I prefer the phrase “I accept the theory of evolution”.
I also accept donations to my paypal account. rattles tin can
This right here is the crux (heh, heh) of the OP’s problem. The OP is using the word theory incorrectly. A scientific theory is not what the Creationists/IDers pretend it is. As noted by other posters upthread, there are other terms such individuals are using incorrectly. Correct usage = correct understanding, IME.
Maybe he’s evolved?
That, and apparently when offered opportunity to grow past his ignorance, he becomes distressed and runs away, still clinging to his familiar beliefs.
And it’s poor manners, too, when I think about it, to invite people to expend effort on your post and then just abandon it like this.
Well, when I was in high school and I had a free period during finals week, my friends and I would just walk across the street to the Jack-in-the-Box or the McDonald’s and shoot the breeze. Today’s kids, I guess, just make a drive-by post.
Please put the shoe on the other foot. Is the evidence for creationism weak or contradicting of known laws? And don’t you have to be more than a little arrogant “to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible.”?
Isaac Asimov: “Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
Ummm… Bubble Universes. :dubious:
I want what Brian Green’s been smokin’… 
Ummm…who is calling this a scientific theory?
Once again-Who is calling this a scientific theory?
Brian Greene and Lawrence Krauss write and lecture on the subject. If you don’t want to recognize it as a “theory”, okay, call it “pop physics”. It all seems far fetched to me as well, but I’m not in a position to call these guys clowns just yet.
Miss May, 4.4 million BC.
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/ardi-human-ancestor.htm
The 4.4 million-year-old hominid opens up a new chapter on human evolution because “it is as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans,” project co-director Tim White told Discovery News.
This has got absolutely nothing to do with whether I recognize it as a theory. You brought forward those links as a counter to the Asimov quote about how creationists don’t know what a scientific theory is…and it seems that you don’t, either.
This is from an article titled “The Truth About Evolution” that contains just about every falsehood and inaccuracy about the subject you can imagine.
Welcome to the board, Organized Chaos. I edited your post to reflect the fact that you seem to have copied and pasted it from a website.
:dubious: What’s your point?
I’m not familiar with him, but from the looks of things Dr Michael Denton is a critic of the standard view of evolution but not a creationist, whose arguments have been hijacked by the creationists for the purpose of supporting their religious fantasies.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll second this. What point is being made here? That super string theory is as speculative as creationism? :dubious: