Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We know what we know. It is not arrogant to accept present knowledge. What is arrogant is to insist one has hold of Truth, in spite of a lack of any evidence whatsoever or any evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I know what I know. I have evidence... the entire creation speaks to it. And remember... the Theory of Evolution is just that. A Theory. There are only proofs of evolving in the same species. No evidence that one thing evolved into a totally different species...
Direct observance of an event is not necessary to determine what caused the event. If Barry Bonds is at the plate with the bases loaded, the Giants scoreline reads 3 7 0, the opponent's scoreline reads 2 3 1, you go to the bathroom, and when you return, the bases are empty, the batter behind Barry Bonds is at the plate, the Giants scoreline reads 7 8 0, the opponent's line remains unchanged, tell me what just happened?
Yes, but the point is there is no proof of what happened then, either way. In the baseball analogy there were other people there to see what happened while I went to the john.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Evolution is verifiable. You can see the fossils. You can study the DNA. Ever heard of ERVs, Jeff? Please explain endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs) without using evolution..
I'm not a scientist. Give me some time to get my associates in science first--which is coming in the not to far future! Next question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
We know what we know. It is not arrogant to accept present knowledge. What is arrogant is to insist one has hold of Truth, in spite of a lack of any evidence whatsoever or any evidence to the contrary.
But the evidence is not something that can be seen or touched physically by another person, it takes place inside a person...we won't agree on this because I believe that we are all spirits, who live in a body. I can't see my spirit, but I exist, so therefore it isn't a stretch to believe in something I can't see. For you, you will probably say that we simply exist as consciousness which is all scientifically explainable and connected to our intellect in our body, which stops when we die and when conscious thought stops, and we cease to exist.
Yes, I know what I know. I have evidence... the entire creation speaks to it.
That's not evidence, that's faith. Completely different things.
Quote:
the Theory of Evolution is just that. A Theory.
Nearly all of Science is labeled "theory" but Science's usage and the average person's usage are two VERY different things. Magical beings doing things may be a "theory" to you, but not to Science.
In order for something to be a viable scientific theory it must be:
• testable
• supported by evidence
• hold up to testing
It's virtually impossible to prove something absolutely in Science, so scientists attempt the next best thing, to try and disprove a theory. As of yet, it hasn't been disproved. Maybe it will in part or whole one day. Important thing is it could be, but so far it's held up.
That's not evidence, that's faith. Completely different things.
Nearly all of Science is labeled "theory" but Science's usage and the average person's usage are two VERY different things. Magical beings doing things may be a "theory" to you, but not to Science.
In order for something to be a viable scientific theory it must be:
• testable
evolution is not test able outside of the same species
Yes it is a theory, a scientific theory and as I said it's virtually impossible to absolutely prove a theory. The evidence far outweighs the "holes" which are not "all thru". Funny how if there were really "holes all thru" that there hasn't been an alternate theory to successfully challenge. Hmmm. I suppose you'd say it's a conspiracy or something, right?
Maybe this will help you understand the concept of a scientific theory.
I find it rather hilarious that so many posters on this thread keeping pointing out that scientific theory cannot be absolutely validated, and yet they gloss right over their far-less-likely-to-ever-be-proven religious theories. The only proof ever given is a passage in the bible.
Please read my post on page 6 of this thread titled: A tall tale from the days of yore for my thoughts on the bible.
Ok... nvx... I guess a better way to fraise it would be to ask why there are not any mixtures running around? Half man/half chimp? Or a chimp that resembles a man and or visa versa?
Maybe science will come up with a "Theory" that bigfoot is the "Missing link" ..Only problem is that Big Foot is as hard to catch as Bin Laden
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I also don't know what I'm having for dinner yet...
Quick Clarifications
Here is Sciences "missing link"
