Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

It's an interesting theory, but by what mechanism does God manipulate the genome? Artifical selection? Manipulation on environment? Magic? I'm just curious.

This is obviously false. The meaning of words is defined entirely by the community of speakers using them. That's why dictionaries go out of date and why languages change over time.If words have no inherent meaning, as they obviously do not, I don't see how they could have the power you ascribe to them. You've got somefunny ideas but don't you think you should have bounced them off a linguist first?

Oh, I imagine you don't. It is, nonetheless, accurate. Has that ever been followed? I doubt it. Go to the cities of Italy and observe how the local name is much, much different than the name you're familiar with. I.e. Florence/Firenze.The very existence of more than one language proves you wrong, and proves that "hypothesis" to be fact.There are symbols, and there are referents. But referents themselves can only be decribed in words. All words reduce only to words. There's just no way to define a word except as other words.

Well, I for one used to be a young-earth creationist. Now I'm an evolutionist. So there's at least one person for whom that is true. And that's fine. While I don't personally choose to believe in any gods, I didn't make that choice because of evolution. Evolution is perfectly consistent with the concept of a creator God.What is isn't consistent with, unfortunately for some, is a literal reading of the Bible. But then, you don't have to believe in a literal Bible in order to believe in God, now do you?Good luck with whatever you believe.

Glad to know that, as a 16-year-old kid, you feel yourself in a position of sufficient authority to dictate terms of nomenclature to the entire scientific community.Who died and left you Samuel Johnson?

Message moved to more appropriate forum.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2004]

That's my bad. I had you confused with another poster. I apologize. I'm a funny man. Since Navy has seen fit to open an entire thread about my funny retort (though I wonder how a three-line remark can be considered a "tirade"), maybe you'd like to defend your statement over there? (The "Frog Tirade" thread.) Since over here you still haven't explained where you're getting your definitions of "theory" and "law", definitions that appear at odds with how they're actually used. For instance I assume you'll agree that the Germ Theory of Disease and the Kinetic Theory of Gases are more than supported by empirical evidence, right? Yet they remain theories, right?{Note from Adminnemooseus: The "Frog Tirade" topic was a response, by Navy10E, to a reprimand of him by me. I think the "Frog Tirade" is intended to refer to what Navy10E said about Crashfrog, and not to what Crashfrog said. Anyhow, the link's there, if anyone wants to check the thing out.}{Note from me: Oh. Yeah, that makes sense, doesn't it...}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2004][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-15-2004]