The definition of science: What should it be?

So, your response to my suggestion that you ask questions to learn more is to insunuate that I want to herd you into a gas chamber and murder you?

I really can't see why you are getting upset with Crash over what he said.
When I read his response, I thought it was about one of the nicest and most reasonable things he has ever written on this forum.You should see the kind of stuff he writes to people once he has decided that they are jerks This forum is all about learning, not just arguing a point.

Seconded Funny, I thought it was all about evangelising myself. And learning not to take things too personally. And to have a bit of fun on the way. Its no fun if you take the fun out of fundimentalism

I dunno about that. Di-mentalism sounds like a very interesting concept.

Evangelizing yourself? You mean even the choir has stopped listening?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Neither creation nor evolution is totally truly science. Neither can be totally proved, but each has its scientific support. Evolution has proof for microevolution, creation has proof for a young earth, and other things. both involve belief to accept. anything beyond microevolution, and anything that involves God creating the world. However neither is a religion. They are the basis for religions. Creationism is the basis for Islam, Christianity, ..., Etc. Evolution is the basis of atheism (yes-the BELIEF there is no God). Science should present the facts for both, and clearly state that both are thereis, and its your decision to make. Thats why either both should be taught or neither.

Hello, and welcome, vitalprikalist.

quote:

---

...Evolution has proof for microevolution

---

Actually, it doesn't. It has good evidence that microevolution has occurred, evidence so good that even the creationists can no longer deny it (and, in fact, have adopted to explain how Noah go so many different "kinds" onto that ark), but no "proof".Evolution also has a lot of good evidence of macroevolution and common descent and the great age of the universe, too.-

quote:

---

...creation has proof for a young earth.

---

That is an interesting one. If and when you have time to start a thread on this, I'd be interested in knowing about this "proof" of a young earth.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

vitalprikalist,I'll second the welcome and the question about the proof of a young earth. I've never encountered a PROOF that the earth was young. What are you referring to?lfen

This is what could be called "the fallacy of false parity." Other people have hit most of your errors but I thought I'd take this one: This is demonstratably false. All one needs to do is observe that atheism predates evolution to refute your assertion that evolution forms a basis for atheism.

In fact, there is already a thread on whether atheists must believe in evolution.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

The Forum Guidelines try to encourage members to focus on the topic of discussion and not on their opinions of the respondees. The side-comments about righteousness and faultless people and morality are not particularly objectionable, but they would stand out less if you had spent at least a few words actually addressing the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I am so fed up with seeing this little gem of inaccuracy trotted out.Crash beat me to it by pointing out that that atheism predates Evolution and therefore cannot possibly have it as a basis.
But my problem is that you have just joined the list of people who are telling ME what I believe in without actually trying to find out for real.
I am an atheist!
I LACK a belief in God. period.
I do NOT believe that there is no God.
I was an atheist long before I knew the first thing about evolution.Oh and BTW. Welcome to EVC

Well, you're half right.Neither can be "totally proved." However, that has no connection to the first part of the quote. Science never "totally prove[s]" anything. Ever. So the fact that something can't be "totally proved," whatever that might mean, says absolutely nothing about whether it is scientific or not.Science is about putting forward the best explanation we can based on the evidence we have. Under this standard, evolution is "totally truly science" (I guess, not really sure what this means either) and creationism is totally truly religion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

As a side note--there's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. You just happen to be ignorant about what evolution is, or some of the other stuff (like the definition of science). I don't think you're stupid.Ignorance can be altered, stupidity cannot (as far as I know).
If you are willing to learn about things you do not know, then you are not stupid, just in a moment of ignorance.Stupidity is like refusing to accept that the earth is round, or that jumping off of a thousand foot cliff without a bungee or parachute is good for you (that came out wrong. That last clause means that the stupid person thinks that doing that activity is good for you, which isn't evident the way I wrote it).In the end, you seem to be willing to learn, from all your posts that I've read. Would that I could say the same for some (like a certain person who refuses to debate with me in the Showcase forum)

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Well that's rather noble of you. If you keep talking like that, you may entice me back into the fray so that I can learn a few more things the hard way.I am terribly embarrased by my lack of research, as well as the failure of a few assumptions (such as simple organisms = simple DNA sequences). I confess much ignorance as compared to a few notables in this forum. But you know, it doesn't take a lawyer to tell you justice wasn't served. But you need one to argue with them.I have something to add. It is another argument presented by Stephen Meyer and is the argument that changed Dean Kenyon's mind on the origins of life. It actually doesn't belong in this thread, but perhaps the moderators will give it a thumbs up???Otherwise, Let me know in which to talk about it...In short... You can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain. Because, you need DNA to have natural selection.I don't want an ad hoc dismissal of the argument. I want someone to explain clearly (as this argument is clear) why this is false.