Originally posted by RJHindsYour findings as about.com are a good start. I would like to add two things from that site. The first is about the author of that article:
To JS357:
While I was waiting for you to reply with the scientific
definitons for "theory" and "Law", I decided to see if
I could get anything by googling on the web. The first
thing that popped up was on About.com, which gave
the scientific definitions for hypothesis, theory, and law.
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.
Usu ...[text shortened]... se that want to
believe in it. I predict it will be disproven one day.
RJHinds
Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D., is an author and consultant with a broad scientific and medical background.
Experience:Anne has taught chemistry, biology, and physics at the high school, college, and graduate level. In her doctoral work, Anne developed ultra-sensitive chemical detection and medical diagnostic tests. She has worked abstracting/indexing diverse scientific literature for the Department of Energy. She presently works as a freelance writer and scientific consultant. She enjoys adapting lab-based science projects so that they can be performed safely at home.
Education:
Dr. Helmenstine has bachelor of arts degrees in physics and mathematics with a minor in chemistry from Hastings College in Nebraska and a doctorate of philosophy in biomedical sciences from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
End citation. It is always good to see where one's sources are coming from.
The second is a statement of hers you probably saw there:
"If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline."
Just to keep in mind, as opposed to your religion, please do not stop with one authority. The authority you found, admits that alternative views exist. It might be good to find out how these terms are used in evolutionary biology.
I respect you for your willingness to look into the matter. There is a pretty good discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Originally posted by RJHindsThank you for taking the time to understand better how the word are used in science.
Based on the above scientific definitions, the theory of
evolution is more of an hypothesis than a theory to me.
Apparently, it is called a theory only because it is an
accepted hypothesis by most of the scientist at this time.
Certainly, there has not been much testing of it and the,
evidence that disputes it, is ignored by those that want to
believe in it. I predict it will be disproven one day.
RJHinds
However I now have to take exception to your above statements regarding evolution. I know you think me simply out to call everyone a liar, but in this case I really think I am justified in saying your above claim especially where you say "Certainly, there has not been much testing of it " is blatantly false and for you to make that claim is dishonest on your part. The best defense you can give is to claim ignorance (and rightly so) but ignorance is no excuse as you should not be making such a claim when you know you are ignorant of it. So you need to either admit your dishonesty in this case or explain how you could possibly know that there has not been much testing of the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by RJHindsMiracle making was big thing in those days. There were, I believe a few tricksters around. I do see the humor of your remark. Not a good idea in itself really. Very wise.
To mikelom and Taoman:
It is said that Sir Isaac Newton discovered "Gravity" and did
some mathematical calculations to prove it. Then there was
someone on this thread that suggested I prove the "theory"
of gravity by jumping off a tall building. This reminds me of
Luke 4:9 in the Holy Bible where Satan attempted to tempt
Jesus to jump off the top o ...[text shortened]... ? Just a little Christian humor to lighten
the discussion. What do you say?
RJHinds
I also expect Jesus was keen on not making his message deteriorate into a bit of showbiz. Following a way for such reasons dilutes the essence.
I think Jesus was a man, a godly man, a man with a message. His fine message was distorted by his enemies then, as much as it is by some of his followers today.
Any message from any religion that a person is literally God is something that most wise ones resisted. It was more a mark of tricksters. The terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" had quite different historical scriptural meanings in his day and it would be total anathema to him and those Jews of his day to say they meant a man was literally God. A "messiah", possibly, but not the literal son of God.
I think Jesus' message was seriously distorted in this way by those who came after (including Paul), for various historical religious and earthly power reasons. It happens to many, including Prince Gautama, known as the Awakened one or "Buddha". I expect he would not be pleased he has been so "divinised" by some at all. Nor do I think Jesus would be pleased.
Now, you would disagree and probably warn me that this is "devil" talk, RJ. But to me this is a promoted idea that keeps people from exploring things that contradict ideas that keep any establishment in control of others. "Beware of Satan" is a powerful chain, along with strong disapproval of said groups. (An afterthought from another of your posts, my concerned friend)
On gravity and a number of other scientifically established phenomenon it is important to realise that describing and proving a property of said thing and labelling it does not actually say what it is. Scientists still do not know what gravity is. They know what causes it, can label it and describe its properties, but cannot say exactly what this force is in itself. This is sometimes overlooked.
Light is similar. The more they look into it the more mysterious its final nature becomes. I love and honor science, but it needs to keep its solely materialistic interpretations as that, interpretations, not portray them as self-evident or established truths. Quantum findings are teaching them that.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is the popular misinterpreted definitions. They have different definitions in the scientific community.
To twhitehead:
A "theory" is a guess or speculation about something.
A "Law" is the established facts about something by an
authority, such as God.
RJHinds
There are many situations where the commonly accepted use of a word is quite different from the strict use in scientific fields. For example, people generally say kilograms is a measure of weight when, in fact, kilograms is a measure of mass (a very different quantity).
To twhitehead:
In a previous post I quoted some definitions, which
included adaptation and evolution. I stated I have no
problem accepting these definitions. What I object to
is when atheist define evolution as meaning that God
did not create life and all life forms evolved from one
common ancestor. Among their claims, then, is that
that a reptile changed into a bird and an ape changed
into a human.
The scientific method requires that testing of an hypothesis
be observed an replicated to be considered a true test.
Although, I must admit, that scientist have performed
many experiments, all have failed. No test has proved that
evolution takes place by changing one kind of plant or
animal into another kind of plant or animal.
There is no evidence that evolution happened in the past
through the fossil records as claimed. Paleontologist are
still looking for the missing links, which don't exist.
There is no evidence revealing that life began by evolution.
It is all speculation.
Since there is no real evidence evolution happens, as
defined above, it is not a fact. There has been no testing
that proves it happens. That is why I say it is a guess,
speculation, or hypothesis. If the scientist were being
honest about it by abiding by the scientific method it would
be identified as an hypothesis, not a theory. Of course,
if they are using the other definition of evolution that I
quoted in the earlier post, I have no objection. What
definition do you use?
RJHinds
Originally posted by TaomanYou are right about Buddha. He specifically advised his disciples ,before his death,that he was NOT to be deified NOR Buddhism was to be described as a different religion. Buddha said that his teachings were simply a new path to reach enlightenment and not a new Religion.He died a Hindu. His disciples and other followers ignored his advice and made him into a God of a new Religion to be called Buddhism.
Miracle making was big thing in those days. There were, I believe a few tricksters around. I do see the humor of your remark. Not a good idea in itself really. Very wise.
I also expect Jesus was keen on not making his message deteriorate into a bit of showbiz. Following a way for such reasons dilutes the essence.
I think Jesus was a man, a godly man, a man ...[text shortened]... m as self-evident or established truths. Quantum findings are teaching them that.
To Taoman:
I believe I understand and agree with you on your
statement about science. However, there are some
scientist who would like nothing better than to
discredit God's Holy Bible by claiming they have
more knowledge. And there are all those laymen
atheist, who are of the same mind set, ready to
accept and declare they have evidence ther is no
God.
You are right that I would disagree with you about
Jesus the christ, I do believe he is the only begotten
Son of God, just as the Holy Bible declares. I believe
he was born of a virgin and his father is God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsBefore we get back to our tutorial i need to point out a glaring fault with your post.
To twhitehead:
In a previous post I quoted some definitions, which
included adaptation and evolution. I stated I have no
problem accepting these definitions. What I object to
is when atheist define evolution as meaning that God
did not create life and all life forms evolved from one
common ancestor. Among their claims, then, is that
that a repti ...[text shortened]... at I
quoted in the earlier post, I have no objection. What
definition do you use?
RJHinds
Evolution is not only accepted by atheists. There are many Christians, some post on this board, who accept evolution, as do many other theists worldwide. Evolution is not something that is exclusively accepted by atheists.
Originally posted by Proper Knobyeah yeah, get on with the show!
Before we get back to our tutorial i need to point out a glaring fault with your post.
Evolution is not only accepted by atheists. There are many Christians, some post on this board, who accept evolution, as do many other theists worldwide. Evolution is not something that is exclusively accepted by atheists.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd what I object to is when someone like you who is largely ignorant of the science involved (and admits to said ignorance) starts making wild claims about what has or has not been done by scientists or about scientific method. You are being grossly dishonest. I understand that you see the Theory of Evolution as a threat to your religion but surely dishonesty is an even greater threat as it will not make evolution go away but will rather tarnish your own reputation (and to some extent that of your religion).
What I object to is when atheist define evolution as meaning that God
did not create life and all life forms evolved from one
common ancestor.
Let us look at a few of the statements you made:
The scientific method requires that testing of an hypothesis
be observed an replicated to be considered a true test.
So are you saying that a hypothesis regarding how the sun works would require us to build and run a sun of our own? What about hypothesis regarding earthquakes, volcanoes, the orbit of Saturn, galaxies? Are you sure about this 'replicated' bit?
Although, I must admit, that scientist have performed
many experiments, all have failed.
What a ridiculously sweeping statement. You don't even specify what scope these experiments had. It is clearly false.
No test has proved that evolution takes place by changing one kind of plant or
animal into another kind of plant or animal.
That is probably because no scientist recognizes 'kind' as a scientific category.
Paleontologist are still looking for the missing links, which don't exist.
Here all you reveal is your ignorance of the meaning of the term 'missing link'.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis is a side issue and i do not want to detract from your main text, but i have, in the past gone to great lengths to state why it is inconsistent with Christianity, i can hardly therefore be accused of ignoring it, but carry on.
I will do later on, but it's a crucial distinction that people like you, and by that i mean religionists of the fundamentalist persuasion, like to conveniently ignore. It's just easier in a black and white world.
Originally posted by RJHindsQuote:
To twhitehead:
In a previous post I quoted some definitions, which
included adaptation and evolution. I stated I have no
problem accepting these definitions. What I object to
is when atheist define evolution as meaning that God
did not create life and all life forms evolved from one
common ancestor. Among their claims, then, is that
that a repti ...[text shortened]... at I
quoted in the earlier post, I have no objection. What
definition do you use?
RJHinds
"The scientific method requires that testing of an hypothesis
be observed an replicated to be considered a true test.
Although, I must admit, that scientist have performed
many experiments, all have failed. No test has proved that
evolution takes place by changing one kind of plant or
animal into another kind of plant or animal. "
Your sources probably know better than to present the concept of experimental replication this way, and it has been shown that some Creationists are willing to lie, as in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. So it would be wrong to accuse you of lying. You may just be repeating, unknowingly, the lies and misrepresentations of others.
Replication as a criterion of scientific method does not require that we actually make a bird starting with a reptile. It requires that different scientists be able to repeat the field work and DNA analysis that confirms a theory of common ancestry, as for example at:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
The concept also requires that studies of differing aspects of an organism support the same conclusion. At that site you will see four different areas of investigation supporting the same conclusion.
To Proper Knob:
Did you check out those difinitions I posted?
They are on 20. If you agree that those
definitions are correct the way you understand
it, then we agree. If not, give me your definitions
for those terms so I can see where we disagree.
I can see why many Christians would accept
evolution, if those definitions are correct.
RJHinds