|
|
To me it is not about faith in particular scientists, but the overwhelming evidence which makes evolution a scientific certainty. We still have not figured out where every branch comes of the evolutionary tree, but we have some pretty good ideas for many of them.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Overwhelming evidence?????????? OMG!
I understand archeologists have uncovered 1/4 mile strip of road in Kansas. I believe that proves my theory that there was a road, eons ago!, that ran from what is now New York to California.
Yes, it is a scientific certainty - unlike global warming, which is scientifically debatable.Originally Posted by dawg80
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
No, it is not.
It is very much like GW.
You're both wrong. Evolution and AGW are both self-evident realities.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
This is, as I'm sure you understand, a pointless debate. You believe that those two theories have been "proven" with the current hard data, and I do not. I still hold them to be theories, with some evidence that lends itself in support of the notions, but do not yet meet the true scientific standards of proven law.
They are not "self-evident," however, by any stretch of true scientific methodology.
I do not understand why believers in evolution and GW cannot simply admit that they base a portion of their acceptance in "faith." There is nothing wrong with that. It is actually a part of scientific methodology and research. Why would someone seeking a cure for cancer choose one direction of research over another? Because there is some evidence that seems to point in that direction and so they decide to pursue that avenue of study....in other words, they have some "faith" that it will come to fruition. Doesn't make it scientific fact, however, just because they pursue that line of reasoning.
Evolutioin will never be considered a "law" since it involves complex inter-actions that may or may not be repeatable, A "law" pretty much says that one willl get the same result every time. E=MC2 is a law. Likewise for AGW, it is a complex inter-action in the bio-sphere. Certain aspects of it are control by "laws", such as the relationship between temperature and vapour pressure of water.
Science does not deal in faith. That is the province of religion. Science tends to thrive best in an atmosphere of doubt, re-testing, and revision. I think that you are confusing a hunch with faith.
I don't "believe" in evolution or AGW. It's just the way things are. I'm a realist and have no religious beliefs that prevent me from deciding what's real and what's an illusion.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
This is pretty much 100 percent correct except for where you imply that AGW is true.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
A book that I've started to read is entiltled "Chance. A Natural History of Heredity."
The first paragraph in the cover jacket summary: "In the last few years, a starling new message has emerged about our biology. Scientists have discovered that all living things are more deeply alike that we ever imagined. Organisms from yeasts to humans are run by similar genes and proteins, which have passed nearly intact for hundreds of millions of years. At the most fundamental level, humans are genetically linked to every part of the natural world."
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
We shall see. What would it take for you to change your mind about AGW?
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
...except, ALSO, relativity is a theory.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
^..........that works!
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
There is not a particular piece of data that I am waiting on. The problem is that there are way too many problems with the current models to properly assess the impact of human contribution.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Exactly! Theory does not mean something is not scientifically certain.^..........that works!
Last edited by Guisslapp; 08-12-2007 at 01:40 PM.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Also, Newtons LAWS of motion do not hold true at the atomic level or when objects are travelling near the speed of light. The law/theory distinction is not very meaningful to scientists.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
