Evolution/creation 2

[Drich]

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

Besides that that particular dictionary is not the greatest, check out the 5th definition on the list: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

This is referring to the scientific definition of a theory. However, it's not nearly in depth enough. So look at the indepth version provided in the wiki article I sent and do check the citations they list.

For further clarification:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education music theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...s&q=theory

something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...y?q=theory


It's like you don't understand how dictionaries work or that words have multiple meanings. Stop being so smug.

Lol.. I posted ALL of the definations listed... I was going to slam you for appealing to wiki first because it matched your arguements ,and how now you arguement has seemingly changed to... what does it really matter. you know and I know what has happened here even if only one of us can admit it. That's good enough for me.

---

I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety.

The Bible never mentions anything remotely similar to evolution and The Bible is essentially where your brand of creationism originates from.

the account in Genesis only tells the account in detail from the garden perspective. the bible is silent as to what happens outside of the garden. i have only point to the fact that it is plausable, because nothing the bible says contradicts the evolutionary account of orgins.

You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.

that is the beautiful thing here. You can freely take my account of evolution out of the picture and put in whatever you wish with whatever time lines and names that tickel your fancy. the linch pin here is not me nor my level of education. It's the fact that there is no time line between creation and the fall.

The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and incase it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

you Really do not know what is going on here do you? or are you simply hoping and praying the 'standard' creation closing arguement will cover your loss for words.

---

So again show me where i added anything. please...

Soulless monkey men that evolved from single cell organisms ring a bell?

That's not me, that evolution. i am showing you how 'evolution could potentially fit with in the bounds of creation.

---

Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

Oh my, you're going to catch hell for this. There is no scientific truth, just theories all the way down. No matter how much reliability a scientific theory demonstrates it always retains its provisional status given additional evidence or a better interpretation of the known data.

Basically you are demonstrating exactly what is wrong with creation science in that it exists to support a predetermined conclusion.

Now your monkeyman theory, that's a real humdinger. Obviously since no scientific theory represents established fact, your monkeyman proposal is right up there with the best of them .. at least in your completely biased opinion. You lack the intellectual maturity to engage in determining which theory best fits the available evidence. Unless you take god's titty out of your mouth you'll never be able to take the first step.

Squeak, squeak, squeak..