It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Ultimately, you cannot prove scientific theories outside of the conveniences deemed rational by the Church of Science - theories are beliefs.
So why is the burden of proof on non-scientists
Science is much more rational than traditional religions were but what I'm saying is it that this still does not constitute absolute truth.
"In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews publishes long extract from his work on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection. -- I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it is, certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! . . . Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on 'Naval Timber'." Charles Darwin. Letter to Charles Lyell, April 10, 1860.
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)
Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
just a quick article, some might find interesting.
oh and here are three more, these came from a little study that i have been doing in histroy.