It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In other words...not a fact.
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped
Or maybe more to the point...
How is your post more to the point? Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. You STILL persist in misunderstanding and misusing scientific terminology.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Both creationism and evolutionism are theories. As theories, regardless how many people may believe one over the other...there is no fact. Debating a theory proves nothing except who is the better debater.
And no...I don't believe in creation.
a reply to: GetHyped
You persistently misrepresent the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution to make clumsy, fallacious arguments (and I'm being generous),
Summary
What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution
The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.
Not true. A scientific theory is backed by facts
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;
In other words...not a fact.
The more we all know the better
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis,, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;
In other words...not a fact.
The more we all know the better
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423
Very well stated, a star for you.
I just want to say I wish we had more evolutionists like you on ATS and less like Barcs, it would make for much more reasonable discussions overall. But realize this, you are a threat to his ilk.
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423
Not true. A scientific theory is backed by facts
Like what, the sun rises, there are fossils in the ground and that life appears to behave a certain way?
There is data, and there is the interpretation of the data.
Philosophies have risen from the interpretations.
Words like can't and cannot become intertwined with these theories.
Minds close when ideas like, can't, begin the exclamation.
originally posted by: babybunnies
Can we please stop these ridiculous threads? Creationists will always believe God created the Earth, and you won't sway them.
Faith has no basis in reality or logic, and has no basis in reason.
You'll never get to have a reasonable discussion with any person of faith, if the opposing viewpoint challenges that faith.
Even if that faith is completely misguided and meaningless.
Remember when ATS used to be a conspiracy site?
I don't agree with that. Here's why: Reasonable doubt in a courtroom is based on a LACK of evidence to convict. "Reasonable doubt" in science suggests that there exists other evidence that may conflict with the current findings. But here's the clincher: that other evidence has to have been acquired under the standards of the scientific method. And that can certainly happen. But typically prior to publishing, a thorough search of the literature is conducted. If that other evidence did exist, then it would be the responsibility of the current author to include it in some way in his publication either by citation or inclusion of some aspect of that research, for instance a table which reflects the data. But that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. It only says that another scientist worked in a similar area of research.