Dinowhat?

[rjc34]

You are still wrong. Deal with it.

Show me exactly how I'm wrong. (It'll help if you actually learn how to use some of the words you put in these replies, lest everyone think your vain foolishness has gotten the upper hand once again)

 

[Doveaman]

What dishonesty and denial are you referring to? You have been corrected repeatedly by everyone on this thread regarding the meaning of 'theory' in a scientific context and you have despite these corrections refused to acknowledge your error.

What exactly is my error?

 

[Hespera]

you is rong coz a creo never is

 

[Doveaman]

you is rong coz a creo never is

Now I know you all are just a bunch of trolls.

 

[Doveaman]

Show me exactly how I'm wrong.

us and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That is a fact.

That us and chimpanzees share a common ancestor is not a fact. It is a theory. You are wrong. Deal with it. Or go back to school.

 

[Skavau]

What exactly is my error?

You do know that this idea is only a theory and not a fact, right? So go back where?

Theory in scientific usage also refers to fact. A Theory contains facts. You have been told this repeatedly and have been given some basic citation for this even and you still refuse to budge on what the word 'theory' in science means.

 

[Zalman]

Theory in scientific usage also refers to fact. A Theory contains facts. You have been told this repeatedly and have been given some basic citation for this even and you still refuse to budge on what the word 'theory' in science means.

Just out of curiosity, how do creationists account for gene mutations?

 

[Hespera]

Now I know you all are just a bunch of trolls.

I started a thread a while back on just this subject, whether or not the creationist has the capacity to ever admit he / she is wrong in any mater relating to a evo - creo discussion.

I requested that anyone who knows of an example should say so.

Nobody had a single example.

Now, name calling may seem a fine way to cover for this fact, or deny it; but what should we expect.

I point out a simple observation of fact and you call names.

When did you ever admit you were wrong? Which creo here ever did?

truth hurts, so call names.

cool.

 

[Hespera]

Just out of curiosity, how do creationists account for gene mutations?

variation, undefinded, withing a kind, undefined, within limites, undefined and of unknown mechanism and extent.

 

[Doveaman]

I started a thread a while back on just this subject, whether or not the creationist has the capacity to ever admit he / she is wrong in any mater relating to a evo - creo discussion.

I requested that anyone who knows of an example should say so.

Nobody had a single example.

Now, name calling may seem a fine way to cover for this fact, or deny it; but what should we expect.

I point out a simple observation of fact and you call names.

When did you ever admit you were wrong? Which creo here ever did?

truth hurts, so call names.

cool.

Show me how I am wrong about this:

"That us and chimpanzees share a common ancestor is not a fact. It is a theory."

 

[Doveaman]

Theory in scientific usage also refers to fact. A Theory contains facts. You have been told this repeatedly and have been given some basic citation for this even and you still refuse to budge on what the word 'theory' in science means.

You too are being dishonest about the whole discussion. Typical.

 

[Doveaman]

Just out of curiosity, how do creationists account for gene mutations?

God did it. Case closed.

 

[rjc34]

Show me how I am wrong about this:

"That us and chimpanzees share a common ancestor is not a fact. It is a theory."

The evidence shows it to be a fact. The mechanism through which we evolved from that ancestor is part of the theory. Originally it was a hypothesis, but after a century and a half of investigation and the discovery of genomics, the evidence is settled. It is a fact.

 

[Skavau]

You too are being dishonest about the whole discussion. Typical.

How am I being dishonest?

 

[Zalman]

God did it. Case closed.

God couldn't have caused chimps & people to mutate from a common ancestor, then?

 

[Doveaman]

The evidence shows it to be a fact. The mechanism through which we evolved from that ancestor is part of the theory. Originally it was a hypothesis, but after a century and a half of investigation and the discovery of genomics, the evidence is settled. It is a fact.

 

[Doveaman]

God couldn't have caused chimps & people to mutate from a common ancestor, then?

Yes, He could have. What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Theory in scientific usage also refers to fact. A Theory contains facts.

He said theory is the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.

Therefore, the idea that we came from an ape species would be a theory, since we're dealing with the theory of evolution -- (the interpretation of the data that supports evolution).

Dove, please correct me if I'm wrong -- thanks.

 

[Zalman]

Yes, He could have. What's your point?

Well, I don't mean to seem flippant, but doesn't it seem like he did, in fact, cause humans and chimps to descend from a common ancestor? If Adam's cousin was a bonobo, it doesn't make Adam any less the first created man, does it?

 

[Doveaman]

He said theory is the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.

Therefore, the idea that we came from an ape species would be a theory, since we're dealing with the theory of evolution -- (the interpretation of the data that supports evolution).

Dove, please correct me if I'm wrong -- thanks.

You are correct.