Darwinists hide fears

I really don't understand how BigTexn can suggest that "faith" and "theory" (and half a dozen other diverse words) are interchangeable words. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure you won't find them as synonyms in any thesaurus.

I thought a theory was an idea:
based on all available facts,
made in comparison to other proven principles,
and the most likely notion in regard to all current evidence and testing available.

Whereas faith is a feeling:
based on... err... a feeling.

Evolution is based on facts (evidence in the fossil record)
comparison to proven principles (a farmer selectively breeds his livestock for the best specimens - the meatiest cow, the fastest horse - could nature not do the same?)

Creationism is based on a book written thousands of years ago when knee length beards were still a strong look. It is based on no facts whatsoever.

Can any ANY creationist out there supply any facts to back up their version of events. Because I have yet to see that. I see a lot of squabbling, a lot of well-reasoned, well-informed arguments from the evolution side of the coin, but, from the gormless side, just a lot of vitriolic "Darwinists hide fears!" type comments, and sweeping statements without any factual support, like, "a prof or teacher can no longer stand in front of a classroom and talk about [evolution] without being made to feel as if he were in a Rodney Dangerfield movie, hearing snickering in the room, and seeing eyes roll back. That's starting to happen here and there now." (Both the ever-entertaining Gunga incidently - Viva la Gunga!)

Seriously, do you have anything like a "theory", as defined above, of creationism?

Its always fun to inspect how gunga tries to repackage the same ole tripe.

Creationists can only play the cards they are dealt, and they have nothing. So their only choices are to bluff and/or change the rules of the game. And they consistently try both.

BigTexn seems to have disappeared. We haven't heard from him in quite a while.

Probably settled down to a quiet married life with his sister.

Nonsens, there was a major trial ID vs Darwinism and Darwinism was the superior winner of the trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o

Science controversies don't get settled in courtrooms.

Political attacks on science do get settled in courtrooms.
Your position is not a scientific one gunga. It's a political one. And your position has been shown to be specious in a court of law.

The only thing which was ever shown in that particular court of law is that at least some judges are still either for sale or over-easily influenced in America. Evoloserism is an ideological doctrine masquerading as science; it does not rate the special treatment it gets.

Yeah... If something's been tested for 150 years, I'd tend to agree that it has a pretty solid basis. That's not fear... that's confidence.

It's unlikely that new evidence will alter the fact that gravity exists, either. We may tweak our understanding of how it works (Einstein's relativity and chaos theory applied to the three body problem, for examples), but gravity's going to be there, regardless.

I see you are filled with specious arguments gunga.

Dude, watch the damn vid instead of jumping to conclusions as with this thread itself.