Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
My male was fixed before I got him, so around here we're all spared the indignity of observing that, ah ... joyous activity. But for those dogs who are intact, I guess that they, in their own way, give thanks to the Intelligent Designer.
Typical evolutionist snobbery. You can't find it therefore it doesn't exist. No wonder you are losing the battle.
theory (thEEuh-rEE)
noun: plural: theories.
1. A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or
class of phenomena.
2. A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an
art or discipline.
3. Abstract thought untested in practice.
4. An assumption or guess.
[< Greek theoria.]
--theoretical (-reti-kuhl) --adjective
--theoretically --adverb
I'll accept your admission of error at your earliest convenience.
I regret to inform you that calling it names does not make the mountains of evidence for it go away.
If it were a theory, it should be debatable and testable.
It is a theory, it is debatable (and has been, endlessly), and it is testable. Unfortunately for the anti-evolutionists, it has passed countless tests with flying colors.
Where on Earth did you get the mistaken impression that it's not? Hint: You really ought to try reading more than just the creationist "literature".
Cellular evolution is demonstrable by simple high school experiments. Intraspecies variation from environmental pressure (the finches) is likewise trivial to demonstrate.
Fine so far.
Interspecies mutational change driven by environment, OTOH, lacks both a biologically plausible mechanism AND physical evidence that it has ever happened.
Oh dear, you've been reading the creationists instead of the science journals, I see.
There most certainly are "biologically plausible" mechanisms, *and* massive amounts of physical evidence that it has indeed happened. What have you been smoking?
This, of course, does not falsify it. But it DOES make its enthronement as dogma unscientific.
Well, since all of your premises are wrong, so is your conclusion. Care to try again?
Hopeless. You didn't win the argument. You just think you did. I never lie, btw. Accusing someone of lying should be backed up by some facts.
You have been reading Ken Ham too much. Kind is not a biological term.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
How about the 3000 admissions/apologies/corrections you owe the rest of the readers? And probably yourself...
Our eye is backwards and has a big blind spot. That's how I know God didn't design it.
It is clear to me that He did create everything by creating primordial energy. "Let there be light" Einstein's E=mc2
agrees with this. However, this has nothing to do with biological evolution or Darwin's Theory.
Darwin did not know about Mendel's work until after he published. Darwin predicted the genetic mechanism without knowing about it. Pretty good, eh?
LOL
You just don't get it, do you?
I get that your understanding of Biology is sadly lacking.
Do you think there may be such a beast?
I am still waiting for the logical evolutionist to assist you in understanding that theory has more than one meaning.
Regardless, why would you apply definition #4 (“An assumption or guess”)
Because that is exactly what evolution is. For the sake of argument, use any of the four definitions. That still does not change the fact that evolution is unobserved, unrepeatable, unverifiable, contradictory and systematically discontinuous.
snip....Has Darwin become dogma?
IonInsights, heavy into wishful thinking, responds....."No, scientific fact."
Yes of course, IonInsights, and it's also a fact that Superman really does fly.
Evolution Theory = 4. An assumption or guess.
Oh, I get it.
Typical Creationist that has his mind made up and searches until he finds some thread of evidence to "prove" it. He knows full well that the appropriate definition is #1. Why he thinks he can get away with #4 is a mystery to me.
These people are as bad for Republican political efforts as the Gay Marriage people are for the Dems. Both are unreasonable and will damage their own long term interests rather than take a reasonable approach.
Pure ego, I guess.
It's like the slow drivers in the mountains here in Arizona that won't pull over like the sign says they must to let faster cars pass. They're in front, and they just like to p#ss people off because they can.
Just like the dog can lick .....
theory (thEEuh-rEE)
noun: plural: theories.
1. A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or
class of phenomena.
2. A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an
art or discipline.
3. Abstract thought untested in practice.
4. An assumption or guess.
[< Greek theoria.]
--theoretical (-reti-kuhl) --adjective
--theoretically --adverb
Does this look right in your mind?
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.