Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: connectthedots

Evolutionists even admit that evolution is only a theory

A theory requires proof by definition. It is not a opinion.


124 posted on 01/13/2006 11:53:43 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: jec41
A theory requires proof by definition. It is not a opinion.

Your ignorance as to the definition of a a term as basic as 'scientific theory' disqualifies you as anyone to be taken seriously in this debate. Are you really that ignorant?

To be a theory, it must be testable. Evolution is not testable. Since it is not testable, evolution fits much better within the definition of a scientific model than a theory.

BTW, I also consider ID/creation to be a model since neither of those are testable, either. At least I am intellectually honest in that regard. You on the other hand, are simply uninformed.

129 posted on 01/14/2006 12:05:32 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: jec41
We got to where we are in one way.

I don't trouble m'self too much about how that was. It's a miracle.

But when I was about ten years old, I started discovering fossils in shale along the faultline that runs through Portsmouth RI. Collected samples of about half a dozen ferns and leaves over the course of a summer.

I did a little reading and found out that these types of fossils and the shale were pegged at about 56 million years-old....Carboniferous Era.

One day it occurred to me that some of this 56 million year-old rock I was splitting had what seemed to be organic remains of the plant membranes in them...greeny stuff. Many were more with crystalline deposits...sort of asbestos-or pyrite-looking material. But others had goo....green goo... that I could wipe away...like fresh grass stains.

I started to wonder just how old this rock and these fossils were, so I was spurred to make a survey of the plants growing around the area to see how many specimens I could find that 'matched' or at least closely resembled the fossil imprints I was finding in split 56 million year-old shale.

That year in grammar school, I put together a science project that displayed the fossils and their counterparts I found growing in the same area.

The teachers were scratching their heads. It was rumored that I had talent as a sculptor...that I fabricated the fossils. Except for my science teacher, who knew the fossils were authentic...we later went together to collect more....and just shrugged his shoulders as to how it could be that several 56 million year-old fossils were still growing, and that seemingly organic material remained in some discoveries. He related that we don't know more than we know.

Since, I've become aware of Creationist assertions that fossils are not as old as the geologists say....largely poo-pooed by real geeks in white lab coats. I don't know...nor do I care much. But I think there's some merit in the argument, based on what I saw.

My story...stickin' too it.

If you're a fossil expert, I'm still curious about the explanation for my observations. I never did become a fossil scientist. I got into a band. There were girls.

138 posted on 01/14/2006 12:19:43 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: jec41

Evolutionists even admit that evolution is only a theory

A theory requires proof by definition. It is not a opinion.


---

Nope. Mathematicians deal in proof. Well, mathematicians and distillers. Scientists deal in EVIDENCE. And the is literally tons of evidence for evolution.


245 posted on 01/14/2006 10:13:01 AM PST by TheWormster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson