highwaystar101 said:
|
CHYUII said:
Theory and Hypothesis-
My point is that I believe in good science and not the bad- It is not ALL or Nothing with science it is only what is proven and unproven. To say that something that is not proven is a truth is to put faith in an idea, and that is not science but it is human.
Macroevolution and Microevolution are in my spell check and I have pretty old copy of Word Perfect. To argue that Creationist or Intelligent Designers only makes the distinction is ludicrous. Both terms are in my 1978 Webster Dictionary.
My argument has never been against all that Darwin has proposed but against the idea that Natural Selection and Random Mutation bring about great changes in a species over time, in such away the new phylum are created from the accumulations of those processes. What proceeds from this line of thinking is that all life are a common ancestor and “Adam” of a self-replicating single Cell Organism (organized).
The theory of evolution is in fact an "evolution" itself. A theory is a set of facts explaining a law of nature, it is open to change by including new facts and updating the old through further observations. Essentially it is knowing you are on the right tracks and using it as a means to explore the right areas. Theory of relativity as you said may not be proven 100%, but we have the facts and we have done research and it points the right way, we need to explore.
Look at a book about evolution from 100 years ago and look at one today, we have come a long way. It's not that the 100 year old book is wrong about evolution as an idea, it's that the new book has more facts now and the existing facts have been updated. It will continue to do so. But both have the same idea at heart and we know we are on the correct tracks.
The LAWS of Thermo Dynamics –
Common misconception that is always turned into an argument. The second law of thermo dynamics is often misunderstood by creationists who beloieve it offers some kind of proof.
An oversimplified summarty of the arguement is that creationists see the earth as a closed environment with no external source of energy and so entropy can't increase. However the earth is not a closed environment in any way. The sun (the external source) supplies energy to earth 24 hours a day and so entropy can increase, even the occasional asteroid would do it too. The laws of thermo-dynamics in trying to disprove the scientific societies views on this is flawed, but it's a lot more complex than I just explained.
|
The long message is screwing up my netbook, which isn't very powerful. I'm going to have to do the rest when I get to my PC.
|
highwaystar101
You said that you were still looking so I will not say much to you – but I can already say that you have started off with a PREJUDICE, and then have started to put words in my writing that I never typed. Please be more scientific.
1 I know that changes occur in science and that Theories are revised. Let us consider Einstein’s correction to Newton’s theories of gravity.
Accepting, Einstein does not mean that Sir Isaac Newton is dumb or that he was wrong on all accounts, it just means we know more than we did.
2 I never said Earth was a closed system. Which is why I began my argument for ID with the creation of the Universe the Big Bang, the talked about the Universe, the Planet Earth, and then the Micro-world and then to animals/ humans.
If Creationist say earth is a closed system, I certainly haven’t.
P.s. I love the Animal Crossing quote.
