DeletedUser
In responce to the whole "jsut a theory" thing.
Absolutly nothing beyond "I think therefore I am" can be proved, except in mathematics. But in practical science, nothing can be a theorum (proved theory). I belive in evolution, yet I also belive in a higher power which created life.
I think it's sad how pople must argue so stubbornly about this on either side. I've spoken to people who point blank refuse to lsiten to anythign that religion claims, despite the fact there is seriosu sence in it, and of course this applies visa versa.
However, I think that Justin is not helping his cause by repetivly being stubborn. If he really wanted to argue his point he should do so in a strucured debate - One where he makes a point, and attempts to prove it, then listens to critism, and takes that into account, and makes sure his argument takes into account all the evidence out there, for at the moment he appears to be ignoring the pro-evolution evidence.
As an aside though, to all the pro-evolutionists in here (of whomb i couln't myself one of, although I have some doubts), jsut remember that creationism made perfect sence before certain evidence came about, or seemed to. Perhaps in 100 years people will be laughing at the idea of it. Just rember that
I await the response.
Absolutly nothing beyond "I think therefore I am" can be proved, except in mathematics. But in practical science, nothing can be a theorum (proved theory). I belive in evolution, yet I also belive in a higher power which created life.
I think it's sad how pople must argue so stubbornly about this on either side. I've spoken to people who point blank refuse to lsiten to anythign that religion claims, despite the fact there is seriosu sence in it, and of course this applies visa versa.
However, I think that Justin is not helping his cause by repetivly being stubborn. If he really wanted to argue his point he should do so in a strucured debate - One where he makes a point, and attempts to prove it, then listens to critism, and takes that into account, and makes sure his argument takes into account all the evidence out there, for at the moment he appears to be ignoring the pro-evolution evidence.
As an aside though, to all the pro-evolutionists in here (of whomb i couln't myself one of, although I have some doubts), jsut remember that creationism made perfect sence before certain evidence came about, or seemed to. Perhaps in 100 years people will be laughing at the idea of it. Just rember that
I await the response.