For those who refuse to believe evolution, there will never be enough evidence for it. Arguing the point is a waste of time. To creationist dogma, the conclusion is already determined. Any evidence that contradicts that conclusion they see as either misinterpreted, wrong, or a forgery.
Creation = conclusion is pre-determined (God did it), all evidence that does not conform to the conclusion will be discarded.
Evolution = conclusion is variable and changes are dictated by new evidence. All evidence is studied and considered, continually shaping and refining the theory. Deserter your statement is true. But thats what we do here is waste time. Entertain ourselves. We are entertaining ourselves more prudently than when we went to the kingdumb hall, but still this is entertainment. Its not necessary. Like food clothing and shelter. Coming here is kind of like watching American Idol. I do like the point about the evolution theory being refined. And no doubt life evolves. I dont know if it evolved from and ameoba or from Adam. You and I wont live long enough to ever know conclusively. So we waste our time theorizing having pissing contest. Like my theory is better than your theory.
WHOA, MORE evidence for evolution? Whale 'missing link' discovered.
by serotonin_wraith 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
jaguarbass
-
Caedes
Jaguarbass,
The everyday usage of the word theory does not mean the same thing as the scientific use of the word. Whilst you and I might declare we have a theory about something we don't in the scientific sense of the word.
You are correct in that we are wasting our time here, because until the creationists can prove what they are saying empirically, science will carry on with the 'fact' of evolution. I use the word fact in brackets because there are too many creationists who refuse to understand the difference between a proven scientific 'theory' with a hundred years of empirical evidence and a hundred years of the finest minds trying to prove it wrong and something that they have spent 30 seconds thinking about.
You do not have a theory in the scientific sense of the word, you have a hypothesis, an idea, nothing more. Get some empirical evidence, do some science, get your hypothesis peer reviewed and published and then come back and tell me you have a 'theory' Until then, the scientific 'theory' is better than yours because it's based on empirical evidence not guesswork and hearsay and opinion.
I design engineering control systems for a living, If you where on a boat in the middle of the Pacific relying on one of my designs to get you home, would you prefer it if I base my designs on empirical evidence or on opinion. For example, I specified a seal on a product whose performance was listed as being higher than another seal we have used succesfully in the past. When I actually tested the new seal it failed after 100 hours. That is what makes science, being willing to actually prove your opinion with hard evidence.
As for living long enough to know conclusively one way or another, you are wrong. Darwin has been proved right, evolution is eminently falsifiable but has no one has managed it yet.