Originally posted by googlefudge
Words can and do have multiple different meanings.

In science the word 'theory' means something different from what it means in
everyday parlance.

However Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory and thus the scientific
meaning of the word applies.

Then that definition can only be said to be valid within that group who approve of its meaning. The oxford dictionary says differently.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not really. Your posts are too stupid to require much effort to trash.

Are you always that tough or just when at home with mum?

Originally posted by divegeester
Then that definition can only be said to be valid within that group who approve of its meaning. The oxford dictionary says differently.

The meaning of the word has more to do with context than those involved
in the discussion.

If Einstein gave a speech and an idiot were listening would you seriously
support the view that all Einstein's words should be interpreted according
to the idiot's definitions?

If we are talking about a scientific study it is appropriate that we use scientific definitions.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The meaning of the word has more to do with context than those involved
in the discussion.

If Einstein gave a speech and an idiot were listening would you seriously
support the view that all Einstein's words should be interpreted according
to the idiot's definitions?

If we are talking about a scientific study it is appropriate that we use scientific definitions.

Did you read the oxford dictionary definition or dismiss it as irrelevant as it contradicts your world view?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The meaning of the word has more to do with context than those involved
in the discussion.

If Einstein gave a speech and an idiot were listening would you seriously
support the view that all Einstein's words should be interpreted according
to the idiot's definitions?

If we are talking about a scientific study it is appropriate that we use scientific definitions.

I agree with you. I am no expert in science or scientific jargon but it seems to me that Evolution is not a theory but a fact that can no longer be denied.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

You asked what in science it meant... I figured I would help with a definition as to what it meant in science.

Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
I agree with you. I am no expert in science or scientific jargon but it seems to me that Evolution is not a theory but a fact that can no longer be denied.

Actually it's both.

In science a THEORY is an overarching EXPLANATION of empirical facts.

Lets take a [primary] rainbow.

It's a fact that the rainbow will always form a circle [the bottom of which is
invisible from the ground but can be seen from the air] with concentric rings
of colour, going from red to violet [R,O,Y,G,B,I,V].

These are observed facts about rainbows.

A Theory of Rainbows would explain WHY rainbows have these properties.

With evolution by natural selection you are correct that it is an observed fact that
living things evolve. But the THEORY of evolution is the explanation of how and why
life evolves. And it is and always will be a theory.

I hope that helps clarify.

Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
I agree with you. I am no expert in science or scientific jargon but it seems to me that Evolution is not a theory but a fact that can no longer be denied.

Well, it depends on what definition of evolution you are talking about. If you take the definition to mean that things can change over time then even Creationists agree. However, most people take the definition of the theory of evolution to mean that somehow, without God or an intelligent being, non-living matter became living and became the ancestor of all the kinds of living things we see today.

Not only is this not a proven fact, nobody has provided a plausible explanation of how the living matter could form. This has been dismissed as not part of the evolution theory.

However, all the parts for a living cell had to be available and assemble itself in the proper order before any so-called evolution could occur. Many former atheists and evolutionists have come to the conclusion that this is impossible because of the integrated complexity of any cell, which is as complex as a miniature city.

The scientific discovery of DNA in the cell that stores an information language code with the assembly instructions to produce the left-handed proteins and other cell parts makes many scientist believe it had to be designed by an intelligence, since information is known only to come from an intelligent mind. This has caused Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, to state it reminds him of a software program, but more complex than any man has ever made.

The theory of evolution supposes that a cell reproduced and gathered into many cells and branched into plants and sea creatures. The believe a fish probably developed feet from the fins and somehow developed a way to breath out of water and crawled onto dry land and became the first amphibian. Then it reproduced others that became amphibians, which evolved into reptiles and some of these reptiles evolved feathers and hollow bones and wings and became birds. I believe the idea is that mammals either also evolved from the amphibians or the reptiles. Perhaps, this is were the idea of the fairy tale of a frog turning into a Prince came from.

Anyway, it is supposed that these mammals evolved into different kinds just like the fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Some mammals became rats, dogs, cats, cattle, horses, monkeys and other apes. Finally, one unknown type of ape became man. Of course, this all took millions of years.

However, no evidence that any of these kind of changes has been proven as fact. Darwin stated that the missing links in the fossil record was a major problem for his theory, but believed they would be found. However, the missing links are still missing. The Evilutionists have renamed the missing links "transitional forms" so they sound less missing to the general public.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it depends on what definition of evolution you are talking about. If you take the definition to mean that things can change over time then even Creationists agree. However, most people take the definition of the theory of evolution to mean that somehow, without God or an intelligent being, non-living matter became living and became the ancestor of al ...[text shortened]... renamed the missing links "transitional forms" so they sound less missing to the general public.

Nope, your 'definition' of evolution is wrong as always.
You are making strawman arguments and ignorant lies as always.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nope, your 'definition' of evolution is wrong as always.
You are making strawman arguments and ignorant lies as always.

So what else is new?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what else is new?

Nothing... That's why I said 'as always'.

RJHind's tune never changes, and is just as wrong today as it was all those
years ago when I first joined and encountered it.

Originally posted by divegeester
I already know what science thinks "theory" means. Thanks.

Here's what the Oxford dictionary think it's means

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theory

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you accept that life evolved don't you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nope, your 'definition' of evolution is wrong as always.
You are making strawman arguments and ignorant lies as always.

You mean you guys changed the definiton again? What is it now?

Originally posted by divegeester
Then that definition can only be said to be valid within that group who approve of its meaning. The oxford dictionary says differently.

I can't see where the oxford dictionary says differently. It certainly does not say "a decent idea not yet proven".