Evolution and Big Bang Theory on shaky ground... (Page 5) LiptonCambell: When discussing how reality works, saying an idea has greater creedence because it sounds better is asinine. I mean, is the idea that the moon is made of cheese better than the idea that its made of mostly rock and iron ore? Absolutely. But that don't mean we should send the next astronaut up there with crackers.....  StuckInTheSixties: (laughs) He actually answered a straight question with a fairly straight answer last time. Can he do it again?  XFixYourBrainX: Because since its a theory, we don't actually know 100% sure if evolution theory is true or not. So if I say that B is the best answer. How do we know if one day another theory is going to be thought of to explain the development of life? So I can't definitively say that B is the best answer. StuckInTheSixties: Hahaha! You edited your response. Here's is the cut/paste of your original post: "Because since its a theory, we don't actually know 100% sure if evolution theory is true or not. So if I say that B is the best answer." The two parts of that statement contradict each other. I'll make it very simple: B is a very detailed, very complete way of essentially saying "PROOF." The fancy phrase it uses for proof is "empirical data." Those two words essentially mean "PROOF." Here is "B" again: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. XFixYourBrainX: You know quite well what I'm talking about, your intelligence precedes you. So I'm assuming you understand what I'm talking about. StuckInTheSixties: Yes, I understand quite well. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory" as used in "the theory of evolution." Either that, or you're just being obstinate. XFixYourBrainX: Your assumption may be right, but I can't even give that much credit for being the only word that can describe my thoughts on this. XFixYourBrainX: What about giving the attention to another interpretation that is still evenly true in a logical sense.  younlee: Its not an assumption, SITS has clearly, on a number of occasions, pointed out where you are wrong!! XFixYourBrainX: I'm not talking about my point of view ignorant fool. I'm representing what views others may have in such a case. Many times I look from every point of view to see if there are other point of views available to include or to ignore. Is there a specific word to this? younlee:  im the ignorant fool!!! re-read this entire thread, i believe it was on page two you were called the very same!!!The name calling makes me StuckInTheSixties: Quickie search conducted. Results: The only time the phrase "ignorant fool" was used was Pokerman calling Younlee an ignorant fool on the previous page. younlee: My mistake SITS Geoff>>>>PokerMan - Once again you have done nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance  the real slim DEEPy: the many "evidences" of evolution all have alternate explainations, and all have, in themselves, many controdictory factors never mentioned . there are too many for me to waste time and list. if you cannot see the subjective nature of evolution, then you are blind and a malevolent thing for teaching half assisms and calling them fact, even if true, its not very convincing). what i fail to see how so meny 8 billion, over the time opf the protiens in weatyer by yourself | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
the difference between him on me is, i know im a ignorant fool