Posted on 07/22/2006 5:35:21 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Please think before you post. Your zeal just deemed Marxist theory to be valid. The Theory of Marxism has been espoused since 1848. Does that make it true?
Ignorant statement.
In science, theory does NOT mean hypothesis. When people say something is "just" a theory, they don't know the vocabulary of science. The theory of relativity started out as a hypothesis since none of its predictions had yet been tested. Now, having been tested in numerous ways, it is strongly believed to be correct and factual. In other words, theory IS confirmed scientific fact. Not necesarily perfect, however. It is able to make predictions that are correct. Same with quantum theory. (That is a problem with evolution. It is hard to run experiments on it.)
But scientific 'fact' is changeable pending new experiments.
I would be nice if people in the argument would get the terminology correct. The "It's just a theory" statement shows ignorance.
One last time. Theory is NOT the same as hypothesis, whichever side you are on.
{Monkeys and apes have a common ancestor. Go back further, and you find a common ancestor for all mammals. From that ancestor evolved all the mammals we see today.}
Which came first, the chicken or the egg. As a Christian bible believer and saved from the wrath of God by faith in the finished work of Jesus the Christ, I say the egg.
And all the socialist/athiest educationtional propaganda in the world will never disude the true Christian from believing God.
The chicken came first, God said so and I and all my brothers and sisters, created in Christ Jesus, agree as does all good science.
I am sorry for the communist public school children.
See post #22.
I look at those examples as God using common parts for building. You can build shelves out of 2x6 pieces of wood and you can build a house out of 2x6 pieces of wood, but nobody would come to the conclusion that shelves evolved from houses or houses evolved from shelves.
I like to believe in a little bit of both theories.
"Evolutionist faith demands that the creature be worshiped and not the creator and has been one of the many downfalls of civilaztions through out man's shord 6000 year history.
Let God be true and every man a liar."
A major problem with so many men is their arrogant notion that only man is capable of creation. Was it an intelligent designer that gave me a ride in a 2006 Buick rental car this past week or was it the natural laws governing the evolution of machines. I can state with confidence there are gaps in the evolutionary development of such a fine machine. FWIW, Neo
This statement illustrates total ignorance of science. A dictionary explaining the difference between hypothesis, theory, and fact would show how sophomoric this statement is.
The quotes by scientists like Eldridge, Gould, and Raup have appeared in creationist literature for years. Get off your lazy butts and look up the original sources for these quotes. They are completely and totally out of context and misleading.
The article quotes information from Encyclopedia Encarta and Time magazine. Hardly scientific sources. I would fail a freshman student writing a scientific research paper citing sources like this.
This paper is a textbook example of pseudoscience. A poor understanding of paleontology, geology, and evolutionary biology combined with straw man arguments, misquotations, and secondary or tertiary source material.
Of course, this will not convince the true believers who equate young-earth creationism with Christianity.
Which dog is yours in this fight?
You are way to subtle for this ole country boy. Please elucidate.
I see a (designed) proto frog, and a catfish. So what?
"...both theories."
There you go, evolution is proven. We now have mugwomps.
Despite your opinion, thanks for the bump. :-)
Yes, it IS. The first part of your sentence is the definition of theory. Theory is a strong word. You mean it is not a hypothesis. People in aviation take a course called something like "Theory of Flight". Like this: http://www.aerodiamond.com/flight_theory.htm
Or this: http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/index-theory.html
See my post #22.
I ran across a website with this heading: "United Flight 93 Crash Theory Home Page - The Real Story of Flight 93". Incorrect use of the word 'theory' in the scientific sense. They should have used 'hypothesis'.
You have to remember that to an evolutionist EVERY living creature, man included, is a "transitional" form. Ironically, they're right about man but don't realize it and won't acknowledge it.
You must notify the Smithsonian right away. . or the zoo!
As indeed am I -- but we were talking about mammals, not God.
We no doubt differ in how we read the Bible. It would appear that you find a conflict between your faith and science; it is clear from these threads that some Christians (mostly in the USA) do. I don't (indeed, worldwide, most don't) but that's fine, I respect your understanding of scripture. You are not compelled to trouble with science if you find a conflict with your faith.
Thanks for your kindness, but I'm well aware of what the scientific definition of a theory is. I was merely trying to point out that the website, and the people here parroting it's claims, are the ones unclear of the concept.
Why the egg? Why wasn't the chicken created on the fifth day? Why start with an egg?
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.