Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

Bearing in mind that link lists different definitions of the word "theory" for
Mathematics:

Hard sciences:

Common usage:

It also discusses the misuse/ different meanings:

So please, explain to us how you think that it supports your inane and ridiculous contention that

Either you can't read or you simply ignore what is actually written.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And Visitor, while we re on the subject why dont you describe (in your words) the term Science. If you can do that you will be a genius.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already explained to you, beyond any doubt that we will never prove evolution, so we dont have to go redefining words because that is childish.

And what is the big deal? How can anyone know something like that unless they have witnessed it themselves?

It is like walking up to a light that never goes out and believing it is eternal yet the bulb gets changed when we are not there to see it. Just because you didnt see it does not mean it didnt happen. BUT can you prove it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that I would ever expect you to know anything about evolution, but for the record, theories don't get "proven" as that would eliminate the requirement for falsifiability.

 

What does that have to do with your stupid assertion that "theory" means the same to everyone?
No scientific theory is EVER "proven". Except, as Fraggle has stated, "beyond a reasonable doubt", which the theory of evolution already is.

Redefining words? Maybe you really can't read.

Inane off-topic waffle.

Now, would you answer my last post: how does the link (which gave several different definitions, depending on who uses the word) "support EXACTLY" what you claimed?
It directly contradicts you.

 

Dont be a fool.

 

Is that because the position is already filled?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reported for stupidity.
It has already been explained in this thread that theories do not get "proven".
You're just trolling now.

 

I never said it means the same to everyone because what is left on your plate before you throw it into the trash may still be food to someone else...if they are hungry enough. The word stands on its own merit regardless of what you want to think because that does not really interest me.

 

Really?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578033&postcount=302

And now you've resorted to outright lies.

 

Yo should not bait people and then go reporting them. I dont want to insult you but if the shoe fits then you must see it for what it is.

 

I said:

Of course the definition of theory is the same in all fields and including laypersons.


The word does not change to suit you. I never said it means the same to everyone. That is like saying a flower means the same to everyone.

 

By baiting I take it you mean explaining how and why you're incorrect? Or do you mean asking you to show how your view is supported by a link that directly contradicts you? Or maybe you mean pointing out for the umpteenth time in the same thread that you are, in fact, incorrect even though you persist in claiming you aren't (and that you're simply reiterating the same inane claim)?
That doesn't constitute "baiting".
Buy a dictionary.

 

Please explain to me how one knows what a word means. Surely it's taken from the definition?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/word meaning

http://www.gamequarium.org/dir/Readquarium/Vocabulary/Word_Meaning/

 

TheVisitor,

I think the term you are looking for in Religion is actual "Indoctrination".
As stated from the Wiki Article:

Science never suggests you shouldn't question, Science only applies that questioning should follow a feasibility study and undergo testing to create a scientific outcome. That outcome can obviously be brought up for questioning again in the future, but only if a feasibility study can provide clue as to whether the outcome will be any different because of the technology level of that time or changes in lateral thinking, if it proves the outcome will be identical then it can be suggested that science concludes the outcome to be self-evidently correct.

(An example of this would be "The Theory of Evolution", this theory is feasibly studied and then retested over and over again, however every test has yet to disprove that the initial hypothesis was anything but correct, so it remains self-evidently correct.)


This is probably where you assume various Scientists are then "Indoctrinated" because they've identified a point where no more study is merited, but as I pointed out this is only when the outcome has been cross examined enough times to prove to be self-evidently correct.

Sure you will have hard liners that will appear pushy in regards to science, however this doesn't prove a failure in science, it doesn't prove that science is religion, it just proves that people are inherently flawed when it comes to the Human Condition.

 

Wow.

The easiest way to rectify this is going back to the basics.

Suppose you are the first human on earth and you have a companion (no one exists to tell you anything). You were born in a test tube and you were released to the wild at night at the age of 18.

The sun has set and then you see this yellow ball raise in the sky and you have dylight.

You say to your companion 'my theory is this will happen everyday'

Companion says 'you are crazy'

Then every day the same exact thing happens.

Theory has been proven. Subject no longer uses the term theory for sunrise.

 

John99,
Incorrect.

The Theory isn't proven, afterall you can never tell what will occur tomorrow, would you know that a bus would eventually get invented and perhaps run over your companion? nope....

So it remains a theory, a theory you can continue testing every day, you can continue concluding it's proven... at least until your next test. Of course like I mentioned in my previous post, you have to create a "Feasibility study".... Namely "Should I test this theory again tomorrow?"

If you say "No, The theories been proven and is no longer a theory" then it becomes indoctrinated

 

But that is the difference between a theory and something proven.

Let me ask you a question and this only requires a YES or NO.

Do you call it 'The Theory of Sunrise'?

 

Incorrect. The easiest way is for you to actually read posts directed toward you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577941&postcount=283

That does NOT constitute a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. As was explained to you here.

Incorrect. Since it wasn't a theory in the first place.

 

What do you mean by that? Anyone who has an opinion on weather the sun will rise, as in my example, has a theory.

You really need things explained to you.