Evidence mounts over John Paul II beatification

[D1RoseJM]

how can you prove a theory that you dont live long enough to re-create it? How many theories have been later been questioned and thrown out because of new evidence?

[natepro]

What?

[D1RoseJM]

What?

What I am trying to say is that who lives long enough to see how life is created from scratch?

[Yendil]

Like that whole gravity thing, right?

one is an actual scientific theory while the other is not, if you can not contemplate the difference between the two than that is your problem and is exactly what my other post was about

[Yendil]

What I am trying to say is that who lives long enough to see how life is created from scratch?

nobody. You can't, which is why it is not science, in science it would be a hypothesis not a theory, two different steps in the process, yet in those that claim it to be science state it is fact and a theory. Once again proves my point

[natepro]

What I am trying to say is that who lives long enough to see how life is created from scratch?

Unlike what Yendil seems to mistaken believe, you don't need to actually see things happening to be able to know how it happened. Between the fossil record, DNA evidence, biogeography, vestigial structures in species, embryology.. the list of sciences that all support the theory of evolution by natural selection is a long and varied one. There is also nothing that's been presented that shows evolution to be wrong, as much as Yendil and creationists would like you to believe there are plenty of holes in it.

Science is not religion. Scientists are always ready to change their beliefs when it is discovered that they are wrong. I think this, from Richard Dawkins, sums it up pretty well:

Far from being over-confident, many scientists believe that science advances only by disproof of its hypotheses. Konrad Lorenz said he hoped to disprove at least one of his own hypotheses every day before breakfast. That was absurd, especially coming from the grand old man of the science of ethology, but it is true that scientists, more than others, impress their peers by admitting their mistakes.

A formative influence on my undergraduate self was the response of a respected elder statesmen of the Oxford Zoology Department when an American visitor had just publicly disproved his favourite theory. The old man strode to the front of the lecture hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared in ringing, emotional tones: "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." And we clapped our hands red.

[dbroncos78087]

how can you prove a theory that you dont live long enough to re-create it? How many theories have been later been questioned and thrown out because of new evidence?

You should read Darwin's works. Where he studied animals that were descended from one another but based on being in different areas developed different features based on needs.

[carson005]

I've always been in the boat that religious people should be thanking science. As more is learned, and we discover just how amazing some things are, I think it is easier for them to say "this is too complex to just happen, obviously a higher power must exist", then to say "science is wrong".

My $.02

[dbroncos78087]

Evolution is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory.

Technically there is no reason for gravity to occur other than we know that objects with more mass exert it. But we dont know why mass exerts that affect.

[philab]

Evolution is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory.

Technically there is no reason for gravity to occur other than we know that objects with more mass exert it. But we dont know why mass exerts that affect.

I really hesitate to say this because certain people will seize upon it like hyenas ... but the Theory of Gravity is actually a bit of a mess. And that's a testament to the foundational strength of the Theory of Evolution. Vast, vast amounts of information and data from multiple disciplines have converged to give us the TOE. If anything, the Theory of Gravity is sullying the TOE's good name.

[Yendil]

Unlike what Yendil seems to mistaken believe, you don't need to actually see things happening to be able to know how it happened. Between the fossil record, DNA evidence, biogeography, vestigial structures in species, embryology.. the list of sciences that all support the theory of evolution by natural selection is a long and varied one. There is also nothing that's been presented that shows evolution to be wrong, as much as Yendil and creationists would like you to believe there are plenty of holes in it.

Science is not religion. Scientists are always ready to change their beliefs when it is discovered that they are wrong. I think this, from Richard Dawkins, sums it up pretty well:

haha so all the sudden i am a creationist? I told you before I believe in evolution but not to the mass extent of others, I believe only what has been proven to be true and what is not disputable. I do not belive that because this worked then that works as well without any testing of it and going through the process which commonly happens. If you have ever studied, like actually studied and had to do thesis reports on subjects then you would know their algorithm and approach are not always the same and alot of assumptions get used to support it and half assed reasonings as to why this one thing is so special it defy's scientific algorithmic reasoning. As for the "DNA" evidence, the same evidence they like to use all the time, take a genetics class, you would be surprised how many species share similar DNA. Meaning there is no way to tell those partial skeletal bones they have were early reminances of the human race and that we evolved from some other species.

[dbroncos78087]

I really hesitate to say this because certain people will seize upon it like hyenas ... but the Theory of Gravity is actually a bit of a mess. And that's a testament to the foundational strength of the Theory of Evolution. Vast, vast amounts of information and data from multiple disciplines have converged to give us the TOE. If anything, the Theory of Gravity is sullying the TOE's good name.

I do agree with your point. My point, and i think everyone else, is that the term "theory" is extremely misleading and fuels ridiculous skepticism that comes with "flat earthers".

[natepro]

haha so all the sudden i am a creationist?

Maybe I should've put a comma in there or something, but I wasn't calling you a creationist.

[natepro]

As I told you before I believe in evolution but not to the mass extent of others, I believe only what has been proven to be true and what is not disputable. I do not belive that because this worked then that works as well without any testing of it and going through the process which commonly happens. If you have ever studied, like actually studied and had to do thesis reports on subjects then you would know their algorithm and approach are not always the same and alot of assumptions get used to support it and half assed reasonings as to why this one thing is so special it defy's scientific algorithmic reasoning. As for the "DNA" evidence, the same evidence they like to use all the time, take a genetics class, you would be surprised how many species share similar DNA. Meaning there is no way to tell those partial skeletal bones they have were early reminances of the human race and that we evolved from some other species.

As for the rest of this...

First, it's in your best interest not to assume I haven't "actually studied" or done thesis reports. It's not as if you can base that conclusion off of your personal knowledge of me or something.

Second, the very fact that so many species share DNA IS evidence for evolution. As is the number of "switched off" genes that so many species have.

[behindmydesk]

This is on the pope, not evolution. Please keep it on topic.


Not every thread needs to turn into evolution. Have another thread, and let Catholic people be happy for this, and let the others not worry about it.