Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

I swear, this is what irks me more than anything else in the Creation vs Evolution debate.Only a theory?By the definition most Creationists (and unfortunately even non-Creationist laymen) use for "theory," a theory is nothing more than an idea that popped into someone's head. By this definition, theories carry no weight of evidence, have not been tested, and any idea is just as good as any other. This is why we see idiots like the Kansas State School Board voting for equal time for "alternative theories." After all, if Evolution is "just a theory," then any other idea someone comes up with is just as valid.A Scientific Theory, on the other hand, is far more significant than a simple guess. A scientific hypothesis must propose a mechanism that produces falsifiable predictions. To attain the status of a Theory, a hypothesis must be repeatedly tested and retested by scientists around the world. It must withstand the rigors of the peer review process. It must have supporting evidence. It must become widely accepted by the scientific community as a highly accurate description of the natural process it describes.Theories include the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, and, of course, the Theory of Evolution. All of these theories have been tested and retested. Scientists around the world have made their best efforts to find evidence which would falsify them and failed to do so. These theories so accurately describe their respective natural mechanisms that we base entire branches of science on them. Where would Astronomy and Physics be without Relativity or Gravity? WHere would Biology and Pharmacology be without Evolution? We understand these ideas to be the most accurate descriptions available of all of the evidence gathered to date.Whenever as Creationist says "it's just a theory," it becomes obvious that the Creationist has literally no idea what they are talking about.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Whether you believe anything or not is not what I was talking about, Tal. Do you even know what a Scientific Law is? Do you not realize that the law you reference was once a theory, as were all other scientific laws?I don't honestly care whether you "believe" a theory accurately represents reality or not, Tal. What I was saying in my post was that most people, yourself apparently included, either don't understand or make no distinction between the words "idea" and "theory." A scientific theory connotates a great deal more than a simple hypothesis or random person's idea. A scientific theory carries the weight of evidence and has been tested by the peer review process. To make the statement "it's just a theory" demonstrates a clear lack of any knowledge of science.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Correction:Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible.Whether the Bible contains the absolute infallable Word of the One True God is a matter of personal faith and belief.If you, or anyone, wants to take on pure faith that the Bible trumps all evidence, in effect saying that 1+1=3 if the Bible says so, that's fine, so long as it's understood that it's a matter of personal belief and faith.Observable, reproducible evidence shows the Bible to be blatantly false in several historical accounts, as well as the entirity of the origin of the universe and life. Faith can allow you to ignore that evidence - but saying that the Bible is infallible is to say that black is white and up is down. Those who are not willing to believe based entirely on blind, irrational faith will not be convinced that what they can see with their own two eyes is wrong.Everyone is entitled to their own belief structures. But attempting to "prove" that Evolution is wrong because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible is a fruitless exercise. Those who believe the Bible is infallable already share that belief. Those who do not will not be convinced that observable evidence is wrong by a very old book.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Evolution says nothing of the sort. You are speaking about entirely different theories, LB.Evolution states only that new species slowly evolve out of pre-existing species, as a result of small generational changes in the structure of offspring guided by natural selection.Abiogenesis, the origins of the universe, the origin of our planet, are all irrelevant to evolution. Seperate theories. Evolution does not state that "life came from a rock" as Tal likes to say. Neither does evolution claim to explain the origins of our universe or the formation of planetary systems. Even if those other theories are falsified, evolution would still stand unless it is falsified individually.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

No! No, no, no no NO!Tal, you don't even know what evolution does say!Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If abiogeness is true OR false, evolution still stands. They are entirely seperate issues!Perhaps if you could use some reference other than Wikipedia, or even just read the article a bit more closely, you would see that. Abiogenesis is related to evolution only in that it is widely held to be a possible origin for life, which evolved from there. Evolution does not depend on how life came about - it only requires that life exists, and then predicts that new species will evolve from pre-existing species through small generational changes guided by natural selection. That is all. Yes, we DO.

quote:

---

1. Primula kewensis was speciated from Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda in 1912 by Digby via hybridization and polyploidization.
2. It was shown that you could reproduce the existing species Tragopogon mirus by hybridizing Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius, as demonstrated by Owenby in 1950.
3. In 1969, Pasterniani demonstrated speciation (as defined by reproductive isolation) via artificial selection rather than hybridization. He took two existing varieties of maize, planted them in a field, and over a 5 year period, selected only kernels which were not interbred for the next year's planting. At the end of this 5 year period, the plants' natural likelihood of interbreeding had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
4. In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.

---

Not to mention that we see evolution all the time in microbes, whose reproductive rates are fast enough for us to observe in a laboratory setting. Note that the so-called "superbugs," germs who have evolved a resistance to certain medical treatments, are seen all the time. The germs who are not resistant die off, leaving those who are to multiply. Small differences guided by natural selection at work right in front of you. Don't be dense. The terms "family, genus," and other classifications are directluy related to representing what specific branch of the evolutionary tree a particular species belongs to. That argument is still valid, becuase we CANNOT observe within our own lifetimes a large degree of evolutionary change in the majority of species - they just don't reproduce quickly enough. But we CAN see it in organisms like bacteria, and we can see the obvious evidence in existing species. Every feature of every species is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species. No feature is truly unique. THis suggests common ancestry, and is exactly what evolution predicts. That's abiogenesis, an entirely different subject wholly seperate from evolution. And stating "it is too complex" is an argument from incredulity - just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean it isn't so. You would have to provide evidence that complexity is not natural.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Try using a more reliable source. Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge Tal, and there ARE more accurate places to find it.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Did I miss something?What in God's name does Isaac Asimov have to do with anything in this thread?You realize he was primarily a science fiction writer, right? I don't see how he is at all relevant. Qualifications are irrelevant. All that matters is the argument. A 10-year-old child can make an argument and be correct - the argument is not affected by its source.As to your other comments:Math is not a science, hoaryhead. Neither is writing or reading.Science includes biochemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. Not math.Science deals in the observation of the natural world, positing an educated guess as to an explanation of the data, and the testing of that hypothesis through the peer review process.Mathematics does not concern experimental observations, theories, or falsifications. Math can be used to conclusively PROVE things - science only deals in finding the most highly accurate representation of the real world possible. Math is used in the persuit of science, but it is an entirely seperate entity.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.