Quote:
Originally posted by Flashpoint+Aug 31 2005, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Aug 31 2005, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Aug 31 2005, 04:12 PM
So why can't they say, 'we don't know, but we have a few ideas, some think it was a big bang, and others think it may have been the work of a higher power. We can't really advocate either, because we can't prove it one way or the other. We do know there is evolution though...' and explain it both ways? One theory is no more or less proven than the other at this point in time. Neither is scientific, because neither can or have been proven. What place does either have in a science class?
|
Because a body of evidence exists for one, and not the other. Conclusive? No. Evidentiary? You bet.
The fact that Creationisim, or Intelligent Design, or whatever new clothing the emperor is wearing has been proven wrong again and again sure doesn't help those advocating it these days.
"Well, I guess we have to finally acknowledge evolution as a fact. But hold the line on the big bang! Science doesn't have enough evidence yet! We still got em there until the particle accelerator is built".
Religion holds back science. This is why I hate it. [/b][/quote]
What if our first conceived fact or the main thing that we focus on science (I have no idea what that would be but it all had to start from one thing that was proven as a "fact" and then go from there) is wrong and now everything that we have "proven" is not real at all, my problem with religion and science is that both are so arrogant that each others wrong that they can't come to terms that they could both be right to a certain extent.