> You have to careful with the use of "theory" as you seem to be mixing > the scientific use and the colloquial use.
If it seemed like that, it wasn't my intent. > "theory" as in "theory of relativity" means a framework that is > predictive and contains no exceptions. Exceptions then lay the > groundwork for a new theory. Yup. The point being that just because an exception has yet to be found does not mean there *are* none to be found. I agree totally that a great many theories are long-standing and have enough observed evidence to make such an exception highly unlikely. > Point is that the "theory of evolution" is pretty solid predictive > framework that hasn't been proven wrong in a century of science. In > other words, it's either true or so close to true (like newton's > gravity) that it's effectively true. "Pretty solid" being the relative term here. My point is that saying something has been "proven true" is just as unscientific as to say a scientific theory is just a guess or a hunch (the colloquial usage). Theories are based on observed facts, such that nothing has yet been observed that contradicts them, but that does not make them in and of themselves fact. One subject area I have been very interested in for years is the Shroud of Turin. It's of great interest to me not just as a scientific curiosity, but the debate on it I find endlessly fascinating as a microcosm of the debate between science and religion. What I do find interesting is that religious beliefs do not always strictly correspond to one's opinion on the Shroud in the way a lot of people would expect, but often if someone has a *very* strong opinion on it, that greatly clouds their way of interpreting any findings on it. As I commented elsewhere, being atheist does not preclude people from making leaps of illogic and unscientific conclusion. For instance, skeptics will claim vehemently that the Shroud was "proven" to be of medieval origin. Whether it factually is or not, this is simply not an accurate statement. There is good evidence supporting that position, but evidence does not equate with truth. There is certainly at least one good theory as to why the dating was wrong, which has good supporting evidence which has yet to be refuted, and there are plenty of other examples of antiquities being falsely dated, so for anyone to talk about "proof" regarding dates of origin just to me shows their position is based not on science but on their preconceived ideas of truth. --- Mary Jo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306492 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
