[quote]dtheyer wrote:
BrownTrout wrote:
I love how everyone who doesn’t accept evolution is automatically deemed “ignorant,” and the only possible explanation for their denial must be a lack of logic/intelligence.
The evidence is too large for people to not accept it. I guess you can choose to believe that a plane flies on magic, but many people might consider you ‘ignorant’.
The concept of a creator in some form or another was near universally accepted for thousands of years.
It was also ‘universally accepted’ that you can shit in the same water you drink from, and that it was ok to own slaves.
As human beings we lack true creativity. Even our most brilliant artists can only manipulate the things that they have experienced with their own senses. If no deity existed man would be able to conceive one no better than a color that is not in the visible light spectra. The concept alone is too far removed from human experience. Science is the practice of understanding our physical world through observation and experiment.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I think it is probably because of the way you worded it.
Since its rather difficult to reproduce evolution experimentally, researchers must rely on observation alone in this particular category of science. Now here is where people will either think a little or get extremely defensive. In all branches of science, since observations are typically difficult to interpret, scientists use their IMAGINATIONS to develop their hypothesis. They then use experiment to test these hypothesis. It is unfortunate for evolutionists that this experimentation isn’t possible. Observation is all there is to go off of. The rest is imagined. Science is continually proving itself wrong THROUGH EXPERIMENT. Isaac Newton was considered a madman by his contemporary’s who believed physical knowledge had reached it’s limit.
They actually do perform experiments that have backed up evolution. The E. Coli project is a huge example of this. It is impossible for a ‘scientific theory’ to be a ‘scientific theory’ without thorough experimentation.
Later Newtons laws were generally excepted as absolute truth and were proven experimentally time and time again. We were later shown by Einstein that Newtonian mechanics, as well as Galilean relativity, are not universal truths and have very narrow ranges. For many years aether was believed to be the medium for light propagation in the universe. This was found to be incorrect after experimentation was unable to detect any properties of aether and ultimately Einstein made a better case for the properties of light.
My main point is that evolution is not a proven phenomena. When you say “except evolution, its scientifically proven,” you should probably be saying “accept evolution, its philosophically appealing.” People who choose to hold a creationist view have a faith in some greater power, and the intuition of all mankind throughout history. People who believe evolutionism are putting their faith in the flawed imaginations of scientists and philosophers who are unable to support their inclinations with experimentation. I have nothing against you if this is what you choose to have faith in, but don’t kid yourself in thinking that science blatantly supports your belief.
Er… sorry, it is scientifically proven.
And Newton’s laws are still widely accepted. It is true that we have improved on the specifics of these findings, as scientists are doing everyday, even with evolution. The reason I accept evolution is because it isn’t based in ‘imagination’. All religions are, though.[/quote]
I’m not sure how you can observe an experiment on E. coli adaptation and confidently claim that it proves macro-evolution on the grand scale. The experiment side of the theory of evolution is weak at best. In my opinion it was allowed to become a theory because of biased in the scientific community. The church was incredibly oppressive towards scientists and early on helped create a division between the camps of science and religion. The life of Galileo probably best illustrates this point. It makes sense that scientists would look for a way to discredit the organization that was the instrument for their oppression. Regarding Newtons Laws, I do not deny that Newtons laws are widely accepted. They are widely accepted because they are true to an acceptable tolerance for many events in our physical world; however, when things get small and fast Quantum theory prevails. if you didn’t understand the illustration of aether then I’m not sure I can explain it better, but the point was evolutionary theory isn’t the best science around…
