[metmom]

In fact, most of the the people who post on and about these threads could not define a Scientific Theory if their life depended on it.

All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.

Still trying to figure out on what basis you continue to lecture people with degrees in science on what science is all about.

[ColdWater]

All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.

Is that the now standard for credibility on these threads?

[GodGunsGuts]

Good point, Metmom. Come to think of it, I can’t recall Freedumb sticking around long enough to debate much of anything. Hey Freedumb, why don’t you post a “Top Three Reasons Evolution is True” or some such, and we will come. C’mon, let’s see what you’re made of.

PS Remember, if you post the debate thread, we will come!!!

[freedumb2003]

>>All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.<<

One does not need a degree in science to understand it. One need but to understand it. If I am wrong, I, as always, invite you to tell me where I am scientifically wrong.

>>Still trying to figure out on what basis you continue to lecture people with degrees in science on what science is all about.<<

When people use astrology in place of astronomy, any layperson with a telescope, a stopwatch and a 100-YO star chart is in a position to claim science over superstition.

And please tell us who on these threads who do not understand science have science degrees. If it is you, then please post your understanding of what a Scientific Theory is. Then you can explain how TToE does not pass muster AND how an ID does. We all await your (or any “scientist”) response.

Your constant ad hominem attacks on my posts do nothing to advance your cause.

And that saddens me, because I think you are a good, if very addled, person.

The worst part is that you think that by advancing ignorance as a cause you are doing God’s work, when it is Satan that laughs at delight at your spreading willful ignorance.

[editor-surveyor]

Its free, dumb scienceography (or is that scienceology?)

Anyway, its free, so don’t look a dead horse in the rectum!

[count-your-change]

If my life depended on defining “scientific theory” I’d have lots of life lines:

“Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:

a theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

( in scientific theory ) ...of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528929/scientific-method

a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.
farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/

To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. ...
www.sciencelearn.org.nz/help/glossary/(namefilter)/s

A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It studies the character of natural reality. Scientific Management (6). System of management popular in the first decades of the 20th c. ...
www.udmercy.edu/faculty_pages/staudenmaier_sj/ethics/glossary.html

an explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific community.
peninsula.swiftclassroom.com/kms/molson/documents/scientific_process_vocab.doc

A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.
lams.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/science7/Earth’sHistory/Evolution/CH.%207%20Vocabulary.doc

Take your pick.