Dark Clouds Gathering over America?

[lardy]

You have a short and selected memory, we were asked to "follow the science" not the theories. It was the 'science' that was in error, again and again starting in 2020. Sure there was some good science work too, which is worthy of note and saved many lives, but that has nothing to do with the other multiple failures.

You then stated, "There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding" - how exactly can a theory be 'evolved'(?), or would you care to replace this word with one that is more fitting?

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

[Swiss Peter]

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

[Citizen's Nephew]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

🙌 Those cracker jokes occasionally come up with a gem. 😛🤣

[jon1959]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

[truthpaste]

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

[jon1959]

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK?

[truthpaste]

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK?

Not really, I watch documentaries and many other types of programmes where 'evolution' is used instead of development, or 'evolve' is used instead of grow (for example), and the misuse of the word is always laughable. They seem to think that saying their word view even via poor english will somehow make it true, in reality that WV hasn't been confirmed and never will be.

[truthpaste]

The above should read "World View" (not word view)

[jeepster]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

My first laugh today

[truthpaste]

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

[jon1959]

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

[lardy]

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

[truthpaste]

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

[lardy]

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

You're talking about the law of gravity, not the theory.

[truthpaste]

You're talking about the law of gravity, not the theory.

The reason you can have a law of gravity is because of the reasons given above, you can demonstrate it repeatedly.
When was macro evolution demonstrated even once? Which would mean it could be classified in the same way?

[lardy]

The reason you can have a law of gravity is because of the reasons given above, you can demonstrate it repeatedly.
When was macro evolution demonstrated even once? Which would mean it could be classified in the same way?

So you are saying that a scientific theory is accurate? It is a reliable explanation of what we observe?