Quote:
Originally posted by greytone
I did not "change" the definition of theory. I simply pointed out what the word means in the current context. It is a theory, just like relativity theory, paticle theory, electromagnetic theory, and gravitational theory are theory. None of them are adequate alone to explain the universe as we see it. All of them are usefull in understanding the significance of observed facts.
|
Correct me if I am wrong to interpret your post. Are you arguing that relativity, electromagnetism and gravity is just "theory"? That those are just a bunch of speculations without concrete scientific experimentations?
I agree with your last statement, but Relativity (special and general) does explain the universe "as we see it." Electromagnetism and electric field theory do explain exactly how electrons and light behave. The universe “as we see it” behaves with the same gravitational forces that we feel here on Earth. Yes there are times when some concrete belief is contradictory with a new observation, but that’s the point, change. My problem is with people using the word “theory” incorrectly and that’s exactly what creationists cling onto for support. Yet “their” own belief system is based purely upon an imaginative theory that has not been proven or has any concrete evidence provided in its behalf.