A literal 6 24-hr days?

[The Galatian]

error

 

[The Galatian]

error duplicate

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by The Galatian:

I thought I posted the evidence before. Well, here we go again...

First known unicellular organisms:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-03/uoc--usc030602.php

First cyanobacteria:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

First (soft bodied) metazoans:

http://www.palaeos.com/Ecology/Biota/Ediacara.html

First motile organisms with hard body parts:

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Tommotian.htm

All Precambrian.

Galatian, I do not subscribe to geologic layer age theory. My comments regarding geologic layers are solely directed at pointing out inconsistencies. I did not make it clear enough at the onset that I am not disputing that there are Precambrian fossils, I am pointing out, as I’m sure you are well aware of by now, that the fossil record story as told within the framework (belief, faith, etc.) of geologic time is grossly inconsistent. One may discuss infinite specificity regarding organisms, but this is avoiding the real issue. The real issue is that we do not see the gradual decent on the scale that you would expect if evolution was a real phenomenon of nature. What we do see are a few and far between, very primitive organisms precambrian, then a 1000 fold explosion of extraordinarily complex living creatures. Do you really want to debate me on this? If you are truly scientifically minded as you say, you must concede this point because this is just a raw fact.

Yep. Many descendants of those organism live today. But as the information above points out, exoskeletons evolved gradually, and weren't fully complete until the Cambrian.

The attributes found in Ediacara fauna are found in all layers which adds many layers of complexity from an evolutionary standpoint. Why do we have soft and slightly hardened (collagen bioturbation) fossils in all layers, and an explosion of creatures of every sort beginning suddenly in a point in time (given the geologic time scale theory)? The answer is simple, the fossil record, under the assumption of geologic time, does not support the rigorous mandates of evolutionary biological sequences.

Nope. We see all sorts of gradual change, including those leading directly to arthropods and mollusks. Read the links and see.

The number of intermediates is 10,000 fold less than it should be if evolution actually took place for each of the highly specialized organisms that came into existence. Plus the gradual change is not found in the fossil record. One may make that assertion on few, widely scattered organisms, but certainly the body of evidence as a whole is devastating to anyone who holds this belief as true.

(Barbarian observes:
And yet the world is chock full of living things, so that the only way to have anything new, is for something to be removed. How could the world have held forty times (by your extremely conservative estimate) as many living things? Not possible. They could not have all lived at once.)

This is a very biased claim. Given the fact that you accept we all came from a rock, I will consider your point from that perspective.

Not without an appeal to magic of some kind.

How about mythological naturalism and lots of time.

You suppose that somehow the Earth could support at least 40 times the organisms it does now, and you think scientists have active imaginations?

Who is it imagining we all came from a rock?

Nope. Sometimes, it results in more complexity, sometimes less. I gave you two examples of more, above.

There are no empirically proven examples of increased complexity, as defined by increased information beneficial to the organism’s survival. But after all Barbarian says “Evolution does not require increasing complexity”.

Entropy is about heat. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.

Thanks for providing the physics definition of entropy. Of course it can be used to describe the tendency of complex systems toward disorder also. This is the sense in which I used it. The so-called fossil record supports this notion. Diversity of life has decreased over time.

Prophesy is revealed knowledge. Predictions are based on evidence.

Do you define evolution as evidence? That was your basis for the predictions you made earlier. Please explain the difference between revealed knowledge and evidence.

I have three dictionaries in my library, and none of them say that. What dictionary are you using?

As I said earlier, Webster’s is the dictionary I referenced. No great mystery here. Every dictionary I check has the same definitions.

Prophecy:

1 prediction of the future under the influence of divine guidance; act or practice of a prophet
2 any prediction

Prediction:

1 a predicting or being predicted
2 the thing predicted or foretold

You wish to impose definitional standards to this word to make it appear more than it really is. Evolution is a belief system, a revealed truth to those who believe it. The predictions you have mentioned are no different that those made by prophets who believe they have had something revealed to them. You may discuss the raw facts, but when you interpret and predict based on them, you are no longer in the realm of fact, but faith.

Nope. Here's what has been found, so far..

http://www.harunyahya.org/resimler/image001.jpg

One species was about 50% recovered. More are turning up now.

Even if this source is correct, you are light-years from showing enough intermediates to justify faith in evolution.

As I said, science always works with incomplete information. But it works.

Science is a very broad term. Technologically, I would agree. Theoretically regarding origins, I disagree.

I rely on faith. For God. In science, evidence is all that counts. I think most scientists are like that.

If you do so you will reject the theoretical belief systems, or science falsely so-called.

Again, if you challenge a scientist on some aspect of science, he'll start citing evidence, not faith.

Much to the contrary, most scientists exude faith in naturalism. This is not a new thing though, those that worship the creation more than the creator have been around for a very long time now.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Meatros:
If I *meant* to say that I would have. If you didn't understand what I said, you should have just asked.
Check this site out.

What you *did* say was outlandish enough. “Proofs are for math, not science”, verily.

Don't know what a scientific theory means, eh? Well my response to that is above.

I “know” evolution is not a proven one. You originally said: Evolution was "proven" many years ago and I'm sure you have heard this before, but evolution is just as valid as the theory of gravity.. A proven theory becomes law. Surely you know at least this?

Theory of gravity???? Gravity is a demonstrable phenomenon elevated many centuries ago to the status of law. To the contrary, evolution is a highly speculative and widely disputed theory that suffers from contradictions in fact on multiple fronts.

I see, so you believe I'm one of the Pharisees, well guess what my opinion is of you?

No, I can’t honestly say I believe that. After all, I really don’t know you personally. I do attribute the pervasive insistence on believing man’s wisdom over God’s wisdom to modern Phariseeism (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). This is especially true when there is substantial evidence to the contrary as in the case of evolution.

Again, you equate it to faith, showing a lack of knowledge about science and evolution. I don't mind if you think it doesn't have scientific evidence as support-at least then you understand what the difference between science and religion is. What you are doing is obfuscating the terms because you don't *like* what you perceive to be the theory of evolution. You are trying to imply it's faith, in order to make yourself feel you have a reason to validly deny the findings of thousands of scientists.

Ah, faith, fact and feeling, all in one post. Until you learn to separate the 3 real truth shall escape you. All 3 are present in any human endeavor. I am not lacking in knowledge about science and evolution, you are. You have completely missed the faith element of science. In fact, you are blind to it. I am not saying this to be condescending; this has been an area of intense study of mine for years now. What I hope you will understand some day is that the facts can be interpreted many different ways. Facts are just what they are, facts. They imply little until placed inside an interpretive construct. These constructs are essentially faith. You may want to reserve that term only for religion, but this is very myopic on your part. I am not trying to muddle or confuse, to the contrary, I am trying to enlighten you to the truth. There are only two choices, natural causes or divine intervention, and the Bible already tells us the first is incorrect (Hebrews 11:3).

Yet as I've shown in other threads, it's simply impossible that this earth is young. Unless of course you'd like to explain the meteor problem.

When faced with a problem like this, I do just like you guys do with the problems you cannot answer, I take it on faith. This is much like Darwin’s faith that the Cambrian explosion would be proven wrong over time. Of course, the converse happened, it was worse than he thought. It’s kind of like how Darwin had faith that the building blocks of life would be shown to be self-combining in such a way so that life from inorganic material was inevitable. Today we can calculate the probability of protein structures assembling randomly. We can easily see how astronomically improbable complex living structures arising from natural processes are. I can only imagine how much faith it must have taken 40 or 50 years ago to believe in creation when bombarded with the lopsided facts and unfounded speculations presented by the extraordinarily biased scientific establishment. Today it is another story. True science is showing what Christians have known all along, that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork.

 

[The Galatian]

Theory of gravity???? Gravity is a demonstrable phenomenon elevated many centuries ago to the status of law.

Before this goes any further, we need to talk about those ideas.

1. Gravity was not "known" for many centuries. It was observed that things fall down when nothing stops them. However, gravity was first hypothesized by Newton, who showed how it worked and that it could account for the motions of planets. Likewise, we see variation within and among species. Darwin only discovered why it works, and showed that it could account for common descent.

2. A law is a weaker thing than a theory. Laws merely state what scientists expect to see under given circumstances, while theories explain why.

Hence, we have Kepler's Laws, which describe the motions of the planets about the Sun, while a more useful thing is Newton's theory of gravity, that explains why it happens.

Laws are restricted to specific circumstances, while theories can be used to predict what will happen in other situations. Hence, Newton, by explaining why the apple fell from the tree (yes, he said that really happened) was able to move it out to explain the motion of the moon, and eventually the stars and galaxies.

To the contrary, evolution is a highly speculative

Nonsense. It's been directly observed, including macroevolution and the evolution of irreducibly complex features. It's as obvious as gravity.

and widely disputed theory

Nope. Only a tiny minority of scientists reject evolution, few of them biologists, and all of them for religious reasons.

that suffers from contradictions in fact on multiple fronts.

Tell us about the contradictions.

When faced with a problem like this, I do just like you guys do with the problems you cannot answer, I take it on faith.

In science, if we can't answer a question on evidence, it remains open. Faith is not an option.

This is much like Darwin’s faith that the Cambrian explosion would be proven wrong over time.

He knew that life could not have suddenly appeared so quickly. Turns out he was right. But he was right because the evidence indicated that it had to be so.

Here's an even better one. Lord Kelvin once calculated that the Earth had to be less than 10 million years old, based on thermodymics. Darwin pointed out that this would not be enough time to permit the evolution of existing organisms, but Kelvin's numbers were correct.

Later, when radioactivity was discovered, it turned out that Kelvin was wrong, and Darwin right. Based on evidence, not faith.

Of course, the converse happened, it was worse than he thought.

Nope. It turns out that there were many, many living things, including complex metazoans before the Cambrian. Darwin didn't know about them, of course, but the evidence told him that they had to exist.

It’s kind of like how Darwin had faith that the building blocks of life would be shown to be self-combining in such a way so that life from inorganic material was inevitable.

Could you cite a reference for this? Darwin never made any predictions about the origin of life. That's why he only predicted how species begin, not life.

Today we can calculate the probability of protein structures assembling randomly.

That's easy. It's 0.0. Chemistry is not random.

We can easily see how astronomically improbable complex living structures arising from natural processes are.

If God made the first organisms, and they evolved from there, it would be fine with evolutionary theory. It makes no predictions about that, nor did Darwin.

You might consider reading "The Origin of Species". It's not what you seem to think it is. If it's a bit heavy reading (Darwin produces evidence in numbing detail) you might try "Darwin's Ghost", and updating of the original.

 

[Meatros]

What you *did* say was outlandish enough. “Proofs are for math, not science”, verily.

And I am correct.

I “know” evolution is not a proven one. You originally said: Evolution was "proven" many years ago and I'm sure you have heard this before, but evolution is just as valid as the theory of gravity.. A proven theory becomes law. Surely you know at least this?

A theory NEVER becomes law, anyone who knows the basics of science knows this. Laws are COMPLETELY different then theories. Here's how it works:
There are facts.
Laws are the way these facts work> ie, what goes up must come down.
Theories are why these things work like they do.

Theories becoming laws That's a good one!

Gravity is a demonstrable phenomenon elevated many centuries ago to the status of law.

I'm sorry, but this is funny! There is a theory of gravity AND a law of gravity. Laws do not become theories. By all means try to prove me wrong, get a scientist to agree with you.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Before this goes any further, we need to talk about those ideas.

1. Gravity was not "known" for many centuries. It was observed that things fall down when nothing stops them. However, gravity was first hypothesized by Newton, who showed how it worked and that it could account for the motions of planets. Likewise, we see variation within and among species. Darwin only discovered why it works, and showed that it could account for common descent.

2. A law is a weaker thing than a theory. Laws merely state what scientists expect to see under given circumstances, while theories explain why.

Hence, we have Kepler's Laws, which describe the motions of the planets about the Sun, while a more useful thing is Newton's theory of gravity, that explains why it happens.

Laws are restricted to specific circumstances, while theories can be used to predict what will happen in other situations. Hence, Newton, by explaining why the apple fell from the tree (yes, he said that really happened) was able to move it out to explain the motion of the moon, and eventually the stars and galaxies.

Yes, gravity was not “known” for many centuries, yes, I have that already. A law is weaker than a theory???? Weaker in what way? Laws are not mere in any way. Laws are definitive explanations of observed phenomena. The word theory has a great many definitions. You may choose the one you like, I prefer speculative idea. You may make it sound fancy by applying terms like “systematic statement of posited constructs”, or such like, but the fact is the word theory means just what everybody perceives it to mean, a belief. Evolutionary theory is an imaginative construct based on the accumulation of literally thousands of assumptions from every branch in science. To say a law is weaker (whatever you mean by weaker) than a law is to show a blatant disregard for the substructures of speculation that under gird the theory of evolution.

Nonsense. It's been directly observed, including macroevolution and the evolution of irreducibly complex features. It's as obvious as gravity.

This is the most outlandish, unscientific claim I have ever heard.

Nope. Only a tiny minority of scientists reject evolution, few of them biologists, and all of them for religious reasons.

At one time Darwin was in the minority. I know you believe he was right don’t you? So what basis for argument do you introduce minority or majority of popular opinion?

Tell us about the contradictions.

I have told you some already, but you are blind to them.

In science, if we can't answer a question on evidence, it remains open. Faith is not an option.

Good, then origins is still an open question scientifically, right?

He knew that life could not have suddenly appeared so quickly. Turns out he was right. But he was right because the evidence indicated that it had to be so.

What? Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion?

Here's an even better one. Lord Kelvin once calculated that the Earth had to be less than 10 million years old, based on thermodymics. Darwin pointed out that this would not be enough time to permit the evolution of existing organisms, but Kelvin's numbers were correct.

Later, when radioactivity was discovered, it turned out that Kelvin was wrong, and Darwin right. Based on evidence, not faith.

Sounds just like what we are going through today with the revelation of the microscopic world with the electron microscope and other related technologies that allow us to unveil the complicated majesty of creation, the artifacts of design hidden to all who preceded us.

Nope. It turns out that there were many, many living things, including complex metazoans before the Cambrian. Darwin didn't know about them, of course, but the evidence told him that they had to exist.

Poor defense of my original point.

Could you cite a reference for this? Darwin never made any predictions about the origin of life. That's why he only predicted how species begin, not life.

Understood. This is from a letter he wrote to a colleague and not a formal prediction. I will dig this up.

That's easy. It's 0.0. Chemistry is not random.

A mid-level protein is a specific sequence of amino acids 550 segments long. There are 20 different amino acids. 20 to the 550th power is a number larger than I would care to express on this post. The chances of this combination occurring naturally is essentially 0.0. Maybe this is what you meant?

If God made the first organisms, and they evolved from there, it would be fine with evolutionary theory. It makes no predictions about that, nor did Darwin.

Didn’t you say something earlier about imposing limitations on God. Isn’t that exactly what modern science has done? He made the first ones and then they evolved? Is that what you believe?

 

[Meatros]

The word theory has a great many definitions. You may choose the one you like, I prefer speculative idea.

When discussing science don't you think we should use the scientific definition of theory?

In which case "speculative idea" is wrong.

but the fact is the word theory means just what everybody perceives it to mean, a belief.

That's not how scientists use the word.

To say a law is weaker (whatever you mean by weaker) than a law is to show a blatant disregard for the substructures of speculation that under gird the theory of evolution.

You obviously don't know the differences between laws, facts, theories, and hypothesis's. Reread The Galatian's post for clearer insight.

This is the most outlandish, unscientific claim I have ever heard.

No offense, but how can you comment? You don't seem to know the definitions that scientists use; doesn't it go to figure that you wouldn't understand their theories either?

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

And I am correct.

Mathematics defined:

the group of sciences (including arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, etc.) dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms, and their relationships, attributes, etc., by the use of numbers and symbols

I guess poor Einstein wasted his time with such things when working on relativity.

A theory NEVER becomes law, anyone who knows the basics of science knows this. Laws are COMPLETELY different then theories. Here's how it works:
There are facts.
Laws are the way these facts work> ie, what goes up must come down.
Theories are why these things work like they do.

Theories becoming laws That's a good one!

Enlighten thyself court jester:

theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution]; hypothesis implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis]; law implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy]
-Webster’s New World Dictionary

I'm sorry, but this is funny! There is a theory of gravity AND a law of gravity. Laws do not become theories. By all means try to prove me wrong, get a scientist to agree with you.

Did you mean to say "theories do not become laws"? If so, how about Newton.

[ June 03, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

When discussing science don't you think we should use the scientific definition of theory?

In which case "speculative idea" is wrong.

No, I’m not bound by any of their biases. I can see them for what they really are.

That's not how scientists use the word.

Well bless their little souls.

You obviously don't know the differences between laws, facts, theories, and hypothesis's. Reread The Galatian's post for clearer insight.

Verily.

No offense, but how can you comment? You don't seem to know the definitions that scientists use; doesn't it go to figure that you wouldn't understand their theories either?

I know them at level far beyond what you do.

 

[john6:63]

Looks like someone is getting “macroevolution” and “microevolution” confused.

I know I read somewhere that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Did I read also where God said “…the earth were finished, and all the host of them…” Could God have meant what he said?

Or do I need secular man to explain this one as well?

 

[Meatros]

Mathematics defined:

the group of sciences (including arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, etc.) dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms, and their relationships, attributes, etc., by the use of numbers and symbols

I guess poor Einstein wasted his time with such things when working on relativity.

Um yeah? This has exactly what to do with 'proofs'?

Are you saying that relativity is something we learn in math class?

theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution]; hypothesis implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis]; law implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy]
-Webster’s New World Dictionary

I see, so you think Webster is a scientist. Again I am not referring to how lay people use the term theory, I'm referring to how scientists use the term.

How about Newton.

How about him. Would you like to actually provide a gram of support.

Look you got caught, you thought that a "law" was somehow more valid then a theory-that a theory eventually becomes a law. You are wrong and you are trying to weasel your way out of it.

No, I’m not bound by any of their biases. I can see them for what they really are

Avoiding the issue, eh?

I know them at level far beyond what you do.

It's obvious that you don't. You stated that a theory eventually becomes a law.

A proven theory becomes law.

Provide a shred of support for this from a credible source.

 

[Meatros]

Looks like someone is getting “macroevolution” and “microevolution” confused.

Please tell us the difference. Please also tell us why one species, given enough time, can not change enough to become another species. What are the exact mechanisms that prevent this.

 

[Meatros]

Check out AiG:

Arguments Creationists should not use:

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

 

[john6:63]

Meatros: Please tell us the difference.

(Micro/Macroevolution)

Come on. You honestly need help with this?

Meatros: Please also tell us why one species, given enough time, can not change enough to become another species. What are the exact mechanisms that prevent this.

(Genesis 1:26) “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”
(Genesis 2:1) “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

I believe God means what He says. He said He was “finished” therefore He’s done with it. The Creation is finished.

 

[BrotherJesse]

Well...I believe the Book of Genesis is completely true and accurrate. What is says actually happened. I do not dare question God's Word.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Um yeah? This has exactly what to do with 'proofs'?

Are you saying that relativity is something we learn in math class?

Math is not independent of science theory and law as you suggest. Mathematical proofs are derived from and integral to these things. Isn’t that obvious by now?

I see, so you think Webster is a scientist. Again I am not referring to how lay people use the term theory, I'm referring to how scientists use the term.

Much, much more of a scientist than you are obviously. These are common definitions found in any dictionary. It’s really just common sense Meatros. You may feel very strongly about a particular theory, and put great faith in it’s predictions, but the fact is that it is not completely reliable. When it becomes so it is a law.

How about him. Would you like to actually provide a gram of support.

Look you got caught, you thought that a "law" was somehow more valid then a theory-that a theory eventually becomes a law. You are wrong and you are trying to weasel your way out of it.

No weaseling here, I stand by my statement, and I’ve shown you definitions and sources that I’m right too. Where are your sources?

Avoiding the issue, eh?

Nope, addressing them head on.

It's obvious that you don't. You stated that a theory eventually becomes a law.

Only theories that are proven, which of course, is unimaginable in the case of evolution.

Provide a shred of support for this from a credible source.

You first. But don’t expect me to roll over and play dead because some silly stumble bum that thinks he’s smart because he has some letters after his name is my final authority.

 

[john6:63]

BrotherJesse

About 50 to 100 years ago the pulpits of America were ablaze with the Word of God. With the help of the ACLU among other organizations, mentioning God the word Jesus can get you into a heap of trouble. They’ve managed successfully to just about rid our culture of God. A few churches of America are slowly starting to allow secular reasoning to dictate the doctrine of their church. A sign that I believe is signaling the Glorious return of our Lord for those who have their faith and trust in Him.

Now I’m going to be accused of saying that b/c one doesn’t take Genesis literally they will not be included. That’s not the case. Jesus said in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

I believe that a few here that has let the liberal thinking society and science interprets the Bible. Without turning to the Bible for answers they tend to turn to secular man for the answers.

 

[BrotherJesse]

John 6:63,
I agree 100% with you. Good luck with those selected few. I'll help you if you need the help. God bless you!

 

[Meatros]

(Micro/Macroevolution)

Come on. You honestly need help with this?

I'll take that as an admission that you can't do it.

(Genesis 1:26) “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”
(Genesis 2:1) “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

I believe God means what He says. He said He was “finished” therefore He’s done with it. The Creation is finished.

Um...viruses still change today, so how could God be "done". In any event, you haven't answered my question. I want a biological reason, not your interpretation of the bible that sets up God to be a liar.

Much, much more of a scientist than you are obviously.

Ah yes, of course. I'm still waiting for you to tell me when a theory becomes a law. The reason you think that proofs are applicable to more then math is because of the definition of a "Mathematical Law": A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
This is very disingenious of you. This does not apply to science and that's why you can't find any scientists who agree with your position. It's also why you are trying to make us all believe that science and math should have the same vernacular-which is intellectually dishonest of you.

You may feel very strongly about a particular theory, and put great faith in it’s predictions, but the fact is that it is not completely reliable. When it becomes so it is a law.

You realize that no scientist agrees with you. In fact you haven't given one ounce of evidence to suggest this. You keep saying a theory will become a law-it won't. If you feel otherwise, please prove it. I'm not going to take your uneducated word on this matter.

No weaseling here, I stand by my statement, and I’ve shown you definitions and sources that I’m right too. Where are your sources?

No you haven't, you've shown me the dictionary, not what scientists actually believe. You know why you can't add a reference from a scientist about a theory becoming a law? Because they don't, ever.

Only theories that are proven, which of course, is unimaginable in the case of evolution.

Again provide a scientific source for this assertion. I provided you with a source FROM a young earth creationist site, and it contradicts what you are saying. Right now you are being stubborn and refusing to admit when you are wrong. That's pride.

You first. But don’t expect me to roll over and play dead because some silly stumble bum that thinks he’s smart because he has some letters after his name is my final authority.

I've provided you with TWO sources. I can certainly provide more if you need me to. How about you actually read some of the sources I provide?

Since you like the dictionary so much, here is an entry that defines "theory":

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

And they even have this gem:

Note: ``This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.

Definition of a "Law":

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

So now that I've used what your own sources against you, what are you going to say?? Are you going to continue to be intellectually dishonest or are you going to let down your pride and admit you were in error?

The fact of the matter is you are wrong, you have no support for your mistaken assertion, and by denying what is overwhelmingly obvious, you are being stubborn and intellectually dishonest.

I believe that a few here that has let the liberal thinking society and science interprets the Bible. Without turning to the Bible for answers they tend to turn to secular man for the answers.

Sorry but a literal Genesis just isn't possible. Unless you've got an answer for the meteor stumper that I've mentioned numerous times.