Well, I think we've been over these 'issues' many many times in this thread. Not sure if you are trained in science, but you should familiarize yourself with what a theory means.

Ok, so just a couple of follow ups.

As I mentioned above, refamiliarize yourself with what theory means.

As more knowledge is uncovered (literally) or as new experiments are conducted that add to the body of knowledge, or even change past conclusions, does this throw the Theory of Evolution into question? If you think it has, I'd like to see some sources. In fact, over the past 150 years, new understandings on the Theory of Evolution have greatly strengthened the theory. In these experiments, facts are indeed discovered and stated in peer reviewed scientific journals. It's these individual facts that add to a theory, as they do in all scientific disciplines.

And as to your evolution is a religion statement, well, I won't respond to that as it's just nonsense.

From the second page of this thread:

Here's a good description of what it means to be a Scientific Theory. The idea of creationism cannot pass this test. But the theory of evolution can and does.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Interesting.....

Creationism Vs. Evolution: An American Problem, An American Opportunity - 13.7: Cosmos And Culture Blog : NPR

Very interesting piece mriff. I know that I never run into these questions anywhere but in this country, and that includes dealing with folks who are devout believers in a range of faiths. It really does seem to be uniquely characteristic of the United States.

First off, I am a Christian who believes in both creationism and evolution. Why couldn't God be behind evolution? I believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years. When God created the earth in 6 "days" they didn't have to be human days. A day is just a relative measurement of time. Unfortunately, our understanding of the world has to be in our terms and measurements, even though God may not use those.
That being said, teach evolution in science class. Have classes for major religions too, just under a different department to keep the scientific community happy. Explain your beliefs to your kids, but after that, they are free to make their own decisions just like every one else.

Thank you!

That's how I like to think of it. I'm not religious but I am a bit spiritual. I like the balance idea. God creating dinosaurs is a neat idea. Like Raptor Jesus.

I get into arguments with one of my Christian friends who says it is impossible for life to exist on other planets, because if it did God would have told us. Why can't there be a God for each planet? Or the whole universe? Is it really so far fetched of an idea that life could exist elsewhere?

Sorry, a bit off topic, made me think about this.

Still off topic a bit, but the chance of life existing on other planets is so overwhelmingly great as to be certain.

It's true, and I miss my relatives. Hopefully one day I can get back to the home planet to see them again.

:razz:

Let's start a thread on it then!

Wow. I'm at a loss for words.

Poll: Majority of Texans Reject Evolution - Charles Johnson - The Lizard Annex - True/Slant

I find it absolutely amazing. The contrast with the academic reputation of the University at Austin, compared to these findings, simply blows my mind.

Here's an article for ya. Not sure what to say about this, except it was difficult to get all the way through it.

Evolutionism: the dying West's science of magic and madness

I thought this passage was particularly interesting:

In short, the age of irrationalism, lawlessness, hedonism, megalomania, and utopia-madness commenced when the rational personal God, His Revelation, unchanging Truth and Universal Moral Law were cunningly displaced by naturalistic evolutionism, astral-plane spirit-revelations, pantheistic-conceptions of god-forces, christ-consciousness, animated 'thinking' dead matter , 'force and voice ideas, ' inverted morality and moral relativism, Orwellian doublespeak, and terrible-willed megalomaniacs claiming to be supermen and god-men. These are the unifying factors of Bolshevism, Nazism, and America's Progressive Liberalism.

She probably drove her creative writing teachers crazy.

I will have to read that when I get a chance. My first thought from the quoted passage was, "my, let's invoke every bogey-man that I can remember."

It's far worse than you can imagine. Scary to the extreme that someone actually believes this.

But I must admit, the hedonism part sounds ok to me. :smile:

Good grief. :-(

LOL! Reading that self-important soliloquy made me dizzy. It's like Glenn Beck on acid. I can't decide whether she thinks she might get through to someone, or whether this volley was aimed at the proverbial choir, but in either case she has failed miserably. No amount of fireworks can distract from the author's lack of meaningful engagement on the subject.

Glen Beck on acid. Perfect. (y) I was searching for an analogy when I read the article, but couldn't come up with one.

And hey, what's wrong with hedonism?

he·don·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2. devotion to pleasure as a way of life: The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism.

Sounds pretty good to me! :razz: