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.
What happens if we don't have those. Or better question: what happens after we use them?
Imagine: World War 3; a nuclear crisis. How well does that go for us? After this WWIII, I don't pretend to know what the world will look like, but it will probably resemble the stone age.
Look at Chernobyl. We have to wear protective suits just to get inside. A cockroach can just walk in.
We are not the most powerful. Most scientifically advanced, but also the most irrational. We're thoughtful, yet stupid. We think we're invincible and that's our problem.
I don't suggest we use them. However, I would argue that having the ability to develop such a thing puts us at the top of the evolutionary ladder.
Being the most scientifically advanced has given us the ability to triple our lifespan. Is that power potentially dangerous? Sure. Does it mean that a man with a rocket launcher is going to win a fight with a bear, or that a woman armed with a vaccine is going to beat a virus? Yep to that too.
If and until there's a nuclear winter, I would hesitate to call us the "wimpiest species".
I am a Christian conservative that strongly believes in the Theory of Evolution. However, regarding the universe, theoretical physics leads us to the presumption that intelligent design was (and is) involved in the creation of the universe and multiverse.
You're skipping over the part where the well ordered matter that composes life forms spontaneously emerged from nothing and just because.
That's funny. "Yeah, Mr. Galileo-smartass, why should we listen to your heliocentric nonsense when you can't even tell us how the Sun came to be? How about we start from the beginning and without all the convenient assumptions?"
Scientific theories don't have to cover everything from soup to nuts just because you feel that it should be the case. The book was called "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" - and Darwin was kinda careful when choosing his words.
I am a Christian conservative that strongly believes in the Theory of Evolution. However, regarding the universe, theoretical physics leads us to the presumption that intelligent design was (and is) involved in the creation of the universe and multiverse.
If that were true then it should be very easy to come up with evidence that proves Theory of Evolution is false.
Yet you have not been able to do that, and neither has anyone else.
Which is why it remains the best scientific Theory that explains all the evidence from fossils, from comparative anatomy and from DNA analysis and is consistent with other fields of science.
If you have evidence that can falsify the Theory of Evolution, then you would make a fortune and be famous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
If you have evidence that can prove the Theory of Evolution, then you would make a fortune and be famous.
A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
A Scientific Theory's validity rests on how well it explains all the observations, whether there is any evidence which shows it is false and whether it's predictions remain true.
The Theory of Evolution fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, it's predictions remain true and, so far no one has been able to come up with any evidence in the last 150 years that shows it is false. Therefore it remains valid.
You claim that evolution "doesn't work" yet provide nothing to show that it doesn't work.
That's funny. "Yeah, Mr. Galileo-smartass, why should we listen to your heliocentric nonsense when you can't even tell us how the Sun came to be? How about we start from the beginning and without all the convenient assumptions?"
Scientific theories don't have to cover everything from soup to nuts just because you feel that it should be the case. The book was called "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" - and Darwin was kinda careful when choosing his words.
It isn't "just because you feel it should be the case". If you want to debunk intelligent design then you most certainly do have to account for that stuff.
This isn't intelligent design people debunking evolution. It's the other way around. That puts the burden of proof on the evolution supporter.
It isn't "just because you feel it should be the case". If you want to debunk intelligent design then you most certainly do have to account for that stuff.
This isn't intelligent design people debunking evolution. It's the other way around. That puts the burden of proof on the evolution supporter.
That makes no sense, for several reasons - first, the ToE doesn't address the origin of life at all. There's no way to apply it to the question.
To stretch the analogy, Galileo didn't have the first clue as to how the Sun came to be, nor did he have any way of addressing that question. He did, however, have sound evidence for the orbital motion of the planets.
As for the burden of proof, it is on whoever presents a positive hypothesis. Which appears to be, in this case, the ID proponents. Although I have yet to see them present any evidence that could even be subjected to the methods of natural science, but perhaps this time is the charm?
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.
