One hears the comment, “it’s only a theory” in regard to scientific theories such as the age of the earth, climate change, the theory of evolution, the theory of plate tectonics. after reading chapter 1, how would you respond to such a comment...is there a fallacy? what is it? how is a scientific theory different than the way we use the word theory in casual conversation? would you consider theory of plate tectonics to be more like a fact or more like a hypothesis and why? based on the theory of plate tectonics, is it possible that southern california could someday be a part of alaska? if so, what are some of the processes that could enable that to happen? respond to one of the above questions and at least one prior posting on the discussion (if possible). support your stance with at least one quote. if you use a quote from the text book, you may use parenthetical citation. if you use a quote from another book, then a footnote is necessary. postings will be evaluated for effort, thoroughness, understanding of the task, spelling and grammar, and timeliness of posting. late discussion postings will not be accepted. timely participation is essential. please review the grading rubric below for how postings will be evaluated.  
Https://aseerkt.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/understanding-earth-7th-edition/ the link of the book. 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

A scientific theory is different than the way we use the word theory in casual conversation in that a scientific theory is based on observations and e... View the full answer