Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Either some of you are the same people I have seen posting on almost every Christian froum I have been on in the past 15 years or you all use the same book. I sware I have read this exact thread at least 50 times in my life.
Either some of you are the same people I have seen posting on almost every Christian froum I have been on in the past 15 years or you all use the same book. I sware I have read this exact thread at least 50 times in my life.
The strength ofa scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain,and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor).[citation needed] As additional scientific evidenceis gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fitthe new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory isthen desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theorycan still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity)as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws ofmotion as an approximation to special relativityat velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).[citation needed]
What is SCIENCE? ]1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing witha body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of generallaws.
Evolution is theory. Neither Evolution or Creationism can be proven. Get over it. Neither are true science.
Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the fact of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the ToE.
Exactly what I have been trying to get across to them. It is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. It is not pure proven science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
I am having fun with you. I keep telling you that Evolution is a THEORY and not a proven science. You, for all your self-proclaimed intelligence apparently do not even know what the definition of a "theory" is. Yes, I am laughing at you.
A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
The scientific Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for all the observable evidence from the fossil records, from comparative anatomy, and from DNA analysis. The ToE is also consistent with all other relevant fields of science. The ToE fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, and it's predictions remain true.
As a scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution could be falsified by evidence that contradicts the Theory. So far, in more than 150 years, that has not happened.
Do you realise that's a Young Earth Creationist website?
Whilke I disagree with the Young Earth position, I always find it interesting that pro creation sites are ignored because they are ... pro creation, yet pro Evolution sites are deemed factual. Ain't true. I prefer to examine the Facts and avoid such silly denials of information by either side of the issue.
Interestingly a new book has been published that shreds an evolutionary fallacy, that is necessary to the theory. Uniquely Dawkins made a statement that people do not examine and shows the books position to be true.
"From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs -- every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous."
Dawkins calls the chapter on the dogs, in his own book: "The primrose path to macroevolution".
This is the definition of a primrose path:
"primrose path the pursuit of pleasure, especially when it is seen to bring disastrous consequences: "unaware of his doom, he continued down his primrose path." [with allusion to Shakespeare's Hamlet i. iii. 50][1] "A way of life of worldly ease or pleasure. A course of action that seems easy and appropriate but can actually end in calamity.
To be "led down the primrose path" is an idiom suggesting that one is being deceived or led astray, often by a hypocrite.
Whilke I disagree with the Young Earth position, I always find it interesting that pro creation sites are ignored because they are ... pro creation, yet pro Evolution sites are deemed factual. Ain't true. I prefer to examine the Facts and avoid such silly denials of information by either side of the issue.
Interestingly a new book has been published that shreds an evolutionary fallacy, that is necessary to the theory. Uniquely Dawkins made a statement that people do not examine and shows the books position to be true.
"From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs -- every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous."
Dawkins calls the chapter on the dogs, in his own book: "The primrose path to macroevolution".
This is the definition of a primrose path:
"primrose path the pursuit of pleasure, especially when it is seen to bring disastrous consequences: "unaware of his doom, he continued down his primrose path." [with allusion to Shakespeare's Hamlet i. iii. 50][1] "A way of life of worldly ease or pleasure. A course of action that seems easy and appropriate but can actually end in calamity.
To be "led down the primrose path" is an idiom suggesting that one is being deceived or led astray, often by a hypocrite.
In expatCA's recent post of what Dawkins said, Dawkins said this in the New York Times:
"Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as “trivial” the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?"
Now I have often said on these forums that evolutionists believe we descended from apes. And I was always told I didn't know what I was talking about. But Dawkins takes it even a step further by saying "WE ARE AFRICAN APES." Wow! Dawkins doesn't even know what evolutionists believe!
How could we even be descended from apes since mankind has only been on the earth since 6 or so thousand years ago. Is there enough time for evolution to work its magic (that's what it is by the way). And then we have the world-wide flood in which only 8 members of the human race survived around 3 thousand years ago. Yes, to all you DNA buffs out there, they discovered a bottleneck in our DNA around 3 or so thousand years ago.
Yes, the earth may be millions of years old but then it became chaos and vacant. It became sterile of all plant and animal life. Quite possibly, what the archeologist discovered was from before the earth became chaos and vacant.
In expatCA's recent post of what Dawkins said, Dawkins said this in the New York Times:
"Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as “trivial” the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?"
Now I have often said on these forums that evolutionists believe we descended from apes. And I was always told I didn't know what I was talking about. But Dawkins takes it even a step further by saying "WE ARE AFRICAN APES." Wow! Dawkins doesn't even know what evolutionists believe!
How could we even be descended from apes since mankind has only been on the earth since 6 or so thousand years ago. Is there enough time for evolution to work its magic (that's what it is by the way). And then we have the world-wide flood in which only 6 members of the human race survived around 3 thousand years ago. Yes, to all you DNA buffs out there, they discovered a bottleneck in our DNA around 3 or so thousand years ago.
Yes, the earth may be millions of years old but then it became chaos and vacant. It became sterile of all plant and animal life. Quite possibly, what the archeologist discovered was from before the earth became chaos and vacant.
Hang in there, Eusie.
One day there may be a cure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
