Originally posted by frogstomp
the scientific method,,, THEORY is a formal part of the process in between the stages of Conclusion and Law. stop confusing the word with hypothesis..
Try not to be so ridiculous , its very unbecoming.

So you think a formal definition guarantees that a "scientific" theory is sound? You're still avoiding the issue.

Originally posted by Coletti
So you think a formal definition guarantees that a "scientific" theory is sound? You're still avoiding the issue.

The issue seems that you have no understanding of what a scientific theory is. Learn it then come back and try and call the TOE , speculation without laughing at yourself.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the scientific method,,, THEORY is a formal part of the process in between the stages of Conclusion and Law. stop confusing the word with hypothesis..
Try not to be so ridiculous , its very unbecoming.

Formal part of the process between Conclusion and Law?

Can you give me a link to what you're talking about? I'm very interested.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Formal part of the process between Conclusion and Law?

Can you give me a link to what you're talking about? I'm very interested.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading3

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html


this quote has is particularly germane to this thread

"A theory in science is an idea that has been tested thoroughly, and despite extensive testing, cannot be rejected. It is as close to the truth as we can get while still admitting that we cannot eliminate the rest of the possible hypotheses (Genies and such).
EVOLUTION is a theory exactly like this. It is an event that happened in the past, so we cannot know for certain precisely how it happened. Thus there is room for error (however slight) and alternatives (even if highly bogus), and so we cannot prove that evolution occurred. But this theory has been tested from many points of view (not just fossils!) and never has been found to fail to explain what we see in the biological world. Because of this extensive testing and lack of failure, it is as close to fact as we can come in science. We thus give it the special name of theory.
Unfortunately, in modern vernacular, the word theory has a completely opposite meaning. Our news media reports that the theory of evolution is speculative (the vernacular meaning of the word) and that scientists have some doubts (less than 5% but > 0% error) about it. Now you know that our level of doubt based on extensive testing is vanishingly small. As honest scientists we cannot say PROOF, but the theory of evolution is as close to proven as any idea in human thinking. That includes such ideas as "we are here." In Stephen J. Gould's words, evolution is a fact. There is essentially no doubt about evolution as the mechanism of creation of life and species on our planet."

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html#anal

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Formal part of the process between Conclusion and Law?

Can you give me a link to what you're talking about? I'm very interested.

I'd like to see how the creation scientist would cope if their "God" hypothesis was subjected to anything like the rigorous proofs that the scientific method requires for the degree of certainty to raise something to the level of theory.
Yet they treat their hypothesis as if it was Law.

wait and see how many misuse that word too . lol

Originally posted by frogstomp
.... But this theory has been tested from many points of view (not just fossils!) and never has been found to fail to explain what we see in the biological world. ...

This is not only wrong, but it would appear to be a lie. No reasonable scientist would say that TOE has NEVER failed to explain what we see in the biological world. The record is replete with examples of findings that were not predicted, and the failure to find things there were predicted. It is these kinds of universal assertions that undermine support for the TOE.

Originally posted by Coletti
This is not only wrong, but it would appear to be a lie. No reasonable scientist would say that TOE has NEVER failed to explain what we see in the biological world. The record is replete with examples of findings that were not predicted, and the failure to find things there were predicted. It is these kinds of universal assertions that undermine support for the TOE.

What that guy said stands as is: what you said is ridiculous.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What that guy said stands as is: what you said is ridiculous.

I disagree. I think Coletti has a point.

Originally posted by frogstomp
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading3

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html


this quote has is particularly germane to this thread

"A theory in science is an idea that has been tested thoroughly, and despite extensive testing, cannot be rejected. It is as close to the truth as we can ...[text shortened]... e and species on our planet."

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html#anal

Your post led me to believe that there was some sort of official heirarchy that went something like

...Conclusion...Theory...Law...

and that there were clear descriptions of what criteria must be passed in order to move up the heirarchy. I skimmed through the links you posted and as far as I can tell neither of them use the word Conclusion in the context you did. These sites did not support or clarify your assertion.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I'd like to see how the creation scientist would cope if their "God" hypothesis was subjected to anything like the rigorous proofs that the scientific method requires for the degree of certainty to raise something to the level of theory.
Yet they treat their hypothesis as if it was Law.

wait and see how many misuse that word too . lol

That's the thing though. I'm not yet convinced the TOE has gone through any rigorous proofs.

Here's a quote from one of the websites you listed:

...to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.

Can you tell me honestly that the TOE can predict things 200 years in the future with this kind of detail?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b/]That's the thing though. I'm not yet convinced the TOE has gone through any rigorous proofs.

Here's a quote from one of the websites you listed:

...to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existin ...[text shortened]... n predict things 200 years in the future with this kind of detail?

You are confusing two different concepts. The theory of evolution - i.e. that life has evolved and changed over time on Earth - has been confirmed by every observation of biological life. The statement quoted by frogstomp is true. There are still scientific differences in HOW this happened, but the basic fact of evolution is unquestionably true. Or as someone else put it (better):

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.


I had a thread discussing the difference between physics and biology and other sciences, I believe it was "Einstein and darwin". The fact that we can't predict exactly what will happen in the future does not refute a scientific theory; we can predict with certainty that life forms will go through evolutionary changes as that is observed in nature on a regular basis.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are confusing two different concepts. The theory of evolution - i.e. that life has evolved and changed over time on Earth - has been confirmed by every observation of biological life. The statement quoted by frogstomp is true. There are still scientific differences in HOW this happened, but the basic fact of evolution is unquestionably true. ...[text shortened]... ife forms will go through evolutionary changes as that is observed in nature on a regular basis.

All right. That works for me. Thanks marauder.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are confusing two different concepts. The theory of evolution - i.e. that life has evolved and changed over time on Earth - has been confirmed by every observation of biological life. The statement quoted by frogstomp is true. There are still scientific differences in HOW this happened, but the basic fact of evolution is unquestionably true. ...[text shortened]... ife forms will go through evolutionary changes as that is observed in nature on a regular basis.

ty

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are confusing two different concepts. The theory of evolution - i.e. that life has evolved and changed over time on Earth - has been confirmed by every observation of biological life. The statement quoted by frogstomp is true. There are still scientific differences in HOW this happened, but the basic fact of evolution is unquestionably true. ...[text shortened]... ife forms will go through evolutionary changes as that is observed in nature on a regular basis.

AHHHHHHHH Vindication 🙂

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One could argue that many have been bitten by the elusive Jesus Bug.

There is nothing that contradicts Jesus' teaching in evolution unless it refutes that God is the immediate creator of the universe.