Happiness level after embracing atheism

[Lek]

My definition comes from the dictionary; and I agree that it is not a doctrine.  Since life has never been created from inanimate matter in a controlled environment, it remains a theory.  If someone wants to accept it as fact, go ahead, but don't belittle those who don't accept it.  If it's proven maybe they will.

It's a "scientific theory" not a "theory" you should learn the difference.

OK.  "Scientific theory" suits me.

[Mr.wizard]

It's a "scientific theory" not a "theory" you should learn the difference.

OK.  Scientific theory suits me.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. So you concede that evolution is a fact and not a theory?

[abaris]

I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

Evolutionist .... says a lot more about your level of education and willingness to inform yourself than it says about me. Though I'm sure you're a wonderful but willfully and perfectly ignorant person.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There's no such thing as an evolutionist, so you can stop bandying that word around now. Evolution is simply a general word for a forward process, not necessarily related to scientific ideas, and one of those ideas which has been proven through observation of empirical data within the bounds of the Scientific Method is natural selection. The Scientific Method is itself no doctrine, it has more than proven itself basic to the nature of human intelligence by proving to be reliable since at least the time of Aristotle as the best method for evaluating, re-evaluating, correcting, and perfecting ideas as they evolve. Other explanations for natural selection are exclusively used by theists, and they twist and abuse the Scientific Method, therefore they are insidious garbage.

My definition comes from the dictionary; and I agree that it is not a doctrine.  Since life has never been created from inanimate matter in a controlled environment, it remains a theory.  If someone wants to accept it as fact, go ahead, but don't belittle those who don't accept it.  If it's proven maybe they will.

Right, it's just a theory. Just as music is just a theory, math is just a theory, gravity is just a theory, and the proagation of light waves is just a theory.

Theories explain things that are real. You need to learn the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". Natural selection isn't "just a hypothesis", it's a theory (that's right, I said that), and it's a damned good one!

[Lek]

OK.  Scientific theory suits me.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. So you concede that evolution is a fact and not a theory?

No. A fact is a thing that is indisputably the case. Evolution is a theory. I believe it is apparent that life has evolved, but not that life came from inanimate materials through natural processes.

[Lek]

My definition comes from the dictionary; and I agree that it is not a doctrine.  Since life has never been created from inanimate matter in a controlled environment, it remains a theory.  If someone wants to accept it as fact, go ahead, but don't belittle those who don't accept it.  If it's proven maybe they will.

Right, it's just a theory. Just as music is just a theory, math is just a theory, gravity is just a theory, and the proagation of light waves is just a theory.

Theories explain things that are real. You need to learn the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". Natural selection isn't "just a hypothesis", it's a theory (that's right, I said that), and it's a damned good one!

If you think it's a good theory that's OK. I won't try to belittle you for that. Just don't try to say that it's proven to be undeniably true.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a "scientific theory" not a "theory" you should learn the difference.

OK.  "Scientific theory" suits me.

I'm glad you believe in evolution.

[Mr.wizard]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. So you concede that evolution is a fact and not a theory?

No.  A fact is a thing that is indisputably the case.  Evolution is a theory.  I believe it is apparent that life has evolved, but not that life came from inanimate materials through natural processes.

You need to do more research on scientific theories, because until you understand them this is not a discussion worth having.

[Aroura]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. So you concede that evolution is a fact and not a theory?

No.  A fact is a thing that is indisputably the case.  Evolution is a theory.  I believe it is apparent that life has evolved, but not that life came from inanimate materials through natural processes.

Evolution does not posit abiogenesis. Evolution does not posit ANY origin of life, only that once life existed, it evolved over time due to natural selection.  So if you accept that, you accept evolution.  Please stop conflating these two things as if they were one thing.

Abiogenesis is a hypotheses, not a theory, and not connected to evolution.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Right, it's just a theory. Just as music is just a theory, math is just a theory, gravity is just a theory, and the proagation of light waves is just a theory.

Theories explain things that are real. You need to learn the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". Natural selection isn't "just a hypothesis", it's a theory (that's right, I said that), and it's a damned good one!

If you think it's a good theory that's OK.  I won't try to belittle you for that.  Just don't try to say that it's proven to be undeniably true.

You still don't understand (or are refusing to recognize) the difference between an untested hypothesis, and a theory which explains proven facts.

EDIT: Please see Aroura's point above on hypothetical abiogenesis vs. factual and theoretically-explained natural selection (for which the word "evolution" is a more general term, much as "vehicle" is a more general term for "car").