And for the record, you are the only one I have ever met that sees it solely as Science vs. Religion. I can and do believe in both. But keep going because you are clearly showing your ignorance in both fields. I really don't have to say anything, I just thought I would make it apparent to you because I have developed a strong distaste to you. You came in here, insulted me, then called me defensive when I fired back. You're digging your own hole.
I don't see it as science vs religion. They're totally different things. That's why its idiotic to come in here and go.Originally Posted by CosmoLTW
EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ITS RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS.
If you don't think evolution is true, fine, write evolutionary science off as the deceptive work of the devil. But don't come in here and say its because it isn't well accepted by science as fact. Because that's pretty clearly bull****.
No what I said is that I do believe in micro-evolution and that evolution as a whole is just a theory. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be true. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension. The only thing I will openly say I think is bull is the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from primordial goo. I think humans were there in the beginning and the book of Job, which was written well before any fossils of dinosaurs were found, documents us and them living side by side. Do I know that as complete and total fact? Nope, wasn't there. But then how did they know about these creatures? And how come almost all societies have some mythical creature that resembles a dinosaur?
Yes, like the Chinese belief in dragons, flying snake like creatures which breathe fire. There's actually not a whole lot of mythical creatures which are similar to dinosaurs in anything but the vaguest way.
I'm sorry, but I think if Humans and dinosaurs lived side by side they would get more than one unverifiable mention in the book of job.
.
"Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven";[20] strict proof is possible only in logic and mathematics, not science, so this is trivially true, and no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory" is. The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven". The distinction is an important one in philosophy of science, as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty in all empirical claims, not just evolution. "
Your precious wikipedia has betrayed you
Actually, it basically said that all fields of science are without completely definite truth but scientists consider evolution as good as factual and are as certain as they can be. Just as certain as they can be about anything else. You know, like, the science behind the electrical engineering which created the computer you're using right now. They're not totally 100% all of that is factual. The bible says that god only created volatile storage mediums and not non volatile storage mediums like your hard drive... and that thing isn't working is it? OH WAIT, IT IS!?
You even bolded the part that illustrates this best.
IF ONLY YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ.
Last edited by The12lber; 04-14-2008 at 06:13 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote