Neoteny wrote:I'm tired of talking about Columbus because we are going in circles. I believe the above quote was the point of the whole Columbus ordeal. In response: you are right in that we can't "prove" evolution and we can't "prove" the existence of god. The reliability of scientific theory based on the fact that you aren't trying to prove anything. You are in fact trying to disprove your hypothesis. The fact that evolution has stood up to this for over 150 years says something about its veracity. Germ theory, relativity theory, and quantum theory are all newer theories that are currently undergoing the same scrutiny, as are older theories of gravitational theory and various other physical, chemical, and biological theories. No one has demonstrated an instance where apples fall up out of trees (without some human created mechanism at least) so we still hold the theory to be true, even if it isn't "proven." Evolutionary theory follows the same concepts.
Creationism is unfalsifiable, similar to the god hypothesis, in the respect that you can't make experiments to disprove it. If you can't disprove it, that doesn't make it right, it just makes it not science. Evolution is a falsifiable theory. Scientists know what would be needed to falsify it: if a valid example of irreducible complexity were found, or if fossils were consistently found in wrong geological stratum without any explanation for why they are there are two examples. Neither of these have been demonstrated. Additionally, the rise of newer fields in biology, particularly molecular genetics, were in prime position to upset evolutionary theory. If genetics didn't confirm evolutionary theory, evolution would have had to of been thrown out. Instead, they complemented each other beautifully.
Columbus undertook a scientific endeavor. By falling off the earth, he would have been proving "round-earth" theory wrong. By not falling off, he strengthened round-earth theory, leaving it to be reinforced by Magellen. Finally, satellites just give us more data to work with. Evolution, like round-earth theory, has been supported by all available evidence.
Thank you Neoteny, this post is one of the best so far. You didn't insult anyone, you didn't use stupid sources as a fall back. If I am correct you sort of comprimised, you said that evolution is believed because creationism has no scientific proof to back it, I agree, most of the arguement for creationism comes from disproving evolution and mostly running on faith. I agree 100%. That's why everyone needs to stop asking us where the proof is, you should know the answer to that. There is no proof that supports creationism, at least scientific wise. That doesn't mean that creationism isn't true. It means that we can't sit down and say, this proves that creationism is true. However we can sit down and say, this proves evolution wrong, and leads toward the possibility of creationism being true. Thank you Neoteny for coming to somewhat of a compromise.
comic boy wrote:41 Pages and still the only argument for Creationism is ' The Bible says so ' DOH DOH DOH
I doubt you have even read this thread all the way through, me and wicked have not used the bible as a basis for everything, in fact I doubt we have used it for half of the stuff we've said.
Balsiefen wrote:I would just like to point out here that absolutely no one (well, mabye a couple of peasents in yorkshire but they dont get into history books) believed the earth was flat in columbus' time. columbus was ridiculed becauce, while scientists had calculated the curvature of the earth (pretty accurately as we now know), columbus dissagreed with them.
Columbus set sail to prove that japan was only as far away as america turned out to be. He got fundding from the spanish because the portugese had blocked off the valuble trade routes to the east. He was ridiculed because people who knew the curvature of the earth said he would knever survive the journy over an ocian that went from spain to japan.
Not to be a jerk and continue the circle, but you can't really prove that it's true without going back in time.
But Guiscard's idea is good. It makes sense. Propaganda has been used for hundreds of years to make people look more heroic.
Balsiefen wrote:Finally, when he landed, he thaught he was in the indies, and called the people he met indians. We still call his islands the west indies now.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Chris7He wrote:What about Genetics? Damn it! We've descended from primates! Chimpanzees and Gorillas and Monkeys have twenty-four chromosomes to our twenty-three, but Evolution theorizes that chromosomes bond when we evolve further.
Wallah! Our second chromosome has evidence of being merged. There are two centromeres on it and only one is active. Thus proving that we are an evolved species. Creationism is shit and Intelligent Design is basically God replaced with "Intelligent Agent".
Who's to say that our 2nd chromosome doesn't just form weird because of something that happened hundreds of years ago.
Chris7He wrote:God did not create us. Why would he create such hatred and destruction and evil? It's paradoxical! Evolution explains our existence much better! We adapted to our environment better than our Neanderthal counterparts and therefore we were able to outcompete them through natural selection.
It's annoying when people say that you can't accuse science because you haven't studied it. It's even more annoying when someone else comes along in the same argument and talks about God and the Bible when they don't even know what they are talking about. Just to inform you a little bit, God didn't creat all the hatred, destruction and evil, mankind brought it on themselves because of our curiousity.
So close...
