Question
Matt Casey
Dana Tweedy
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Creationism is a religious belief, not a theory.
DJT
Ye Old One
<mattca...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Creationism is not, and never has been, a theory.
Therefore Evolution, which is a valid and highly respected scientific
theory, is currently the only contender.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Boikat
> � � �Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
"Creationism" is not only not a scientific theory, it's not even a
scientific hypothesis. As a matter of fact, "creationism" has nothing
to do with science, aside from the creationist barbarians banging
their heads against the wall, wanting "in". They think that by
pretending to be all "scientifical", they can claim their religious
dogma reflects reality, and they can justify, in their minds, their
*religious* beliefs. They can think that if it makes them feel
better, but the problem is that they want everyone else to accept
their *religious* belief as science, also. Unfortunatly, their "dogma
does not hunt", when it comes to actual reality (The Earth is not a
recent divine creation, life is not a recent divine creation, there
was no "Noah's flood", and so on.)
Boikat
bpuharic
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
creatiionism isnt a theory. the idea that 'god did it' can be used to
explain everything; flat tires, missing homework, or the origin of the
universe. because it has no testable mechanism, it's not a theory.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:20:14 -0800 (PST), Matt Casey
> <mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
>
> creatiionism isnt a theory. the idea that 'god did it' can be used to
> explain everything; flat tires, missing homework, or the origin of the
Missing homework? As in Dog ate my homework?
> universe. because it has no testable mechanism, it's not a theory.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ron O
There is no scientific theory of creationism, so there cannot be a
valid scientific theory of creationism. There is a valid scientific
theory of biological evolution. Does that answer your question?
There is a collection of assertions and wild speculations that cannot
be scientifically verified associated with creationism, but that is
more a "theory" in one of the definitions of the word in common use.
It isn't the type of theory that biological evolution is. A
scientific theory is the highest designation that some notion can get
in science. It is something that has been verified to the extent that
it would be stupid to deny it. It isn't just a wild guess or baseless
assertion. The anti-evolution creationist faction likes to lie to
their supporters about this issue. On the one hand they claim that
evolution is "just a theory" trying to fool the rubes into thinking
that they mean wild guess, and on the other hand they claim to have a
theory, trying to fool the rubes into thinking that they have
something equivalent to a scientific theory. It is a dishonest tactic
and you seem to have fallen for it.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> � � �Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Creationism.
With creationism, young-earthism and old-earthism can be true at the
same time. You can be related to your dog or cat if you want, or
unrelated if that's what you want. Ain't that more fun than that
stuffy old evolution? With evolution if you claim that the Earth is
4.0 or 5.0 billion years old, that's just as wrong as saying that it's
5 minutes old. And you have to conduct tedious tests to support your
conclusions, and have them reviewed by other scientists who'd love to
prove you wrong. With creationism you can sit in your easy chair and
figure it all out.
TomS
<31e3e79d-cc0c-40f3...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
I suggest taking a look at the "Rational Wiki" article on "Scientific
theory":
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scientific_theory>
(This is not my ideal of a perfect exposition of the topic, but it
makes some points. Maybe some of you would like to improve on it.)
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Devils Advocaat
> � � �Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
That depends on what you mean by a theory. :)
Steven L.
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Is this a trick question?
-- Steven L.
Bob T.
Perhaps somebody told this guy to wander over to talk.origins and ask
it. His next effort was to ask a Baptist newsgroup whether Jesus or
Mohammed was the better spokesman for God.
- Bob
>
> -- Steven L.
bpuharic
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:20:14 -0800 (PST), Matt Casey
>> <mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
>>
>> creatiionism isnt a theory. the idea that 'god did it' can be used to
>> explain everything; flat tires, missing homework, or the origin of the
>
>Missing homework? As in Dog ate my homework?
god's the biggest dog in town...
Ron O
> "On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:15:19 -0800 (PST), in article
I wouldn't change much about it. They might add a real time example
of how a scientific theory is developed. They could use string theory
as an example. It is called string "theory" but it hasn't made the
grade as what is usually considered to be a scientific theory at this
time. The proponents know this, admit it openly, and are spending a
lot of time trying to figure out how to make it to the level that they
want to attain. They have a lot of math and can resolve some issues,
but there is a technological roadblock in producing any definitive
tests. They haven't given up and are trying to get the lab rats to
push the technology to a level where they can make a determination.
It is the sort of thing that the IDiot/creationist contingent should
be doing, but have given up on.
Ron Okimoto
Stephen
Yes. This joker posted the same thing 3 months ago:
From: Matt Casey <mattca...@gmail.com>
Subject: Which Is The More Valid Theory?
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
<ff1844bd-cb08-4152...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydvxgpc
Regards,
Stephen
--
half...@bfe.inc
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:20:14 -0800 (PST), Matt Casey
>> <mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
>>
>> creatiionism isnt a theory. the idea that 'god did it' can be used to
>> explain everything; flat tires, missing homework, or the origin of the
>
>Missing homework? As in Dog ate my homework?
Only if you are dyslexic.
Desertphile
<mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Neither are theories.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Matt Casey wrote:
Neither is evolution a theory: evolutionary theory is.
raven1
<mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Evolution is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution describes it.
Creationism is a religious opinion, not a theory.
HTH.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
Babblical cretinism is no (scientific) theory.
Case closed.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Earle Jones
bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:58:42 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:20:14 -0800 (PST), Matt Casey
> >> <mattca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
> >>
> >> creatiionism isnt a theory. the idea that 'god did it' can be used to
> >> explain everything; flat tires, missing homework, or the origin of the
> >
> >Missing homework? As in Dog ate my homework?
>
> god's the biggest dog in town...
*
"...sorry that my kharma ran over your dogma."
earle
*
chris thompson
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:20:14 -0800 (PST), Matt Casey
>
> > Which is the more valid theory? Creationism or Evolution?
>
> Neither are theories.
My personal opinion is that this is a nit too small to pick.
If the statement "Evolution is both fact and theory" was good enough
for S.J. Gould, it's surely good enough for me.
Chris