Yehren wrote:We don't need another thread on evolution since about 1/2 of the threads in this forum deal with that one subject. And before you get going all of this has been discussed on other threads without evolutionists changing our minds.
There is value in hearing other opinions and the facts they cite to support them.
I agree, but why reinvent the wheel? You can take the time to read what has been posted and add your comments to that thread. That way you won't have to repeat what has already been shared.
What it boils down to is scientists want to use big words for something they cannot empirically prove.
The words aren't, in most cases, bigger than the ones you're accustomed to seeing. They are just specialized words, used for things that are not part of our everyday experience, but need to be given names. By custom, they are given Latin or Greek names which works pretty well.
Science doesn't prove things, it merely gets increasingly greater confidence in them.
WHAT? Then evolution has not been proven and evolutionists are putting their confidence in theories and assumptions. All disciplines use words in ways the common man does not use them. Just when would I have an opportunity to talk about an allele?
Microevolution has been observed, however macroevolution has not been empirically proven by anyone.
Speciation is an observed fact. However, creationists no longer call speciation "macroevolution." The last time I checked, most "creation scientists" figured that evolution extended to new species, genera and families.
God uses simple language to teach complex subjects. He created animals after their "kind". Now can you list some new "kinds" of animals observed through evolution? Dogs evolved from wolves, but you still have a "wolf" tamed by man for a specific purpose.
Also there are eminent scientists who disagree with macroevolution and put forth sound arguments against the theory.
I haven't yet seen a good argument against it. The last world-class biologist who rejected evolution died about a hundred years ago.
And another thing we don’t need is a scientific explanation of a “theory”.
So you are basing your opposition to ID based on "we don't need another theory"? Why not? Science is putting forth a hypothesis and then tearing it apart. Have you read "The Case for a Creator"? As to the last world class biologist who rejected evolution what makes biology the last word?
If we're talking science, we need to use the scientific explanation. In science, a theory is a well-tested idea or body of ideas that explains natural phenomena. I'm aware that "theory" has a common meaning as well, but that's not the one scientists use.
When I was taking science classes the current definition was yet future.
No kidding? I learned about it in the mid-60s, and at that time, it had the meaning it has today. You deserve a lot of respect for lasting that long...
Changing definitions to make a case is self-serving and does not establish truth.
True. But in this case, we have nearly 50 years of common use in science to back it up. I have no idea how much earlier that definition was established.
I am 61 and when I was in school "theory" meant theory and evolution was not taught as scientific fact. The definition has changed in my lifetime.