Where did you come from? (Your profile is a piece of work.)
If it's a compliment: Thank you. ;)
If it's not: I'll learn Flash. Or something.
Either way, I like to jump in these debates from time to time.
We should trust you to be a judge of anothers understanding of science?
Some creationist arguments are very difficult to debunk or refute, others are not. The "evolution is a theory" argument is the most easily refuted because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It's like saying to a mathematican that a triangle has four points.
A scientific law is no more authoritative than a scientific theory. Laws can change just as easily as theories. The difference, as other posters have pointed out to you, is a matter of semantics--a law is a specialized form of scientific theory.
When people say "evolution is only a theory", they confuse scientific theory with scientific hypothesis. Every scientist (or someone who has at least taken science at the college level) knows the difference between a theory, hypothesis, and a law.
536 posted on 03/13/2003 8:27:55 PM PST by Nataku X
(Never give Bush any power you wouldn't want to give to Hillary.)
A scientific law is no more authoritative than a scientific theory.
Aaaah, more semantics. A theory is garbage if it is not scientifically supported by the facts. That is what the discussion is about, not about the meaning of 'is', or 'alone' or 'theory'.
545 posted on 03/13/2003 9:21:03 PM PST by gore3000