Neanderthals apparently survived too.
Posted on 09/28/2013 12:01:33 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
The THEORY of Evolution is just THAT....a THEORY....passed on as "fact"
Do people really not understand what a theory is? Why is it offered up as if it were the opposite of "fact"? Scientific theories are not mere speculation thrown out there on a whim, but are explanations based on large bodies of evidence. Just think of all the theories out there which nobody treats with such hubris as they do evolution, like gravity, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, or that matter is composed of atoms. These are all theories too, after all. Sometimes I wonder what people really think science is all about.
Neanderthals apparently survived too.
Some of us are proud of our inner Neandrathal. <^..^>
“Do people really not understand what a theory is?”
Of course they don’t. Lay people are more familiar with the other common usage of “theory”, like when the guys on CSI come up with a “theory” of how a crime was committed. In common parlance, the word does carry the notion of an “educated guess”.
The scientific definition isn’t actually that far off, except that it is an educated guess which seems to conform to the observed phenomenon, and so has reached a level of common acceptance. Of course, some evolutionists or evolution apologists like to conflate “theory” with “settled science”, ala Al Gore. Just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it can’t be shown to be flawed, incomplete, or simply a coincidentally expedient representation of reality that doesn’t truly reflect the actual mechanisms being described.
QED
“No, it doesn’t.”
Of course it does! The entire “theory” is predicated on the idea that there is no God, and in making assumptions based on facts (which they twist and turn to fit their assumption) to provide a totally naturalistic explanation for all life on Earth. If you concede that the origin of all cells on Earth is outside the scope of what evolution can explain, it’s to put God back in the picture, which defeats the primary assumption.
“The earth is not flat. The Universe is flat.
Relatively.”
It is he who sits above the circle of earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 40:22 written around 2700 years ago
There’s lots of different scriptures about stretching the heavens out but I picked this one because it also tells us the earth was round. Bible believers are called flat-earthers but apparently they knew the facts long before others did.
SHOW US THE EVOLUTION!! ONE FACT.
...or, at least, it should! Science-falsely-so-called is more apt to deal with labyrinthine arguments that exist within givens and assumptions that are not necessarily true. Anthropogenic climate change (nee global warming), materialistic evolution and psychoanalysis are but examples.
From within these disciplines (which seem more akin to superstition than science), it is possible to commit random acts of logic, provided the underlying assumptions are true; but they aren't.
So, within the labyrinths, the esoteric reasonings and pronouncements and proposals these disciplines generate, the devotees are prone to look at those of us who don't buy into their assumptions as deniers and flat-earthers. It seems to make them feel very good about themselves as they harrumph around their self-absorbed, self-satisfied, self-deluded circles.
Chuckle. Me too.
However, of course he was not "praising it"; the article is a liberal Catholic spin.
Aw, c’mon . . . no pope is going to deny evolution! (Good to know what side you’re on Brian, having to clear the Pope’s name so no one will think he’s a creationist “heretic.” And you’re “conservative,” huh?)
Say, aren't you a Lincoln-hating neo-Confederate Dixiecrat?
And you believe in evolution too, huh? Good to know!
Of course not. But I bet if some scientist came up with a purely naturalistic explanation for the "virgin birth" you'd have a problem with it.
Nor do I.
No it's not! Why are you making stuff up? Do you really think that helps your case?
I’m an intelligent design advocate. I like Michael Behe’s approach. And I reject anyone out of hand that tries to apply a strict creationist litmus test to be considered a conservative. That’s just stupid. Being a strict creationist does not make one a conservative. It simply makes one a fundamentalist. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but its not the same thing as being a conservative.
Oh, and I had you in mind when I posted this thread. I forgot to ping you :0)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I believe in creation and I believe God created you and me and every damn thing else. Have a nice afternoon.
Sorry. I didn’t notice I was in the Religion forum. I usually stay away from this topic in this forum because I like to argue facts and don’t worry much about beliefs. Let’s just leave it at “No it’s not!”
“No it’s not! Why are you making stuff up? Do you really think that helps your case?”
Are you a troll, or what?
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.