So... because I'm challenging your narrow little view, and I may not agree with you, you assume that I'm ignorant. You assume I'm not educated and/or that I'm fully unfamiliar with science and education.

Wow. So I'm qualified to teach at the college level, but you're suggesting that I go to college. Okay Bubba.

Your list of "qualifications", and how often it grows, is consistently astounding.
Your resume must be rather daunting!
<end sarcasm>

Anybody who says: "Scientific theory is NOT the hightest form of knowledge. It is THEORY." has just DEFINITIVELY PROVEN that they are fairly unfamiliar with science. You have no concept of what "theory" means in science, and the importance that is laid upon that word...
You reference it with the same mistakes that a lay-person would...

The truth of the matter is that there is no real dispute on the age of the earth (to the degree you are disputing it) in SCIENTIFIC arenas. Any "dispute" on the matter typically comes from RELIGIOUS perspectives, based on RELIGIOUS tomes with NO science to back them up.
Your replies on this issue have typically come from the realm of throwing out questions without actually substantiating the VALIDITY of those questions...

And for the record, it's not the "challenging" or "disagreeing" which makes you come across as ignorant. It's the ignorant statements you make which comes across as ignorant.
Moreover, I don't think you are "challenging" anybody's view on this issue. You're tossing out lame speculation. Asking questions which reveal your own ignorance of the subject instead of demonstrating repute of the issue at hand.

To "challenge" a scientific conclusion, you would first need SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to base your challenge upon.
You have none. None whatsoever. You haven't even tried...
Plenty of "what if" questions demonstrating you aren't familiar with the topic in the first place... But no facts.

So "scientific theory" is "proven fact".

Ever take philosophy?

I never said ""scientific theory" is "proven fact"."
Take your straw-man arguments elsewhere...
Lying about my position only diminishes your own credibility...

Scientific theory is not "proven fact", but it is a LOT MORE than just the casual means you referenced it.
In some ways, your response also demonstrates that you STILL do not understand what "scientific theory" is...
Do you have ANY CLUE as to how many issues in science are still referenced as "theory"?

(That, and referencing "philosophy"?
YOu're only proving my point...)

Thank you for admitting that what I've been saying is right.

It is just that - scientific THEORY.

The FACT is that I DO KNOW how many issues in science are still "theory" - and that therefore, people like YOU need to have the intellectual integrity to admit that they are "scientific theory" and stop trying to cram them down everybody's throats as "proven facts".

Very funny!

You have no understanding of scientific theory. This isn't a theory. This is not a narrow little view, it is observable, provable fact. I'm not talking about the big bang, or quantum physics here. Climatic changes on Earth over the last few million years or so are entirely quantifiable. A theory would be what caused the changes to take place, or what impact the changes had on evolution.

I don't know you in real life. You may be qualified to teach something at a college level, but it sure isn't science.

It's kind of funny how you have some life experience that makes you an expert on every thread on this board.

It always amazes mye how terribly insecure some of you folks are!

Why not admit that there are SEVERAL different "scientific theories" concerning what the earth was like - complete with its atmosphere - several million years ago.

The Fission Theory believes that the moon was, at one time, part of the earth and somehow separated from the earth. This would lead us to believe there were entirely different "atmosphereic conditions" than, say, The Astronomical Theory that asserts that the sun was 25-30% less powerful and hot, several million years ago, than it is today.

Shoot, there's even great debate as to whether or not the earth's magnetic fields remain constant or not. If, for instance, the North Pole is actually moving, as some "theorize" it is, then other elements of the atmosphere are changing as well. How much MORE might things have changed over the course of a couple millions years?

Scientists themselves argue and debate concerning virtually everything about the earth's atmosphere - not only current atmosphere, but ancient atmosphere. So which scientist is right and which one is wrong?

You need to admit that it is a great deal of THEORY and SPECULATION. You lose a lot of credibility when you just put your hands over your ears and scream, "It's fact! It's fact! It's fact!"

You truly hear whatever you want to, don't you.
It's not "just" a scientific theory.
If you had any concept of what is required for something to qualify as a "scientific theory", you wouldn't refer to it as "just" a scientific theory.

It's like saying that all Jack did was "just" win the Nobel prize.
You keep treating the term "scientific theory" like it's a DIMINISHED capacity instead of an arduous and grueling noteworthy status.

Do you even know what "scientific theory" means as a term?
Could you define it?


Do us all a favor.
DEFINE "scientific theory".
Tell us what "scientific theories" are out there right now.
Go beyond just "evolution" and the ones you are skeptical of because your religion tells you to be so...

This should be good for a laugh...

I challenge you to point to any legitimate scientific journal that refers to that as a "theory".


And AGAIN you are clueless as to scientific terminology.
That would be referred to "hypothesizing" at best.
NOT "theorizing"...


You haven't a clue as to what SCIENTIFIC theory means. You're too caught up in the LAY-PERSON'S definition of "theory".
The fact that you use the phrase "theory and speculation" is further proof of what I'm talking about.

And do you have any clue as to what the term "scientific fact" means AT ALL???

Why don't you just admit it?
Stop trying to b.s. your way through this and just admit you're clueless on the issue of science?
Nobody's buying it...

Why are you being so angrily defensive?