Perry.."Evolution is a theory"

[antikristuseke]

But I prefer pork to beef

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Growler

I heard this exact sentiment expressed in 2004; the only difference was the initals.

Indeed. Running on the platform of "vote for me because I'm not the other guy!" didn't work for Kerry, and the GOP contenders would do well to remember that.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Sorry to say but your nephews are already dead. Best way to avenge their deaths are to eat as much beef as possible.

They were good lads, they'll be missed.

Anyway, moving on.

Pass me the steak sauce and another beer.

[antikristuseke]

The following contains creationist logic, read at own risk

How can you say "The Bible writers were wrong" but "the scientific writers are right?"

Were both not written by humans?

If science is just a conspiracy by the Illuminati, then science can not be relied upon.

If I told an atheist, "prove to me the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth without consulting a scientific textbook" you wouldn't be able to do it.

I find it very unfair that atheists can cite scientific books as evidence but I can't cite the Bible as evidence.

sauce http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=83119

[Platapus]

If I told an atheist, "prove to me the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth without consulting a scientific textbook" you wouldn't be able to do it.

The flaw in this logic is that it is not acknowledging that people have different levels of logic.

If you were to as me, an atheist, to prove that the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth, I could not do it without citing past scientific studies. Why? Because I am a layman in that area of knowledge.

But I can guarantee you that my boss, also an atheist, who has his Doctorate in Astronomy, could prove it if he had access to the proper instruments.

Just because a lay person with no knowledge of a topic can't prove something is hardly proof that such knowledge does not exist.

The difference between a scientist consulting a scientific text and a theist consulting a bible is that the scientific text has been tested, and will continue to be tested. As a scientific text it has to stand up to this testing or be considered invalid.

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable. That's why it is accepted as a matter of faith.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable. That's why it is accepted as a matter of faith.

The fundamental, simplest form of the expression: Theories can be proven wrong; faith can't.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

The following contains creationist logic, read at own risk

I did, and now I hate you. The reason? I spent a lot of time reading that entire thread. Some interesting stuff there.

Originally Posted by Morts

Gravity is also just a theory

I don't believe in Gravity.
Things just Suck!

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Morts

Gravity is also just a theory

Took me a while to dig this gem up, but there it is.

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Sauce: http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=21411

[Skybird]

Evolution indeed is just a theory. Anything science concludes and posts in models, is a theory. Even socalled scientific evidence - is just theories, models, though with a very heavy empirical fundament. But theories emerge by trial-error, test and retest. That's what differs them from speculation and hypothesis. Speculation is just making any random claim, picked from out of the blue. It is not tested, and holds no information whatever on its validity and truth. At best it is just a thought expertiment, which can be useful, but must not be useful every time. Hypothesis is kind of a speculation that bases on former observation or earlier theories, you try to extent a theory by a bit of imgaination - you form a hypothesis expanding the secured ground of theory. If such hypothesis can be hardened in test trials, experiments, by empircal evidence, then it becomes a theory, or a supplementation to an existing theory, or it alters existing theories.

So Perry is right when saying evolution is a theory. It indeed is just a model that helps us to sort our observations so far into the best possible order that allows us to bring more observations and finding sinto a structural order where we have far fewer contradicting data and more mutual validation of single facts and finding, than we could acchiueve with any other model.

Creationism is no theory, and certainly it is no fact. It is basing on magical fairy tale belief, on hear-say, on superstitious rumours. Not only does it not qualify for the status of a theory (not more than Star Wars does, for example), it is not even a hypothesis. To label creationism's babbled claims a "fact", is rich and a declaration of bancruptcy of every reasonmable, inteligent, thinking mind. The flying Spagetthi Monster, or the world created six thousand years ago and by a separate entitity called creator - both are statements of the same nature. No hypthesis. No theory. No model (in scientific understanding).

Just dogma.

To see this Texan getting so much support, is frightening, and no compliment for the average intellectual climate. Quite some belief-monsters seem to enter the race this time. And that this is possible, is frightening indeed.

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable.

Not at all, the problem with cretinism and the literal interpretations of the bible is that they are testable and can be shown to be bollox.
That is the wonders of cretinism, in its attempt to stand up against the theory of evolution it has to attack dozens of other theories across many fields of science.
It is why the people who compiled the bible said that only an idiot would try and insist on it being correct and that it is disgraceful and ruinous for christians to hold their religion up to such ridicule through their own idiocy.
And since those are the comments of the people who compiled the book cretinists insist is accurate they cannot exactly argue against the very people they insist are correct.

Well, Perry gets alot of support because,

A. He Sucks
or
B. He sins

That's all I get out of this.

[Diopos]

Yeap evolution is a scientific theory, thank God !



Religion can be an excellent pain-killer. As all medicine, when used you must be aware of the possible side effects!

.

[AJ94CAP]

Isn't this the same one who said he didn't believe in global warming either? Maybe God will elect him president, 'cause I sure as hell won't. But on a serious note, I don't understand the misconception that Catholics can not believe in evolution. The fact is that most of them do.

My Theory about all those running for office is;

If thier lips move they are lying thier arses off!
It's a FACT they will say whatever will get them elected.
It's still not proven that they will deliver!!