Are theories proven or unproven?

[Tart]

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?

[Divine Insight]

Your repeated attempts to deny science and twist meaning are despicable and anti-factual.

Danmark's statement here is true.

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.

This is utterly false. Biogenesis is not a "law of nature". Biogenesis simply refers to the fact that living things can indeed reproduce. But this does NOT mean that life cannot arise from non-living things.

So trying to claim that since Biogenesis does indeed occur this somehow means that Abiogenesis cannot occur, is a grave misrepresentation of what Science holds to be true.

In short, EarthScienceguy, you are either truly ignorant of what science holds to be true, or you are purposefully spreading misinformation in the hopes of confusing people who don't know any better.

So which is it? Do you simply not understand science? Or are you purposefully spreading misinformation about science?

The former can be accepted and you can simply confess that you don't understand science.

The latter is inexcusable.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 27 by EarthScienceguy]

Biogenesis is not a law. It is the theory that living things only come from other living things through reproduction. From a biblical perspective, creationists can read that as living things bringing forth according to their own kind. Science does not question this and it is in no way an argument for the need of a creator.

Abiogenesis, sometimes referred to as spontaneous generation, means life coming from non-living matter. We have yet to establish how and when this happened on Earth, but again it has not been demonstrated to be impossible without any sort of god-magic.

When you consider that everything is made from combinations of atoms of the naturally occurring elements, then everything is essentially made from non-living matter. Certain combinations of matter have characteristic properties, particularly self-replication, that has led us to classify them as living things.

[Elijah John]

Dude, what is with you?

Moderator Comment

"Dude what is with you?" ? I think you must realize that is a bit uncivil, and can be considered a personal attack. Please refrain from such comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Dude, what is with you? If you do not believe in the law of biogenesis the proof is on you.

No, you have it backwards, you made the claim, you prove it. It's not up to the guy not believing to disprove it. This shouldn't be news to you, atheists don't have to disprove gods, it's up to theists to prove gods, the same reasoning applies.

Biogenesis is defined in all kinds of dictionaries and biology books.

Sure, but not as a law of nature.

And how can defining a LAW of NATURE be quote mining.

The same way any other quote mining is done: by selectively quoting bits of a biology book to make it looks like it is saying something it doesn't say. Here is a trivial example: "some creationists argued that biogenesis is a law of nature" can be quoted as "...biogenesis is a law of nature."

As such competent editors and authors aware of creationist shenanigans, would be careful to avoid offering up such easy targets. Hence my challenge for you to present whole pages for examination.

Biogenesis is a fundamental law in biology so I have no clue where you are going with your argument.

I am going with, "is it? Prove it."

So are you going to back up your claims or not? The claim I am most interested in is that the two text books you mentioned, referred to biogenesis as a law. This is the third time I've asked you to support your claim with evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
Biogenesis is defined in all kinds of dictionaries and biology books.

Sure, but not as a law of nature.

So you are saying that it is just biogenesis.

What is it then? A theory, a hypothesis what?

[Bust Nak]

So you are saying that it is just biogenesis.

What is it then? A theory, a hypothesis what?

A theory. This is the third time you've avoided presenting the pages as I've asked. Are you ready to retract your claim that those two books referred to biogenesis as a law of nature yet?