My bad, I realized I misread it. Now I have no idea what you are talking about though. You tell me a theory is an explanation for why things happen (close enough for me to agree with you), but then ask if I'm trying to debunk the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. Then say laws do not undermine science. Holy non-sequitur Steve, where did debunking laws come into play?

Please address statements to who you want to hear them, it's hard debating someone if they throw out random comments for the masses in the middle of everything.

I just said Creationism is not scientific. How is that defending it?

Using laymans terms in a science debate is a no-no, and outright misleading. Why do you think people think scientific theories are uneducated guesses?

Go find some.

__________________

http://www.myspace.com/enominipatri
MSN: E_Nomini_Patri@hotmail.com
AIM: MLG ENominiPatri
GT: RVG E Nomini

I can't imagine attempting to support a position while being completely ignorant of the very lingo I am responsible for. You should be questioning your debate ethics right about now.

__________________

http://www.myspace.com/enominipatri
MSN: E_Nomini_Patri@hotmail.com
AIM: MLG ENominiPatri
GT: RVG E Nomini

Fine then you can take the wheel lol.

__________________

Let's take a step back for a moment: we're on a forum dedicated to a video game. I have no idea what your knowledge is about the subject being debated is. Even still, you don't think empirical proof is proof at all.

I know plenty about evolution, perhaps more than you seeing as how you are still tripping up over the difference between proof and evidence. There is no proof of evolution. Evolution is not proven. There is no such thing as proof in science. BARGH.

__________________

http://www.myspace.com/enominipatri
MSN: E_Nomini_Patri@hotmail.com
AIM: MLG ENominiPatri
GT: RVG E Nomini

I defined a word for clarity with no intention of misleading. You, however, are misusing those words. And they are educated guesses called hypothesis.

__________________

I have doubts that your knowledge of evolution is as complete as mine. Just out of curiosity, how does my not using two words precisely negate my knowledge of evolution?

I understand you have no intention of misleading, but you are dismissing friendly advice. You can't support science and use the word 'proof.'

I would like to retract the 'un' from 'uneducated guess' in my previous post. Thanks for reminding me. However, let me restate anyways:

"Why do you think people assume that 'theory' in 'scientific theory' means that scientists are still uncertan about it?"

Try me.

It negates your representation of your argument, not your knowledge of evolution necessarily.

__________________

http://www.myspace.com/enominipatri
MSN: E_Nomini_Patri@hotmail.com
AIM: MLG ENominiPatri
GT: RVG E Nomini

In what manner do you suppose we do that? This is the internet. I can PM you asking you a question, and you can pull up dozens of books to give yourself all the information you need, and vice versa. The only way to know is to have a face-to-face discussion about it over a beer, and damnit, I live in Northern California.

Ah, but that does nothing to make you think, increasing the overall competency of our race and delaying our ultimate destruction, likely at our own hands.

We're slowly careening off topic. While we agree that it's not possible to absolutely disprove or prove the existence of G_d as defined by religion, it's certainly something we'd like to know.

Is there any way to find the answer other than personal experience? I don't think there is.

__________________
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

Thanks to Shystie for avatar