Prove a Scientific theory ?

[AV1611VET]

On topic more, I do understand promoting one's own pov, but the compulsion to seek out threads that don't promote one's faith and then try to poison the well strikes me as quite unseemly, and entirely unworthy of response.

Like you did in Post 8, when you brought up Satan out of thin air?

Unlike you, who didn't once agree with me, both of my first two posts (Post 3 and Post 4) agree with your OP, even though I don't quite understand exactly what your point is.

Here, I'll say it again:

According to science, theories can't be proven.

Then you bring up Satan (theology), after I bring up evolution (science), and you accuse me of "poisoning the well."

LOL

 

[NxNW]

When theory began to mean wild guess.

When was that, exactly?

 

[Estrid]

When was that, exactly?

Where, actually. Yecland.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where, actually. Yecland.

True or false: Evolution is an unproven theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

True or false: Evolution is an unproven theory.

1. False dichotomy
2. Redundant vocabulary
3. Mental equivocation

You pack so much into so few words, but to answer your question, Yes.

 

[durangodawood]

True or false: Evolution is an unproven theory.

Its proven to my acceptable standard, which is something between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and mathematical proof.

Im talking about the big picture elements that 1. it happened, and 2. natural selection is a big part of it. Theres a lot of fascinating details and additional drivers that are being discovered and worked out.

 

[Estrid]

Its proven to my acceptable standard, which is something between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and mathematical proof.

Im talking about the big picture elements that 1. it happened, and 2. natural selection is a big part of it. Theres a lot of fascinating details and additional drivers that are being discovered and worked out.

Those who shelter their antis science attitude behind
the mighty shield of "unproven" are playing a fools game.

Fully equivalent to being as (idiotically) tiresome
as someone refusing to get in a car because nobody
can prove Boyle's gas laws.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who shelter their antis science attitude behind the mighty shield of "unproven" are playing a fools game.

Hey, science is the one who claims that "mighty shield."

Okay with you if I agree with them?

And if you're talking about me in particular, I don't "shelter my anti-science attitude" behind the "mighty shield of unproven."

I shelter any of my anti-science tirades behind the mighty shield of faith.

Ephesians 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

And any anti-science tirade I might happen to mention is first filtered through a set of rigid standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Standards so rigid, even you can't go there -- (since they're based on God).

Fully equivalent to being as (idiotically) tiresome as someone refusing to get in a car because nobody can prove Boyle's gas laws.

You mean that law that says that volume increases with mass?

Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

 

[Astrophile]

You mean that law that says that volume increases with mass?

Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

No. Boyle's law says that at constant temperature the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Boyle's law says that at constant temperature the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure.

But if you Google the laws associated with volume and mass, Boyle's Law comes up.

 

[Estrid]

No. Boyle's law says that at constant temperature the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure.

Compared to Americans not caught up with the 17th century yet, the saying that it's already tomorrow in Hong Kong is like overkill

 

[AV1611VET]

Compared to Americans not caught up with the 17th century yet, the saying that it's already tomorrow in Hong Kong is like overkill

Phuh ... you're two hours behind America.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

I'm not familiar with creationists who object to theories being "unproven."

Even scientists agree that you can't prove a scientific theory.

Yes, I object to "unproven theories" myself; but it's because I agree that theories can't be proven.

Evolution, for example, is an "unproven theory," and therefore subject to objection.

I guess I don't understand what it is you're saying.

Does that mean that you also claim that the theory of gravity must be false and the germ theory of disease must be false?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that mean that you also claim that the theory of gravity must be false and the germ theory of disease must be false?

Gravity is gravity.

It is what it is.

Whoever called it a "theory" has, in my opinion, mislabeled it.

In short, there is no "theory of gravity."

 

[Estrid]

I'd like to remind posters and / or
trolls to read the statement of purpose
for this forum.
Off topic and unevidenced claims are
NOT within guidelines.

I'd prefer not to report anyone so i am
requestIng poliely that trolls take their
garbage elsewhere.

For those acting in good faith plz don't respond to
trolls.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gravity is gravity.

It is what it is.

Whoever called it a "theory" has, in my opinion, mislabeled it.

In short, there is no "theory of gravity."

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

There is a well-substantiated explanation of gravity - it's part of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. However, it is thought to be incomplete because its equations produce infinities in certain extreme conditions. Like many physical theories, it works to the limits of our ability to measure. If we confirm by measurement that it doesn't correspond with how the observable universe behaves, it will have been falsified and will no longer qualify as a scientific theory. Have we falsified it by measurement? Not yet (AFAIK).

 

[Estrid]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

There is a well-substantiated explanation of gravity - it's part of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. However, it is thought to be incomplete because its equations produce infinities in certain extreme conditions. Like many physical theories, it works to the limits of our ability to measure. If we confirm by measurement that it doesn't correspond with how the observable universe behaves, it will have been falsified and will no longer qualify as a scientific theory. Have we falsified it by measurement? Not yet (AFAIK).

The thread is about theories.
You'd think a person might sorta
look the word up so they'd know what
the topic is. Before trying to argue, say.

What's your working hypothesis as to
why the creationist squad remains clueless
about even dictionary definition
level understanding of basic science?

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

So is there a "theory of color"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So is there a "theory of color"?

Yes.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes.

Hmm .. I think I'd personally prefer the 'color science' link for supporting science's take on any 'color theory', there(?)