[Nataku X]

Rather than clarifying what I meant, I'll remind you of the original point I was making...

ml/nj was arguing that SAT scores made one more of a scientific authority. My brother got a 1590 on the SAT, but he was only a lawyer by training and made the very common mistake of confusing a scientific theory with a scientific hypothesis. Someone educated in science would not make that argument. He's a brillant budding lawyer, not a scientist.

I, too, don't like semantics, and I'm not going to get into an argument on (law vs. theory vs. hypothesis). You and Alamo-Girl usually make high quality arguments, my brother did not, and the original point was that having a 1590 SAT did not put him on the level of Gould. So what? Cheers.

[ml/nj]

ml/nj was arguing that SAT scores made one more of a scientific authority.

Really?

Can I guess that English is not your mother tongue?

ML/NJ

[gore3000]

I'll remind you of the original point I was making...

My original point was that the post I addressed saying:

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.

Is a purely semantic argument and in another reply to me you seemed to agree. The argument by those opposed to evolution when they say that evolution is only a theory is basically that it is not scientifically verified. Perhaps they should say that evolution is not a theory but a hypothesis and a false one at that. However, since your reply was by your own admission a semantic one, it does not address the point ml/nj was trying to bring out and which those opposed to evolution constantly make - the lack of scientific evidence supporting evolution. It is thus a sidestepping of the point and in a sense nit-picking.