RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 5:30 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm)Praetorian Wrote:(May 10, 2013 at 8:09 am)John V Wrote: Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, why call it a theory? Creationists get crap for saying evolution is only a theory, yet evolutionists use it in the same sense all the time. Go figure.
I used "theory" in the non-scientific sense. A scientific theory is essentially fact that can't be definitely verified. Scientists accept evolution as fact, but it can't be definitely verified because we don't have a time machine. It is therefore a theory.
The RNA world idea is a hypothesis; an idea that came about through observation. Laymen like myself use "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably because we don't really care to point out the difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't :/.
In all technical usage, mainly science and law, a theory is an explanation for facts. It has nothing to do with verification in either sense. It is a matter of establishing facts which are not explained by the theory in order to replace one theory with another or to establish that two different sets of facts are involved.
The Darwinian theory of evolution is one explanation for the thousands of observed facts of what is also called evolution. It is also the best explanation and there are no serious competing theories around the explain the same facts.
Theory and hypothesis can never be used interchangeably even though Sherlock Holmes appears to have done it when he meant hypothesis.
(May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair.I doubt you'll be praying to the Tooth Fairy on your deathbed.
Why would you assume there would be any prayer at all? Been in that "bed" three times. I was too occupied with other things to even think about it.
