Religious advocates, answer me this: (radio, soldier, claims)

[janelle144]

Originally Posted by Soldier of FORTRAN

In the past, the faithful rejected it altogether and pretended evolution meant rocks became monkeys.

Now, the nonsense isn't so bad and microevolution is generally accepted.

Eventually, knowledge of evolution will penetrate the culture and they will accept it altogether.

Will it then be called just evolution instead of the THEORY of evolution? LOL

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

Originally Posted by Harrier

LOL!

I have taken a psychology course.

I have taken a biology course.

I have taken a physics course.

Physics is science.

Biology is science(minus the evolution nonsense).

Psychology is not science.

Sorry psychologists and psichiatrists.

It's perfectly scientific if you do it right.

Don't forget - Science can has begun meaningfully interacting with brains !!!

TMS, PET scans, MRI, fMRI, DTI, EEG, and so on, it's all very exciting.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

On the other hand there is ample proof that the earth is billions of years old and man is the result of millions of years of evolution. I know you don't like to hear that but it's an OBSERVABLE fact.

LOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAHHAAAAAA!!!

Are you a billion years old?

If not, then how is what you claim an "observable fact".

You evolutionists are so silly.

LOL!!!!

You can't even spell "observable' correctly.

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by Harrier

LOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAHHAAAAAA!!!

Are you a billion years old?

If not, then how is what you claim an "observable fact".

You evolutionists are so silly.

LOL!!!!

Really bro? Are you seriously THAT ignorant? I've seen better arguments from a child.

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

Originally Posted by janelle144

Will it then be called just evolution instead of the THEORY of evolution? LOL

No, theory is used differently in science.

A scientific theory is basically a collection of well established ideas for explaining something, e.g. Gravitational Theory. The 'Theory of Gravity' is what we know about gravity.

The scientific equivalent for what you're thinking is hypothesis.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

Really bro? Are you seriously THAT ignorant? I've seen better arguments from a child.

His argument is a bit simplified, but it is mind-boggling the amount of assumptions that are made by scientists when attempting to date a fossil.

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by Vizio

His argument is a bit simplified, but it is mind-boggling the amount of assumptions that are made by scientists when attempting to date a fossil.

Really? And what are these assumptions?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

I can observe the fossil record to prove my point. What can you observe?

The fossil record contains zero evidence of any transitional fossils.

Try again, Mr. Evolutionist.

You believe in a fairy tale, my friend.

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

Originally Posted by Harrier

The fossil record contains zero evidence of any transitional fossils.

Try again, Mr. Evolutionist.

You believe in a fairy tale, my friend.

Every fossil is just two more holes they can't explain

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Soldier of FORTRAN

No, theory is used differently in science.

A scientific theory is basically a collection of well established ideas for explaining something, e.g. Gravitational Theory. The 'Theory of Gravity' is what we know about gravity.

The scientific equivalent for what you're thinking is hypothesis.

We know much about gravity.

We know nothing about macroevolution, becauae it does not occur.