painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
A very wise poster has said and I've gleefully stolen...
"proof is only good for math and alcohol" or words to that effect.
wa:do
"proof is only good for math and alcohol" or words to that effect.
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution: Do you see the resemblence
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
ericmurphy
Member
As an uneducated lout, I would say, "proof is only good for math and alcohol, and I'm not sure about the former."
McBell
Unbound
I completely disagree.
Look above at the four different definitions given.
You are going to claim that they all mean the same thing?
How can anyone answer the question when it is unclear what you mean by 'evolution'?
How about you pick one definition and stick to it?
If you honestly believe that the definitions I directly quoted from you above are the exact same, then I will stop wasting my time with someone who does not know their backside from a hole in the ground.
Your call.
ericmurphy
Member
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I have a lot more to say about DNA, but I'm going to wait to see whether any interested parties survived that fray. Any lurkers or creationists out there? roli?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Alright, unless a creationist or other interested party appears, I'm going to interrupt my incredibly long listing of all the evidence in support of ToE. I hope no one in this forum ever again makes the mistake of asserting that there is no such thing, or we're likely to see another 79 page thread.
I thought you knew about law,evidence is not proof
If you mean by absolute proof, then no. Absolute proof does not exist in science. Nothing in science is ever proven beyond question. But the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
so,we have it,the jury is still out,i differ about proof not existing in science although it depends on which branch.
When we all look at the evidence some only see what they want to see,i have spent many years involved in domestic and wild animals(my Dad was a farmer)the similarities between human and animals are there for all to see and the bond between man and horse for example or man and dog makes it difficult to reject we all come from a common ancestor.
I have ,since this thread started i have read about so much about toe and very interesting though it was,it seems to me that nobody actually knows what the truth is.
Scientists have this way of being like a bull in a china shop and do not make for good debate as their minds are very narrow and any information other than scientific is discarded.
Although the debate over toe is'nt about whether there is a God or not it is mainly supported by atheists as if this is their religion which is basicaly the same as believing in God,unproven.
When we all look at the evidence some only see what they want to see,i have spent many years involved in domestic and wild animals(my Dad was a farmer)the similarities between human and animals are there for all to see and the bond between man and horse for example or man and dog makes it difficult to reject we all come from a common ancestor.
I have ,since this thread started i have read about so much about toe and very interesting though it was,it seems to me that nobody actually knows what the truth is.
Scientists have this way of being like a bull in a china shop and do not make for good debate as their minds are very narrow and any information other than scientific is discarded.
Although the debate over toe is'nt about whether there is a God or not it is mainly supported by atheists as if this is their religion which is basicaly the same as believing in God,unproven.
To paraphrase someone who paraphrased someone: talk of proof is best consigned to the domains of logic, law, and liquor.
Differ all you like, but if you believe that anything in science can be proven to the point where it is beyond question, you are in error. It does not matter which branch of science we are dealing with. Nothing in science is ever proven absolutely.
fantôme profane;1028178 said:
Tesla was a scientist and his work was proven.Baird was a scientist and my wife watches TV every night ,the german scientist whos name i have forgotten but helped put a man on the moon through rocket science is'nt that proof.
The mines that were used in the first world war were they not developed by science,the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes and toe is an incomplete pudding.
You are in error, and a dangerous error at that. When people say that the theories of Nicola Tesla have been proven, that simply means is that there is sufficient evidence to support them, and there is no significant evidence contradicting them. It does not mean that his theories are beyond question, it does not mean that they have been proven absolutely. Many times in the history of science scientific theories, and even scientific laws have been over turned by new evidence, and new theories that explain the evidence better. Nothing in science is beyond question!
Whenever anything (anything!) comes to a point where it is considered beyond question it is no longer science, it is dogma!
And by the way, most scientists will agree that there is sufficient evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and no significant evidence contradiction it. But this is still science, and therefore subject to question.
fantôme profane;1028189 said:
On Tesla i would have to disagree as industry have been using the fruits of his work for years,an easy way to see his work in action is to either buy or build a Tesla coil,it works.
Or how about eye laser treatment that works,i know someone whos had it and now they dont need glasses i really think thats proof, i could probably type proven science from here to next december.
But none of it is ever beyond question!
fantôme profane;1028201 said:
So the fact that my freind no longer requires glasses and can see is'nt beyond question or how about ohms law that is used when designing electric circuits and the circuit works is that not proof when thetv works or the light comes on or the computer works etc,yes it can always be improved but it works and in working proof enough
Yes, lasers work, and this is great supporting evidence in favour of quantum theory. However, this does not prove quantum theory correct. It's still possible (albeit really, really, really unlikely) that each laser contains a tiny little invisible demon that beams light out of his eyes every time the button is pressed.
A confirmed prediction does not prove a theory correct. It simply proves that the theory in question correctly predicted that particular phenomenon. If it predicts some other phenomenon which turns out to not occur, then the theory is wrong (in whole or part), no matter how many correct predictions it has made in the past.
Is this what it has come to,nit picking on a theory of evolution,everyone has been quite certain on that or is that different?
Is it “proof enough”? Perhaps, but it is not “absolute proof”. And that is what I am telling you. Nothing in science is proven absolutely! Nothing in science is ever absolutely proven! That is fundamental to understanding what science is.
The theory of evolution is not proven absolutely, but most scientists will consider the evidence (some of which Autodidact has been trying to show you) to be “proof enough”. That does not mean that it is beyond question. But if you are content to use the term “proof” in a relative sense for other areas of science then you cannot demand that it be absolute in regards to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not absolutely proven, but it is extremely well evidenced.