I was talking about science.[b said:Quote[/b] ]The definition of "theory" as per Dictionary.com
no, THE definiton of a scientific theory.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Limiting when applied to YOUR definition of a scientific theory!
I really couldn't care less what dictionaries say about scientific terms. They say apes are monkeys. What I had said before:[b said:Quote[/b] ]Dictionary.com, or virtually any other publicly available dictionary, gives the definition I have given and so this is likely to be more widely accepted.
What if I tell you the sky is purple? i'm looking at it right now![b said:Quote[/b] ]As I've yet to hear anyone tell me that the sky is green, I believe that most people agree with me.
the real question is, were they informed about evolution? so far, I haven't found any creationist who really knows what evolution is. They say it's "just" a theory, they say it has something to do with the origins of the moon or something, they say all the species goes extinct when one population speciates, etc. Some were more informed than others, but basically none really understood evolution or the evidence.[b said:Quote[/b] ]So how is it that intelligent, informed people can be creationists?
I simply don't believe that.[b said:Quote[/b] ]So how is it that intelligent, informed people can be creationists? I used to know a geology professor and a physics professor who were.
Ugh, this is sounding way too much like my Mercury instrument and that calibration curve I have to do and that dratted "second source" standard for my QCS & LFB to show that my standards for the calibration curve, which is relative to itself, is actually giving me correct readings! Please excuse mini-rant! I had to toss my run today because the second source wasn't matching up with the calibration curve.[b said:Quote[/b] (tonyc @ Sep. 02 2005,7:23)]Jimscott, I don't understand that argument at all.
I mean, if I say that the sky is blue (which is occasionally true in the UK), all I mean is that I call light of a particular wavelength 'blue'. As I've yet to hear anyone tell me that the sky is green, I believe that most people agree with me.
Do you mean that what I see as blue someone else might see as green? If so, I think were moving back into FSM/IPU territory.....
T.
'Most' would be closer to the truth. Really, a large part of the scientific community stays aways from the argument.[b said:Quote[/b] ]But few advocates of evolution can hold their own against top competition from the other side.
I've wondered that myself too. I've noticed that for the most part it is scientist who are far outside of biology. But many people are strongly religious (Christian mainly in this case), it is very unsettling to have this concept which seems so heavily in conflict with, well, the Bible (Genesis).[b said:Quote[/b] ]So how is it that intelligent, informed people can be creationists?
There was an awesome article in Wired about why wikipedia is so reliable and comprehensive. It's like an open source encyclopedia. It's one of those great ideas that you would think would never work, and once you see it in action you wonder why it didn't show up earlier.[b said:Quote[/b] (StifflerMichael @ Sep. 02 2005,12:06)]Wikepedia is even more accepted (dictionary.com and any other dictionary is written by only a few people, Wikepedia is surveyed by thousands) that's where I get my stuff. I don't know, I'm a 4th year grad student at Harvard University studying chemistry and biology. I'm Pretty sure I have a good grasp of the definition of scientific theory. But I guess I'll know for sure at my thesis defense!!
and that's exactly why nobody knows what evolution is![b said:Quote[/b] ]Really, a large part of the scientific community stays aways from the argument.
all hail the mighty wikipedia!!! whooo![b said:Quote[/b] ]There was an awesome article in Wired about why wikipedia is so reliable and comprehensive