08-31-2005, 10:30 AM
|
#15
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally posted by peter12+Aug 31 2005, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Aug 31 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Aug 31 2005, 09:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Draug
|
Quote:
@Aug 31 2005, 10:22 AM
Just because a theory is widely accepted, doesnt mean it is a fact. It must be proven correct to be a fact; neither Evolution or Creationism is proven to be correct at this point. In fact, that is the point of science, to prove and disprove theories, whether they are widely accepted or not.
|
I think science has proven our evolution about as much as humanly possible. Do you want them to travel back in time and videotape our evolution. Would you accept it then? Keep the blinders on...
|
Just because there is a large amount of evidence supporting evolution does not mean it is true. Our misunderstanding of biology and physics is even now proving to be somewhat flawed. It is possible we have gotten something wrong.
Even something as "solid" as the theory of gravitational fields is proving to be incorrect now. [/b][/quote]
Creationists often claim that they have nothing against science in general or that they rely on the scientific method as much as anyone, and yet they arbitrarily reject science when they dislike its results for subjective reasons. The fact of the matter is that evolution is a product of the scientific method, and it is hypocritical to accept one and reject the other. Despite all protestations otherwise, evolution is indisputably good science, built up by over a century of experimentation and observation. While it has been refined by new discoveries, it has never seriously been challenged in any important respect, and it has been used again and again to make predictions which have been borne out. This is true science in every sense of the word, and anyone who claims to use the scientific method has no choice but to accept that. Creationism, by contrast, is nonscientific. It does not start with a tentative hypothesis open to change and vulnerable to disproof if contradictory evidence is found. Instead, it starts with an immutable hypothesis which may not be questioned and goes out searching for evidence to support it, ignoring evidence which does not. This is the antithesis of science, yet creationists hypocritically and dishonestly claim to only be following where the scientific method and the evidence lead them.
|
|
|