Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, people say scientists say we descended from monkeys, but i've never heard a scientist say that.
apparently tho at some point in time, we had a common ancestor.

if anything, as more has been found, it's only strengthened the theory of evolution. they found another fossil in the last week or two of an animal a scientist had predicted. like halley and his comet, the guy got it right.

Yeah, I don't understand why Science says, "common ancestor" and Average Joe hears "monkey is your uncle."

It's interesting you mention fossil discovery- one of the things evolutionary biologists and scientists do is make predictions, and yeah, another cool thing is that very often later on fossil or DNA discoveries support the prediction.

And when they don't support it, rather than being pissy about it, scientists are excited about the new possibilities for exploration of our origins:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...3/s3905527.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rupert's debating strategy

1. Completely ignore the question or point made
2. Claim not to be an expert in something in as an excuse to not answer
3. Completely go off in a new direction
4. Post a link to support his position always his links are "unbiased" and from "experts"
5. Go to step 1

That is ridiculous. I answer questions much more directly than you do. I asked you a question about whether you have a problem when an athlete thanks God during an interview after a competition. You didn't answer the question at all. You don't want to answer any questions but when someone answers your question, you claim their answer wasn't complete enough.

I answered your question. Read my response again. The answer was in there. I said, "I'm not sure." I will answer it again more clearly. You asked, "Wouldn't wanting to teach creationism in public schools be forcing your religion on students?" My answer is I'm not sure. I could certainly see how a person would interpret teaching creationism as forcing religion on people. I understand that argument, especially if you think that science has unequivocally proven that evolution is true and creationism is false. However the vast majority of people think there is a Creator. You may think all of these people are stupid, but plenty of these people are very well educated. So if the vast majority of an educated population thinks there is strong evidence of a Creator, then teaching that alternative (in addition to evolution) may be reasonable. By the way, if the scientific evidence (favoring evolution) is as strong as you say, then I'm sure the vast majority of students (after learning both theories) would embrace evolution over creationism every time. If they are going to teach Creationism, I think they should touch on all different religions because I think pretty much all religions believe in a Creator, and you don't want to favor one religion over another.

I don't even know what they teach in creationism. Do they teach specifically about Adam and Eve or do they just teach a generic version of a Creator creating the world? I think that makes a difference with regard to your question. If they're not teaching about a specific religion then I don't really think that you can say that a religion is being forced on people. If they're teaching specifically about one religion's theory, then that is much more questionable.

I have a different definition of "forcing religion down people's throats" than you. I think the Founding Fathers also had a far different definition than yours. What they cared about was every person having a right to believe whatever they want. They didn't want people to be persecuted for having a different religious belief than the majority. The Founding Fathers were not anti-religion. They were very much pro-religion. But they didn't want the government to favor one religion over another.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

Yes, exactly. I don't know how not wanting to pay for someone's contraception qualifies as "shoving your religion down people's throats". Granted HL may claim that they don't want to pay on religious grounds. But does their reason really matter? Whatever their reason, they shouldn't be forced to pay IMO.

The government makes no sense. Things that they shouldn't be involved in, they want to get involved in. But things that they should do, they won't do. They won't let a person write off medical bills, unless it is over a certain amount. If you make $100,000 in a year and you have a $5,000 medical bill, you can't even write it off. It needs to be over 5%. That is absurd. If it was for a necessary medical procedure, it should come right off of your taxes. They won't even give you a tax break on a necessary medical procedure. I think you should be able to write off 100% of medical bills.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?



That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.



If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.



That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

To answer your question as to whether I think there is an anti-minority bias in the conservative movement, that is a tough question. I think it depends on how you define negative bias. There are certainly some stereotypes that I'm sure some people in the conservative movement may have about certain groups. I have no idea what the percentages are. But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous? I think plenty of people would. That doesn't mean these people hate Muslims. But that is at least a subtle anti-Muslim bias. Are these types of biases more common amongst conservatives than liberals? I don't know for sure but I would guess that these types of biases are probably at least slightly higher amongst conservatives.

I think conservatives would at the very least be more likely to admit to the type of bias I gave in the example. Some liberals may not want to admit to such a bias because it wouldn't be politically correct.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths



No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.



I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.

But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous?

No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.

And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

Sigh. Here's something new for you, Rupert (and I don't mean that nasty; a lot of people don't know this)- headlines to articles are not written by the same person who wrote the article. They're written by a different person, whose job it is to craft the headline so that someone will click on the article. Whether they then read the article or not is not as important as getting the click. I know reading is boring for lots of people, but you really have to read the entire article if you're going to use it to defend your position. Because the article didn't dispute that evolution happens at all; just whether natural selection is the primary engine. And that's not new news in evolutionary theory.

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

I would be curious to know what you're using for your Google search terms.

Evolution is a law; it has been observed in labs; we've observed it in real life. We can do it artificially ourselves (see: dog breeds). Where you're getting hung up is that you don't understand the difference between A) theory and law and B) scientific theory and colloquial "theory." I like you, Rupe, I do, and I want to help. Here's a good piece giving you a summary of 5 things people misunderstand about evolution, with explanation. And it's mostly pictures!

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/top-five-m...sci-1597926769

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

Non-religious? Did you spend any time on the site you linked to? Here's from their "About" page for the School of Biblical Apologists:

"The Institute for Creation Research School of Biblical Apologetics provides graduate-level training in biblical education and apologetics. SOBA’s foundation is Scripture, which the school and its faculty hold as inerrant, accurate, and authoritative. Biblical creation, with a special emphasis on Genesis 1-11, is a significant focus of all SOBA degrees, majors, and minors, which sets ICR’s program apart from other graduate level apologetic programs."

(Also: please note "apologetic" does not mean in a debate sense what it means in a colloquial sense.)

I also looked at that first page and it's chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Sigh. Here's something new for you, Rupert (and I don't mean that nasty; a lot of people don't know this)- headlines to articles are not written by the same person who wrote the article. They're written by a different person, whose job it is to craft the headline so that someone will click on the article. Whether they then read the article or not is not as important as getting the click. I know reading is boring for lots of people, but you really have to read the entire article if you're going to use it to defend your position. Because the article didn't dispute that evolution happens at all; just whether natural selection is the primary engine. And that's not new news in evolutionary theory.



I would be curious to know what you're using for your Google search terms.

Evolution is a law; it has been observed in labs; we've observed it in real life. We can do it artificially ourselves (see: dog breeds). Where you're getting hung up is that you don't understand the difference between A) theory and law and B) scientific theory and colloquial "theory." I like you, Rupe, I do, and I want to help. Here's a good piece giving you a summary of 5 things people misunderstand about evolution, with explanation. And it's mostly pictures!

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/top-five-m...sci-1597926769



Non-religious? Did you spend any time on the site you linked to? Here's from their "About" page for the School of Biblical Apologists:

"The Institute for Creation Research School of Biblical Apologetics provides graduate-level training in biblical education and apologetics. SOBA’s foundation is Scripture, which the school and its faculty hold as inerrant, accurate, and authoritative. Biblical creation, with a special emphasis on Genesis 1-11, is a significant focus of all SOBA degrees, majors, and minors, which sets ICR’s program apart from other graduate level apologetic programs."

(Also: please note "apologetic" does not mean in a debate sense what it means in a colloquial sense.)

I also looked at that first page and it's chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEIMQ42-oU

[Danzig]

for more evolution examples, look at the horse. from eohippus to the modern horse is a great example of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

'popping a splint' is a term we've all heard. a splint bone is one of two ones on either side of a horses lower leg. it's the remnants of the horses other two toes that were once a part of the foot. the hoof is made of the same material as your hair and fingernails, and evolved from their toe-horses essentially stand on tip toe.
i took a picture of the back of a horses leg when in charleston-they have a full horse skeleton on display.

also, check out 'ashfall' in nebraska, a fantastic fossil site. we were taught in school that the first horses came to north america with the european explorers..

not quite.
among the remains at the fossil site are both one and three toed horses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashfall

also camels and rhinos. there were rhinos here once upon a time. i hope to go there next year, along with a couple other sites in wyoming, i have the route mapped out on my work computer.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

groan.

yeah, it's just a theory the same way gravity is 'just a theory'.

risk said it quite well, scientific theory is not the type of theory you're thinking of rupert.

we need to get schools to do a better job in teaching science.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

also, check out 'ashfall' in nebraska, a fantastic fossil site. we were taught in school that the first horses came to north america with the european explorers..

not quite.
among the remains at the fossil site are both one and three toed horses!

That's one of the things I find so interesting about large mammals in North America- horses were here, then died out, then were reintroduced by the Spanish.

It ties into an argument I have will well-meaning animal rights people who opposed carriage horses- despite what they think, we don't have "wild" horses here; the Mustangs are better described as "feral" because 500 years of being loose on a range doesn't counteract 6000 years of domestication. The only truly wild species of horse is Przewalski's. This link is to a fact sheet on them; the first part is about their taxonomy and that, while they are closely related to the domestic horse, the domestic horse is not descended from them:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41763/0

I'm glad evolution was brought up in this thread. I love this sh*t. Biodiversity is incredibly fascinating.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's one of the things I find so interesting about large mammals in North America- horses were here, then died out, then were reintroduced by the Spanish.

It ties into an argument I have will well-meaning animal rights people who opposed carriage horses- despite what they think, we don't have "wild" horses here; the Mustangs are better described as "feral" because 500 years of being loose on a range doesn't counteract 6000 years of domestication. The only truly wild species of horse is Przewalski's. This link is to a fact sheet on them; the first part is about their taxonomy and that, while they are closely related to the domestic horse, the domestic horse is not descended from them:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41763/0

I'm glad evolution was brought up in this thread. I love this sh*t. Biodiversity is incredibly fascinating.

it really is so cool. cosmos touched on it a few times, like when they discussed dogs. i'd never thought about it til they covered it in the show. that's selective evolution, just like cows and horses.

i worked with a woman who didn't believe races should marry, she used the different types of birds to explain why-robins with robins, blue jays with blue jays.
it burst her bubble when i pointed out that birds will mate with birds of other species, and asked her about horses not caring what color the other horse was!
our own pigment differences are due to evolution and geography.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it really is so cool. cosmos touched on it a few times, like when they discussed dogs. i'd never thought about it til they covered it in the show. that's selective evolution, just like cows and horses.

i worked with a woman who didn't believe races should marry, she used the different types of birds to explain why-robins with robins, blue jays with blue jays.
it burst her bubble when i pointed out that birds will mate with birds of other species, and asked her about horses not caring what color the other horse was!
our own pigment differences are due to evolution and geography.

And it's also so interesting how genes will be placed on the DNA thread- like how so many Dalmations are deaf because a gene linked to deafness is located near one that cause piebald coloring in fur.

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel did a great 15 minute piece on dog shows, and had some good images of what we've done to some dog breeds over a century. I was unaware that shorter muzzles make it hard for dogs to cool themselves, which is why Bulldogs and Pekinese and other smooshed-in-face dogs overheat so fast.

We have a Staffordshire mix we got from a shelter, but she looks more like bulldogs from a century ago Evolution is not a straight line, for sure. Not that she'll be contributing anymore; she's spayed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And it's also so interesting how genes will be placed on the DNA thread- like how so many Dalmations are deaf because a gene linked to deafness is located near one that cause piebald coloring in fur.

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel did a great 15 minute piece on dog shows, and had some good images of what we've done to some dog breeds over a century. I was unaware that shorter muzzles make it hard for dogs to cool themselves, which is why Bulldogs and Pekinese and other smooshed-in-face dogs overheat so fast.

We have a Staffordshire mix we got from a shelter, but she looks more like bulldogs from a century ago Evolution is not a straight line, for sure. Not that she'll be contributing anymore; she's spayed.

i have a mix breed dog, she looks like a schnauzer. have had several ask about getting one of her pups when she has a litter. sorry, she's spayed. i was studying her feet, with declaws dogs have the same number of 'fingers' we have, but they have paws instead of hands. we have a foot so we can stand upright (easier to carry things if we walk instead of being on all fours), they have more leg.
true about evolution not being a straight line, it also doesn't necessarily change things for the better, it has no moral compass or goal.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i have a mix breed dog, she looks like a schnauzer. have had several ask about getting one of her pups when she has a litter. sorry, she's spayed. i was studying her feet, with declaws dogs have the same number of 'fingers' we have, but they have paws instead of hands. we have a foot so we can stand upright (easier to carry things if we walk instead of being on all fours), they have more leg.
true about evolution not being a straight line, it also doesn't necessarily change things for the better, it has no moral compass or goal.

Ours still has her dewclaws, too. A lot of vets recommend removing them, especially on hunting dogs because they aren't really attached by anything other than skin and can get torn off in the field, but, eh, they don't seem to be causing her any trouble and her "hunting" is limited to fetching a Chuck It. I read somewhere that long ago they helped the wild ancestors of the dog grasp food.

She also has her ears and tail. Good, because I don't approve of docking, especially for dogs that are just pets, but I do understand the temptation to dock the tail. Effing thing is like a whip. She's knocked stuff off tables with it and given me a welt on my shin from overenthusiastic wagging.

[Danzig]

the people who had the mom had the pups rear dewclaws removed, and they docked their tails . i hate they cut their tails off, but i can imagine how much she'd knock over with that thing.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the people who had the mom had the pups rear dewclaws removed, and they docked their tails . i hate they cut their tails off, but i can imagine how much she'd knock over with that thing.

Our first dog was a mini schnauzer and her tail was docked, too. I mean, if they're going to do it, better to do it when they're just a few days old and won't remember it, I guess.

You know, like circumcisions. Heh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Once again, you try to shift the onus on me of proving your own claim. Nope. It's your responsibility to find these "progressive" sites and specific articles bashing Christians for being Christian (bashing a Christian for shouting Bible verses at a captive audience or assassinating a doctor as he leaves his church don't count, as those are clearly criticisms of actions, not faith). Go ahead, I'll wait. I suggest you read the whole article though, not just the headline.



No. Because I'm not prejudiced against Muslims, and don't hold an entire faith responsible for what a small minority of its members do. You know, like how a small minority of Christians terrorize women outside abortion clinics and paint swastikas on synagogues (when they aren't setting fire to them), and blow up government buildings, including day care centers filled with little kids. I don't hold all Christians responsible and suspect to suspicion because the Christian Identity movement exists.




"Much." Not all. Right.

Show me where I said the man had "hate in his heart," please.



To quote from the Right's patron saint, "There you go again," with the "probably"s. Probably ain't fact. Back it up with proof or you're just making stuff up.



And there you go again with "think." Back it up with proof.

I can't believe you are asking me to provide liberal articles that claim christians and/or conservatives are racist. That would be like me asking you to provide proof that conservatives don't like Obama. Here are a couple of article that claims many christians and/ or conservatives are racist. There are thousands of these types of articles out there.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/24/evan...stian_racists/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ves-and-Racism

Your comments comparing Christians to Muslims when it comes to terrorism are absurd. Comments like that are the reason that "political correctness" is so ridiculous. For the PC person such as yourself, we should throw out all rational thinking and all reason. Terrorism is a big problem in the world right now and one group is responsible for practically all of it. That is a fact. In addition, a large percentage of that particular religion supports it. The name Osama was one of the most popular baby names in Muslim countries after 9/11.

Our government spends a huge amount of resources all over the world fighting terrorism. What group do you think their focus is on? Since our government's anti-terrorism focus around the world is on Muslims, does that mean our government is prejudice?

With regards to the Duck Dynasty guy, you said you thought he was racist and homophobic. Racism means different things to different people. Depending what your definition is, I guess a person could be a racist without disliking the group he is accused of being racist against. I assumed you meant that he has a strong dislike of blacks and gays, but I wasn't sure. That was why I said, "If" you think he has hate in his heart, I disagree with you. I wasn't sure what your definition was.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

groan.

yeah, it's just a theory the same way gravity is 'just a theory'.

risk said it quite well, scientific theory is not the type of theory you're thinking of rupert.

we need to get schools to do a better job in teaching science.

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

evolution has nothing to do with how life began. it explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
it's why i don't get the argument that is so often made by creationists, because they argue incessantly against the theory of evolution, and produce creationism or intelligent design as counter arguments-but they aren't. they are guesses as to how life began, and no one knows for sure how it began, what sparked it. the big bang theory is the scientific idea for how the universe began, and all that's in it. as to how life itself began-we may never know exactly how.
that doesn't mean tho, that therefore 'god'.
mapmakers used to write at the edge of the known world 'here be dragons'. they had no idea what was there, so they put the mystical.
some people still like to do that now, i just wish they'd understand that others (such as myself) enjoy life, our brief time here on this little speck of dust, that we feel lucky to be here, and want to leave things better than we found it, without having to believe in something only on faith.