Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolution Theory is Error
Options
Comments
-
-
This has to be the most amusing thread I've seen in a while.
Okay let's take a quick look at the important points (most of which the OP has conveniently ignored thus far):
1. Science never attempts to prove anything, ever. Why the OP keeps harping on about proof when this has been raised numerous times I'm not so sure. Science observes natural occurances and applies theories to them, amending the theory if need be due to additional observed occurances. In the words of Stephen Hawking:A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
In other words every time an apple has been observed falling to the ground upon release it has backed up the theory of gravity. However the only fact there is in the case is the fact that the apple has fallen to the ground. We don't know for certain that the next time we do drop an apple that it will in fact fall to the ground. It may rise up into the air. Until such a time as it does the theory of gravity is still sound, but it is never deemed to be fact. The reason being that we do not fully know all the factors that may come into play in future occurances. The world is not a closed and controlled system. Quite the opposite. So we can make educated predictions on the fate of the apple, but we can never be 100% sure.
2. The Catholic Church's official position is that Evolution is accurate and, as far as they are concerned, true.
3. Evolution, by pure definition alone, cannot ever explain the start of the universe or the beginnings of life on Earth. Evolution is the natural change in a species over huge periods of time due to various factors, so a species needs to exist for Evolution to be applied to it. And just because we don't know for sure how the Universe was created, does that mean we should all just jump on the God bandwagon, despite the fact that God hasn't been, what's the word the OP loves, "proven"?
4. The reason a number of other Christian religious institutions exist is purely because the Catholic Church abused its position for years and grew wealthy on the backs of their "flock". So this money argument can be more readily linked to the Catholic Church than evoltionary theorists.
5. You say people should question what they are being told OP, now apparently that doesn't apply to the Church. However as has already been pointed out it was the increasing questioning of the Church that got us this far. So if, according to you, this questioning has led us so far astray surely continuing to question things now would only lead us further away from "the truth".....
6. And this is the best, and has been pointed out already. We did not evolve from monkeys. Evolution has never said any such thing. No other animal will ever evolve into a human - at least the probability of that happening is so low as to make it a near impossibility. I'm sorry but I had to take a minute when I was reading that post, it was either utter comic genius or the funniest load of BS I've ever heard!. Showing such a basic lack of understanding for something you refuse to believe speaks volumes about you as a person OP. Perhaps "reading" or "investigating" about the topic you're so passionate about might enlighten you a little. We evolved from the same origins as other primates, i.e. we are based on the same template so to speak.
Anyway, there are 3 distinct possibilities regarding the OP:
a. He is a troll - not someone we'd want around here but better than c!
b. He is a comic genius - therefore the thread should really be in After Hours (shouldn't it?)
c. He is genuine - the worst possibility of the 3. That someone shows such complete ignorance of the topic they themselves have started and is still so certain that they are right is baffling, amusing, disconcerting and a little sad.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm gonna try and argue for the other side here. In a crap attempt to even things out / entertain myself.
What's the mathematical definition of life?
If you can't answer that, then how can you question whether or not a higher being exists, because you don't know what you are looking for.
There's no proof either way and ultimatley the spagetti monster argument holds.0 -
I'm gonna try and argue for the other side here. In a crap attempt to even things out / entertain myself.
What's the mathematical definition of life?
If you can't answer that, then how can you question whether or not a higher being exists, because you don't know what you are looking for.
There's no proof either way and ultimatley the spagetti monster argument holds.
Simple answer. If you can not question the fact that a supreme being does exist, then by the same logic you can not question the fact that he does not exist.0 -
-
Simple answer. If you can not question the fact that a supreme being does exist, then by the same logic you can not question the fact that he does not exist.
Yes but what's the harm in asking the question in a more thorough way.
Accumulation of dna, cells chemical reactions = human mind.
Accumulation of ? = supreme being. 0 -
Yes but what's the harm in asking the question in a more thorough way.
Accumulation of dna, cells chemical reactions = human mind.
Accumulation of ? = supreme being.
I'm sure a religious person will pop in here and tell you that god exists outside physics and chemistry or something.0 -
-
wolfpawnat wrote: »No offence but humans, including our ancestors have not been around long enough for there to be fossils, we do however have skeletons of pre-homo sapien humans and timelines to put them into also.
Darwins theory has not been altered in over a hundred years because it is right. For it to be deemed correct these days 3/4 of scientific specialists in the theory of evolution have to agree with it in all aspects.
I'm sorry but why is this so hard to believe, its easier to swallow than a woman being made from a non existant rib of a man!
I think he was joking. Also, I'm nearly certain the theory of evolution has been altered since Darwin. His work just formed the basis for what's studied now.
Some biologist may be able to confirm or deny this statement.
Zillah: he may have given up when he saw how funny we all thought this was. Also, love your mathematical definition of life 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You have to wonder why on one had "the theory of evolution" which btw has nothing to do with the creation of our universe and on the other, the religionist "Creation"
Now in fairness it should be called "the theory of creation" but it can't, as there are no supporting facts to postulate it into becoming a theory.
So all we have is a story v's hugh amounts of Scientific facts and the theories based on these facts.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ultimately in the domain of science, there is nothing provable. Much of science occupies itself to fitting what we observe into mathematical models (so they can be dealt with in a domain where proof is more possible).
If we know absolutely everything about a system, then we can predict outcomes. Problem is we don't, but science is trying to find out by dealing with things as logically and as rationally as possible.
Unlike creationists
But do we know how to interprit what we observe, mathematical model for personality = ?.
I gave it a go, I'll most likely be vacating the forum shortly 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sEIiWKSzJA
Advertisement