It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Crossless2.0]

Huggy, it doesn't seem like you actually have a coherent grasp of what you believe.  Saying things like, 'the way science spins it,' and 'the scientific version of,' only highlights your ignorance.   There does not exist multiple, equally plausible versions of the theory of evolution for people to pick and choose from depending on what sounds good to them.  There is only the correct description which arose from the scientific method, and is supported by evidence.  If your personal interpretation differs, then you are simply wrong.

*emphasis mine*

Key word being "THEORY".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Full Definition of theory

plural the·o·ries

   1:  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
   2:  abstract thought :  speculation
   3:  the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
   4 a :  a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
      b :  an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
   5:  a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
   6 a :  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
      b :  an unproved assumption :  conjecture
      c :  a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

There is only the correct description which arose from the scientific method, and is supported by evidence.  If your personal interpretation differs, then you are simply wrong.

Evolution (the scientific version) has never been subjected to the scientific method, because that would require it to actually be OBSERVED. Point me to the experiment showing an ape evolving to a human.

Wow, Huggy, usually when you play the dictionary game it's to obfuscate, but this is just outright, blatant dishonesty. How did you manage to quote the dictionary, highlight certain uses of the word 'theory', and still manage to pretend that the relevant use of the word isn't there?

As far as evolution not being observed? Oh, wait . . . you're one of those who accept "micro-evoluton" but deny that "macro-evolution" takes place, right? You realize that these are terms made up by the creationist crowd for rhetorical talking points, and that these terms aren't really in use among scientists, right?

No, of course not. Or rather, you do know that because it's been explained at AF probably hundreds of times by now, but you don't care because you'd rather win an argument dishonestly (or at least derail it) than be correct about something at the expense of your faith. In other words, when it comes to you it's same-old same-old.