Agreed - Palin is genuinely stupid. Want to talk about a scary future for America? Having a (potential) president whose major accomplishments include learning proper English and looking good in glasses.

So if I came to you with irrefutable evidence that evolution was the wrong explanation, and I had a better one, you'd reject it because (in your estimation) I have the definition of a theory wrong?

[goo.gl]

I hope so.

It leads to more theory - unfortunately, we have no time machine to go back and examine the origin of life or the transition from one species to another. But there are only two proposed roads: random chance or intelligent design.

It seems like this is a pretty common misconception around here: Gravity is a law. Relativity is the theory. Also, I completely comprehend the idea of accepted theory, I simply incorporate more data than most do. And using gravity as an example is just a red herring to enhance the credibility of your argument with…

Thanks for the clarification! Duly noted.

I'm not bashing or disrespecting it. I simply refuse to have complete faith in a system that is so observably flawed. If I hurt your feelings by doing so, you have my condolences, but that's your problem. I would never accuse you of worshipping nature just for having faith in established ideas, but I would urge you to…

Aha. Misunderstanding resolved.

Agreed.

Not a nutjob - she didn't get where she is by being an idiot. She's simply pandering, which is a smart political move if she's trying to appeal to her core constituency.

Gravity is a law. Relativity is the theory that helps explain gravity.

Like the requirement established theory has to ignore scientific laws (eg Biogenesis) at pretty pivotal points (such as the origination of life)? Or the complete dearth of empirical examples of macroevolution (evolution between species)? These are gaping holes to me. Sorry if I must be critical of a theory you all so…

Gravity is a law. And your argument is the Spaghetti Monster argument - asking for empirical proof for intangibles, which is obviously not going to happen. I prefer to focus on integrity and eliminate as many untestable variables as I can when looking at the evidence. Yes, I've come to different conclusions than many.…

And in that time, being stupid was believing in evolution. Sure you want to go there?

Your point being? This definition makes it no less critiquable or open to change. And last time I checked, gravity was a law.

So differentiate between a "Law" and a "theory" then. For all practical intents and purposes, a theory is a theory and continues to be modified as new evidence comes to light.

Overanalysis. A Theory is a theory. No need to overcomplicate the matter unless you're simply attempting to redirect the conversati....ohhhhh. I see what you did there.

So in order to advance scientific reasoning about evolution, we should simply have FAITH that the solution provided by scientists is the only option? Your logics are broken.

Well said - I got sucked in without even realizing it. This is linkbait just as much as minute by minute updates about Apple product is.