sharinganerror wrote:forkboy wrote:There's a difference in believing something you can see and feel with your own eyes and hands and 2,000 years worth of bullshit and hearsay my friend. Not even remotely comparable.
WTF, man one thing, If you can't see it and you can't feel then that means it doesn't exist, protons are not visible by the naked eye, nor is jupiter from earth. We use tools for knowledge, you use a microscope-telescope and for guidance we use the Bible.
Well, seeing and feeling wasn't an exact statement, more a metaphor. We can prove the existence of the proton, and quarks, and so forth, by prescise mathematics, it is therefore known as observable. It's all about the evidence. There are thousands and thousands of examples in the fossil record of real identifiable evolution. No, we haven't directly observed evolution happening, because we have only been around as a species for a minute amount of time in a geological sense, and our average lifespan is meagre as well, not even a blink of an eyelid.
And you and your creationist friends need to look up the definition of the word theory incidentally. Really frustrating that. The theory of gravity is a
theory but you don't go questioning that. Theory is something that has been tried and tested by many, many scientists, peer-reviewed, and gone over until people are in agreement that the vast majority of evidence is pointing that this is the most likely explanation for whatever the theory is saying.
And yes, I mean I'm using the word believe, but in an entirely different way to how you use it. See, science knows it isn't infallible, isn't perfect. Future developments, like say Einstein's work on general relativity and the way it changed Newton's work. Or how many great scientists used to believe that space was full of a gas, the aether. It was used to describe the vacuum of space. Or the great Lord Kelvin, a 19th century Scottish physicist. He put the earths age at between 20 & 40 million years, and thus decided Darwin was wrong because evolution as supposed by him couldn't have happened in such a short time. Darwin saw this too and suggested 3-400 million years. Of course now we're pretty damn confident thanks to the various new technologies that it's about 4.5 billion years, whcih gives Darwin's (& the often forgotten Wallace) theory plenty of time. So when I'm saying believe I mean "science knows that this is the best
The point I'm making is that science changes thanks to the advances in technology. It's not 2000 years of dogma that can't changes. Science knows that what the evidence says today might change tomorrow because of advances in our ability to understand the world around us. Science changes. It's like moraltiy changes, and is why basing the morality of society on a book where parts are nearly 5,000 years old is fucking stupid. We no longer view stoning to death a justifiable punishment. Most humans tend to view state sponspored murder as fucking despicable by this point.
