Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Nah. Who would pay for a book when you can visit creationist websites for free?
Please explain your position of least relavent.
You have to be careful here. Not everyone is careful about terminology. The best you can say is that sloppy writing does not alter reality.
There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.
Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works. Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses. Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.
Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?
There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.
Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works. Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses. Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.
Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?
You are quite correct. I should have said - I haven't noticed anyone calling the ToE a law in this thread.
I am surprised that Watson conflates law and theory in his story as if they were different degrees of the same thing. It did appear that he was trying to remove the ToE from the hole of the common usage definition of theory, but I think he went about it the wrong way.
"People tend to replace a lack of potency with accumulation of things like degrees which "empower" them "independently"." [emphasis added]
I could be wrong, but I think Gen. Ripper has just disembarked the mothership....
LOL! Precious bodily fluids placemarker.
Such as?????
Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact.
Really??? Prove it. Just because you state it does not make it so. So back it up.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works.
Your "explanation" unless backed by irrefutable fact, is your accepted explanation ie. theory.
ex·plain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spln)
v. ex·plained, ex·plain·ing, ex·plains v. tr.
1-To make plain or comprehensible.
2-To define; expound: We explained our plan to the committee.
3-To offer reasons for or a cause of; justify: explain an error. To offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself).
Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses.
the·o·ry (th-r, thr) n.
1-A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. 2-Abstract reasoning; speculation.
I see assumptions but NO FACTS
Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.
WHAT?????
Your trying to equate theory with law. Theory is the root of thesis
thesis
n 1: an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument 2: a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries 1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.
My, such pomposity. Are you French? Or Al Gore or John Kerry?
Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?
Your question implies that someone who doesn't agree with your presuppositions , must just be trying to goad you into outraged responses. I'm not trying to goad you into outraged responses. I thoroughly disagree with the theory of evolution, as obviously many others on this thread do. With the pomposity you've exhibited, you're the one who seems to be trying to instigate others.
And yet there is no evidence of simpler forms of this very complex molecule, even in such primitive creatures as viruses?
Not bloody likely.
"And yet there is no evidence of simpler forms of this very complex molecule, even in such primitive creatures as viruses? "
Viruses were not around until long after the first cells evolved. They couldn't survive without cells or bacteria to attack.
I'm not sure that mountn man is willing to engage in rational debate. He seems to think that he can make evolution false -- or at least "uncertain" -- by playing semantic games rather than addressing reality.
I see this observation every once in a while, and the childishness of it never ceases to amaze me.
Scientific analysis requires one to be objective, yes, but not inhuman.
The notion that it does is just ludicrous.
Utterly and completely false, in *two* different ways in a single setence.
Just once I wish you anti-evolution zealots would try to *understand* the topic and its adherents before you go spouting off your wild fantasies about it.
No, it arose in stages, and the evidence clearly indicates this. But then, you'd have to know quite a bit of actual science in order to be able to understand the biochemical evidence, which leaves msot anti-evolutionists *way* out of their depth.
"Of all the things I've read on these threads, this is the funniest. Darwin causes human inequality and inequality causes welfare. The Onion couldn't do better."
I was having fun. I am pleased you got a laugh.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.