I have a serious question for you - do you care whether the things you believe are true? Or do you simply believe them because you find them comforting?
I think you’ll find that here at the Straight Dope, the people are the types who care about what’s true and less about what’s comforting.
And if you do say that you care about true things, then what methods do you use to separate out things that are likely to be true, from things that don’t warrant your belief?
How do you know who supermegaman is, and that the linked site is his?
Nitpick: Where do people get the idea that theories have to be strong? Geocentric theory is a theory. “Luminiferous aether” is a theory. They’re false, but they’re still theories.
If you have a system of internally consistent predictions and explanations for a phenomenon, you have a theory.
[QUOTE=supermegaman]
oh, do tell how the universe works then? because I see a “theory” that says chemicals exploded, shot out in every direction, grouped together, reformed itself into planetoids, cooled off, grew plants and an atmosphere and life just decided to shoot forth and party! That’s AWESOME!
[/QUOTE]
Well, as with many things, a good place to start would be with the actual ‘theory’ being discussed, instead of your strawman. Chemicals didn’t explode. There was no ‘direction’ for it to shoot out in, initially there weren’t any planetoids that formed or grew plants and an atmosphere (the atmosphere formed first in any case), etc etc etc. You are mixing several theories together…badly…that range from cosmology to geology to biology. Each INDIVIDUAL theory doesn’t rely on the others to stand up, something else you don’t seem to grasp.
I’m sure you feel that your reply here was clever, but it’s only going to be clever to someone who is a complete idiot and completely ignorant of the multiple theories your ridiculous statement here covers…again, very badly since you don’t seem to have a clue how ANY of them work or what they actually say. Perhaps if you educated yourself on just the basics it would be a more interesting discussion…though, of course, if you DID educate yourself on them then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion, since it hinges on ignorance, and if you bothered to do even cursory reading you probably wouldn’t be making such idiotic statements.
-XT
Sigh. They always turn tail and run when you start talking about the math.
You are ignoring the verbiage I used. The words/phrases “strongest”, and “most resilient” are relative, not absolute. Also, you have chosen things that are no longer theories, but are debunked, falsified, ex-theory.
That theory is not pinin, it’s passed on, that theory is no more, it has ceased to be. This is an ex-theory.
No, that’s an hypothesis.
A theory has to be supported by experimental and/or evidential support that has not been falsified.
Pretty much, yeah. Except that of course that, not being formed yet, it’s pretty much impossible for pre-born life to “decide” to do anything.
I don’t believe there can be a conflict between Nature and the God who created and sustains it. However, I believe that there are any number of ways to mis-interpret the Holy Writ, so any interpretation that contradicts what we can observe must be an incorrect interpretation.
Good for you, now what does this all have to do with Evolution? There is nothing about the existence of 10 million year old fossils that is contradictory to the notion that Jesus loves you. Sticking to outdated notions that contradict all of the available evidence is not the way get converts, it just distracts from your main message.
Please don’t imply other posters are trolling. That said:
This is rather obnoxious, supermegaman, so you need to tone it down if you want to stick around and attempt an adult-style discussion.
This. The crap about fossils and dinosaur art aren’t just untrue- they’re flat-out lies. It always amazes me how willing creationists are to lie to support their faith. I thought lying was supposed to be a sin.
When there is a statement like “what good is a circulatory system without a heart or an eye without a brain” I think we can assume that whoever wrote this knew full well that examples of such things exist. Thus, strongly suggesting it is impossible in the face of contrary evidence is a lie.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Please don’t imply other posters are trolling.
[/QUOTE]
It’s more like chumming the waters (with your own body) and causing a feeding frenzy. 
-XT
Well… I’m not sure we can assume that, honestly.
One of the hallmarks of Creationism is a truly startling amount of ignorance on fundamentals on up to higher concepts.
For very low values of fascinating.
Truly, this was less fun than I was expecting should the OP return.
The odds are always against it, but one just needs a proper planet to move the odds in our favor and some chemicals needed to just be lucky just once to get the ball rolling.
BTW I noticed that while others pointed out how all the items you posted are not science, it seems to me that it is important to point at the whole truth, that there are virtually no scientists using “irreducible complexity” that should be enough to realize that the source of that glurge is just being a false witness.
Onward Christian Soldiers
Marching through the night
With the Cross of Jesus
Running from the fight.
Why don’t you ask someone from your church who is a bit better at arguing to come and teach us? You get an F in logic and knowledge, but an A in reinforcing the low opinion atheists have of fundamentalists.
Surely it’s only fair to teach the controversy.
It’s just a theory…
-XT