[Ichneumon]

[On the one hand, we have freedumb2003, whose definition of theory in a scientific context matches the one used by the scientific community, who would probably be in a position to know it and get it right, on the other hand we have you and your own personal definition of it, which is at odds with how science actually uses the term, not to mention that you're the guy who can't even get it right when you try to make an objective, verifiable claim like the degree of DNA similarity between snakes/monkeys/humans...]

No, He’s not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.

And the scientific community? Your personal "definition" supercedes the one that scientists themselves actually use. How "special" of you. I'm sure you consider your definition of a scientific term to be somehow "better" than that used by scientists, but hey, you're entitled to think whatever you like, no matter how ludicrous it might be.

F= M whatever is a freakin’ formula, not a theory..

"F= M whatever"? ROFL! Can't even remember one of the most elementary and foundational equations of physics, eh? No wonder you're out of your depth on these science discussions.

And why are you misrepresenting what freedumb2003 actually wrote? Besides the obvious motive, I mean... What he actually said was, "And, to some degree F=ma is a theory (using the lay definition)". He was clearly *NOT* claiming that it was a theory in the scientific sense. Why are you now attempting to claim that he did? Please explain your actions.

TTOE is a theory, not science.

Now you're just being goofy (or very confused). Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them. Theories are the very heart of science. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this? Do you think it's advancing your cause any, or helping to bolster your credibility on this subject? If so, you're very mistaken. Quite the contrary, in fact.

TTOE is indeed a theory, and it is indeed science. Deal with it, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to clumsily split semantic hairs.

And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.

No, you are not, and repeating the false claim only digs you deeper.

It speaks volumes that you YET AGAIN FAIL TO MAKE EVEN A TOKEN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM when challenged, even when you could make an easy $1000 if you could.

You clearly can't, and what's worse, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T. Yet you persist in blustering and repeating the claim. Why do you do this? Do you really think this is acceptable behavior for one who is trying to present himself as on the side of righteousness?

Been through that argument before as well.

Yes, and you failed before as well. You've been playing these games here for years.

Posting biased crap will not help you there either.

If you can point out where I have actually posted any "biased crap", I'll be more than glad to retract it and apologize. Unlike yourself.

Now let's cut to the chase again. You very falsely claimed that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." This is very, very wrong. You've been challenged to support this false claim, or to retract it and apologize. You could even earn $1000 for demonstrating that it's true, not to mention demonstrating a fact that, if true, really *would* be a big blow against current theories evolutionary origins. And yet you run away from the challenge, you don't even make a token attempt to support it. This is, unfortunately, typical anti-evolutionist behavior. Do you think this is helping your case, or helping your credilibity? I'd really like an answer to this question.

Not only do you fail to support your false claim when (repeatedly) asked to do so, you actually brashly *repeat* and *broaden* the false claim. This, too, is unfortunately typical anti-evolutionist behavior -- trying to "win" an argument by bluffing so doggedly that their opponents just give up due to the futility of trying to get the anti-evo to debate honorably. Do you really think this is helping your case, or your credibility?

One more time, Nathan: Support or retract your false claim that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." Your credibility is on the line. Show us that an anti-evo can actually be honorable for a change, instead of gameplaying and evading. It would be refreshing.

[OneVike]

Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them.

Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?

One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse. In 2005 five he wrote a book titled "The Evolution Creation Struggle". Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design. Here is and excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book,
"My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."

Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions. Now while both religions can use some of the same technologies to scientifically prove certain portions of their belief systems, they are still religions that need the followers to have faith.

The difference is one religion has millions of variations with many different names to entice many different people depending upon the many different desires of man. Ultimately, this religion boils down to a belief that man is or can be God. So this religion try's as it has for thousands of years to dispel any notion that the true God of the Universe is the sole Creator and Judge of that which He created.

The other religion say's that the universe and everything in it, including man, was created by the one and only "I Am", who was and is and is to come. This religion has for 3500 years based its belief upon the Scriptures, first the Hebrew Scriptures and then later upon the New Testament Scriptures. This religion has been forced by those who would discount it as nothing more then an emotional collection of fables and fairy tales to seek ways of debating for the minds of the intellectually educated masses of modern society. In doing so they have mastered the same methods used by evolutionists, and now stand toe to toe in their ability to convince the educated they are right.

So now we are all at the point of time where we could argue and debate each other until God Himself returns and creates enough heat to melt the very elements both sides debate over. However you look at it, both sides are ultimately putting their money on their ability to have more faith then the other side. Christians admit that our belief in God does come down to faith, now we have one of the leading proponents of the other side admitting the same thing.

The great unwashed in the middle are the true targets of both sides. I for one bring these subjects up so that I may convince one or two of the undecideds every once in a while that my side is right. If by the grace of God I can change the belief of one who has committed their faith to the religion of evolution, then Praise to God we will have one less soul burning in hell when Christ returns.