Even though it's an old topic I want to vent, why Intelligent design is BS

[IndependentVoice]

Just for the change of pace around here, thought about talking something besides Bush and or republican screw ups for a change, (to keep my blood pressure from getting to high) that being said I know this is a really old topic, but I never got the chance to vent so here it goes.

Intelligent Design is complete BS, I am a serious biology nerd, (and proud) and there were some big things that were not said in the fight against intelligent design that could have helped. But first let me correct a common mistake, gravity is not a theory it is a law.

In the world of science we have three levels of...understanding in a subject they are (from lowest to highest) the following-
1)Hypothesis, this is mearly an educated guess of what is happening and why, almost always wrong, but it is, the basic foundation that is necessary to build to the higher levels of validation.
2)Law, this is where gravity sits, laws are mid level and easiest to comprehend usually. A law is when we know if we do a certain thing (drop an apple for instance, it will fall) we will get the same result every time, but we don't know why it is happening. Yes believe it or not we have no F***ing clue as to where gravity, not what generates it, but where it comes from, how it came to be, and how does it work.
3)Theory, yes a theory is a higher level than a law, in fact nothing receives higher recognition than a theory, it is the highest. It is basically a law, but with the holes filled in, we know something is happening, know how to observe it, and we know why. But because science is so fragile, theories are subject to change, because they can be wrong.

Now with that in mind you also need to know about CONPTT. To even be considered a science a topic must meet all the criteria of CONPTT. If it meets all criteria it is a science, if it meets all but one or two it is an emerging science, if it fails to meet most, but does not claim itself to be a science is a non-science, and if it fails to meet most but claims to be a science (think astrology or taro card readings) it is a pseudoscience. The criteria are as follows

Consistent
Observable
Natural
Predictable
Testable
Tentative

Now I know thats a lot of probably boring facts to you (I love this stuff though) but it is also needed to see how F**KING OBVIOUS IT IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY OR BUT A PSEUDOSCIENCE. excuse me but I needed to say that.

I cannot, CANNOT, for the life of me understand how anyone can argue it a science, or (this pisses me off more than anything) WHY THE HELL THIS WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE DEBATES?!?!?!? I mean come'on this is the first thing I learned about in tenth grade biology and I went to a crappy public school.

First off not only can it not be a theory for the most obvious of reasons, it not only doesn't fail CONPTT it misses them all. It is not something that happens consistently, no one can observe it, it is not natural it is supernatural, because it is supernatural it is in no way predictable, there is no way to test it, and it is not tentative in the least to say this is how the world came to be, no revisions, end of story.

It never ceases to amaze me how much of a political whore Bush is. He sells himself out so he can get the popular vote, cause I mean lets face it, he is not a christian, if he is then he is the shittiest one EVER. God may have changed his heart people but I assure you Dick Cheney changed it right back.

Thank you for hearing me out, it probably bored you to death but I HAD to get that out of my system somehow.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Thanks for the post

In my simple mind I boil it down to Factual data vs beliefs. From my 50+ years of observance "Christians" are too damn lazy to seek factual data. It is way too much easier (and lucrative for he in the pulpit) to insist the sheep believe and believe with a religious fervor. And what they tend to purposely ignore is that they can believe what they want till the cows come home IN THIS COUNTRY. If they want to go through life, they are free to do so, but thank God, there is considerable opposition to their ultimate motive, replace the constitution with the bible. Keep spreading the word.

[IndependentVoice]

2. Thanks for responding

I thought the subject was so old everyone would just overlook it. :woohoo:

[BOSSHOG]

3. It may be old but

its a significant factor of the number one issue for me, theocracy. I sincerely believe the greatest threat posed to this country is radical christian clerics and their desire to destroy our constitution. Anyone who proposes or supports a constitutional amendment to deny equal protection to our fellow citizens (gay marriage amendment) does not understand the concept of constitutional liberty and does not deserve them. I look forward to the civil war.

[IndependentVoice]

4. I agree

It is also my biggest fear and why my favorite topic is religion in politics. Its is absurd how they try to change their own opinions into law, no one else asks this. If you're on the far right or far left you've gone to far, if you're in the deep end you're in to deep, if you follow religion blindly you're blind, and if you're a jesus freak, you're a freak. thats my philosophy

[SheilaT]

5. If people actually understood

the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis" it would be slightly easier.

My son the physics geek got me to stop using the word theory when I really mean hypothesis.

In fact, the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" is wrong. It should be Conspiracy Hypothesis. What's interesting, is that I know use the word hypothesis (correctly, I hope) when before I would have said theory in the most casual of conversations. Someone will say tell me about something or another going on, and I'll ask, "Do you have any hypothesis about why that's happening?" And invariably they'll use the word hypothesis back to me. Of course, my friends are all intelligent and well educated people, and even though many of them are church-goers, they're not fundamentalists who don't understand such things as science and the scientific method.

Just a random thought here: I wonder how anyone who'd a fundamentalist, Bible-believer, young-earther can make it through medical school.

[IndependentVoice]

6. rolf

By praying they get it right

BTW that is the correct way to use hypothesis

[SheilaT]

7. Yeah, it was my

23 year old son, the Mechanical Engineering student, formerly physics major, who corrected my on this a few months back. Too bad high school science teachers don't do the same thing.

[Lerkfish]

8. being devils advocate for a moment...

For grins, i couldn't help but apply your own litmus to evolution theory:

Consistent
(not really sure what you mean by that, but anywho): Evolution occurs, but does it occur consistently? Some species adapt, some die off. Is it a mechanism that consistently addresses environmental stresses or changes?

Observable
We can observe the fossil record, but we cannot as yet travel back in time to observe what we surmise has already occurred in evolution. We can SURMISE it did from the fossil record, but we cannot actually observe it.

Natural
Check.

Predictable
Not really. (see my discussion on "consistent")

Testable
Can we force a species to evolve into another species? have we done that yet? I'm askin.

Tentative
(not sure what you mean, here)

[IndependentVoice]

9. Yes it is, I'll do one on evoultion soon so check that out

but ill give you a quick run-down (remeber even if it doesn't make sense it is a THEORY which takes years sometimes decades to achive)

Consistent-meaning does it happen consistently within nature, without outside influence yes, thats how we got here

Obserable-We have enough fossil records that, if you were to look at them in a line you can see the change over time, carbon dating also shows that the time lines match up so they go from one to the other without jumping around

Natural-Obviously yes

Preditable-This is the tricky one and it would be a lie if I told you I knew why, ill look it up for my journal entry on evolution but my guess is that its predictalbe to a degree if you look at the enviroment it was in (again check next journal should be up tonight if not sooner)

Testable-No despite popular belief evolution occures at random, it has no goals, hard to explain in short, you need to know how DNA works but ill try. Imagine a child born with a mutation, lets say a child was born with two extra arms (one on each side) now that is normally a deformity or a mutation, caused by the DNA not codeing right, or hosks genes screwing up (again next journal) but imgaine this is thousands of years ago, no technology and we are primative, if the extra arms helped the child survive instead of hindering him, then he would survive better becasue he was somehow better suited for the enviroment, so he would pass that on to his children and so on until they were so superior they were taking all the food forcing the normal 2 arms to die from starvation, thus we see evolution as there would be no more 2 armed people only 4 armed ones, so fossil records would show the dead two arms and carbon dating would show the dead four arms came after. this is why evolution takes so long to occure, because mutations are rare, but have you ever heard of an adventagous one?

Tentative-means slow and carefully examined and willing to make changes in the final product.

[Lerkfish]

17. well, no offense, but...

your first comment is self-reflexive. You're saying evolution happened consistently, and your proof is merely saying so.

"Consistent-meaning does it happen consistently within nature, without outside influence yes, thats how we got here"

Since how got here is the point of contention (again, being devils advocate since I believe in evolution personally), merely declaiming the conclusion itself as proof of the conclusion doesn't really hold water.

I'd also be interested in how anyone can interpret the fossil record (even if you conclude or surmise it supports evolution) as proof of lack of outside influence? you might surmise a progression, but in what way could you arrive at whether the influence was internal or external that brought about the evolution?

---------

You said: "Obserable-We have enough fossil records that, if you were to look at them in a line you can see the change over time, carbon dating also shows that the time lines match up so they go from one to the other without jumping around"

I'm going to have to assert that I don't believe what you're saying here is accurate: I don't believe its that straitforward.. The record exists, yes. The conclusion drawn from it is another matter. When you say the line changes over time, how do you mean that? The evolutionary switch mechanism is not a gradual spectrum nor is evenly spaced, therefore not sure how carbon dating supports or disproves evolution at all. Also, evolution does not have to occur as a clean cut-off, so even if the fossils "jump around", that would not disprove evolution. So I'm confused how this is a proof of "Observability". If anything, you're stating conclusions from data as if they were data.

---------

we agree on natural. But even if God created life, it would still be natural. Not sure that proves/disproves either evolution or intelligent design.

---------

Predictable: you deflected answering until a later date, so I can't comment

--------

Under "testable" you have sort of explained adaption within a species, and natural selection. Both very good things. But they do not relate to macroevolution, or the switch from one species to another species. Again, I personally believe evolution occurred, but I'm not sure you're arguing the right argument, here.

but what IS interesting, is that you acknowledge that mutation is a rare event, which goes further towards my questioning of why carbon dating would have any meaning towards proving evolution theory.

------
Tentative is interesting, because you claim "willing to make changes in the final product" is part of that. I find most people arguing for evolution theory are as adamant and insistent on their point of view as creationists or intelligent design proponents. I have rarely seen ANY person who argues for evolution able to consider changing that theory at all, its merely labeled "the truth" and no discussion or compromise is allowable.

[IndependentVoice]

19. Good points

In that case i would look it up for myself if i were you i'm making a post on how eveolution works now so look for that its called Evolution follow up, that should help as i can go into detail.

BTW God creating things is considered supernatural, but your point is still an arguable one

macoevolution isn't really much of a factor in evolution as it focuses on DNA thats where it all occures

under consistant what i meant was that you can consistantly see that evolution is a process that all life undergoes and the fossile records are enoguh but thats the thing with science, we will never have all the answers so scientists use the fossil records not because it is best but because its the best they have to work with and in using the fossil records it can be proved (as much as can be proved in science)because it links in with other different studies of evolution so they confirm eachother

but im working on the new one now so wait for that

[cain_7777]

12. To answer one of your questions

"Testable
Can we force a species to evolve into another species? have we done that yet? I'm askin." - Lerkfish

The answer is yes. There is a species of fish that will only mate with its counterpart that has the same electrical frequency that it emits while courting. It has been observed that two ranges are beginning to split - lower frequency and higher frequency. It is hypothesized that the two are splitting into two distinct seperate species.

[IndependentVoice]

13. Cool

I never heard about that one

[Lerkfish]

18. they are different species, in what way?

That sounds akin to dog breeding, actually. Is a chiuaha not a dog? is a pit bull not a dog?
I agree that is creating a different BREED of the same species of fish.

and, actually, ironically enough, that speaks more towards intelligent design than evolution, since it was CAUSED by an outside influence.
LOL.

[cain_7777]

26. They are becoming two seperate species because...

They will not mate outside their frequency, again, high or low, and their frequencies are becoming more divergent, further seperating the two. Dogs interbreed and are of the same species. I don't see the connection to ID and I never said it was caused by any outside influence.

To spell everything out - yes a chiuaha is a dog and a pit bull is too.

[Lerkfish]

29. cool, then, do you have a link?

what is the species of fish you're discussing?

[cain_7777]

32. Intelligent design this, biatch!

sorry, got a little carried away. Here's the link http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June06/electric.fish.sb.html and http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/evolution2006.html

"They know from their previous research that the various groups of local electric fish have different DNA, different communication patterns and won't mate with each other. However, they now have found a case where two types of electric signals come from fish that have the same DNA. The researchers' conclusion: The fish appear to be on the verge of forming two separate species."

[cain_7777]

34. I was just joking about the whole biatch thing.

I don't want you to get all mad at me. When I spell things correctly I mean it, and when I make a mistake I'm just joking. Those two article are pretty much the same but I always like atleast two sources; however they are both about Cornells' work, but science is whittling down at not only biblical belief but most organised religion. Spiritual belief of God, higher entities, and the like will remain. If we can break the bonds of christianity, but retain it's core Platonic philosophy humanity would be much better off.

[Lerkfish]

36. you DO realize I'm not arguing intelligent design, right?

nor am I disagreeing with evolution. I'm playing devil's advocate because I hold those who side with science to a high standard of proof and logic, since they claim themselves superior in those areas.

I am slightly disturbed by your "whittling down" of other's belief system. Sounds a bit aggressive and hegemonic, maybe even proselytizatic.
:(

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

38. so, what methods will you employ to subvert the masses?

fighting intolerance with intolerance is hardly admirable.

[cain_7777]

39. I never said it was admirable, but needed

[Lerkfish]

42. what methods then, for your "final solution" of the religious?

forced reeducation camps? execution houses?
how far are you willing to go to force others to accept your own ideology?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

50. no, I"m trying to make you understand your own argument.

Its a little pollyanna-ish to believe that those who differ from you can be swayed to your opinion by mere exposure to your ideology.
I'm pointing out that since you feel religion should be eradicated from the species, that unless you have the resolve to kill the religious, you will never accomplish that. You cannot kill an idea with another idea, and you cannot destroy a concept through domination.
I'm forcing you to face the eventual endpoint of your argument: if you wish to convert the whole species, you will have to, at some point, kill a good portion of them.

Consider muslims, who now number one third of the US population. Do you think you will reeducate them to atheism with anything short of the point of a sword?

You would do well to take a more mature and educated study of human nature and civilisation.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

54. it IS annoying when someone makes you support your position.

I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

[Random_Australian]

59. You know, I think that if we want to prevent a rift here, you both need to

reduce & remove the insults here, as the saying goes (from 3000 BC in China) "When you are talking by keyboards the limits of the medium mean that it is probably pretty unwise to not set out tone explicitly, and a good idea to avoid sarcasm duting flamewars, because it can set up a heuristic that leads to long-term conflict" (Said on Mount Etna by the Confucious, when he was talking to Magellan, that great American Explorer)

[Occulus]

43. Why should we tolerate things demonstrably wrong?

It's like saying we should tolerate people calling a deer a horse. NO, a deer is NOT a horse, and we shouldn't tolerate people saying a deer IS a horse. It's demonstrably untrue, and has nothing whatever to do with "belief".

I would scorn early christians who believed the Earth is flat in the same manner. NO, the Earth is not flat, and I don't have to tolerate you saying so just because you're using your religion to justify something factually untrue.

There's tolerance for belief, and then there's tolerance for demonstrable untruths. The one is acceptable; the other is not.

Or, to put it in a more concise way: we should not be expected to suffer fools.

[Lerkfish]

45. but what do you mean by that? elimination of the "fools"?

a religious genocide?
what?
what form does your intolerance take? If a group prefers their (in your opinion delusions) faith to your dominance, how will you shake it from them?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cain_7777]

51. I can pee farther.

I attended the best boarding school in Europe, two degrees with honors, 156, and very well read. Now that the pissing contest is over, let's get to the real argument. And how can you understand my perception of reality from a few back and forths? You assume too much, chump. Furthermore, why are all of your conclusions so violent. I am talking about slow change over generations that commonly occur as social systems change shaping cultures over time. I am sorry you feel threatened but it is inevitable. The more we learn about the natural world the less organized religion will have a hold on the people. I do not want to force people to accept my ideology as you like to assume. Seeing as to how educated you are, maybe you would understand how new technology and ideas shape a culture. Perhaps you can even understand that as we build upon our knowledge, current religious beliefs will become narrower as they try to cling to their beliefs in a shrinking bubble. I am not saying people will not believe in a god, but the ideals of that god will change with the culture, and current organized religions will shrink. All I have to do is sit back and let human curiosity take its course. Christians always want to stop short in critical thinking. You have the capacity, just keep an open mind, and keep learning. Even if you study the bible, study the history around it and definitely what was going on before christianity that shaped the philosophies of the time, like Plato's view of immortality. Believe in a higher entity if you want because I am not trying to stop anyone from that.

[Lerkfish]

53. lol.

I need argue no further.

I am always amused by the arrogant atheist: everyone who disagrees with their ideology is unintelligent, undereducated, or childish.

I'm assuming once you adopt atheism, you break all your mirrors.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

58. Hey! You two! Please remain calm, I should not like flames to break out

here.

There is a Religion/Theology forum. I frequent it. It is very good for stuff like this, but if you have not thought your position over rather thoroughly, you will get your ass kicked clean off if you start a flamewar. (But asking questions respectfully, or not going into flamewars, will do you a world of good)

For the record, I am an atheist, and I have no desire to see religion leave this world.
For the record II: I think you both have valuable things to add to such a discussion, and many things left to learn. Things left to learn? What a freaking suprise, join the club, about 6 billion members right now.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

61. too late for me to delete this post, so please let a mod do so

thanks.

[Occulus]

62. No, it means they should be roundly dismissed as the fools they are.

I'm not saying "all religious people are fools", either, so don't even go there. What I am saying is that people who continue to believe even in the presence of unshakable, observable scientific evidence that their beliefs are wrong should not expect to be taken seriously.

The sun is blue, the Earth is flat, thunder is the angels bowling- foolish, provably wrong crap like that.

Belief and faith are for things that cannot be proven. For example, I wouldn't presume to demand scientific proof of the existence of God. Why? Because that, by definition, lies outside the realm of science.

I'm not saying people should be denied their belief. I'm saying their application of that belief to scientifically provable epirical data shouldn't be tolerated.

Nice strawman, though. Keeps the crows away.

[thereismore]

20. Lerkfish, I don't have time to type a lot, but

this is just to let you know that I agree with your perspective. I think evolution of species is a hypothesis. Not a theory, not a law. Just so you don't feel alone around here.

[IndependentVoice]

21. Respectfully disagree

I respect your opinion, but I will take the vast majority of scientist asserting that it is a theory over your assumption based on my flawed run down, look it up and find out why it is a theory, scientists scrutinize everything so they won't make just anyting a theory

[Lerkfish]

23. ah. the "scientists are infallible" defense.

:)

[IndependentVoice]

25. No but they provide good reassurance, and give a strong base arguement

[Lerkfish]

28. and, are frequently wrong.

look up "phlogiston".
Being a scientist does not automatically make you correct. Even employing the scientific method, you can arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

[IndependentVoice]

30. As are everyone

My point is they simply have a much stronger defence than some guys who just read a quick read through of mine

[Lerkfish]

22. Actually, the reason I play "devil's advocate" on this issue is that

evolution proponents always claim they have science and logic in their corner, but they seldom employ either to support evolution when arguing.
I just want them held to the same standards they hold creationists or intelligent design proponents, that must logically explain why they believe as they do, and support those arguments. If, indeed, they have the weight of science behind them, why do their arguments tend to be bereft of logic or proof?

For the record, I believe evolution occurred, pretty much as hypothesized, but that's a belief. To my mind, evolution is a well-educated surmise based on available evidence, it is not really a proof, however, and it is especially not a proof that God was not involved.
If people would be more honest, and state that, I'd be fine. But instead, we get "this the absolute truth" and everyone else is deluded. In my observation, that makes them as dogmatic and as illogical as intelligent design proponents, if for no other reason than that their minds are closed to questioning their own conclusions.

My belief is that God created everything, and "everything" includes anything science discovers. If science discovers evolution, or something else, I believe God created the entire universe and the universe has laws that govern it which are "natural". Evolution does not disprove God, nor does religion disprove evolution.

apples and oranges.

[IndependentVoice]

24. I never said god wasn't involved or exepted him

and they use surprisingly more logic than the intell design defenders, how much logic is behind a 2,000 year old jewish book that has been rewritten many times over 2 millenea. The only availble proff we have for god is that this old book-back when people believed in magic more easily than the salem witch trials-says its real, thats all, though a counter arguement could be, Faith by its very nature most tradcend logic. But to say that faith is in any way logical is false, thats what make it faith.

[Lerkfish]

27. Not speaking of you specifically, just those in general who

are proponents of evolution, but whose arguments are anemic.

Btw, I'm not saying faith is logical, I'm saying evolution proponents attempt to hold religious people to strict standards of logic that they themselves are loathe to adhere to.

but, again, to be devil's advocate; if the faithful believe a 2,000 year old book, and you believe 2 million year old fossil record....both are reconstructing their own view of reality from artifacts.

[IndependentVoice]

31. Those with the anemic defense are usually the ones who are still in

college or just started studying it. The ones who have a career in it are who I am talking about, Ill try to be less vague in the future.

Religious people do the same thing, and that really doesn't make much of a point.

What else can we do but reconstruct from what we have, really we want the same thing, to know where we came from, at least a scientist won't pretend to know that.

BTW even though they are old fossils and i get your point completely, We have ways of using more than one science to bring it together. each different science, we are finding, helps confirm the others, so its not only the fossils that show how it worked, the more we discover the more we find it looks like we are right, and that is much more concrete than a book

[IndependentVoice]

33. Sorry to double post but

I'm not going to be able to finish the Evolution follow up anytime soon, maybe tonight. If you want to find it the name of it will be Evolution follow up where Ill go into detail supported with facts, be prepared its quite long.

[thereismore]

35. I substantially agree that evolution of species is an article of

faith, when you really investigate it. This is best revealed when you ask an evolutionist: "What scientifict discovery would make you reject evolution of species as a theory?" The answer is usually "None". That means evolution has become a dogma to them. An amorphous hypothesis that keeps shifting with every discovery that runs contrary to the preexisting concepts. And there are enough of those to make you think, but not them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. I disagree.

People use science and logic continually in debunking Creationism.

[Lerkfish]

41. but they avoid it when defending evolution.

in discussions like these.

[cain_7777]

10. It will only get worse before it gets better!

Science is pushing these nut bag bible humpers even farther past the fringe of fundamentalism. When all your beliefes start to dissolve you have two options - abandon your believes and develop new ones, or delve deeper into what you have been conditioned to believe. Most bible humpers will choose the latter, because it is easier than learning, and it is more comforting to believe that what your parents taught you from birth wasn't a lie. Ignorance is bliss for these people. That's why the pope asked Hawking not to study what happend before the big bang, that's why ID tries to stifle kids from thinking too deeply, because freethought leads to freedom of religious ignorance, and that is why these nutbags get more fanatical during upswells of great thought.

[IndependentVoice]

11. Science is the history of dead religons

And its always darkest just before dawn.

BYW seems we both enjoy Nietzsche

[Xipe Totec]

14. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

One of my favorite books from way back.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

Truth is the daughter of Time. --- BACON

[cain_7777]

15. Nietzsche rocks... to a degree

Bertrand Russell is my philosopher of choice but both hold my same disgust of religion. Humanity might be much better off if they took the teachings of Nietzsche's ethics and Russell's logic to heart over the bible.

[IndependentVoice]

16. very true

he's not my favorite either though, although its not the most original I <3 buddha

[Random_Australian]

44. I'll disagree with the placement of theory and law, and state that ID

is a useless model. (Not even a hypothesis)

The following exclude the hypothetico-deductive method and focus on the logico-deductive.

Hypothesis definition:
- In order to propose a hypothesis, we must have some repeatable, verifiably observable phenomenon that is either inexplicable by current science (as in , contradicts another theory, not simply difficulty in understanding the mechanisms OR it can present significant reductions in the complexity of the current accepted theories. (eg plate tectonics, when they first went from geocentric to heliocentric)

- This must predict some testable effect in the world, or it must be able to be used as a predictor of some kind. (similarity in close species in evolution)

ID meets neither, it does not explain the inexplicable, it does not simplify the current, it does not predict anything testable.

[cain_7777]

48. Exactly

A hypothesis is an educated guess, deductive reasoning, but these people aren't very educated so it is really only a guess. They also don't know the difference between Theory and Hypothesis. I hate arguing with these bible humpers because they always open their mouths and a turd falls out, "Evolution is only a theory." My response, start over at about, oh say, 2nd grade, read many books on many topics, not just the bible, think about all that information, connect it because it is all inter-related, and then come have an intelligent discussion.

[Random_Australian]

56. I just wanted those particular definitions there so all can see where they

are wrong, it is too unconvincing for the masses to hear "they are full of shit" for my liking.