Jump to content


Photo

Theory, Law, Fact - Do You Know What They Are?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Inferno

Inferno

    Copy paste posting troll

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Austria, Vienna

Posted 19 October 2010 - 03:58 PM

As you might have noticed I don't quite agree with much of what is said on this forum and I obviously expected that, I hoped to find new challenges to evolution here. Yet what I see are not only old arguments, but also arguments that have nothing to do with either creation nor evolution but which are still wrong.

I've taken the following quote from JoshuaJacob's Signature. My question would be (before I go to bed and explain the point in detail) is: How many of you think that the following quote is:
1) Representing reality.
and/or
2) An actual argument to be used against Evolutionary Theory?

Science demands empirical evidence that can be re-created in a laboratory before it labels something as "fact." Consequently, we teach evolution as fact in schools, but call it the "theory" of evolution.



#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 October 2010 - 04:37 PM

As you might have noticed I don't quite agree with much of what is said on this forum and I obviously expected that, I hoped to find new challenges to evolution here. Yet what I see are not only old arguments, but also arguments that have nothing to do with either creation nor evolution but which are still wrong.

I've taken the following quote from JoshuaJacob's Signature. My question would be (before I go to bed and explain the point in detail) is: How many of you think that the following quote is:
1) Representing reality.
and/or
2) An actual argument to be used against Evolutionary Theory?

View Post


Do I Know What They Are?..... ABSOLUTELY!

Regardless of what you think or profess (i.e. you cannot find challenges to evolution here, or you only find old arguments), no evolutionists have provided:

1- Evidence for macro evolution.
2- Logical, rational or scientific refutation to the assertions against evolution.

Macro-evolution is not even a proper theory. It is nothing more than a model (best case scenario).

Micro evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species; regardless of evolutionist’s attempts to water down the definition of kind/species, in order for it to fit their model.

And concerning JoshuaJacob's Signature: If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact (or facts), the best that can be said of the findings for the experiment is that of mere opinion.

1- An opinion is not a fact.
2- A fact is not an opinion.
3- A fact is truth (or that which comports with reality).
4- Anything else, is nothing more than opinion, until it is validated as a fact. Otherwise it remains a Non-fact!
5- An opinion promulgated as a fact is a lie (see non-truth).
6- An opinion is proceeded upon via faith.
7- Faith dogmatically defended is a religion.

#3 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 October 2010 - 07:13 PM

As you might have noticed I don't quite agree with much of what is said on this forum and I obviously expected that, I hoped to find new challenges to evolution here. Yet what I see are not only old arguments, but also arguments that have nothing to do with either creation nor evolution but which are still wrong.

View Post

Some here are more educated in science and in the theory of Evolution than others. Some here do not post all that often. I invite you to stick around a little longer.

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 October 2010 - 08:18 PM

I would suggest in order of frequency and credibility , created opinion, theory, fact & law (the latter are in a tie).

#5 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 19 October 2010 - 10:18 PM

My sig pretty much means kids are being taught a theory as fact. I've heard the definition of theory argument many times. Just because a theory is based on some facts, it does not make the theory fact. Its quite simple really.

#6 Inferno

Inferno

    Copy paste posting troll

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Austria, Vienna

Posted 20 October 2010 - 02:10 AM

Woah woah Ron, I'm not quite there yet. I'll get to the science in just a minute. (Metaphorically obviously, since I have to wait at least 5min before I can post again. :P )

And concerning JoshuaJacob's Signature: If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact (or facts), the best that can be said of the findings for the experiment is that of mere opinion.


Agreed, but then a fact wouldn't BE a fact.
A fact is a statement that is always true under a specific set of circumstances. So by saying "If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact" you're basically saying the obvious: A fact is a fact and not-a-fact is not-a-fact. That much was clear. But you didn't answer the questions I was asking, namely:

How many of you think that the following quote is:
1) Representing reality.
and/or
2) An actual argument to be used against Evolutionary Theory?


I don't know how else I can word this, maybe something got lost in my translation? I will see what the answers show, maybe I just didn't word the question properly.

I invite you to stick around a little longer.


Invite gladly accepted. However, what are your thoughts?

I would suggest in order of frequency and credibility , created opinion, theory, fact & law (the latter are in a tie).


If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there is basically a ladder and that on the lower end of the ladder is "created opinion", slightly higher up is "theory" and at the top is "fact & law", correct? (And obviously the top of the ladder represents the most credible ones, the ones with most worth to science.)

My sig pretty much means kids are being taught a theory as fact. I've heard the definition of theory argument many times. Just because a theory is based on some facts, it does not make the theory fact. Its quite simple really.


I'll go into this as soon as I have the replies from the others above. But no, it's not that simple actually. You seem to (but I am willing to concede that it may not be so, if you prove otherwise) that you have a vernacular understanding and use of the words "theory" and "fact", but not a scientific one. And in case it's not obvious: They're not the same. ;)

#7 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 20 October 2010 - 02:19 AM

A scientific theory, is a theory, speculation or idea which has no empirical evidence. An example being: the theory of evolution.

A scientific fact in contrast is something that has been positively proven, hence it is not considered a mere theory.

#8 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 20 October 2010 - 02:43 AM

No matter how You try to spin the word theory, its still not a fact. And yes it really is that simple, some people just like to over complicate the word to make it seem like its a fact or keep changing the definition to make it seem like its a proven fact. :P

#9 Inferno

Inferno

    Copy paste posting troll

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Austria, Vienna

Posted 20 October 2010 - 04:02 AM

A scientific theory, is a theory, speculation or idea which has no empirical evidence. An example being: the theory of evolution.

A scientific fact in contrast is something that has been positively proven, hence it is not considered a mere theory.

View Post


Thank you for proving my point. ;)
Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT the definition of a theory.
As explained above, a fact is something that is always true under a specific set of circumstances. For example, if I let a ball go, it will fall to Earth, that is the fact of gravity.

A theory tries to make sense of the facts. So for example, this is the theory of gravity.
Posted Image
Basically what this means is that I need many many many many facts (like the above, a ball falling to earth) to construct a theory. Theories are always updated as new evidence comes along and obviously de-constructed if conflicting evidence comes along.

So the fact is that we see objects fall, yet the theory is "why do objects fall?".

Oh and lest I forget, a law is sometimes equated to a theory, but that's not quite true. A law makes up a theory, just like facts. For example, Newton's laws of motion (plus a few other ones) make up the theory of gravity. (As well as other theories.)

So no, your statement that "A scientific fact in contrast is something that has been positively proven, hence it is not considered a mere theory." is quite the fallacy. A theory can't be elevated to a fact because in scientific terms (notice: quite different from what we use in every day life!) a fact is far less than a theory. It is actually impossible to elevate a theory into a fact, even if it has been proved often enough.

Saying that "one day, a theory will be a fact" is like saying that one day a banana-shake will turn into a banana. It's impossible, because the shake is made up of the bananas.

No matter how You try to spin the word theory, its still not a fact. And yes it really is that simple, some people just like to over complicate the word to make it seem like its a fact or keep changing the definition to make it seem like its a proven fact.  :P

View Post


Exactly, it's not a fact because it can never be a fact, no matter what we do. No theory can ever become a fact. That's why we teach the theory of gravity in school "as if it were a fact" because it's constructed upon facts.
And that's the error many people make: Evolution isn't the only theory around. We have the germ theory of disease, cell theory, music theory and a myriad more.

The following are two excerpts from different scientific organizations, like the AAAS.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


This link here focuses on "Evolution vs Creation", what is a theory? Just block out Evolution vs Creation for a second and focus on science at large.
AAAS - FAQ The second quote comes directly from this link.

Here's a statement from Stephen Hawking on the requirements on a theory.

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."


EDIT: One thing I forgot, before anyone starts throwing out that scientists keep changing the definition of what a theory is. This exact definition has been around since at least Karl Popper and it was used in a more unrefined since Aristotle.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 October 2010 - 04:30 AM

Woah woah Ron, I'm not quite there yet. I'll get to the science in just a minute.

View Post


Getting to the “science” won’t change the “facts”, no matter how you slow it down (i.e. “Woah”)

(Metaphorically obviously, since I have to wait at least 5min before I can post again.  :P )

View Post

Metaphorically AND the flood control notwithstanding.

Agreed, but then a fact wouldn't BE a fact.

View Post

Really!! A fact is not a Fact??? Can you provide evidence where two oranges and two apples are not four pieces of fruit? Is that fact, in fact, not always a fact?

A fact is a statement that is always true under a specific set of circumstances.

View Post

Incorrect…. A fact is a fact (period). A statement can be “factual” based upon the “facts it contains. Some “facts” are dependant upon circumstances (i.e. the fact of gravity is different on the Earth than it is on the Sun), but those “facts” are still facts, no matter where you are.

So by saying "If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact" you're basically saying the obvious: A fact is a fact and not-a-fact is not-a-fact. That much was clear.

View Post

That is what we call a “Duh” moment. And speaks directly to the issue.







But you didn't answer the questions I was asking, namely:
I don't know how else I can word this, maybe something got lost in my translation? I will see what the answers show, maybe I just didn't word the question properly.

View Post


Actually, I answered your question by speaking directly to it:

1- Evidence for macro evolution.
2- Logical, rational or scientific refutation to the assertions against evolution.

Macro-evolution is not even a proper theory. It is nothing more than a model (best case scenario).

Micro evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species; regardless of evolutionist’s attempts to water down the definition of kind/species, in order for it to fit their model.

View Post

The above which are “FACTS” no matter how you word your questions.

I went on to provide obvious “FACTS”:

And concerning JoshuaJacob's Signature:  If inductive experimentation doesn’t prove (or validate) a fact (or facts), the best that can be said of the findings for the experiment is that of mere opinion.

1- An opinion is not a fact.
2- A fact is not an opinion.
3- A fact is truth (or that which comports with reality).
4- Anything else, is nothing more than opinion, until it is validated as a fact. Otherwise it remains a Non-fact!
5- An opinion promulgated as a fact is a lie (see non-truth).
6- An opinion is proceeded upon via faith.
7- Faith dogmatically defended is a religion.

View Post



#11 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 20 October 2010 - 05:29 AM

Thank you for proving my point. :P
Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT the definition of a theory.
As explained above, a fact is something that is always true under a specific set of circumstances.


No offence but i'm more interested in dictionaries and how they define words, not just some 20 year old's self-definition.

Look up the word theory in a dictionary, as JoshuaJacob said it is that simple.

There is no need to start redefining words (as you are trying to do).

For example, if I let a ball go, it will fall to Earth, that is the fact of gravity.


Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

#12 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 October 2010 - 08:59 AM

Invite gladly accepted. However, what are your thoughts?

View Post

Do I know what a theory is? Yes.

Do I agree with Joshua Jacob's signature? Hmmm... part of it.

Evolution is not a fact, yet it is taught as one. You can say that the theory of evolution is on equal footing with the theory of relativity but that doesn't mean it is true. I would present to you some theories based on evidence that support creation and/or the flood. Now, why would we teach the theory of evolution but not teach these equally valid theories?

I also continually see old evolutionary ideas used to explain evolution. Such as Lamarck’s thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics even though evolutionists say that the theory no longer holds those views.

Science demands empirical evidence that can be re-created in a laboratory before it labels something as "fact." I am not sure that I agree with this part of his signature. There are facts and theories that cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

#13 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 October 2010 - 09:17 AM

As you might have noticed I don't quite agree with much of what is said on this forum and I obviously expected that, I hoped to find new challenges to evolution here. Yet what I see are not only old arguments, but also arguments that have nothing to do with either creation nor evolution but which are still wrong.

View Post

Most of the evidence against evolution is not found on this forum, but can be found in books and links that are recommended.

A good example can be found in these posts:

They didn't fossilize on the mountains. The fossils were present in the strata before they were uplifted. No, they do not represent all the life that was present in the sea they lived and died within. But I have seen assemblages of unbroken fragile fossil corals on outcrops on the tops of mountains. They most certainly were not placed on the mountaintops by flood waters carrying them up thousands of feet. Animals dying today are in part on their way to being preserved as fossils.

View Post



That is not what the Creationist model suggests. I am wondering where you got this idea.

View Post



It has been claimed in threads on this very board that fossils found on tops of mountains were placed there by the flood. I see this as a common claim from creationists. You follow an alternative creationist concept that explains fossils on the tops of mountains?

View Post



The very first book that I read and every book thereafter that gives models of the flood says that the tops of mountains were once part of the ocean floor (the mountains weren't yet formed when the animals were fossilized). I therefore have to draw the conclusion that you have read very, very little on flood geology or YEC beliefs.

View Post



#14 Falcon

Falcon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 20 October 2010 - 10:19 AM

No offence but i'm more interested in dictionaries and how they define words, not just some 20 year old's self-definition.

Look up the word theory in a dictionary, as JoshuaJacob said it is that simple.

There is no need to start redefining words (as you are trying to do).
Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

View Post


You do realize that this alternative theory for gravity would only make any sense at all if everyone was experiencing the world traveling upwards, with respect to their position. In other words this would perhaps be a theoretically possible alternative if the earth were a flat plane and flying upwards at a constant acceleration. Needless to say that contradicts the entirety of a great deal of science and observation.

In fact while I do not mean to be rude this "alternative theory" demonstrates a rather serious lack of understanding of physics. Notice that the earth would not only have to be flat but would have to be traveling at constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 which means that starting from rest, after one day the earth would be traveling at 846,720 m/s.

Notice the difference between velocity (m/s) and acceleration (m/s^2)

#15 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 20 October 2010 - 01:00 PM

You do realize that this alternative theory for gravity would only make any sense at all if everyone was experiencing the world traveling upwards, with respect to their position.  In other words this would perhaps be a theoretically possible alternative if the earth were a flat plane and flying upwards at a constant acceleration.  Needless to say that contradicts the entirety of a great deal of science and observation. 

In fact while I do not mean to be rude this "alternative theory" demonstrates a rather serious lack of understanding of physics.  Notice that the earth would not only have to be flat but would have to be traveling at constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 which means that starting from rest, after one day the earth would be traveling at 846,720 m/s.


Right, and the shape of the earth is just entirely theoretical as well. I believe the earth is spherical (like most) however i can't prove this. The shape of the earth is therefore just another scientific theory which can't be proven.

Have you ever debated flat earthers before?

They reject all photos or videos from space and claim they are faked. Can we disprove these claims (as absurd as they appear)? The answer is no because there is actually no way to prove the photos or videos from space are real.

Confirmed ''scientific facts'' are incredibly limited. Most is all theory, and theories are not proven facts. The theory of evolution, is just one of many theories which has not been proven.

For something to be a 'fact' and proven we would have to be able to directly observe it etc, evolution though is non-observable, it's theoretical.

#16 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 October 2010 - 03:33 PM

Hi there Bros

Maybe we could say it this way: Like cool hand Luke says. “A man hast to know his limitations.” If all 6.7 billion of us on planet earth could agree on it, we could call something a fact or law. The advantage of the creationist Christian world view allows some of us to do that by appealing to ultimate authority (who is going to argue with God?). Understandably that would not be true in other worldviews.

Since the Garden of Eden, each one of us has had the ability to decide what is opinion, theory, fact or law (knowledge of good and evil).

One humorous way that Aristotle chose to demonstrate absolute versus subjective truth was called by some the Tower Test. If someone says they can fly without contrivance they would be brought to a very high tower and pushed off. If they fell to their death truth was objective (they couldn't fly). If they flew truth was subjective.

Since I'm pro-life I would suggest a different test. Let the claimant walk out into a field and flap his or arms or do whatever they think is needed to fly. If they levitate off the ground then they can fly. The ‘truth” is subjective. On the other hand if they don’t lift off at least they are not dead. ;)

In the Christian worldview God is the law giver. In a world view without God, 6.7 billion people are going to argue over what the truth is (opinion, theory, fact & law). Yes, it’s a ladder or hierarchy and we find it difficult to remove our bias from our view.

The commonality in all this is creativity. I'm defining creativity as the ability that we all possess to bring ideas into existence that did not exist before. Can an idea be a law if it doesn't even exist yet? Once there was no light bulb—now who would argue over a light bulb’s existence? It’s considered a fact. (except for those pesky flat earth people) Oh well, I tried. :P

Among us humans it takes agreement to decide these things. This is because we are individual creative units and creators can draw from a seemingly infinite repertoire of ideas that they can create. The dilemmas is we can't out create a creator.

Simplistically put, life is about learning what to create and what is best not to create-- or avoiding conflicting creativity. At least that’s my opinion. B)

#17 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 October 2010 - 05:31 PM

Most of the evidence against evolution is not found on this forum, but can be found in books and links that are recommended.

View Post

I just wanted to add that it would be a good idea to visit the homepage for this forum as there are articles and debates posted that are good to read. :)

#18 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 20 October 2010 - 06:22 PM

Science demands empirical evidence that can be re-created in a laboratory before it labels something as "fact." I am not sure that I agree with this part of his signature. There are facts and theories that cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

View Post



Things like Laws of thermodynamics (or any scientific laws) are proven facts, because they have been tested and proven in a laboratory and its repeatable, hence it is a proven fact.

Who says theories cannot one day become a proven law?

#19 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 20 October 2010 - 08:50 PM

A theory tries to make sense of the facts. So for example, this is the theory of gravity.

Basically what this means is that I need many many many many facts (like the above, a ball falling to earth) to construct a theory. Theories are always updated as new evidence comes along and obviously de-constructed if conflicting evidence comes along.


Very well put. :)

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2010 - 03:58 AM

Very well put. :)

View Post


And yet, regardless of your statement, it is still insufficient when attempting to provide evolution as anything more than opinion. Nor dose it even put a dent in the excuse that is this OP when it runs smack into the truths in JJ’s signature.

Therefore; Why is evolution promulgated as a fact, when it “clearly” is not (no question mark due to this being a rhetorical question).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users