Yes. Evolution.

[stahrwe]

Explain. By analogy, then, we can't say we know a single thing about the development of the cosmos, because we don't know how matter came to be created? We can conclude nothing about the 3.5 billion years of life because of uncertainty about how it arose? We have well developed sciences of all sorts despite uncertainty about the ultimate question behind them. Biology is no exception.

All of it is built on assumptions. The systems is self correcting in that any data is parsed and run through the system to validate it against the assumptions. Universities give tenure to professors who subscribe to the company line. On the other hand, your conclusion is wrong. All I am asking for is proof as to how life started in the first place in your science. Until that can be done the theory remains a theory does it not?

[DWill]

All of it is built on assumptions. The systems is self correcting in that any data is parsed and run through the system to validate it against the assumptions. Universities give tenure to professors who subscribe to the company line. On the other hand, your conclusion is wrong. All I am asking for is proof as to how life started in the first place in your science. Until that can be done the theory remains a theory does it not?

By "all of it" you mean, then, the results of the life sciences in general, as well as, presumably, astronomy? You can ask for proof for how life started all you want, but that objection doesn't negate any observation about development, which is all evolution is about. All you've got here is an unconvincing conspiracy theory.

Let's not go back to the "evolution is only a theory" thing. Surely we're beyond that by now.

[stahrwe]

Let's not go back to the "evolution is only a theory" thing. Surely we're beyond that by now.

That is your position and the position of many but not all scientists and perhaps not even a majority. My point in this argument is not that evolution is wrong, only that it is still a theory and will remain only a theory until and if it can explain some basic elements regarding origins.

[DWill]

Let's not go back to the "evolution is only a theory" thing. Surely we're beyond that by now.

That is your position and the position of many but not all scientists and perhaps not even a majority. My point in this argument is not that evolution is wrong, only that it is still a theory and will remain only a theory until and if it can explain some basic elements regarding origins.

Not even a majority of scientists? Highly, highly doubtful ("Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550) . Your objection about "only theory" still rests on misinformation. A theory is not a fact, but this is simply because it is conceptual container for all the facts that support it, which in the case of evolution are legion.

[stahrwe]

A theory is not a fact, but this is simply because it is conceptual container for all the facts that support it, which in the case of evolution are legion.

So we agree that Evolution is a theory?

[DWill]

A theory is not a fact, but this is simply because it is conceptual container for all the facts that support it, which in the case of evolution are legion.

So we agree that Evolution is a theory?

Most certainly.

[stahrwe]

A theory is not a fact, but this is simply because it is conceptual container for all the facts that support it, which in the case of evolution are legion.

So we agree that Evolution is a theory?

Most certainly.

Many thanks. See, I am not so difficult to get along with.

[Interbane]

Until that can be done the theory remains a theory does it not?

There is nothing more certain than a theory. What you are likely envisioning is the layman usage, where your wife would say "I have a theory about how my shoes got outside", which is not at all the same thing. To be a Theory is to have the highest honor of certainty, if any can be had at all. Most people think a scientific law is more certain than a theory, but that's not the case. The two are categorically different. A theory entails an explanatory framework, where a law merely describes how something works.

If a hypothesis for abiogenesis were even developed, then experimentation ensued for a long while, perhaps decades, then perhaps we would have a Theory of Abiogenesis. It would be a sister theory to the theory of evolution. Evolution is complete as a theory without any theory of abiogenesis by it's side. The status of evolution as a fact will not change for the better or for the worse with a theory of abiogenesis. The only change that will occur is that there will be yet one more theory that falsifies your religious worldview. One should be enough.

[stahrwe]

A theory entails an explanatory framework, where a law merely describes how something works.

In law, opposing counsel often develop competing theories based on the same evidence. A judge or jury then decides which theory is more convincing but rarely does all the evidence neatly fit either theory. I wonder, what evidence is there which, in your opinion, does not neatly fit the theory of evolution?

[Interbane]

In law, opposing counsel often develop competing theories based on the same evidence. A judge or jury then decides which theory is more convincing but rarely does all the evidence neatly fit either theory. I wonder, what evidence is there which, in your opinion, does not neatly fit the theory of evolution?

I'm speaking of scientific laws, not legal. I'm also not aware of evidence which doesn't neatly fit into the theory of evolution. I'm not saying there isn't any, as new findings will certainly be integrated. I'm merely saying none came to mind. Do you have some such evidence in mind?