Ok so they changed the definition of a theory since I was in school ? great ...

so my calling evolution a theory was wrong , I apologize.
it is an unprovable hypothesis supported but supposition and shaky "evidence "

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

Dude, I'm pretty freakin' old and that's how I learned it, so you must be older than dinosaur shit, or you went to school in Kansas. And your last sentence is plainly in error. If you had bothered to peruse the link I offered, you would have seen that a theory is in fact defined as a proven hypothesis. Why do you persist in posting falsehoods?

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

I can understand the feeling that leads to the conclusion that a religious person is somehow less intelligent than a non-religious person but I certainly agree that there's no substance to it. There is, however, a mismatch between the ability to reason and the various misunderstandings that must persist in order to try to argue creationism in a scientific manner and/or to try to argue religiously against evolution. There must somehow be a glitch where reason gets put on hold while the person is able to consider such arguments valid.

For example, what is it that makes people persist in comparing the rate of radiometric decay with the melting of ice cubes? Is it lack of intelligence or is it something that for an otherwise on-average intelligent person forces a temporary withdrawal of the ability to reason? And in the latter case, what is that 'something'?

What is it that makes people persist in saying that evolution is just theory, not proven and full of holes and yet board a commercial airliner, not realizing that aerodynamics is just theory, not proven, full of holes and "may or may not be true"? And again, what is the very same 'something' as above?

Exactly. Why do some people persist in arguing precisely this issue of theirs with falsehoods?

Why?

Wait a second. As I learned from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, stars do not produce hydrogen. They produce helium by accelrateing hydrogen atoms into one another to form a helium atom.

What am I missing?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I post the truth, evolution is unprovable, adaptation of a species to its environment is obvious and of course true , but the evolution of one species into another is false and unprovable , also the notion that higher animals "evolved " from sludge or the primordial ooze , is laughable and unprovable.

it takes as much pure faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in any religion

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

Actually the evolution of one species into another does not happen. It is not even claimed to occur. What the theory of evolution (and it is a theory, a proven hypothesis, despite your protests) speaks to is how a new species develops from a previous one by geographical separation or other means of reproductive isolation. The previous species will coexist in time with the newly developing species, and several species may evolve from the same common ancestor.

And though many confuse the issue as you did, evolution never has nor will it ever speak about anything developing from the "primordial ooze". The genesis of life is a discussion entirely removed from evolutionary science. The merging of the two concepts is just another common misconception among Creationists, kind of like bringing the "big bang" into a discussion of evolution.

If you are going to argue against a theory, you really should understand what it is you are arguing against, and not misrepresent your "opposition".

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

It'd be so much easier to say:

Takes less characters.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

two weeks ago (1 page ago) i was strongly evolutionary and i made a post. being the malleable little devil i am, within that first week i (for reasons i shall keep to my self) changed my beliefs drastically then later the same week i had a revelation and my beliefs changed agen. Over this odd and fast journey of opinions changing i slowly started to come to a conclusion witch was:

live and let live

if there is a person of a different opinion from yours let them be at least until there ignorance is actually causing a big problem.
there for i think the schools should teach neither theory because they can not possibly teach every theory there is about the forming of life. but if a student wants to learn about a certain theory i think the resources should be available.

__________________
how many hypocrites must one nation have?

Good for you that you can find something to believe in, however much it may oscillate for you, but your belief has nothing to do with science or with teaching science.

There are no two or "neither theories" when that phrase is meant to include a religious belief. Religion cannot become science without completely redefining the meaning of at least the word science. It's like saying that the air we breathe is now called math, thus redefining math to something completely different than and unrelated to what it used to be.

The big problem is of course not that someone is trying to redefine the word 'science'. The big problem is that some are trying to redefine the concept of science, the methodology, AND, according to people who are quite sincerely confused about these things, as you have just shown yourself, they are apparantly succesfull in driving their wedge into the place where they want it to be.

If creationists are arguing for creationism, then there would be a creation. If there is a creation, then there is a creator. If there is a creator, then it would be a god. If there is a god, then creationism is arguing for religion not science. Therefore, if creationists are arguing for creationism, then creationists are arguing for religion not science.