Anyhoo, as always, it is a pleasure to have these discussons with you silly atheists.
:)
Peace, Ceeboo
Emphasis mine.
Not quite. Laws are generalizations about observable, measurable phenomena. Theories are the "why" to explain those observations. To reach the level of being scientific theory, said theory has to be generally accepted as being true. This completely different from being, what some say about evolution, that it is "just a theory."
Ceeboo wrote:Understood (And for the most part, I agree)
by the way: I understand that a theory can not be proven or it would no longer be called a thoery (It can only be disproved and thus ending the "theory") and I am also very aware that things like gravity are labeled as a theory (with certain laws as parts of the theory).
Anyhoo, as always, it is a pleasure to have these discussons with you silly atheists.
:)
Peace, Ceeboo
Emphasis mine.
Not quite. Laws are generalizations about observable, measurable phenomena. Theories are the "why" to explain those observations. To reach the level of being scientific theory, said theory has to be generally accepted as being true. This completely different from being, what some say about evolution, that it is "just a theory."
Evolution, as it has been used in this discussion, is two things: A fact and a theory.
That life on this Earth has changed from primitive forms to more modern forms over time is not in scientific dispute. It is not a 'theory' that life one or two billion years ago was very simple. It is not a 'theory' that simple life gave way to more complex life over time. It is not a 'theory' that life has changed dramatically over time. These are 'facts' which are not in dispute by the scientific community. Anyone who can dig through the right rock layers can witness for themselves the undisputed fact of evolution.
The reason why life has changed from simple to complex over geologic timeframes is a topic of much research. Many people have suggested theories (or explanations) as to why the fact of evolution took place. The 'theory of evolution' which best explains the undisputed 'fact of evolution' is called 'Natural Selection'.
Darwin did not invent evolution. Darwin did not discover evolution. Darwin elucidated a wonderful, elegant explanatory theory for how evolution takes place.
Hope this helps.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag