Replies

Do you understand what a theory is? Just because I don't know how to prove or disprove something does not mean it's not a scientific theory.

Er, actually, that does mean that it's not a theory.

Theories cannot be proven. Scientific theories can never be proven. There is a requirement, however, that scientific theories can be disproven. If there is no hypothetical situation in which an explanation can be falsified, then it is not a theory. That is the nature of science. Non-falsifiable explanations are fundamentally worthless.

You're comment doesn't support your assertion. The law of gravity started as a theory that was then proven to a resaonable standard through experimentation.

No, the "law of gravity" was never a theory. "Objects attract one another in relation to their masses and distance" is a theory. The law of gravity is the equation to calculate the resultant force of that attraction. They are two different things.

You observe something. You theorize about it.

No, you hypothesize first. Then you make predictions, do experiments and revise the hypothesis or discard it should experiments fail to bear out predictions or produce totally contradictory results. After enough experimentation the hypothesis becomes generally accepted as a theory. Tests will continue to be done, and if it is ever contradicted through experimentation the theory will be revised or discarded outright. It will never get any "higher" than theory.

Then you set out to prove or disprove it.

Scientific theories are never proven. You always allow for the possibility that a given explanation in science will be false.

The Newton's laws started out no differently.

Newton's laws have been disproven. What does that make them?

The laws of thermodynamics started out no differently.

How have the "laws of thermodynamics" been proven? Give the steps involved. Be specific.

Amusingly enough there has to be such a theory for you to be able to say it's false.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "theory". Evolution applies to systems of imperfect replicators. The planet is not an imperfect replicator. Therefore evolution does not apply to the planet itself, just life forms on the planet. There is no "theory" involved because it's nonsensical to apply the term "evolution" to planets in the first place.

You clearly don't understand the scientific method, but rather than actually research it, you go on with your incorrect definition and try to "correct" people who tell you that you've got the fundamental way that science works wrong. Please try to understand how science actually operates, please try to understand what a "theory" is in the context of science, please try to understand what a "law" is in the context of science, try to understand that "theory" and "law" are two different concepts in science and that one never becomes the other and try to understand that nothing in science is ever "proven". Until you can understand this, you will be arguing from a position of total ignorance.

"Do you understand what a theory is? Just because I don't know how to prove or disprove something does not mean it's not a scientific theory.

Er, actually, that does mean that it's not a theory.

Theories cannot be proven. Scientific theories can never be proven. There is a requirement, however, that scientific theories can be disproven."

Ok, how do you disprove evolution? How do you disprove the theory of relativity?

How do you prove that is not possible to disprove the theory of intelligent design?

One of the rules of logic is that you cannot prove a negative.

It's not possible to prove that ID cannot be proven. Therefore even by your own definition you cannot prove that it is not a theory.

A definition of something isn't very useful if it's defined as not something.

Not knowing how to disprove something does not mean that it cannot be disproven. It means you don't know.