Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
What I meant to say - and you could never have figured it out - was:
"It (evolution) is a theory NOT a theorem."
You ask me if English is my first language. No it is not. Actually my first language is Greek (modern although I can read classical Greek as well). Second is English, third is Italian, and fourth is Japanese (not as good as the first two). Also studied 4 years of Latin in HS.
Could be the addition of something, like a .45 slug.
Just wanted to offer something of value to the discussion.:-)
I am a professional computer fix it dude.
A theory in science is a much more substantial thing than a theory in the vernacular. 'Theory' in the scientific sense does not imply any element of doubt; thus, we have the 'theory of universal gravitation', and the 'atomic theory', both of which are most certainly true.
You're way over-modest. :-)
Actually, I know the problem; my disk-drive power supply is out. The real issue is whether a 5 year old Mac G3 is worth a whole lot of trouble to fix.
And you get your 'reliable' news from The Pitch. LOL
Mac G3?
I thought you said you had a computer? ;->
And the article you posted from "The Pitch" (LOL) doesn't say anything about anyone being invited to speak on 'their' behalf. Seems you need to be deceitful to further your own agenda. Tsk, tsk.
Of course, a theory implies that a consensus of scientists accept it - in the science sense. However, as you are aware, many scientific theories accepted by a consensus of scientists at one time or another have been debunked over the years. Theories change, times change, and the search for ? goes on. What many Christian faithful (including many scientists) ask for is that creatinoism/darwinism not be taught as the truth - as proven fact because it is not! Teaching it that way, contricts the creative thinking processes of budding scientists.
After all, asserting that amino acids can be changed to DNA because of natural selection or fluxes in physical energy, or that reptiles morph into birds, or humans into apes makes no sense and cannot really be justified scientifically.
An example is?
With an unknown AMOUNT of terms, let alone knowing the CHANCES of any one one term happening, this whole ODDS thing is a waste of time.
Let's make it simple:
What are the ODDS that a human will be born that can detect infrared like rattlers can?
What?
You got no response from our friends on the other side of the aisle??
I thought they wanted us crevos to learn something!!!
HMmmm........
What?
You got no response from our friends on the other side of the aisle??
I thought they wanted us crevos to learn something!!! HMmmm........
Oh, there's more.........
Oh...
NOW they are EXTREMISTS as well.
Ok, you E folks are supporting TERROR when you buy gas from blah, blah, blah!
Gosh! That feels SO good!
GOES insane?
Should we teach the atomic theory as proven fact, or just as one alternative?
Teaching it that way, contricts the creative thinking processes of budding scientists.
Does teaching that ordinary matter is made of atoms constrict the thought processes of budding chemists?
After all, asserting that amino acids can be changed to DNA because of natural selection or fluxes in physical energy, or that reptiles morph into birds, or humans into apes makes no sense and cannot really be justified scientifically.
No scientist I know asserts any of those things.
Oh great Derringer, god of death, hearken unto us!
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.