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.
You shouldn't take what I say to apply to you, rather the statement was silly and ignorant.
Probably not... the quantum guys are kind of loners. However, proving a higher being would require omniscience, especially in the context of the Judeao-Christian god.
True, they do base a lot off of science... like our computers, tv's, remotes, cars...
Without science, where would we have technology? Technology, as we both know, is the application of science in society.
As much as science is fluid... it doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Since we both agree on the fluidity of science I can make the leap at this analogy.
There are fish in a river and fish in a pond with a spring that just collapsed.
Which one will show further progression/life and which will grow stagnant and die?
I generally make it a point to stay out of this type of subject, but IMO the Theory of Evolotion is just as much a religion as the Creationist's viewpoint. There is little evidence to support macro evolution. It takes just as much faith to believe in one theory as the other.
It's the little evidence that creationists have in their brains. They neglected to read about the thousands of nasty little facts that prove evolution is true.
And what is a macro-evolution? It'd be cool to have every term defined
It's what's you see when looking back over a lot of micro-evolution. It's hard to get a definition out of something that just serves as a moving goal post, resulting in a definition that is no more defined as "evolution that I don't believe in," whereas micro-evolution is "evolution that I do believe in."
It's what's you see when looking back over a lot of micro-evolution. It's hard to get a definition out of something that just serves as a moving goal post, resulting in a definition that is no more defined as "evolution that I don't believe in," whereas micro-evolution is "evolution that I do believe in."
well seeing as micro-evolution is evolution thats happening in front of their very eyes, i'd say its more like "evolution thats so hard to refute, I can't deny it"
So when they are shown speciation, which they once considered Macro-evolution, speciation then gets relegated to be included also as micro-evolution, and yet it's all the same mechanism. So the definition of micro gets expanded. So it is still a just a cumulation of micro-evolution.
Technology, as we both know, is the application of science in society.
you are right about that. technology is more on applied science and a LOT more engineering whereas evolution is more on experimental science and a LOT more B.S.
you are right about that. technology is more on applied science and a LOT more engineering whereas evolution is more on experimental science and a LOT more B.S.
Everyone claims to have the ultimate answer, but really no one knows and everyone is just clinging to something, because we all need to believe something. Whether it is evolution or the belief of one God or many gods.
Scientists don't claim to have the ultimate answer. But that doesn't mean the answers they have should be considered in the same category as answers that aren't based on evidence.
Asimov had the following to say:
"The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.
My answer to him was, 'John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.'
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong." (Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Martha
I just find it amusing.
Many things seem funnier when we don't actually understand them than when we do.
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.
