Evolution anyone?

[forum]

To add to your statement:

Criteria for a Scientific Theory

• Consistent (internally & externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Gravity is also a theory, yet those who grapple with evolution wouldn't dare just walk off a cliff. Repeated tests show that objects of a greater mass will attract that of a lesser mass with a force that is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Oh wait - there's math involved. Math is theoretical as well, isn't it?

Well said 36Drew.

[cutter7]

Capture.JPG

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May ... ps.kr.html

How come none of the creationists on here have addressed the above? Is Cornell a trustworthy source of education?

This sentence is what shows they are not sure themselves.

"If we are right about this, it may help explain the high prevalence of cancer,"

That does not seem like a very confident statement of fact to me.

[steven lloyd]

and another point is easily missed by its mark

Typical. When someone doesn't have anything to bring to the table they begin their petty insult campaign. I've seen it too many times. Steven. I take it your a Creationist? What's your thoughts on this?

I presume you meant to say “you’re”. Anyways, my observation of you completely missing or ignoring points made by others is quite valid. I have made my opinion on the evidence supporting existing theories of physical evolution quite clear and easily understandable for even the most elementary reader. I’m not here to humour your own notions of wisdom and self-importance (Typical - I've seen it too many times). Much smarter people than you have been discussing this subject on these boards for some time and we’ve gotten much deeper into it than the simplistic level where you’ve started us off. Perhaps when you can demonstrate some honest interest in at least acknowledging, if not trying to understand the thoughts of others?

[fluffy]

Like everything, it's a matter of personal choice, isn't it? Does one want to spend time and energy arguing "my dad can beat up your dad" when most of the rule book has yet to be written? Or should one surrender to the mystery in realizing that the last chapter is probably as far from where we are now as we are from the first microbe that crawled out of the primordial ooze? Or since Adam rose from the dust. Whatever.

[36Drew]

Capture.JPG

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May ... ps.kr.html

How come none of the creationists on here have addressed the above? Is Cornell a trustworthy source of education?

This sentence is what shows they are not sure themselves.

"If we are right about this, it may help explain the high prevalence of cancer,"

That does not seem like a very confident statement of fact to me.

What you're reading at that link is remark about observations made from the results of a study..... in other words, barely a single published hypothesis. The study and results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. If the study garners the interest of enough independent peers, the same study might be performed independently and the results observed and several hypotheses published giving opinion on how the observed results came to be. Then should the interested community have the interest, they may assemble a working theory from the results contained in the hypotheses, which in turn would be published and available to further scrutiny.

Why hasn't it been picked up on yet by creationists? Probably because it lacks the term "theory", although it's exactly at the point that meets the definition of what the creationist community generally thinks a "theory" is.