Evidence is inanimate. It can't point to anything. Scientists have to interpret evidence through their presuppositions. Evidence is completely incapable of speaking for itself. You can't let the evidence lead you wherever it wants. Because it can't. It's not alive and has no personality. Doing the face palm thing won't ever change that =/
Both theories have the exact same evidence. They both have the same fossils, the same landforms, the same world, the same atmosphere, the same sun, the same universe. What differs it each sides interpretations of that evidence.
Evidence is inanimate. It can't point to anything.
Sorry, but that's what evidence does, it points to everything, so long as you have enough of it. We as scientists have done everything to point to different explanations as to how life began, and as we keep building up on it, the Church takes it and adds it to their precious book.
Once we figured out the Sun stayed still and the earth revolves around it, after Copernicus was killed, others thought that it was meritable. So the Church decided to scrap their original idea and add that to the bible.
When we figured out that Earth was billions of years old instead of thousands, the Church scrapped their idea and took ours.
As we kept digging up more and more fossils of once living creatures pre-dating to ancient earth, Noah's boat started to sink. Then the church had this brilliant plan of "instead saying that noah's boat had 2 of every animal, let's decide instead to say that noah's boat had different KINDS of animals."
As you can see, we are just going to keep on adding and adding evidence and when we DO get something conclusive, the church is just going to take it and add it to their book and expect it that it has always been there, just to save their religion from collapsing.
evidence [ev-i-duhns] â"noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
â"verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
â"Idiom 6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.
You know, I'd really stop arguing with Progenesis, he's not going to change his mind.
What was the saying? Oh yeah "Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
He doesn't want to understand, he doesn't care what you say or how logically sound your arguments are; It doesn't matter to him, he'll continue saying the same thing over and over.
I think this is 'Trolling'? If so, then we shouldn't feed it.
You know, I'd really stop arguing with Progenesis, he's not going to change his mind.
What was the saying? Oh yeah "Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
He doesn't want to understand, he doesn't care what you say or how logically sound your arguments are; It doesn't matter to him, he'll continue saying the same thing over and over.
Yes I picked up on this.
Reading over your replys I can see you don't even have a basic understanding of scientific concepts and methods so I don't really see any point in continuing to argue with you. It would be like yelling at a brick wall.
Once we figured out the Sun stayed still and the earth revolves around it, after Copernicus was killed, others thought that it was meritable. So the Church decided to scrap their original idea and add that to the bible.
Um, are you sure on that one? I'm pretty sure they don't change the Bible anymore. They kinda quit that after the council of Nicea. If they really wanted to just change the Bible to keep people complacent they would have done it at the Diet of Worms to shut Martin Luther up about Indulgences. The church doesn't just cut and paste the Bible. People just happen to interpret it and pervert the message. Or just totally disregard what it says and make things up. Something both sides of the debate are guilty of.
When we figured out that Earth was billions of years old instead of thousands, the Church scrapped their idea and took ours.
That's called rolling with the punches. That's just what everyone (except for the most stubborn) do when they realize someone else is right. You seem to complain about the Church believing in archaic unfounded ideas, but when they finally acknowledge that they were wrong you say they stole ideas. To me at least, that sounds an awful lot like the Church agreeing with your proof, and you denouncing them just for being a couple Johnny-Come-Latelys.
And even Kepler believed that the Earth was thousands of years old. He even tried taking evidence from the Bible and mathematically prove that. He even determined the season. I'm not saying that he was right, I know he wasn't. I'm saying that science and the church both build on what they know, and sometimes go back and revise what they thought. Aristotle and his contemporaries all thought that there were four basic elements, and that was accepted. Einsteinian physics were built upon Newtonian physics, and later elements of it were replaced when physicists realized Einstein was right. The church in the past was just a little more skeptical about discoveries than they are now.
Creationism is not necessarily the start, but we will never no for sure what actually was the the starting event, all we can do is come up with likely theories.
