Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fester Chugabrew
It's not a problem at all where the common definition of theory is concerned. Go ahead and cite the definition again, then show me where there are words stating that a theory must be falsifiable or provable, or that there must be evidence available to contradict it.

Right the common definition of theory, and I was thinking we were talking about the scientific definition. I apologize for assuming that.

722 posted on 12/13/2005 3:09:38 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies ]


To: bobdsmith
I was thinking we were talking about the scientific definition.

I assume that is the definition evos have been working with. Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory. Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws. So far there has been little of it forthcoming, black holes perhaps being an example.

727 posted on 12/13/2005 3:33:00 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies ]

To: bobdsmith; Stultis
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

732 posted on 12/13/2005 3:52:54 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies ]

To: bobdsmith
Anyone that contemplates their navel and documents any portion of the contemplation is doing science. Did you not know that?

As a up and coming young philosopher once said.

"Hey, what's it like being a rationalist in a world of empiricists? Must be uncomfortable, but I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough it will all go away. "

769 posted on 12/13/2005 5:28:16 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson