I hated the cave

Funny...I loved it, but maybe that's because I can't read Greek and have to rely on existing translations.

I prayed with faith and it worked. One time. I verified it. I am a witness.

I prayed with faith from the age of 5. By the time I reached my teens, I had started to question whether it did any good or not.

I just looked in two dictionaries, and they tell it differently...

An accepted theory requires a consensus of scientists with the same conclusion

You can have alternate theories, but they are not scientific theories until you join the "adopt a school" program, and create the school of thought and then scientists join the school.

Why prevaricate around the dictionary definition?

The more unprovable each claim is, the stronger the school of thought becomes.

It's a scientific term. Use a scientific dictionary. You'll also get confused about the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" if you look up scientific lexicon in vernacular dictionaries. Sorry, your definition is wrong.

Scientists as fish. Very interesting. Sorry, you are way off base here.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

My definition is right. ... I will stand down with evidence in a more conclusive format. I can't even find anybody advertising such an animal, let alone a online version. Your claim certainly appears falsifiable.

Prevaricate is insulting?

Religious claims are not falsifiable because God clearly does not provide repeatable phenomena for scientists to observe.

No, sir. "School of Thought" Not fish. That's "libel." Look it up in the POF rules.

we should be looking at scientific theory, and not a casual theory.

I understand the usage of the word now. It basically means that you must exclude any religious claims, because most scientists are unwilling to test the hypothesis that if you get on your knees and pray in faith, the answer will come. No big.

Praying to god, and having a higher statistical rate of having it come true, does not mean that "god" is answering your prayers.

Rather a large stumbling-block, wouldn't you agree...?

And that's the biggest problem with experiments on religion - how do you determine which of the 'Gods' IS valid?

You have to determine the nature of whatever god you pray to, before you can test the usefulness of prayer. And one can't seem to be able to determine the nature of the gods *without* prayer.

Rather a large stumbling-block, wouldn't you agree...?

Why did the creator screw up so much? Cancer, schizophrenia, sadism, prostate disease, heart disease, emphysema, sociopathic behavior, child murder, war, poverty, racism, HIV, H1N1, need I go further?

Must we insist that he doesn't know why he did it? I am not saying he did or he didn't, but if he tells me, I will let you know. Obviously, he doesn't tell everyone his secrets, or everyone would know them and there wouldn't be a "why" question. Maybe he lkies people to ask him the questions instead of depending on a fallible human for the answer? I am just saying..... ya know? If you don't believe, then he must be keeping secrets, wouldn't you say? If you do believe, then he must have kept those answers from you. It's only simple logic.

Whether or not it seems reasonable is irrelevant. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it has to meet the criteria for a sciebtific theory. ID does not meet that criteria.

The only argument necessary to exclude ID from science class is that it doesn't meet the standard required to be considered science. The proponents of ID could remedy the deficiency by restating it in such a way that the failure of one of its predictions would falsify its premise of a creator, but ID proponents are not going to be willing to define what creator means nor specify anything well enough to provide the means to falsify that premise. If the proponents of ID wish to have ID be considered science, the means to do so is available. They've chosen to not make it into a scientific theory.

What does that have to do with science? Science is not a democracy, All ideas are not equal. In fact, the purpose of science is specifically to expose those inequalities.

This begins with nothing more than your opinion of what a school curriculum should contain. The fact you turn it into an argument about the value of ID among qualified scientists isn't even interesting to me.

Scientific research is not a democracy, but school curriculums have a lot more to do with human social culturing than splitting the atom. And part of the pre-eminent objective of high school scientific curriculum is to develop the analytical mind. You effectively suggest totalitarianism is better.

The poor, fragile minds of school children, let them not think for themselves?

And it is merely an observation what we are discussing here, by discussing school curriculums is politics. And therefore politics are entirely relevant.