There has been an uproar on saying a theory is something that is unproven. "its just a theory", meaning something unproven.. I was reading my physics 1 book last night and in the opening they gave a brief explanation for the meaning of the word theory...
“Calling an idea a theory does not mean that it’s just a random thought or an unproven concept. Rather a theory is an explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and accepted fundamental principles.�
Then just a few paragraphs away it states.
“It is the nature of physical theory that we can disprove a theory by finding behavior that is inconsistent with it, but we can never prove that a theory is always correct.�
Are these two statements incompatible with one another? Specifically about the statement of a theory not being an unproven concept, and then stating that these theories can never be proven. Was it just a bad choice of words?
Do you think there is alternative motives to state such a thing or is it understandable from a scientific explanation? Or a rational explanation? That a theory isnt an unproven concept, but it can never be proven?
Are theories proven or unproven?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #21I think I will take you up on that, care to provide some biology text book that speak of biogenesis as a law and I will have a word with their printers.EarthScienceguy wrote: That would be BBBBBBBiogensis. If you do not believe that there is a law of Biogenesis then you might need to speak to all of the biology text book printers.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #23[Replying to post 21 by EarthScienceguy]
Got a screenshot? Or at least a quote? Page number too. Kinda hard to write a complaint letter with just a book title to go on.
Got a screenshot? Or at least a quote? Page number too. Kinda hard to write a complaint letter with just a book title to go on.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #24Sorry, my mistake. There is no law of biogenesis. It is only a creationist invention and at best nothing more than an hypothesis.EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 12 by brunumb]
That would be BBBBBBBiogensis. If you do not believe that there is a law of Biogenesis then you might need to speak to all of the biology text book printers.There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #25[Replying to post 22 by Bust Nak]
Are you really trying to communicate that Louie Pasteur and Redi did not disprove the spontaneous generation?Got a screenshot? Or at least a quote? Page number too. Kinda hard to write a complaint letter with just a book title to go on.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #26[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]
What exactly did they say?
They said complicated life does not come about.
They said nothing about simple life arising from non-life.
What exactly did they say?
They said complicated life does not come about.
They said nothing about simple life arising from non-life.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #27No. I am trying to communicate that a) Louie Pasteur and Redi did not disprove abiogenesis. b) Textbook editors should be made aware of creationist deceptions, if they aren't aware already. c) I have a feeling that editors of Prentice Hall and Holt McDougal are aware of quote mining attempts, and am calling you out to present passages from the books in question that spoke of biogenesis as a law.EarthScienceguy wrote: Are you really trying to communicate that Louie Pasteur and Redi did not disprove the spontaneous generation?
I ask you again to present details from the two textbook you mentioned, screenshots or quotes, page number, enough for a letter.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #28[Replying to post 26 by Bust Nak]
Dude, what is with you? If you do not believe in the law of biogenesis the proof is on you. Biogenesis is defined in all kinds of dictionaries and biology books. And how can defining a LAW of NATURE be quote mining. Biogenesis is a fundamental law in biology so I have no clue where you are going with your argument.No. I am trying to communicate that a) Louie Pasteur and Redi did not disprove abiogenesis. b) Textbook editors should be made aware of creationist deceptions, if they aren't aware already. c) I have a feeling that editors of Prentice Hall and Holt McDougal are aware of quote mining attempts, and am calling you out to present passages from the books in question that spoke of biogenesis as a law.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #29[Replying to post 27 by EarthScienceguy]
Biogenesis is NOT a fundamental law in biology, because if that were true it would not allow for abiogenesis, which would be life arising from initially nonliving entities (eg. molecules not yet organized into a system fitting the definition of a living entity). Until abiogenesis can be disproved (which has not yet happened), it is on the table and biogenesis is therefore not a biological "law."
This follows your usual mistake of assuming that just because science has yet to solve a problem, the answer is whatever your creationist-influenced opinion is. You need to realize that the correct answer to an unsolved science problem is simply that it is still open to investigation and study. Abiogenesis has not yet been demonstrated, but it also has not been proven to be impossible. So it is very much still on the table.
The mechanism for the origin of life on this planet is an unsolved science problem, and abiogenesis may well turn out to be a valid explanation. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the Genesis creation myth, which is supported by exactly zero science.
Biogenesis is a fundamental law in biology so I have no clue where you are going with your argument.
Biogenesis is NOT a fundamental law in biology, because if that were true it would not allow for abiogenesis, which would be life arising from initially nonliving entities (eg. molecules not yet organized into a system fitting the definition of a living entity). Until abiogenesis can be disproved (which has not yet happened), it is on the table and biogenesis is therefore not a biological "law."
This follows your usual mistake of assuming that just because science has yet to solve a problem, the answer is whatever your creationist-influenced opinion is. You need to realize that the correct answer to an unsolved science problem is simply that it is still open to investigation and study. Abiogenesis has not yet been demonstrated, but it also has not been proven to be impossible. So it is very much still on the table.
The mechanism for the origin of life on this planet is an unsolved science problem, and abiogenesis may well turn out to be a valid explanation. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the Genesis creation myth, which is supported by exactly zero science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Are theories proven or unproven?
Post #30EarthScienceguy wrote:
Dude, what is with you? If you do not believe in the law of biogenesis the proof is on you. Biogenesis is defined in all kinds of dictionaries and biology books. And how can defining a LAW of NATURE be quote mining. Biogenesis is a fundamental law in biology so I have no clue where you are going with your argument.
You continue to conflate two very separate concepts, biogenesis and "the law of biogenesis." The former is well established, that in general life comes from life. "The law of biogenesis" is completely different. It is a made up phrase, made up by the anti science 'creationist' community. It claims that life can only come from other life, that it cannot arise from inorganic matter. That has not been proved. In fact there are many experiments that have demonstrated it is possible for life to arise independently. Regardless of one's opinion of this, it is disingenuous to continue to claim biogenesis and 'the law of biogenesis are the same.
Your repeated attempts to deny science and twist meaning are despicable and anti-factual.
