English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

meaning of the word theory? Of course it is a theory, a scientific theory. Please look up the word so you can understand the differance between a scientific theory and a belief. Arguing on that just makes the argument look stupid. Base your argument on facts not ignorance, It does not help the cause.

2007-07-18 02:39:36 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Steven,
The word ignorant is not an abusive word. Ignorant means to not know. It is not my fault if people do not know proper english.

2007-07-18 02:45:28 · update #1

Those who claim a theory is an unproven hypothisis please look up the word theory.

2007-07-18 02:47:37 · update #2

lorlor,
The word is SCIENTIFIC theory

2007-07-18 02:49:30 · update #3

reallytrue,
Fineally we are in the same camp. Probably were the all along just my use of the word ignorant clouded it.

2007-07-18 03:18:13 · update #4

28 answers

You are so right about this, and I agree totally that it is annoying to hear such ignorance uttered mindlessly so often. A scientific theory has gained much support after years of testing. It is not a preliminary hypothesis. Relativity and gravitation are 2 other important theories in science. Creation myths are not even theories, for there is no scientific evidence at all to support them. Some creationists, especially Henry Morris and Duane Gish, have concocted some pseudo-scientific lies to try to support Genesis creation, but reputable scientists have refuted such nonsense. I think Morris is the one who invented that silly "Evolution is just a theory" absurdity.

2007-07-18 02:48:39 · answer #1 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 3 3

I think Christians have an issue with Evolution being taught in schools because if this part of the bible (the 7 day creation) is incorrect, then the rest of the bible comes into question. God has said he is incapable of lying (which I emphatically agree is true), so the theory of evolution calls God a liar, then the fundamentals of Christianity also come into question. And don't be swayed into the argument that when God said 7 days he actually meant millions of years, because he said "as I created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, you shall do likewise" Exodus 31:15-17 God doesn't want to confuse us, 6 days means 6 days and he is more than able to do it, if only the evolutionists had enough faith to believe that.

2016-05-21 17:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

From the Merriam-Webster On line dictionary -

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

The only way to bring a theory to a scientific fact is to use the scientific principle on it.

A theory must be made on observation and data.
A test must be made in a lab.
The resulting facts analyzed.
If results do not equal the initial observations, than the theory is remade, and new test are performed (keep doing this until the test match what the theory says as observed from nature).
The theory is now a scientific fact.

Micro-evolution is a science fact (it should be called diversification to keep it separate from the other theories of evolution).

2007-07-18 03:01:35 · answer #3 · answered by tim 6 · 2 0

Because a lot of people are threatened when facts are presented that disprove their beliefs.

Look at Scientists. What's the best way of getting people to believe in a new theory? Wait till those who are in power die out. One example, plate tectonics. Another that Dinosaurs were warm blooded. It wasn't until those who held the opposite views retired or died, that these now 'proven' theories were allowed to be considered.

Not everyone is as broadminded as what we are.

George 2 obviously didn't look up the scientific definition of Theory before answering your question though.

and Lorlor, in common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation.

But in Scientific usage, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Sorry but that is completely different.

2007-07-18 02:46:21 · answer #4 · answered by whatotherway 7 · 2 1

Personally, this is my belief on evolution. At some point there was no life, and at another point life existed. I do not believe that living things were generated by nothing. I believe some kind of divine interaction took place on some level but it's impossible to tell what exactly. Evolution hypothesizes that everyone and everything derrived from a single type of living thing, i find it just as hard to believe in that as i do that there's a fairy tale about a god who made everything and gave us a book to worship. I think they're both rediculous but have to admit that they can be possibilities. If you rule out even the most obscure ideas about creation you close your mind to the possibilities, and could overlook the solution to creation and not even know it because you were too busy trying to convince people that you're right and they're wrong to see it.

2007-07-18 02:46:24 · answer #5 · answered by Agnostic Front 6 · 0 1

I think it's funny that so many of them then go on to quote from AiG

"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

“Evolution is just a theory.”

What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Other than the last bit, I've finally found something on the AiG website that I can agree with!

2007-07-18 02:48:22 · answer #6 · answered by Tom :: Athier than Thou 6 · 2 1

From wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method)."

So what "experimental evidence" proves evolution? How does one come up with an experiment to recreate evolution in order to prove it?

2007-07-18 02:57:23 · answer #7 · answered by Machaira 5 · 2 1

Darwin himself never proved anything. Have you ever read The Origin of Species? The whole thing not pick and choose? It is one long and tiring book. As Charles stated it is one long argument. Let me quote his introduction in the book. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those which I have arrived. Why argue about it take it as a theory but if children are suppose to think in school why not teach creation as well? The theory has many holes to even consider it a theory at best a hypothesis. Peace out........

2007-07-18 02:54:24 · answer #8 · answered by powerliftingrules 5 · 3 3

How about this to help the "case":

To any true, honest disiplined student of
Gods Word, it is a fact that the Bible DOES NOT STATE this earth to be 6000 years old; in fact, it does say that the Earth is eons in age, and that there was even an entire Earth age before this one we live in now.
We are constantly dealing with "Creationists" and they have even built a museum to "prove" the supposed Biblical theory that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. They are so incredibly unlearned in the Scriptures, the Bible languages, and
idioms/hebreisms (figures of speech used in Scripture) that it is astonishing.
These folks call themselves Christians, but
they do not understand the very Word of God, even in the English, never mind the original languages. I contacted the Board of Directors for the Creation Museum, and they say that Scientists only came up with fake methods of dating the Earth, so that they can become famous and earn alot of money. Bad argument, really.
I have even heard the statement made that
dinosaurs were taken onto the Ark. I have heard that T-rex was created to punish Adam for his participation in Eve's sin.
WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THIS CRAP FROM??? I don't know, but it sure as hell is NOT coming from Scripture, and NOT coming from God.
I have a 7yr old son who knows of fossils older than 6000 years. I have Bible students of the age of 7 - 9 years of age that are more literate in Scripture that these so-called "leaders" in Christianity. It is such an embarrasment, you just have no idea, quite frankly. I hate to speak against my own, but dude, I have to say that these people, although we both carry the same tag called "Christian", they are not in my camp,
and my camp is with the Word of the Living God. Who the heck knows who is actually running their camp. I hate to even consider it the possibilities.
The true Church of Christ has no walls, no building, and no man-issued denominational name. Our leader, OUR ONLY LEADER
is Jesus Christ himself.
My honest answer to evolution is that between what Scripture says was the first of three earth ages, and the second of those ages, which is what we now live in,
an untold countless vast amount of time
went by; enough time for this Earth, on its
course as set up by God, went on about its
autonomous and self-sustaining processes
-it is all set up to work systematically.
Obviously, the dinosaurs had to be taken out of the scene to ready the Earth for this
flesh age.
My point is that a learned person in the Word of God knows full-well that there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever between Science and Gods Word. None.
There is no reason anyone should feel they have to jump onto either of those bandwagons. They work quite well together.

When sense is tried to be made to any of them, they brush it off and will not even consider their errors - probably because they just spent a billion dollars building that
Museum? I don't know, but I do know that
there isn't even a Christian who can get thru
their hard heads, and I've given up on them.

2007-07-18 03:06:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I don't know, I mean refering Christians to websites on evolution don't help when we have ignorant sites such as www.drdino.com filling their heads with BS. So in one instance they can read something intelligent on the other they have a biased argument. They are already Christians so they are more likely to trust the Christian point of view. It's easier for them to believe that because it fits in with their already structured way of thinking. Most of them have grown up thinking it was Adam and Eve and that was it. And Scientists don't want to be bothered arguing with them so they don't try much to disprove them because they would rather avoid arguing. They would rather learn and research than argue with religious people.

2007-07-18 02:42:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers