There is some speculation on just who resembles who in the Unholy Trinity. Most people think that Aron resembles Satan himself. Even Ken Ham pointed out that he thinks Aron looks Satanic. You could make a case for the other 2 in the tour Seth Andrews or Matt Dillahunty. How does anyone know what Satan look likes anyways?
Anyhow, the last stop is going to be in San Antonio tomorrow. You can still buy tickets at the door. Who knows maybe you will be seen in the video Seth is making of it.
Just left The Unholy Trinity talk. I truly enjoyed it.
Aron does look Satanic. Seth looks like the clean-cut all-American guy and Matt looks like everyone’s weird uncle. They make the perfect group to represent Atheism.
Thanks, guys for a thought-provoking afternoon.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ken Ham is the *last* person who should be making snarky comments on personal appearance.
I tend to leave personal appearance alone but you do need a makeover. Where’s Oprah when you need her?
I would really like to put this idea before Aron. Perhaps a change in wording might be beneficial to the cause of evolution. If it were instead referred to as “The Natural Selection theory of Evolution”, perhaps it would be better received. The wording is also more accurate, and follows an established pattern ie. The Germ theory of Disease. In addition this more properly states the theory, natural selection, of the fact, evolution.
I wonder what Aron’s thoughts on this might be.
An established pattern? Can you list any other examples?
I’m thinking of “Atomic Theory”, “Theory of Gravity”, or even “Thermodynamics”, which is also theoretical, yet we don’t tack the word on.
There’s more to evolution than natural selection. The rest of it is under a common umbrella. It is possible to have multiple nested levels of theories.
Examples:
The germ theory of disease.
The atomic theory of matter.
Yes there is more than natural selection, it would be better stated as the ‘Theory of population genetics and descent with modification of evolution’ or something to that effect.
Well, that’s two. One is common, and the other is much more obscure.
I don’t know why you think this is better.
I figured that once you saw the method of layout used you could essentially self-populate other theories into similar format. Do you want or need to see more examples? I can write up some more if needed or desired.
Further the reason I would posit this method as better is that it states the theory(s) and the associated fact(s)/effect(s)/law(s).
For instance in the, Germ theory of Disease, germs are stated as the theory for the cause of the fact, disease. The fact of disease, tells us a fact things called diseases exist. If we only reference Germ theory we know that germs are said to do or effect something. If we write out, Germ theory of Disease, then if the reader were uninformed previously, they can now by virtue of language comprehension alone understand that something called disease exists and that germs are theorized to explain the thing(s) called disease.
Its all about accuracy.