scientific theories taught as factual

I think part of your problem may be confusion between the observation and the theory that explains what is seen.It is also possibly a confusion about how terms are used in science.First Law and Theory are the same thing. Basically they both simply mean a model or explanation that is supported to a very high degree of confidence. Everything in science though is always held tentatively. If new evidence is found that refutes a model, whether we call the model a law or theory, we need to step back and reevaluate the explanation.The other issue is the difference between the observation and the theory. There is Evolution, the observation that life has changed over time, and there is the Theory of Evolution which so far is the best explanation of how Evolution happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It doesn't matter what Creationists accept, they are irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance.Creationism is only willful ignorance.If Creationism ever wants to be something more than a joke, it needs to present models that explain what is seen better than the existing ones.So far Creationism has never been able to present a model that explains anything.We have many threads here where we have begged Creationists to present their model, but so far, not one has presented anything that stands up to examination and in most cases they don't even present a model.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

First, if on the off chance you recognize my avatar, you should know I am not an atheist but a theist and a theist from one of the Judaic faiths. I will go a step further and tell you that I am a Christian, so all your blather about taking away moral bases is simply classic Christian Cult of Ignorance nonsense.I actually went and looked at Message 28 and there is no model there. The fact that you even think that is a model is a pretty clear demonstration why Creationism will never be more than a joke.If you would like to actually try to present a model, I suggest that you begin by reading Message 1 which will give you a few guidelines on what you must do to support a model for Creationism. Remember, if you want to insert "GodDidIt", be prepared to place God on the lab table for examination as well as provide the methods God used.Good Luck!

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

False dichotomy.I am a Christian Evolutionist. Nonsense, that is a false dichotomy. In reality you either believe blindly that this universe was designed by a Creator or you accept the conclusion based on existing evidence and past experience (not belief) that man can explain the entire universe by strictly physical, mechanical, and chemical means. No but you can use observation, measurements and other objective tests. Sorry but that simply does not stand up to the evidence. In fact we are learning more and more each day about how this universe came into existence.But, and this is important, things we do not know yet go into the Unknown Category, not into GodDidIt. The GodDidIt answer is worthless as an answer or explanation. It tells us nothing, has no informational content, is simply a deadend. The problem with that is it is both lousy science and even worse theology. If you wish to look at some natural object and say "It is designed" then you must conclude that the Designer is Inept, Ignorant, Incompetent, Irrational and Ineffective.If there is any case for Design, the only place I can see it is perhaps at the very most basic levels, say at the level of the four forces and basic processes themselves. I have often said that I might be able to make a case for design if for example, we said that Evolution was "Designed" as a system to assure life continued. To look beyond that at actual critters being some desired output though puts the designer squarely in the Incompetent Corner.Some ID supporters then fall back on the old "You can't know the thoughts or goals of the designer" argument, but that then simply moves everything out of the realm of science and back into magic. If some outside designer can step in and do things outside the limits of natural, outside the limits of the process we call science, then there is no useful predictive powers to any science and we cannot count on anything we have learned. If on the other hand, the critters are simply the result of the processes we identify, there is no need to bring the designer in.In addition, no one has been able to present an example of something "That is designed".You can see more of my position on the concept of a designer in these and other threads: JAR's amazing theory of a Creator who doesn't Design (Faith & jar & invitees)
Creation Debate - Jar and Randman - 12-24-2005
Message 49
Message 8
Message 105
On the difference between Science and ID or Biblical Creationism
How can "Creationism" be supported?Enjoy.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Hugh Ross starts off with false assertions and then builds fallacy on fallacy so you won't get far dragging out Reasons to Believe. Hell no. I accept truth over falsehoods, that's all. Genesis 1 is just one of the creation myths found in the Bible and the point of that story was not even creation but rather one view of God, a view held by a much later faction than those who created the creation myths combined in the earlier tales found beginning at the second half of Genesis 2:4. The actual creation is simply not a very important part of either and more a plot device to talk about what the authors found important.But Evolution is a fact. That is not even in doubt, and the current Theory of Evolution is the only explanation to date that has any supporting evidence. There is no desperation. It is a simple conclusion.In the words of the Clergy Project, endorsed by over 11,000 US Christian Clergy: Uh, sorry but that is simply bullshit. I am not claiming bad design, I am showing why it is bad design. I provided links to seven threads where just that is discussed in detail. If you think that specific critters are the product of design, then you can only conclude that the Designer is Incompetent.To fall back to your position of not knowing the purpose of the Designer is also just plain stupid and useless. I address that in several of the threads and even provided links for you.The important thing is that like Hugh Ross and all the other carny folk getting rich off gullible members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the Christian Communion of Bobbleheads, there is no such thing as an ID model. They make stupid statements like "the more complex the item, the more intelligent the designer must be." when any designer, any engineer would tell them that simplicity is the goal.If you want to support Id or Creationism, read How can "Creationism" be supported?. Bring in the Designer and place the Designer on the lab table for examination. Bring the model. If it is designed then you MUST be able to explain the design purpose.To simply deny macro evolution is without value or use. Frankly, the current model explains it quite well. There is no limiting factor on what evolves. Man and Chimp and ultimately all life evolved from what came before. You may not like that conclusion but the current TOE explains it quite well.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

So you still failed to address the fact that the current Theory of Evolution explains evolution; micro, macro, whatever.That is the fact you need to deal with.Until you can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models you have nothing.Nothing that is, except the great financial model that keeps ignorant gullible members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads sending money, lots of money, to the snake-oil salesmen like Hugh Ross.The current models in biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology explain what is seen. So far no Creationist, no ID salesman has been able to present models that explain what is seen. If you think you can, there are numerous threads BEGGING for someone from the ID/Creationist cults to step up to the plate.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Ah, no that is not what I or anyone else is "assuming".What we are concluding is that when natural explanations such as the current Theory of Evolution explain things then there is no need to look beyond to some imaginary magic. So you keep asserting but you offer no evidence of why that should be so. Macro-evolution is simply the sum of lots of micro-evolution.As to your examples, so far they seem to have been refuted, not ignored.The topic still remains though, "scientific theories taught as factual." Do you plan to present an example related to the topic?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Spock is not real. So you keep asserting. However the conclusion based on the evidence is that that micro evolution can explain EVERYTHING seen. What would keep minor changes over time from leading to whole new species? Bullshit. All there is in the record are variations. Period. All that survives is a fully formed critter. Only fully formed critters live long enough to pass on their genetics to the next generation. Message 37?There is NOTHING in Message 37 that is on topic.The topic, in case you missed it is "scientific theories taught as factual."Please present something on topic.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Evolution has no source.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Macro-evolution is simply the sum of micro-evolution over time.What limits the accumulation of many small changes of many generations?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Nothing mandates that. Evolution has no direction. However the conclusion based on the evidence is that that is what happened. Note it is a conclusion. One small step at a time.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Five hundred and fifty million years is a long time.Now do you have anything related to the topic?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Chen has no problem understanding the Cambrian explosion and in fact he is helping to rapidly fill in just those transitionals that were missing. He happens to be one of the major discoverers of the earlier life forms including pre-Cambrian bi-lateral critters.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And, of course, Chen does not think there is any barrier. He pointed out, made a prediction, that we would find the transitionals to the Cambrian life forms and guess what, we did. In fact he has been one of the folk finding quite a few of them and they are exactly as predicted.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, first that is not Chen speaking but some editor or reporter.Second, as is so often the case, the news story is simply a bunch of quotemining, parts taken out of context.Third, Chen was speaking of something everyone not dumber than a red brick would agree with, that we should also find the precursors of what is seen in the Cambrian.Fourth, Chen was predicting that we would find those earlier transitionals, and in fact where we should find them.Fifth, since the news article you quote, Chen as well as others HAVE found the precursors and guess what, they were where predicted and exhibit the traits predicted. A short history of the search for PreCambrian fossils

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!