Someone is either really dense or hasn't been reading.
At 8/25/05 12:14 PM, afliXion wrote:
tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact.
If you knew what we were talking about, you wouldn't be asking WHAT is "still" theory, because to ask a question like that would indicate that you don't even know what the fuck a theory is. Look it up.
Life evolves, that is fact. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how it happened.
We don't use most of Darwinian evolution anymore as far as I know, and when you say Darwinian evolution theory, you are thinking Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. There is no "theory" on how it happened. Scientists use theory as a model to work in evolutionary science. I know it's hard to wrap your pretty little head around exactly what a theory is, but once you figure it out, this will all make a lot more sense.
Is that what your getting at? I'll bet it is. So here is more hypocracy from evolutionists. They say creationists are unscientific because they have there answer first, and then draw the facts from it. Well well, look what you do! Evolution is fact, and you draw up theories on how it happened! Now your doing the same you thing those ignorant creationists are.
Creation is unscientific because it starts with an assertion taken as fact and "digs up" so-called "proof" to solidify this assertion. Real science starts with a question, takes as many possible hypotheses as the scientist can think of, rules out the stupid ones, tests the logical ones, and the theory is the model based on the data from these tests.
So actually there is no Creation Theory. Can you make predictions or do anything useful in the field of life science using Creation? Can you show me one thing anyone has done for health care or the environment using Creation "Theory"?
Bottom line, Creation falls under the fallacy of pet hypothesis.
But evolution, and I mean real macro-evolution, most certainly is not a fact.
As easily as you said that, I can say that evolution, and I mean real macro-evolution, most certainly is a fact.
Now, you yourself have already admitted evolution is a theory. So where is the harm in examing a scientific theory critically? Is that not what all scientists do? If evolution is a theory as you say, why do you and other evolutionists treat it as law? Hypocracy!;
Scientists examine hypotheses and observations and models critically as necessary. After a while, they can be pretty damn sure of the facts. And once again you prove that you have no clue what a theory, law, or fact actually are.
The deal with this sticker is that it singles out evolution for political purposes. It's redundant and useless if you want to point out it's educational validity. The intentions of those who fought for the legislation to put it there are obvious. They want to get their foot in the door for putting junk science with purely RELIGIOUS motives into PUBLIC, SECULAR education, and to make a law regarding this would be unconstitutional, and I don't want my tax dollars going into it.
You have no idea what the goal of creationists is.
I do. I have studied, hung out with, debated, and carried on friendly discussions with creationists. Their goal is to have public schools teaching religion as science.
Now you kind of nailed your own grave here. If a high school teacher is not qualified to examine the theory, then what business do they have teaching it as fact, other than the evolutionists being to afraid to let the kids know of anything else?
For one, an education degree in every college I know of has the lowest minimum GPA requirement of any major, so most high school teachers aren't really qualified to do anything but parrot from books, and if people who are completely NOT SCIENTISTS are taking a say into what goes into SCIENCE books, we are in trouble.
For two, if there actually was another working model being used in the scientific community competing with evolution theory, and the fact of evolution was not indeed a fact, scientists would have no reason to object to these alternatives. But the above two conditions are untrue.
Hell I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be, but I say it only takes common sense to see that evolution is a lie.
You're not a scientist, therefore you have no authority to say a scientifically proven fact is a lie.