RedOne77 said:
Why? Surely you must know what it is, do you not? Or are you looking to see just how ignorant the ignorant creationist is?
I will correct you if you're wrong, RedOne, but not so to prove you are ignorant, if you're open and sincere with your definition.
The reason why I ask you to give a definition is mainly because you refused to answer johnhank's earlier question to you (in post 208). He did ask you a direct question, and you dodge it. I was hoping you would answer the question if ask again.
RedOne77 said:
In science, a theory is an explanation of a specific set of facts supported by a large body of evidence that is also falsifiable, and one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is its ability to predict.
You see. That wasn't so hard. Thank you for giving the definition.
So yes, :yes: I am pleased with your answer.
Now, I would like to expand your definition.
The theory is falsifiable depending on the evidences taken or examined, as well as the tests done on the evidences, to either verify the accuracy of theory or discarded as unaccepted hypothesis.
The more tests done and the more verification of the evidences are (referring to the quantity of tests and evidences), then the more accepted the theory, hence it become scientific fact. If a number of independent scientists come to the same conclusion with their own tests on the same evidence...OR, the independent scientists used separate and independent tests...then the theory has become accepted as fact.
That's the proofs required to make the theory as fact.
Sorry if I am boring you with this. Because unlike you, many creationists don't understand that theory is explanation on fact.
Now, science is all about fact and evidences, not proof. Doubts are just as important as certainty. In science, there's no such as 100% proof, but if you have enough evidences and tests done to support the theory, then you have proven beyond reasonable doubts.
The thing is Charles Darwin has done more than enough. He was a learned naturalist, hence a scientist of botany and wildlife, but he was also a geologist too before he set out on his journey on HMS Beagle in 1831. He observed and researched on the evidences he had found. His notes are filled with drawing and recordings of his finds. This journey took him 5 years. However, he did not present his finding to the public until
His conclusion is evolution, about the changes of species. And so far, his theory hasn't been proven wrong. And scientists (biologists (and related fields, such as genetic scientists), geologists), both contemporaries and generations later, right up to today, no creationists could prove his wrong, nor the present YEC and IDs.
And these are some of the problems I have with creationists (and with IDs):
- They want their creationism or pseudo-science of ID to be taught in the science classrooms, without a single basis on facts (which verifiable and testable evidences).
- With the ID supporters, instead of using science and evidences to support their cases and so-called "theory", they tried to rely on non-scientific authorities (courts and school boards in order to coerce science teacher on baseless ID "theory") to force schools to teach Intelligent Design. Heck, they persuaded Geroge Bush Junior to support their case, who is not a scientist, and have no science background whatsoever.
- Both creationists and IDs have resorted to subterfuge and deception, not evidences, to prove (only in their minds) that evolution is theory not fact. But as you pointed out in your definition, theory in SCIENCE is explanation on fact. That's what some of the members here don't get. They tried to twist the word "theory" to suit themselves, without understanding what a theory really is.
- They don't present evidences or facts that are testable and verifiable.
- And lastly (and just as important), creationists don't understand that evolution is not about the origin of life, which is abiogenesis. Evolution is about changes, and how life adapt to changing condition.
Many of us here, have tried patiently at RF - and for my part, impatiently - to clarify evolution as a scientific factual theory, and to remove their misconceptions and preconceptions about evolution.