Debate and Discussion

Do you believe in evolution?
Vindibudd at 8:46AM, July 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
ozoneocean
I really hate these evolution debates.
They just turn into “the smarties who know about evolution Vs the dummies who don't” :P
And then we get some definitions of theory thrown in as well.

I have a gene in me or something that makes me go for the underdog, so I feel this compulsion to stick up for the non-evolution side! I don't want to do that… We should just change the evolution debate to be something like: “Why creationism shouldn't be taken literally” or “What are the subversive religious aims of proponents of so called Intelligent Design theory”
Hey, I know those two headings seem slightly biased, but they're more appropriate in an educated, enlightened environment.

Dammit, oceanzone, stop making me agree with you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
joeychips at 1:36PM, July 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 145
joined: 5-22-2007
When I look into my baby daughter's eyes, I know she did not “evolve” from some pile of sludge way back when. I collected 5 Powerful Quotes from Scientists, and they support my understanding that evolution is simply not true.

"The more one studies paleontology , the more
certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.“
Professor Louis T. More
The Dogma of Evolution (Princeton: University Press, 1925), 160.

” not because it has been observed to occur or
can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because
the only alternative - special creation - is clearly incredible.“
Professor D. M. S. Watson
Quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), 8.

”Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only
alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.“
Sir Arthur Keith
Quoted in Meldan, Why We Believe in Creation, 8.

”Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.“
Dr. Duane Gish, Biologist
Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe (Nashville: Word Publishing,
1999) 48.

”Scripture is quite definite that God Created the world, and I for one
believe that to be a fact, not fiction. There is no evidence,
scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution."
Sir Cecil Wakeley, K.B.E., C.B., LL.D., M.CH., Doctor of Science,
F.R.C.S., past president of Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain
Quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation? (London: Evangelical Press, 1966), v.
Joe Chiappetta
www.SillyDaddy.net
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
Aurora Moon at 3:11PM, July 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
joeychips
When I look into my baby daughter's eyes, I know she did not “evolve” from some pile of sludge way back when. I collected 5 Powerful Quotes from Scientists, and they support my understanding that evolution is simply not true.

you're letting your feelings get in the way of logic. You have to remember…. our ancestors way back then had completely different set of genes but that doesn't make evolution untrue. You're only half right in that your baby daughter isn't related completely to our primitive ancestors. After all, the modern human being has so many differences than a crono-morgon that really sets us apart not only in our actions but in our genes. But to deny our past link completely is ridiculous. After all, we see it in tons of animals in nature: how they tend to “evolve” and branch off from different species to become an completely new species that only has the tiniest shred of “old” DNA that even links them back to their ancestor/cousin.

And those “scientists” aren't really scientists at all… so that whole list of quotes really does prove NOTHING. Those “scientists” are really just poser scientists operating under the lie of being an scientist so that they can clutch at straws, feebly giving people half-assed theories WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE so that they can get gullible men like you who are easily swayed by emotions and pretty words to believe in them.

For instance.. Sir Arthur Keith isn't really a real scientist by all means.

I've googled those “scientists” you listed, and it seems that they've been the laughingstock of the majority (of the scientists that is). Why? because they couldn't come up with a single piece of creditable evidence that their BELIEFS (not theories) were true.

Those so-called “scientists” that you listed, they're like the so called “Christan's” who only picks certain parts of the bible that they want to believe in and completely disregards the rest of the bible. In case you don't know what I mean, those “poser Christan's” who says things like: “Well, I believe in Jesus. but I also don't believe in the virgin Mary, I also don't believe in the flood, I don't believe in the 10 commandants….”

See how ridiculous that is? Those scientists are the same way… they only handpick out certain theories to “work on” and doesn't really do anything to support their stance, they just say they believe in this certain thing but not even allowing for the possibility for the other things to exist.

Just as an Christian should believe in the possibility of an Virgin Mary, believe in the ten commandants as well as the flood….

A good scientist should also be open to the possibility that they might be wrong, but still continue to work and test on theories as well as look for evidence to support the fact that the theory that they want to be correct, is in fact right. And well if they find evidence that they are WRONG… then it's still a step up regardless. Because they'd have learned something new that might help humanity in the long run. And THAT, is what a scientist is all about! not those silly men going: “Well, I choose to believe in this and that so I'll competely become blind to any evidence in front of me saying that I'm in fact WRONG!!!!”
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vagabond at 4:32PM, July 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
Ocka
I believe in evolution…and yet I believe in my Catholic beliefs..kinda… though maybe I'd be a heretic in my priest's eyes >.>..

I always see Adam and Eve being bacteria in goo (Eden ) and when they got booted out of the goo they actually evolved into something >.> The snake….I never think of him/it much. From there everything else occurs. yup..

Actually, the Catholic Church is in full support of evolution. Yes, it took forever and a half for them to stop taking the Bible so literally, but the official stance is literally, “We are happy that science can help us understand the world that God has created.” That might not sound like much, but when you realize that this was said in the era of John Paul II and Ratzinger, (I seriously refuse to use that ultra-conservative bastard's “pope name”) it speaks volumes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
Cthulhu at 4:57PM, July 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,095
joined: 4-18-2006
I belive Bush is the missing link.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:56AM
DemonSaintDante at 4:55AM, July 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
One of the main reason some people don't believe in evolution is because they don't understand it.

Evolution isn't evolving from a monkey with giant leaps of just an entire race becoming better.

Evolution is simply a single creature or maybe more being born with a slight advantage over the others. (A mutation) This could be the first human gaining an opposable thumb, due to this advantage he survives longer than any of the others and thus can reproduce more. while the babies may not have the same thumb that gene remains in them and thus as they reproduce that dominant gene progresses.

We see signs of birth defects often just many of them are negative to the survival of the child and not an advantage.

Now im no genius and ive only researched this a little but this is what i understand from it.

And there is a ton of evidence on evolution, bacteria and virus's mutate and evolve, birth defects including some “beneficial” ones have been scene.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
Cthulhu at 5:49AM, July 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,095
joined: 4-18-2006
DemonSaintDante
Evolution isn't evolving from a monkey with giant leaps of just an entire race becoming better.

Evolution is simply a single creature or maybe more being born with a slight advantage over the others. (A mutation) This could be the first human gaining an opposable thumb, due to this advantage he survives longer than any of the others and thus can reproduce more. while the babies may not have the same thumb that gene remains in them and thus as they reproduce that dominant gene progresses.

We see signs of birth defects often just many of them are negative to the survival of the child and not an advantage.

Which reminds me of why we shouldn't remove “tumors”.

“That's not a tumor! That's a second thumb!”
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:56AM
TnTComic at 9:32AM, July 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
joeychips
“Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”
Dr. Duane Gish, Biologist
Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe (Nashville: Word Publishing,
1999) 48.

Funny twist on the usual “God is Santa Clause for adults” line.

joeychips
"Scripture is quite definite that God Created the world, and I for one
believe that to be a fact, not fiction.

Sir Cecil Wakeley, K.B.E., C.B., LL.D., M.CH., Doctor of Science,
F.R.C.S., past president of Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain
Quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation? (London: Evangelical Press, 1966), v.

No scientist can say the above and still be considered a man of science.

Look at your own body. Why do you have a tail bone?

Or better yet, look up the Heiki Crab on google.

C'mon… evolution is not subject to opinion. The science is there. Its always been there. And it doesn't have to be tied to a discussion on the origin of the universe. Its entirely possible that the earth was created by an all-powerful god and that evolution is a part of what he created. Its possible. There is zero evidence to back it up, but its possible.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Hawk at 9:50AM, July 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
TnTComic
Look at your own body. Why do you have a tail bone?

Or better yet, look up the Heiki Crab on google.

C'mon… evolution is not subject to opinion. The science is there. Its always been there. And it doesn't have to be tied to a discussion on the origin of the universe. Its entirely possible that the earth was created by an all-powerful god and that evolution is a part of what he created. Its possible. There is zero evidence to back it up, but its possible.

One of my college biology teachers said, "Look at the end of your arm. What do you see there? Your hand is incredible!" He actually used the rationale is a bit of evidence that maybe there was more than science dictating why we are the way we are. Yeah, I know he's not your typical science teacher, but he didn't rule out possibilities and that's what I liked about him.

I'm not chiming in to disprove evolution, I'm just saying that evolution is and always will be subject to opinion, even when we've all but confirmed with with the very best scientific means. Everyone is allowed their opinion and I think that's a good thing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
TnTComic at 9:59AM, July 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I'd like to ask that biology teacher why breeding works, be it for dogs and cats or horses and cows. Selective breeding is forced evolution. Nature didn't produce a cow whose udders rupture if she's not milked daily. We did.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Hawk at 10:09AM, July 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Well, he wasn't disproving evolution… in fact, I'm pretty sure he totally believed it. I think his rationale was just that there are some things that will never be completely proven. I don't know, I can't speak for the guy.

He actually gave great lectures during the evolution segment though. He showed that it's been proven on the short term by diseases, insects, and various other species. I'm sure your cow example fits right in line with that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
DemonSaintDante at 7:21AM, July 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
Well science never allows something to be 100% proven… which is why theory is pretty much the highest you can get with your experiments. Things can only be 99.9% proven…

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
TnTComic at 12:16PM, July 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
DemonSaintDante
Well science never allows something to be 100% proven… which is why theory is pretty much the highest you can get with your experiments. Things can only be 99.9% proven…



That's not true. Laws are 100%.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
DemonSaintDante at 5:54PM, July 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
WIKI
in science, there are a various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence arise to contradict them. A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates,principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory maybe implied from an empirically determined law. Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe:

While its a determined fact at any point it may be disproved in some way… LAWS are just not as likely to be proven false. As a scientist you cant consider something to be impossible other wise you may overlook an important discovery.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
Aurora Moon at 8:36PM, July 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
DemonSaintDante
WIKI
in science, there are a various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence arise to contradict them. A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates,principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory maybe implied from an empirically determined law. Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe:
While its a determined fact at any point it may be disproved in some way… LAWS are just not as likely to be proven false. As a scientist you cant consider something to be impossible other wise you may overlook an important discovery.

exactly!

for instance….what if that “sciencist” who dissed evoultion and called it an impossiblity, had he not done that, actually found evidence that god had a place in evoultion?

like what if this was true, for all those god-lovers out there that didn't believe in evolution:
like the fact that maybe evolution exists because of some plan of God… one that required us going though some kinda test to prove that we were truly worthy of being god's children, worthy of the illegence that was blessed upon us. And that test is being able to surive against the harsh mother nature, and being able to change both mentally and pyshically as the situation calls for it. Maybe God supported and CREATED evolution for that very purpose. So all those god-lovers out there would had just basically dissed God's plan…which wouldn't be cool at all with their god.
LOL. (picturing all those god-lovers going up to heaven, and god giving them the evil eye. God then says: “wtf was with you guys dissing evolution?! I planned that so that you guys would come out better and stronger than you would had been if you've been instantly created. and I thought you guys were on my side!” )

of course I don't believe in such a thing, but I wouldn't call That scenerio an total impossiblity. After all, in the end it's BETTER To cover all your bases, so that you don't competely fall into the darkness should you be wrong. You don't want to diss God if he exists, after all. *smirks* even if you thought you were being on his side by dissing evolution…
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
TnTComic at 10:11AM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
DemonSaintDante
WIKI
in science, there are a various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence arise to contradict them. A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates,principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory maybe implied from an empirically determined law. Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe:

While its a determined fact at any point it may be disproved in some way… LAWS are just not as likely to be proven false. As a scientist you cant consider something to be impossible other wise you may overlook an important discovery.

Nope. Laws are absolute. Stop usin' that wikipedia shit.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Aurora Moon at 10:49AM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
sorry, but I don't believe that laws are absolute. laws were invented by man, and man is infallible.

After all, wasn't there once laws that said that only white men could vote and that it was illegal for women and black people to vote in certain states?

And plus, you'd be surprised at how many stupid laws there were in the past. like did you know that in some states it's illegal to have anal sex, even though it might be consensual and enjoyable with a girlfriend?

And of course if you're talking about the laws of nature, that concpet too was invented by man. In man's world, the laws of nature once dictate that men couldn't fly at all, and that it was impossible for them to do so. But we built airplanes and went against that.
In fact there was a lot of things that man thought to be completely impossible according to the “laws of nature” that now turn out to be possible.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Cthulhu at 12:44PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,095
joined: 4-18-2006
Wait a sec… Wasn't this thrend about the theory of evolution?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:56AM
dueeast at 1:34PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Now the discussion is getting interesting! Man is fallible but I understand the point Aurora Moon is making and agree with it.

There are no absolutes in science, only theories that have yet to be disproven or someday added to and/or improved upon. That's the point of science. It's the pursuit of knowledge to better understand how things work and try to make things better.

Aurora Moon
sorry, but I don't believe that laws are absolute. laws were invented by man, and man is infallible.

After all, wasn't there once laws that said that only white men could vote and that it was illegal for women and black people to vote in certain states?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
TnTComic at 1:43PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007


Laws, and yes of course i'm talking about scientific laws, are rigid and absolute. They are unshaking, unproveable, and 100% true. You're making yourself look silly by saying anything to the contrary.

Come on, this stuff isn't exactly a secret. Its the definition of Law as it is used in science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 2:04PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Saying something over and over again doesn't make it so. And insulting others doesn't improve your position much, either.

TnTComic
Laws, and yes of course i'm talking about scientific laws, are rigid and absolute. They are unshaking, unproveable, and 100% true. You're making yourself look silly by saying anything to the contrary.

Come on, this stuff isn't exactly a secret. Its the definition of Law as it is used in science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
TnTComic at 2:12PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
dueeast
Saying something over and over again doesn't make it so. And insulting others doesn't improve your position much, either.

TnTComic
Laws, and yes of course i'm talking about scientific laws, are rigid and absolute. They are unshaking, unproveable, and 100% true. You're making yourself look silly by saying anything to the contrary.

Come on, this stuff isn't exactly a secret. Its the definition of Law as it is used in science.

Fine. Let's just drop the pretense. You're posting like an idiot.

Oh look at that, it takes all of 20 seconds to google it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science

Woopty damn doo. Shut up. I'm saying it over and over again because you keep denying it. And i'm insulting you because you persist in proving your ignorance. This is the frikkin' internet. Look something up. Laws are 100% true and are never false. By definition, that would make them a theory, not a law. Got that? That's why evolution is a theory, not a law.

Come on, don't be a jackass. Saying nothing is absolute in science is simply stupid. Plenty of things are absolute in science. That is the essence of science. If nothing was absolute in science, it would be worthless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 2:29PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
I'm not the one jumping up and down with emotional writing.

Let me add one thing to the discussion:

What happens as we explore this planet and the space around it and we learn something brand new that completely redefines what we know concerning one of these so-called absolutely infallible unchangeable laws of science?

We re-write the law with what we learned using science.

Not so absolute then.

Common sense.

TnTComic
Laws are 100% true and are never false. By definition, that would make them a theory, not a law. Got that? That's why evolution is a theory, not a law.

Your paragraph makes no sense and contradicts itself. Theories are just theories, that doesn't make them infallible or unchangeable. There is no such thing as an unchangeable theory. That wouldn't be scientific at all.

TnTComic
If nothing was absolute in science, it would be worthless.

That's ridiculous. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, very little about it is absolute. If everything in science were absolute, we wouldn't be continually trying to improve our knowledge. There's still more to what we don't know about our universe than what we do, even though we've learned a lot. Science is built to be improved upon.

Just because you don't get my logic doesn't mean it's not logical or reasonable.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
TnTComic at 3:15PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
dueeast
Just because you don't get my logic doesn't mean it's not logical or reasonable.

What you're not getting is I don't care about your logic. You are using words incorrectly. Laws and Theories have scientific definitions. You are not acquainted with them, judging by the things you're saying.

You didn't even bother to read the link or look anything up, did you?

For example, the Laws dealing with motion, or thermodynamics, or conservation of matter and energy… They are very simple laws, and they are never incorrect. As I keep having to repeat, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE LAWS.

As for your statement that very little about science is absolute, well that is simply ignorant. Take a look at the periodic table for plenty of examples why.

Seriously, what is this impetus to discuss something you clearly have no knowledge of? And what is this resistance to actually looking shit up?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 3:24PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
What part of DD's “law” of “keep it respectful” do you have a problem understanding?

You know nothing about me or what I do or don't do.

This really isn't a conversation. All you're doing is repeating yourself and backing it up with insults, which isn't backing it up at all.

I don't deny there are laws in science, only that any scientific law is absolute or infallible. I would even agree with previous (respectful) posters who said that science's laws and theories can be up to 99.9% accurate. But it is possible, under the right conditions with the right evidence, to disprove theories, which can result in the revision of those laws.

And that is all I will repeat or say.

TnTComic
dueeast
Just because you don't get my logic doesn't mean it's not logical or reasonable.

What you're not getting is I don't care about your logic. You are using words incorrectly. Laws and Theories have scientific definitions. You are not acquainted with them, judging by the things you're saying.

You didn't even bother to read the link or look anything up, did you?

For example, the Laws dealing with motion, or thermodynamics, or conservation of matter and energy… They are very simple laws, and they are never incorrect. As I keep having to repeat, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE LAWS.

As for your statement that very little about science is absolute, well that is simply ignorant. Take a look at the periodic table for plenty of examples why.

Seriously, what is this impetus to discuss something you clearly have no knowledge of? And what is this resistance to actually looking shit up?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
Vagabond at 3:45PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
Oh me oh my, this is why science and philosophy should avoid each other.

From a philosophical standpoint, yes, I'd have to agree with dueeast. Nothing is absolute, because there will (realistically) always be an unknown. We aren't omniscient, and it is only through our limited perception do we understand the world around us.

However, from a scientific standpoint, I'd have to agree with TnT. (no matter how much of a prat he's being : P) There is no point in time that force won't equal mass times acceleration. Or that energy/matter can be created, or destroyed. There will never be a new discovery that will make us scratch our heads and go, “Y'know, maybe we need to change that…” Arguing otherwise is akin to arguing that one day, we will some day discover a way to add 2 and 2 and get 5.

Unless someone can show me a specific instance (within let's say… about 400 years?) where a law has been changed, I would definitely agree with the scientific side.

(PS: As a pilot, can someone tell me when the hell it was scientifically stated that people couldn't fly? If anything, Newton's 3rd Law helped us understand how flight would be possible via aircraft.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
dueeast at 3:49PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Vagabond,

I appreciate your response. It's well-reasoned and would make for a good discussion.

Vagabond
Oh me oh my, this is why science and philosophy should avoid each other.

From a philosophical standpoint, yes, I'd have to agree with dueeast. Nothing is absolute, because there will (realistically) always be an unknown. We aren't omniscient, and it is only through our limited perception do we understand the world around us.

However, from a scientific standpoint, I'd have to agree with TnT. (no matter how much of a prat he's being : P) There is no point in time that force won't equal mass times acceleration. Or that energy/matter can be created, or destroyed. There will never be a new discovery that will make us scratch our heads and go, “Y'know, maybe we need to change that…” Arguing otherwise is akin to arguing that one day, we will some day discover a way to add 2 and 2 and get 5.

Unless someone can show me a specific instance (within let's say… about 400 years?) where a law has been changed, I would definitely agree with the scientific side.

(PS: As a pilot, can someone tell me when the hell it was scientifically stated that people couldn't fly? If anything, Newton's 3rd Law helped us understand how flight would be possible via aircraft.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
TnTComic at 4:10PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
dueeast
Vagabond,

I appreciate your response. It's well-reasoned and would make for a good discussion.


Of fer crissakes, does everyone here have such a fragile ego? You said something that was wrong and kept defending it. But i'm the prat… whatever. Have fun in life with the idea that you deserve respect when you haven't earned it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 4:36PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
According to the DD rules, I have. And so has everyone else that enters the debate area.

TnTComic
dueeast
Vagabond,

I appreciate your response. It's well-reasoned and would make for a good discussion.


Of fer crissakes, does everyone here have such a fragile ego? You said something that was wrong and kept defending it. But i'm the prat… whatever. Have fun in life with the idea that you deserve respect when you haven't earned it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
DemonSaintDante at 5:05PM, July 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
dueeast
Now the discussion is getting interesting! Man is fallible but I understand the point Aurora Moon is making and agree with it.

There are no absolutes in science, only theories that have yet to be disproven or someday added to and/or improved upon. That's the point of science. It's the pursuit of knowledge to better understand how things work and try to make things better.

Aurora Moon
sorry, but I don't believe that laws are absolute. laws were invented by man, and man is infallible.

After all, wasn't there once laws that said that only white men could vote and that it was illegal for women and black people to vote in certain states?

Oh… no credit at all… i totally started that… lol

And to Vagabond… we are not stating that the laws currently have any proof of being changed just that in some point of history it is possible no matter how remotely.

Here is a question: If energy can never be created or destroyed… where did it come from.. XP…

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved