Sure, like the Theory of Gravity, and Number Theory, and the Heliocentric Theory. There are not, however, any other theories (in the scientific sense of the word) of the diversity of living organisms. Creation “science” is not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, and Creationism is not. In fact, falsifiability is one of the requirements for an idea to be a scientific theory. Evolution could be falsified, if it were wrong. The fact that it has not been falsified, despite a couple of centuries of attempts to do just that, is a pretty good indicator of its truth. Creationism, however, cannot be falsified or tested. Since it cannot be tested, we cannot produce evidence for it, either, so it is not a theory.
The same tired old stuff from the creationist side. This stuff has so little scientific credibility it strains the imagination to think of the sheer amount of denial that went into it’s making.
Although there are many places to debunk this stuff (start with any number of good science texts), you may want to check out the FAQ at talk origins:
We have. We’ll be glad to discuss any specific examples that you want to bring up. It is, however, apparent that you have not diversified your studies. You are obtaining your infoprmation from bogus sources, paroting what they say without understanding.
No, actually, it is the point. You come in here and complain and say things without backing them up – but you won’t debate them. Why not? Afraid you’re going to have your poor ol’ beliefs challenged? Life’s rough, babe.
Well, on that you’re right. There is nothing to debate about. Evolution is backed by evidence; creationism isn’t. You lose. Too bad, so sad. Now run along home.
Because people here have the audacity to expect you to back up your claims. Man, you must hate that!
So if I hadn’t responded, you probably would have whined to high heaven that I was ignoring you. But since I did respond, that means my feelings were hurt. Hmmm. It seems you know as much about psychology as biology.
Nah, I have enough information already to deal with the likes of you, hon.
First of all, that wasn’t a “post” – it was a “question” sent in to Cecil and passed down to the Mailbag staff. Secondly, I deal with facts. If you don’t want to, that’s your problem. If you feel that dealing with facts is a “beating on you” issue, that is, again, your problem. Get over it and just deal with facts, and you’ll be much better off.
Scientific theories are not “believed in.” They are not religion. As I said before, get thee to a science book.
And if you can come up with them, perhaps you’ll win yourself a Nobel Prize. I’m not holding my breath, though.
It never seems to have occurred to you that this is not news to us. Yes, there are people out there “debating” these issues. However, these are not altnerate “theories.” There are creationists with their religious beliefs – those are not theories. Who else is out there, Tina?
Well, gosh, thanks for the admission.
As somebody else has already noted, this is not new – it’s old crap that’s already been dealt with time and time again. The fact that you don’t seem to know that doesn’t make it new. It just makes you uninformed.
Yes, it could! But it hasn’t. And, like I said, if it ever did, the person who found it and created a new theory would likely get a Nobel Prize. If it happens, then great. But until then, we have loads of evidence supporting evolution and nothing against it.
OK, this has now become another debate, with insults thrown in just the fun of it. It no longer is appropriate for this forum. I’m not sure it ever was, but I am hesitant to move topics once they’ve started.
At this point, however, I am closing this topic here. If you’d like to take it to GREAT DEBATES forum, please do so.