+1, self admitted troll is a troll.

Yawn yawn. Name calling is the first refuge of the defeated debater.

I interpret this metaphorically. You are so hateful trying to say people are "defeated", why not live and let live?

Understanding basic science is important of course, so that one doesn't start spouting the kind of ignorant nonsense about it that you have in this thread.

It is of no significance in here. Perhaps you should post in the science forum. Whether created or evolved the important thing is to live a good clean moral life and as I have proved it is necessary to be conversant with religious principles in order to achieve this.

What? No you havent. You havent proved anything

Explain what you mean by 'progressive'

As to your question, there are so many incorrect assumptions packed into one short sentence that I don't know where to start. Maybe you should explain what you think evolution is

Things to remember about evolution :-

1. It doesn't matter to anyone individually ; you are not going to grow another set of eyes at the back of your head or anything useful like that. In this respect it is like the flat earth v round earth debate ie it's flat where you are so it doesn't matter that the earth is round.

2. It's only a theory and all scientific theories are altered or rejected over time.

I would explain why this is false, but if you actually said

then you just have no idea what you're talking about. It's sad, if you had had more education on evolution you might have actually understood the topic and appreciated its value.

In science there are laws, theories, hypotheses, principles etc. Things which are proved are laws. Things which are not are sometimes called theories eg the big bang is a theory and so is evolution.

Lol, you have literally never been right about anything.

Lolback.

The Law of Gravity has been proved. So have the Gas Laws (although they're slightly wrong). The big bang theory is still just a theory.

This is correct

This is not

Nor is this

That is correct, but I suspect you don't have an accurate handle on the scientific definition of a theory.

I would be quite interested to hear your perspective on how 1 has been proved and how 2 is "slightly wrong", in your own words.

And what do you mean by 'just a theory'?

There is no precise definition but anyone can have a theory but not everyone can have a law.

With laws you get a proper formula which can be tested. In the case of the Gas Laws assumptions are made with ideal gases which do not apply in reality viz
the volume occupied by gas molecules is negligibly small as compared to the volume occupied by the gas and the forces of attraction between gas molecules are negligible.

A theory is just guesswork eg my alternative theory of gravity might be that objects are stuck to the earth by invisible glue.

No. In an age where you have instant access to Google and Wikipedia, there is no excuse for this level of ignorance. You don't seem to know the difference between a theory in the scientific realm and one in the layman's realm. Go educate yourself for everyone's sake.

Codswalllop. Here's an example. For many decades there was a rival to the Big Bang Theory called the Steady State Theory. It was bunk thought up from nowhere.

Why are you hating people who think of scientific theories differently than you? Why must you attack and attack them? Why not live and let live? I'm sure they are a lot of knowledge anyways since they spend so much time thinking about it.

Again, this is false. Steady State theory explained certain phenomena (the expansion of the universe) perfectly well, but as more observations were gathered Big Bang theory won out. It was not "thought up from nowhere".

I don't know which is more impressive: being a fundamentalist creationist and playing an atheist for 5.5 years "because maybe they'll listen to God's message if they think it's coming from one of their own," or being an atheist and playing a 5.5 year Poe triple agent for their own amusement. Either way, I guess you have to admire the dedication to the long con.

Don't spend half a dozen posts talking about it then.

Lying is a sin in most religions.

LOL, don't break your record of being wrong about everything.

Willful ignorance is an ugly thing. Wikipedia's article on scientific theory, the absolute minimum level of effort that can be put into researching one's position, clearly corrects every single error cwocwoc has made.

"Sir James Jeans, in the 1920s, was the first to conjecture a steady state cosmology based on a hypothesized continuous creation of matter in the universe. The idea was then revised in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others. The steady state theory of Bondi and Gold was inspired by the circular plot of the film Dead of Night, which they had watched together."

[wiki]

Fred Hoyle was of course also a science fiction writer. He wrote quite a good story about a sentient cloud of gas and that is relevant to our discussion about the "theory of evolution".


"Using a computer model of molecular dynamics, an international team has discovered that, under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organized into helical structures. These structures can interact with one another in ways that are usually associated with organic compounds and with life. Not only do these helical strands interact in a counter-intuitive way in which like can attract like, but they also undergo changes that are normally associated with biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. For example, they can divide to form two copies of the original structure. These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours. And they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma. 'These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter,' said the lead researcher. 'They are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve.'" The research, published in the New Journal of Physics 2007, was carried out using a computer model of molecular dynamics"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cloud