the term "theory" has a very specific meaning in science. I am not sure which theory would need more testing. AFAIK it would not be considered a theory if it did.
If you're saying that there is a lot out there that we don't understand, then fine. True. But I think your logic is a little fuzzy too. And no, I don't quite see the connection between evolution and diabetes... maybe there is one, but insulin seems more like an example of moden medicine. Which does use tools it doesn't quite understand, all the time. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, I'm saying many theories can be assumed to be facts, like > evolution, while many are not. Then there's plenty in the middle that > need more testing. > > Larry mumbled something about evolution and insulin as proof all > theories are facts. > > . > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:38 PM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> When did I ever say that? > >> > >> The issue is whether every scientific theory is fact. To take one > >> theory and write the law of theory on that is stupid. > >> > >> We had this discussion and anyone with a clue realizes that not all > >> scientific theories prove to be true. That's why they are theories and > >> not laws. > >> > > > > Very true. but evolution is one of the most studied, and verified, > theories > > in science. As theories go, it's pretty rock solid. > > > > But Sam is right, anyone who calls evolution a "fact" should probably be > > corrected....after all, if we are going to hold people accountable for > > discounting evolution as a "theory" because they don't understand the > true > > scientific meaning of the word, then WE must be sure to hold our words to > > their scientific meanings as well. Evolution is not a scientific fact, it > is > > a scientific theory. > > > > Sam knows full well the weight that scientific theory holds, and he's > never > > doubted or debated against it....he just questions the validity of > calling > > it a "fact", and semantically and scientifically speaking, he's right. > > > > So if we can just clear up these silly semantics, i don't think there is > any > > disagreement here. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342823 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
