Creationists, do you really know what a "scientific theory" is..?

Question

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists DO NOT use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--THEY ARE NOT EXPRESSING RESERVATIONS ABOUT IT'S TRUTH.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Now, will you still choose to willfully misunderstand what a "scientific theory" is..?
If so, that would be classic denial..!

Sheesh, sorry if a few seconds reading is too much for you learned people..
Dagah, becuase I'm sick of ignorant and scientifically illiterate creationist fruitcakes preaching incorrect science, pseudo science, misrepresented science and outright lies about science..!
A good enough reason wouldn't you say..?

Fu Q, are you unable to accept multiple meanings of words in the english language..? How many meanings does the word "ball" have, or "fire", "plant" and so on..
Yours is willfull, selective and infantile ignorance..!

Blessed in hymn, evolution says NOTHING about the emergence of life..!
Your scientific illiteracy, ignorance, infantile analogies, and dishonest agenda is appaling..

Ignoramus, what an appropriate name..
For your wild theory to be true, then G.E. would have had to be done on ALL living organisms, as ALL evidence concurrs with evolution.
Most scientists and doctors are NOT "believers", and this is a blatant lie.
The higher you look in acedemia, the less people believe in a god, never mind YOUR particular magic sky fairy..
You have just exposed how ignorant and dishonest you are prepared to be to avoid that yucky knowledge thing..

Steve, what you have done is made a heap of completely incorrect assertions, one after the other..
You clearly have no understanding of the "mainstream" scientific descriptions of evolution, or else you would not assert such ill informed, incorrect and foolish things.
However, it seems you are well versed in the ignorant and ill informed creationist party line, 10 points...

Joan, if mainstream science relied on the same concept of "evidence" and "truth" as the one you mention, then any person could claim anything because they heard someone else say it was true, or that each one off chance event would be considered conlcusive evidence of the whole.
There is absolutely NO connection between what you accept as "evidence" and "truth", and what science demands it must be, which is repeatable evidence and unambigious verifiability.
Yours is a very naive, if personally suitable understanding of the world.

Ignoramus, in the National Academy of Sciences, [NAS], which also contains many scientific fields not directly related to biological evolution such as Geology, Astro Physics etc, there are less than 4% who consider the "possibility" of a supreme being, never mind YOUR particular religious doctrine, where in the USA, the general scientificaly illiterate population has the majority believing not only in a supreme being, but a specific god with only humanity on "his" agenda..
So, clearly the higher in acedemia one looks, the less that educated people will consider intellectually stagnent religious fairy tales, and those who embrace modern mainstream descriptions of evolution simply CANNOT accept a literal interpretation of YOUR bible or any other book of doctrine, without completely dispensing with mainstream scientific descriptions of evolution.
Hardly a trend towards "most" scientists being believers wouldn't you say..?
Enough with your lies and selfish agendas please Ignoramus..!

Ignoramus, all you are doing is towing the creationist party line. There is NO evidence of MOST mainstream scientists being "believers", in fact overwhelmingly the opposite is true, however I've no doubt that there are creationists who CLIAM to be scientists, where a fake diploma or degree can be baought by anyone for a small fee, especially in the USA.
Remember, even the Vatican asserts that "creation science" is NOT a science at all, and that evolution is beyond doubt. Unlike you, the Vatican has actually done it's own independant research.
You can only see things from within your little religious bubble of ignorance, and don't even realise how ignorant you really are. Creation science is NOT mainstream science, it is not even remotely a science at all, except in the mind of creationists. NO ONE ELSE subscribes to this whacky perspective..! Why is that..?
I suggest you look up DENIAL in the dictionary, and consider why it applies to you and your fruitcake flock..

Answer 1

I just thought I would add the wiki link in case anyone wants to read more about what you just explained.

I really hope more creationists can understand what a scientific theory is. It's very frustrating to deal with people who insist on using the layperson's definition of the word when discussing science.

Answer 2

If some genetic engineering had occurred in the past, would not it be possible that some would draw false conclusions by basing everything on evolution?

Also remember that most scientists, doctors, technical people, college students, etc. are believers, and know what a scientific theory is.

P.S. Okay Star...evolve, or whatever your name is, you call me a blantant liar because I say most scientist, doctors are believers. I post a site below as reference. Guess what you can research this yourself, or continue to swim in your own primordial soup of arrogance and pseudo-intellectualism if you desire.

You say "For your wild theory to be true, then G.E. would have had to be done on ALL living organisms, as ALL evidence concurrs with evolution." Well what does Genesis really say. Is it about creation or restoration? Was there any type of mass extinction about 12,000 years ago? Can you say Pleistocene/Holocene? Does it say that modern animals were made "after their kind?" Is it possible to take the DNA structure of a prehistoric evolved animal and genetically engineer a modern animal? Also be careful, even though you call this idea wild, you also call it a "theory."

P.S.S., Star...evolve, whatever your name is, that NAS business is old news that has been re-hatched a hundred times before. It is quite amusing to see you display it like no one has ever seen it before. I even guessed what your next detail would be, and was correct. You talk about truth, but still you will not admit that more scientists are believers than atheists.

Besides that, I still maintain that it is quite stupid to reason that a person can not understand scientific principles just because they believe in God. There is absolutely no proof for that. You are mistakenly taking your opinions for scientific methodology. When you see some one of intellect take your route it is a shame. It means they are already prejudiced against the truth.

Answer 3

“a nicely-substantiated rationalization of a few element of the organic worldwide that could contain information, rules, inferences, and examined hypotheses.” No quantity of validation variations a thought right into a regulation, that's a descriptive generalization approximately nature. So whilst scientists talk with reference to the thought of evolution—or the atomic thought or the thought of relativity, for that rely—they do no longer seem to be expressing reservations approximately its actuality. … Evolution fails to stay as much as 3 out of four of the aspects reported on your quote: fairly: information- the thought of evolution is short on information: micro evolution is often positioned forth to instruct macro evolution to be a threat, such is psychological dishonesty. rules - a passable mechanism for evolution has no longer been positioned forth. The Gradualism of Darwin isn't ordinary, punctuated equilibrium, saltationalism all have their issues. there is in certainty no longer one thought of evolution. examined hypotheses - evolution won't be able to be examined using the scientific technique. The claims of evolution are no longer falsifiable. Evolution isn't a place which would be supported by ability of empiricism: it particularly is a metaphysical place, in basic terms as creationism is. Evolution subsequently in accordance to the definition presented above does not even qualify to be talked approximately as a thought. Creationists are for this reason being overly beneficiant in pertaining to evolution as a thought. in basic terms with the aid of fact scientists use a be conscious a particular way does not make it THE valid thank you to apply it. the significant situation is which you have the psychological honesty to look previous semantics and attempt to discover the actuality.

Answer 4

Everyone I know who doesn't believe in evolution, uses the same false meaning, such as, "I have a theory...", when all they have is what their preacher told them to say and to believe.

Answer 5

Evolution is not a science. Evolution defies mathematical probability. Evolution defies laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics.)

Evolution claims, random change & natural selection make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent design. Things left to chance just don't get done. Random changes in anything simply do not produce higher levels of organization and complexity. Rather, all complex machines and devices with which we are familiar are the result of intelligent design and manufacture. Random changes can only destroy them.

Answer 6

People of faith cannot see that God exists but they can track the evidence of their faith and see the the results of miracles and blessings that come from that faith. A physicist can't see small particles but he can track them. That to him is evidence and Truth. I can say the same thing about the results of my FAITH and it is TRUTH. They can read and hear the evidences of witnesses who had direct communication and instruction from God and recorded these testimonies. They are just as good as those in a court of law and are EVIDENCE and they are TRUTH.

Answer 7

well maybe they can believe in gravity since it is just a theory....but when ur core beliefs are brought into question then they cower like a puppy....oh well, religion is good for sheep

me??

I demand evidence

GL

Answer 8

They know what a scientific theory is, but they tend to ignore its definition because they like to show how uneducated they are when it comes to evolution and science in general.

Answer 9

The real question should be, "Do you evolutionists know how life began?" Answer: No.

Oh and by the way.. You cannot get something from nothing. But that's what evolution explains.. Life came from non-life. he~he, cute.

POOF HERE WE ARE! HEHEHE

Answer 10

As you can see, you need to keep your words small so they can understand it. Sad isn't it?