Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Now that certainly sidesteps the issue.
I try not to post high-flying opinions in subjects on which I am not well studied.
Got a problem with that?
I will accept that you claim no expertise in the matter.
I will accept that you claim no expertise in the matter.
The subject of your troll to me was Lamarckianism in biology texts. Go troll elsewhere.
Misuse of the word "troll" will gain you no sympathy here.
Not a single text. Several different texts written by differnt authors sometimes in different languages. Just because they were placed together in one text for convenience does not make them all one source and invalidate them any more than a scientist writing a research paper invalidates the paper by including different sources together for convenience sake.
From a google search: "define:troll" (the first definition):
Definitions of troll on the Web:
From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb, to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames.
Exactly what happened in my sone Bio class last year. They spent some time on evolution, less than a week, and as they covered it, the teacher told them that he was going to teach them what they needed to know to pass the regents test. He told them that he didn't care if it made sense to them or not or whether they thought it was right or not, if the kids didn't put down these answers, they would get marked wrong on the test. So the point was, don't think for yourself, it'll only get you in trouble with your grade on the regents if you reach a different conclusion from the results that they want to hear.
sone=son's *sigh* long day.
Most college students in America have no idea that socialism is Slavery by Goverment.. double that amount for URP'ean students.. Sadly many republicans are clueless too..
Certainly beats "It all happened because of a Big Bang". I wonder if someone with a bong was the initiator of this smoke in my eyes scenario and it was mistakenly named "Big Bang" instead of "Big Bong".
Isn't that what you and the evos require of creationists? But you can't come up with evidence but you have the almighty peer(I'll agree with you on that if you agree with me on this) review. Try reading some of Lee Strobel's books if you don't want anything from creation scientists. As you do, notice all the "peer" reviews he has in them in regards to the Case for Creation, etc.
Certainly beats "It all happened because of a Big Bang". I wonder if someone with a bong was the initiator of this smoke in my eyes scenario and it was mistakenly named "Big Bang" instead of "Big Bong".
Take a look at this site. This should keep the hands waving for weeks (if you actually read anything, which I very strongly doubt):
Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.
It just didn't happen! All the evidence points to that conclusion, including some I found myself. Ask me about it, if you dare. Warning: the creationist websites have no rebuttal to this evidence.
I like this definiton of theory a whole lot better. Of course you were being selective when you fed me the other definition. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Let me tell ya, I understand everything in my septic tank. If you also did, you would see how close it resembles evolutionistic ideas.
I like this definiton of theory a whole lot better. Of course you were being selective when you fed me the other definition. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
What, don't you like my definition of "theory"? Haven't I posted it often enough, or what?
Here it is again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
What a joke! You don't want us to utilize creationist sites but you demand that we put up with the garbage from evo sites, such as this that evos claim as fact. Talk about one track minds.
Don't like mine? Well here it is again:
"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Pathetic. A simple google search "define:conjecture" reveals the following (which I have now added to my list of defintions):
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.It you will notice, this is not even close to the definitions for "theory:"
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)Hint: Stick to apologetics, and leave science alone.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
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.