1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '10 06:54
    Some christians believe that a scientific theory is less credible because it has the word 'theory' connected with it. The often say that "Well it's only a theory, nothing more." or "It's nothing more than a mere guessing."

    They usually say this when we're discussing the 'the Evolution theory', but sometimes also 'the BigBang theory'. Strange enough, never when we talk about 'the Atomic Theory', or 'Number Theory' as guessings or lesser credible. Why is this?

    When we talk about science, we walk on the science domain. Scientists define words to be precise. Words are often used in another way in the 'civil life', but shouldn't be confused with the precise scientific meaning. When others try to redefine scientific words, then they do it with an agenda, they are dishonest.

    There are some example of terms used in mathematics which might cause confusion for the non-mathematics. But they don't. Like "Rational vs irrational numbers, like the irrationals are beyond ration. Even imaginary numbers are used in a very unimaginary way. And of course many theories, like integration theory, that has nothing to do with guessings. This is not a problem to anyone. Because these theories can equally be hold as truths, even by creationists.

    There are two theories in the air. The Evolution theory, and the Creation theory. One is scientific, one is religious. You know which is which. Some believe in one of them, some believe in the other. Some believes in one of them because of religious faith, some believs in the other because of scientific reasons. Some want to pick fights over this, some thinks it doesn't matter.

    Often when we discuss Evolution theory vs Creation theory it strikes me hard that creationists doesn't know much about evolution, yet having very strong feelings against it. They think that "If the Evolutionists cannot explain everything, thený don't know anything." Also "If they don't know how a dead molecule turns into a living molecule they don't know anything. We, the Creationists, know." By this they are forcisng evolutionists to explain things that is not a part of the Evolution at all. Like if I ask a christian "If you don't know the hair colour of God, then he cannot exist." or something equally stupid.

    Do evolutionists know equally less about the Creation theory? I don't think so. After all, there are a few chapters about it in the Genesis, nothing more. It's all there. It doesn't say anything about DNA and RNA, it doesn't say anything about differentiation over time. It doesn't say anything about fossilisation. I short, it doesn't say much. So the Creation theory is a very simple theory. The Evolution theory is harder to grasp (even if its basis is explainable even to children), and that's might be the explanation why creationists don't know much about it.

    Trying to redefine scientific words, trying to include questions outside the theory at hand to prove its faultyness, avoiding to learn about the things being discussed and their non-knowledge in the matters are promoted to Truths, are all dirty tricks. Avoid dirty tricks if you want to debate seriously. If you don't want to debate seriously, then it shows your own opinions as weak.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Nov '10 08:19
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    When others try to redefine scientific words, then they do it with an agenda, they are dishonest.
    .....
    Do evolutionists know equally less about the Creation theory?
    They are not always dishonest. Sometimes people genuinely don't know the meaning of a term or misuse it without realizing it.

    I notice that you too are not being very careful with the word Theory as later in your post you talk of the "Creation Theory" which since it is not a scientific theory must be some other use of the word. What does it even mean in that context? If you were being scientific, you could go with 'creation hypothesis', but even then you might want to specify that either you are talking about a specific version of a creation hypothesis, or say that you are using an umbrella term for a whole range of hypotheses which really only have one thing in common - the proposal that God created the universe.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '10 08:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    They are not always dishonest. Sometimes people genuinely don't know the meaning of a term or misuse it without realizing it.

    I notice that you too are not being very careful with the word Theory as later in your post you talk of the "Creation Theory" which since it is not a scientific theory must be some other use of the word. What does it even mean i ...[text shortened]... es which really only have one thing in common - the proposal that God created the universe.
    If we use 'theory' as synonymous with 'explanation', then the 'Creation theory' means 'the explanation of the Creation' as the BigBang theory means 'the explanation of BigBang'. What we do agree upon (I hope) is that theory does not mean 'a mere guess'. 'Theory doesn't mean neither 'correct' nor 'false', just 'an explanation'. That's why different theories can live side by side, even in the scientific community.

    Example: There are many theories how the Moon came into existance. Now we know more, but we don't know the ultimate explanation. What science don't aknowledge is that the Moon was created by god, simply because it's outside the domain of science, but still a theory.

    But you're right. I don't follow every definition by the letter. If I would do that I would complicate things for the layman. But when someone corrects me, and I realize that I oversimplify, then I am more careful.

    In this case - 'theory' doesn't mean 'a mere guessing'. Anti evolutionists tend to think so, but they are wrong using this scientific word 'theory' in a fawlty way. And they do that for a reason. their own agenda, to belittle the Evolution theory, and thus hint that their Creation explanation is better, even scientifically better.

    I have explained the word 'theory' a number of times, but they never learn.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Nov '10 10:321 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    But you're right. I don't follow every definition by the letter. If I would do that I would complicate things for the layman. But when someone corrects me, and I realize that I oversimplify, then I am more careful.

    In this case - 'theory' doesn't mean 'a mere guessing'. Anti evolutionists tend to think so, but they are wrong using this scientific word y, and thus hint that their Creation explanation is better, even scientifically better.
    You accuse anti evolutionists of getting it wrong, yet you too clearly get it wrong.
    In science, the word 'theory' especially when capitalized or used in a proper name such as The Theory of Evolution is not synonymous with 'explanation', and could not be used for creation.
    In science, an suggestion for an explanation, is called a hypothesis. Only when it has been studied, tested and essentially confirmed as an accurate explanation does it gain the status 'Theory'.
    Of course having said that, I am not sure that String Theory fits that definition.

    Also, in mathematics it has a different meaning (or meanings). Number Theory for example is not a scientific theory, and it is normal in Mathematics to give a Theorem and then a proof. What happens when a mathematical theorem has not yet been proved or has been proved false, I am not sure.
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '10 11:34
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You accuse anti evolutionists of getting it wrong, yet you too clearly get it wrong.
    In science, the word 'theory' especially when capitalized or used in a proper name such as The Theory of Evolution is not synonymous with 'explanation', and could not be used for creation.
    In science, an suggestion for an explanation, is called a hypothesis. Only when i ...[text shortened]... en a mathematical theorem has not yet been proved or has been proved false, I am not sure.
    What I can read out of your postings is that we agree that 'theory' cannot scientifically mean 'guessing', right?
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Nov '10 13:00
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    What I can read out of your postings is that we agree that 'theory' cannot scientifically mean 'guessing', right?
    I think it all depends on context, but in general, yes, in a scientific context it would not mean 'guessing'. But in addition I maintain that to talk of 'creation theory' is incorrect usage of the word as it implies some sort of science is involved (when it isn't) and that that it is testable and supported by experiments (which it isn't).
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Nov '10 13:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You accuse anti evolutionists of getting it wrong, yet you too clearly get it wrong.
    In science, the word 'theory' especially when capitalized or used in a proper name such as The Theory of Evolution is not synonymous with 'explanation', and could not be used for creation.
    In science, an suggestion for an explanation, is called a hypothesis. Only when i ...[text shortened]... en a mathematical theorem has not yet been proved or has been proved false, I am not sure.
    What happens when a mathematical theorem has not yet been proved or has been proved false, I am not sure.
    Calling a mathematical assertion a theorem implies a sound proof has been found. If such doesn't exist it isn't called a theorem.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '10 13:081 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think it all depends on context, but in general, yes, in a scientific context it would not mean 'guessing'. But in addition I maintain that to talk of 'creation theory' is incorrect usage of the word as it implies some sort of science is involved (when it isn't) and that that it is testable and supported by experiments (which it isn't).
    Well, to say 'the Creation Theory', and thus imply that the creation is indeed science, then it is the wrong usage of the 'theory' word. However, many creationsits, even Young Earth Creationists, not to forget the Intelligent Design Creationists often tell us, with big mouths, that evolution is not science, but (their interpretation of) Creationism is. They do it loudly, even if they don't know anything about evolution, and more over brag about it.

    Whenever someone uses the word 'theory' and tells us that it's just a 'guessing', then I react.
    I also react when they use 'science' when they try to defend the religious 'creation', thinking that it gives them higher credence.
    Further I react when they think that evolution is not science. this proves that they don't know what (a) science is and at the same time don't know what (b) evolution is.

    I don't mind when they tell us that they believe in creation. Please do! It's within your religion. But please don't think that it is science. It's not. It's religion.
    Same goes for the global flooding, miracles, prophecies, virgins giving birth, and so on. It's not science. It's religion.
    And please go have your religion. I don't mind.
  9. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    09 Nov '10 15:51
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Some christians believe that a scientific theory is less credible because it has the word 'theory' connected with it. The often say that "Well it's only a theory, nothing more." or "It's nothing more than a mere guessing."

    They usually say this when we're discussing the 'the Evolution theory', but sometimes also 'the BigBang theory'. Strange enough, ne ...[text shortened]... e seriously, then it shows your own opinions as weak.
    You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess. In fact the so called theory is getting weaker by the day...

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution


    "The Evolution theory is harder to grasp (even if its basis is explainable even to children), and that's might be the explanation why creationists don't know much about it."

    Silly statement. We may not spend the time that evolutionist do on the study of evolution and the reason? It actually dosn't take much study and research to see the huge, huge gaps, flaws and lack of proof that it could even start to be a fact. So why would a spiritually wise person with faith in God and his creative powers waist time on such a silly "theory"? That's what evolutionist don't get.....
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Nov '10 15:52
    Originally posted by galveston75
    You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess. In fact the so called theory is getting weaker by the day...

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution


    "The Evolution theory is harder to grasp (even if its basis is explainable even to children), and that's might be the explana ...[text shortened]... ve powers waist time on such a silly "theory"? That's what evolutionist don't get.....
    Gravity is "only a theory" 😞
  11. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51438
    09 Nov '10 16:01
    Originally posted by galveston75
    You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess. In fact the so called theory is getting weaker by the day...

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution


    "The Evolution theory is harder to grasp (even if its basis is explainable even to children), and that's might be the explana ...[text shortened]... ve powers waist time on such a silly "theory"? That's what evolutionist don't get.....
    it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

    Is that so?! Maybe you can enlighten us with your critical insight into this particular field of biology and explain to us what how the field of genetics hasn't added to evolutionary theory since the decoding of DNA in 1953. For a man who has studied evolution all his life this should be a simple task.
  12. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    09 Nov '10 16:26
    Originally posted by Agerg
    [b]What happens when a mathematical theorem has not yet been proved or has been proved false, I am not sure.
    Calling a mathematical assertion a theorem implies a sound proof has been found. If such doesn't exist it isn't called a theorem.[/b]
    If you just google "proven mathematical theorems" you will get a lot of entries.
    But if you are right then the term "proven mathematical theorem” would be a logical self-contradiction that would not be used by mathematicians; and yet I found:

    http://nlp.stanford.edu/~wcmac/papers/peim.html

    “...Since mathematicians regard proven mathematical theorems as universally and necessarily valid ...”

    and

    http://vllg.com/system/font_families/pdfs/34/original/vllg_Crank8.pdf?1259783465

    “....rigorously proven mathematical theorems, such as ...”

    so my impression is that at least most mathematicians do continually call mathematical theorems as “theorems” even after they are proven.
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    09 Nov '10 16:27
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

    Is that so?! Maybe you can enlighten us with your critical insight into this particular field of biology and explain to us what how the field of genetics hasn't added to evolutionary theory since the decoding of DNA in 1953. For a man who has studied evolution all his life this should be a simple task.[/b]
    A waisted question as I'm not going down that road again. Prove evolution is a fact and I'll listen. Oh wait, I've asked that before to and then you'll come back that I really need to study more then I'll see it. Lol.... You or no one here has got any proof to show, ever.
  14. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '10 16:27
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

    Is that so?! Maybe you can enlighten us with your critical insight into this particular field of biology and explain to us what how the field of genetics hasn't added to evolutionary theory since the decoding of DNA in 1953. For a man who has studied evolution all his life this should be a simple task.[/b]
    Let's stay on topic.

    Galve thinks he uses the word 'theory' correctly, but doesn't.
    Everyone who uses the word correctly only playes with words.

    He thinks the evolution theory is nothing more than guessings, dreamt up by a son of a preast. This shows more than anything else, that Galve doesn't know much of the evolution theory, and doesn't know much about the proper scientific way to use the word 'theory'.

    This is just rethorics from Galves side.
    By trying to hijack a word, redefine it, use it in the new unproper way, and trying to get points out of it, he is hoping to win a disussion in the subject.
    No, he cannot. Because 'theory' is a well defined scientific word.
  15. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    09 Nov '10 16:31
    Originally posted by galveston75
    You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess. In fact the so called theory is getting weaker by the day...

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution


    "The Evolution theory is harder to grasp (even if its basis is explainable even to children), and that's might be the explana ...[text shortened]... ve powers waist time on such a silly "theory"? That's what evolutionist don't get.....
    Some christians believe that a scientific theory is less credible because it has the word 'theory' connected with it. The often say that "Well it's only a theory, nothing more." or "It's nothing more than a mere guessing."

    Superb! Fabian asserts that Christians demonstrate certain behaviour, and along comes a Christian and confirms it by example.

    Proof is confined to logic and maths. A scientific theory (as has been mentioned) is an explanation of phenomena that has considerable evidence supporting it. So yes, we do not have Proof of evolution, but we do have considerable (understatement of the year) evidence for it. Genetics being a prime example of evidence that was not around in Darwin's time. Genetics answers the weakness that the theory originally had that we did not know the mechanism for inheritance that would be essential for the theory to be correct.

    --- Penguin.
Back to Top