- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,
Posted on 4/1/17 at 8:54 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 4/1/17 at 8:54 am to DawgsLife
quote:
If evolution were so proven, then it would be a Law and not a theory. The very fact that it is still considered a theory suggests there is not proven evidence to support it. Do they think evolution is how everything happened? yes. Do they have proof or evidence? No.
I'm just going to source from Wikipedia here, but there is a ton more out there that corroborates this
quote:
[Scientific] [l]aws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated
Source
quote:
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
Article of scientific theories
You may have been taught in high school that laws are more binding than theories, but when it comes to "Scientific Laws" v. "Scientific Theories" (like the theory of evolution). That is not true.
There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:03 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I'm just going to source from Wikipedia here, but there is a ton more out there that corroborates this
No problem. Often Wiki backs up their information with notes from outside sources.
And I understand your point, however, there have been many theories that have been abandoned, because more research and evidence has come in to prove said theory incorrect. Just because something is a scientific theory does not make it fact. Does it gain more weight than somebody just saying, "I think..."? yes. But if it were proven with no chance of being wrong it would enter into the world of scientific law. Gravity is a scientific law. At one time man did not understand gravity. but it has been proven beyond approach and was then moved from theory into law.
quote:
There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution.
And it is all observational. See my post above.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)