Sponsored Links
No its not fact. its theory and its why is called the THEORY of Evolution and not The FACT of Evolution
Only in the humility of science is it called a theory. It is unfortunate that some people choose to misrepresent this terminology as if science is somehow unsure of its truth. As far as science is concerned, evolution is a proven fact supported by loads of evidence.
T
thatbloke
Evolution is not fact , it is a theory based on many facts however not enough facts to make it whole , there are also many different theories of evolution. There are scientific studies of evolution but the concept itself has yet to be wholly proven.
Isnt that obvious?
Also , did someone mention ''an eye for an eye''?
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=285626
Really guys , if you can only point and scorn please dont enter a sensible conversation like this.
Isnt that obvious?
Also , did someone mention ''an eye for an eye''?
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=285626
Really guys , if you can only point and scorn please dont enter a sensible conversation like this.
Sponsored Links
S
Susiejb
I would be more upset if my husband told another woman that he loved her...in one instance his brains are between his legs, in the other they are between his ears (a bit closer to his heart maybe)
T
thatbloke
I would be more upset if my husband told another woman that he loved her...in one instance his brains are between his legs, in the other they are between his ears (a bit closer to his heart maybe)
You are lucky he has any brains at all , brains are a rarity in men.
You're mixing quotes from different religions.
I don't know what it says in the Koran, but I once saw a documentary about Judaism, and they have a similar concept:an I for an eye, but it was along the lines of take no more than an eye for an eye, i.e, don't escalate a conflict, and taking an eye back as revenge was not mandatory.
The second quote means treat others as you would like to be treated and the third is about forgiveness. Nothing wrong with these in principle.
I think the problem is people use religion to justify imposing rules on others and try to use their interpretation to their benefit.
I'm not religious, but do like a balanced debate.
Cheers
G
The theory of evolution is considered fact by scientists because all evidence (both observed in our lifetime and drawn from fossil records) supports it, no evidence contradicts it, and no alternative theories (superior beings with magic wands) have any evidence to support them whatsoever.
T
thatbloke
Lots of things support it , this does not make it a fact in the sense that it is a truth.
Mainstream science will always debunk alternative theories.
Lots of other alternative theories have lots of scientific proof to support them, however main stream science hold all the cards such as superior funding and safety in numbers and theories so well established people come to see them as ''facts''.
Its the same with medicine , there are plenty of alternative medicines that work and are proven to work however very few get practised by mainstream practitioners, Money being the key and the market being controlled by the large pharmaceutical companies.
Now , lets look at how science uses the term ''fact''.
Source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Evolution is both a fact and a theory however only until the evidence is challenged and debunked by something with the same degree of or more evidence to support it.
This is difficult as modern science if so caught up in ''facts'' that it fails to study alternatives in any great detail and and other scientists who do are shunned by the believers of ''facts'' as the be all end all.
Science has been caught out in the past and there is evidence out there , compelling in some cases to challenge the theory of evolution , it just falls on closed ears and preoccupied minds.
Big Tone said:
Actually, that's not how science works. There are no proofs; there are only counterexamples. You formulate a theory then you try to disprove it.
So what about 'crackpot notions'?
To be worthy of serious scientific investigation, a theory must make useful predictions and, crucially, it must be capable of being tested - to destruction if necessary. Experiments are not designed to prove a theory, for that would be impossible, but rather to disprove it. In practice, you use the theory to predict the outcome of an experiment then see if you get the expected result. If you succeed then the theory gains credence but what you're really looking for is the prediction that fails every time.There is no possible way to disprove the existence of a god - or, indeed, gods for why should there only be one. For this reason, religion is of no interest to science.
Unfortunately the reverse has not always been true. There are those for whom an unassailable theory (like creationism) is not enough and they will not be content until all alternatives have been eliminated. To quote a line from a Superman movie, "It's not enough that I should succeed. Everyone else must fail." But this is where religion meets the grubby world of politics. The true believer has no reason to fear alternative theories. Not so the politically motivated bigot for whom the faith of the masses means power; a great deal of power. How long did it take for the first self-appointed priest to say "Pay me if you want the sun to come back." To have some upstart accurately predict sunrise day after day would really p*ss him off!
Susiejb said:
In a pair-forming species, the female has little to lose if her partner mates outside the pair but she loses a lot if he forms a second bond. The reverse is true for the male.
That's the theory. It's not quite so simple if that hypothetical species uses sex for pair-bonding.
"IronNaz said:
There was always a way to study the development of a growing foetus but it was very messy ---
how is that scientifically flawed?
"night and day" is the passage of time... one of the 4 basic dimensions.
the sun is then a physical object that exists in the 4 basic dimensions..
Atheism is a modern day evil because it has no moral compass or ethical teachings.
Its basic doctrine is live life to the full and don't give a damn about your neighbour. Its a selfish belief for a selfish people.
Atheism could never create people like Tariq Jahan or this gentleman.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Wilson_(peace_campaigner)
Nor could atheism create people like my nephew, who with the help of his Church has just spent 12 months in Rwanda helping kids less fortunate than himself.
Its basic doctrine is live life to the full and don't give a damn about your neighbour. Its a selfish belief for a selfish people.
Atheism could never create people like Tariq Jahan or this gentleman.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Wilson_(peace_campaigner)
Nor could atheism create people like my nephew, who with the help of his Church has just spent 12 months in Rwanda helping kids less fortunate than himself.
Nonsense.
Sponsored Links
