Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

greytone · 05-06-2003, 06:39 PM

Raeanna74,

Evolution is not "just" a theory. It IS a theory. Admiting it is not a problem for scientists because they understand what the word means. The use of the word does not imply that it is an untested wild idea. My old dictionary has four definitions, the first of which is "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art." The overwhelming amount of data supports the theory. There are few people who claim the title of scientist because they attained the appropriate degrees, who then are guided by their religious principles. They can not accept evolution and misrepresent facts and ideas in a way that makes them popular with people who do not understand how fundamentally flawed their arguments are. Every time I have reviewed the writings or arguments of one of these "biologists" I have been left with the conclusion that they were, at best, being intellectually dishonest with themselves. I stand by my origianal statement that I have ran across anyone who understands the modern theory of Evolution and still considers it unproven.

So-called microevolution is evolution in that it is change over time. Granted, it is not speciation, but it remains an important, but incomplete part of the larger body of data that proves the theory of Evolution.

I will give you another example of how the idea of how the use of the word theory can be misleading.

There are two theories about the ultimate nature of matter. One is that matter is composed of particles. The other, waveforms. The irony is that both theories are true and have been proven so repeatedly. They have been merged into one theory and although the facts that make up that theory are proven, the word theory is still used to describe a body of knowledge.

05-06-2003, 06:39 PM	#72 (permalink)
greytone Junkie	Raeanna74, Evolution is not "just" a theory. It IS a theory. Admiting it is not a problem for scientists because they understand what the word means. The use of the word does not imply that it is an untested wild idea. My old dictionary has four definitions, the first of which is "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art." The overwhelming amount of data supports the theory. There are few people who claim the title of scientist because they attained the appropriate degrees, who then are guided by their religious principles. They can not accept evolution and misrepresent facts and ideas in a way that makes them popular with people who do not understand how fundamentally flawed their arguments are. Every time I have reviewed the writings or arguments of one of these "biologists" I have been left with the conclusion that they were, at best, being intellectually dishonest with themselves. I stand by my origianal statement that I have ran across anyone who understands the modern theory of Evolution and still considers it unproven. So-called microevolution is evolution in that it is change over time. Granted, it is not speciation, but it remains an important, but incomplete part of the larger body of data that proves the theory of Evolution. I will give you another example of how the idea of how the use of the word theory can be misleading. There are two theories about the ultimate nature of matter. One is that matter is composed of particles. The other, waveforms. The irony is that both theories are true and have been proven so repeatedly. They have been merged into one theory and although the facts that make up that theory are proven, the word theory is still used to describe a body of knowledge. __________________ I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing. Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"