Had to delurkify myself for this.
quote:
Evolution (specifically macro-evolution and chemical evolution) is more of a religion than a scientific theory.
This probably isn't the correct thread to debate this is, and there are several others in which this claim has already been discussed. (Hint: You should probably include your definition of religion. It makes it a lot easier to explain why it isn't one.)
quote:
Science rarely, if ever proves anything in absolute terms.
Uh yeah, obviously, since we can never know whether or not we have all the facts we can't say whether or not any theory is absolutely true.
quote:
We cannot design experiments disprove the existence of a creator. By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution.We cannot even imagine a finding in nature that would disprove evolution.
Is that a fact? Let's see, if a mechanism was found that prevented minor genetic changes from accumulating and leading to macro-evolutionary changes then the ToE would be falsified. Seemed pretty easy to conceive of a possible falsification of the theory to me. Took me all of about 15 seconds, what's your excuse?
quote:
when any real scientific evidence crops up over time that contr[a]dict the belief system they simply modify the belief system. This is not science.
Wow, just wow. Could you be more wrong? Seriously, I am completely serious. Is there any way on Earth that statement could be more wrong?
Introduction to the Scientific Method
From the link...
"If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or
modified."
That is exactly what you are supposed to do. If it didn't then it *would* be a religion.
™ Version 4.2
