We can't SEE X-Rays either, I guess they don't exist, huh????????
thats literally what the fukk you said.
We can't see when animals were born, there for carbon dating is bullshyt too, huh?
or fossils?
Anyone doubting the legitimacy of evolution NEEDS to watch the second episode of COSMOS
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
We can't SEE X-Rays either, I guess they don't exist, huh????????
thats literally what the fukk you said.
We can't see when animals were born, there for carbon dating is bullshyt too, huh?
or fossils?
The bold says it all and proves my point. There is no consensus. They do not know and neither do you. Stop with the dramatics. It's unbecoming especially that last sentence; pure foolishness. Sentient and the ability to conceptualize TO THE EXTENT THAT HUMANS DO are 2 totally different things. Your argument is devolving. You may want to check that.
Why you assume no other animals possess cognitive potential that rival humans?
Cause they don't have fingers and toes?
People need to understand that theories in the scientific sense are not the same things as how we use theories in everyday situations.
Theories, in scientific terms, are backed by facts, independent study, and other such things but it's a pretty much a way of saying that there are still factors we aren't sure about that can possibly change how the information we've collected can be applied. Gravity is "theoretical" in the scientific term.
Evolution is a proven fact, not a theory. To deny this is to deny absolute truth and saying you want to be ignorant. Evolution, as it pertains to the conception of life as we know it, is what's unproven and the theoretical.
Theories, in scientific terms, are backed by facts, independent study, and other such things but it's a pretty much a way of saying that there are still factors we aren't sure about that can possibly change how the information we've collected can be applied. Gravity is "theoretical" in the scientific term.
Evolution is a proven fact, not a theory. To deny this is to deny absolute truth and saying you want to be ignorant. Evolution, as it pertains to the conception of life as we know it, is what's unproven and the theoretical.
hmmmmm. i downloaded both episodes but haven't watched either yet. will have to check this out
This type of thought kills me. It's not "faith" to accept the scientific consencious on something when we've seen over and over the process works. If evidence demonstrably supports an idea, then it's most likely a real phenomena in our reality. You can't say the same about religious ideas. Religion doesn't provide advancements in technology, or any demonstrable truths. It provides ASSERTIONS of truth, regardless of what the evidence or what reason would suggest. Prayer, for example, has not been demonstrated to have any more of an effect on one's life than owning a four-leaf clover, or similar superstitious beliefs.
So sure, I didn't choose the path of an astrophysicist, and I do rely on the research of others to deliver what's most likely true in this field. But for you to imply I'm doing so blindly, or for a bad reason, is just patently absurd. Are people who accept doctors and medical experts that say we should use vaccines and medicine no different than people who believe they can just pray to get better? Of course not. We know medicine generally results in people recovering from illnesses, while some people have died from refusing to do so and praying instead. So no, it's not "faith" I'm using, and it certainly isn't equal to a creationist's belief.
Last edited:
you know he's agnostic right?
What's your point? Most atheists would probably fall under agnostic, which tends to be a fairly scientific approach to knowledge.
If irrefutable proof of God popped up, most sane people wouldn't say "I still don't believe".
Agnostic just means he sees no proof in a God but he reserves the right to change his opinion on it if new proof presents ifself
are you napoleon?
if you're not napoleon, i dont know why you're answering a question i asked him. you dont understand the context of why i pointed that out, so shooAren't you just the king of pointless questions?
if you're not napoleon, i dont know why you're answering a question i asked him. you dont understand the context of why i pointed that out, so shoo
lol another one... you people cant disect issues and always mix context. We see results from doctor's work and research on SOME issues, even though you've taken that out of context it's not as black and white as you try to make it out to be.
again NOBODY was around to observe and/or conduct scientific method, furthermore much of the tests, and methods used for 'proving' the THEORY have been flawed themselves.
I studied Darwin. The man himself didn't even have half the amount of faith you people put into his theory.
I can come up with a scientific study and statististics to prove ANYTHING I want. Any TRUE scientists knows this.
YoungMasterGold
Rookie
You do know that you can study and verify many of those things that researchers have said, right? Sure you can't verify everything, but there's nothing preventing you from acquiring the knowledge to move away from a faith based position on science. It is in that way that people who accept evolution are mostly different from people who believe in creationism.
Besides, what does the Big Bang theory have to do with the theory of evolution? Further, what scientific laws does the Big Bang theory contravene? Eagerly anticipating your response.
Forensic sciences (one subset of understanding theories like the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory) have a easily understandable methodology. They neither rely on magic nor religious belief.
Glad you asked. Shared endogenous retroviral insertions within humans and other apes - including chimps - can only appear as specifically as they do if there are shared common ancestors. I can expand on that if you'd like, but it might take some time because I keep finding myself overly busy at present.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but minor point: gravity is a fact, too. Theories of relativity are an attempt to understanding what that fact means. Evolution - or to be more specific, the theory of evolution - doesn't apply nor have a conception on life and its origins. Theories and hypotheses in abiogenesis address the origin of life.
YoungMasterGold
Rookie
People can conduct research now, though. The evidence points one way: shared ancestry. Which of the methods used to show evolution occurs are flawed?
Where faith?
Bullshyt. NO YOU CAN'T.