Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
You are really good at that.
The condescending, dismissive um, that you use time and time again. If I had a dollar every time you used that, I would be, um, rich.
Hey..um...I...um...write the way I speak. I grew up with a minor stutter and have replaced parts of my stutter with an 'um', I happen to write like that sometimes. It's not condescension, it's me not really editing unnecessary utterances out of my posts before I write them.
I don't mean to be condescending or dismissive. Honestly the "Wow" is way more dismissive there.
You are the same guy trying to "prove" the theory of evolution?
Oh not this excrement again
A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain.
Yes, no theory is ever considered 100% certain or infallible, but it is actionable. Theories are 'proven' by being able to use them. Are they predictive? Hells yes. The theory of evolution predicted a great many fossil findings.
Again, it's never 100%, for we can never have all the evidence, but you can use them. A good example is circuit theory. It's not 100% certain, but it's never been falsified.
A theory must be falsifiable to be science, both evolution and circuit theory have that in common. If you show me a bunny in the pre-Cambrian fossil record, evolution sort of goes away in a puff of confused profanities.
One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. —Albert Einstein
Yes, but that doesn't mean that all scientific concepts are equal. There's a reason why there's a difference between a 'hypothesis' and a 'theory'.
And why is it that people who support a creator are always keen to quote an agnostic?
You're assertion that there is no Creator
I'm sorry, I had to take this in two parts because there are two separately incorrect clauses to the sentence.
I'm not asserting: "there is no creator", I do not see reason to believe it.
Think of it as an on/off switch. You are in the "on" position, signifying that you believe in a creator.
I'm in a position where I'm in the "off" position, signifying that I don't believe there is a creator.
The burden of evidence is upon you, so I would never make the assertion that there isn't a creator.
and that evolution is "proven" is a philosophy. You are entitled to that.
It is proven. Science has a different understanding of the word 'proof'. For science a theory is proven if you can apply it to the world.
My acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution is no more philosophical than my acceptance of circuit theory or germ theory.
However it goes against the very principles that you say you believe.
No, it really doesn't. You're mixing up science, mathematics, and philosophy to simply make a mess.
In addition, if God reveals Himself, there will be a major adjustment to scientific theory.
Wow, that's the most unscientific statement I've seen all day. Congratulations!
You just posited the existence of something which currently has absolutely no evidence to support its existence. That is inherently against science.
And here's the crazy thing...if there is a deity, it might not even interfere with science as we know it.
Well, evolution could also be the result of Thor's hangover vomit from his wild night at the mead hall....but that doesn't mean that it's anywhere near probable or reasonable to think that.
I think Genesis lays it out pretty well.
Again, plants before the sun, the moon is a light, birds before land animals, land plant life before sea animal life, geocentricism, etc.
Genesis gets it completely wrong
It does repeat itself.
And when it repeats itself it contradicts itself between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2....
But for not being a scientific textbook it covers the basics.
Except for such basics as....the heliocentric model of the universe...evolution...that the moon isn't a light....so much more.
Like anything in life, you can't please everybody.
And all Genesis pleases are those who accept it prior to examining it.
Spaghetti monsters, Thor's vomit and unicorns, didn't lay out the beginning of the universe, and life on this planet.
And neither did Yahweh, Allah, or any other Earthly religion.
They don't have a book that answers the questions of the human condition, who we are, why we are here, and what the future holds.
Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a book, unicorns are in the book you refer to, and having a damn book doesn't make a difference.
And none of the things that are laid out in that book speaks anything to the validity of its claims.
Humans are not that important, stop being so ego-centric
The interesting thing about scientific philosophy is you don't ever have to be certain about anything. Theories change and brilliant men are cast aside.
...yes, but theories only change for good reason. As of right now we have 150 years of inquiry into evolution and the only thing that has happened is that science has become more and more certain of it
Someday science will find the Creator.
Hey look, another baseless claim. Let me guess, it'll be the exact one from your special book and not someone else's, right?
Until then, yes, there are things the Bible doesn't explain or address.
And there are just as many things that it gets wrong.
But I have learned that a gap in knowledge doesn't really mean anything.
It sort of does when the authorship claims to be directly inspired by all-knowing beings...
And outright falsehoods (Biblical creation account, Noah's flood, tower of Babel, etc) do mean something.