Isn't that because evolution is not an exact science? Caution is needed when you infer that supposition is fact. The truth tends to move people to a different conclusion, which means that what was taught initially, wasn't really true. How do you teach that as fact? How many science students treat evolution as a suggestion?
That is all it really is.
No. THis is the case in *every* science. No observation is completely accurate, so we are *always* working with the theory (or law--they are the same) that best explains the current evidence.
So, Newton's law of gravity was a *theory* and has actually been overturned by Einstein's *theory* of general relativity. It is possible that this theory will be overturned by some sort of quantum gravity in the future.
Which means that nothing was a fact to begin with......why then is it taught as a fact to school children?
Science *always* works on the best explanation of the current data. As we learn more, we allow for our ideas to change. The point is that they get more and more accurate over time.
So, even though Newton's 'law' of gravity has been 'overturned' and is not a 'fact', it is still accurate enough to send probes to Mars and other planets. it is also considerably simpler to use that Einstein's general relativity, so it is used for any situation where the speeds are small compared to that of light or where the gravitational field is small.
We teach our children (and even first year college students) the Newtonian viewpoint because it is easier and accurate enough for most situations.
In the same way, we *know* from our data that species change over geological time. That is evolution. The mechanisms of evolution, however, are based on the accuracy of our current observations. it is expected that they will be modified to be more accurate as more information is discovered.
I am glad that JW's have a more reasonable alternative to the flawed suggestion of evolution and creationism, because they can explain quite rationally how creation came about without casting Genesis or God into the realms of mythology.
This is just another hypothesis. But it is one that either gives no testable predictions (which is required for a science) or the testbale predictions (like a global flood) have been shown to be incorrect.
Only to those of you who wish to eliminate the Creator. It makes no difference to him. His purpose will go ahead with us or without us. We can all choose our own 'truth'.
A viewpoint supported by no evidence can be ignored until there is evidence.
No you don't. That is simply not true. You have scientists interpreting fossil evidence to fit their theory. If you had real proof, then the language of suggestion would be unnecessary. I would not be reading "might have" or "could have" or "leads us to the conclusion that", because it would be facts, not conjecture in the articles......so, seriously, you can test nothing that happened millions of years ago. The fossils have no voice unless scientists give them one.
All this shows that you don't understand how science is done and what it even means to be a scientific truth. First, scientists tend to be cautious. Second, they are *always* tentative in their conclusions because it is *always* possible that new information will require modification of their conclusions--making them more accurate.
Well, I think God knows full well who is serving his interests and who is serving their own. He isn't stupid you know.
It is hard for something that is non-existent to be stupid.
When you speak of "evidence", you have to understand that we believers in a Creator have just as much real evidence as you do. We can make suggestions and offer conjecture and say "God did it" just as easily as scientists say "natural selection did it".
OK, give a *testable* prediction. One that, if not verified, will make you reconsider your position. I can do that easily with evolution: finding a mammal (say, a rabbit) in pre-cambrian deposits.
There is no "actual evidence".....I keep hearing about all this "evidence" and yet when it is presented, its nothing more than supposition and suggestion dressed up as fact. You'll have to do better than that.
Do you deny the fossils exist? Do you deny that these fossils are of species that existed at one time in the past? Do you deny that the fossils corresponding to different times in the past are different? Do you accept that the species at one time are close to those at nearby times both before and after? if you accept these, then you accept evolution: that species change over geological time.
Since I am not a scientist, the lingo means little to me. When things are explained in terminology I can understand, it simply reinforces how much guesswork is really going on. Are you going to tell us now that "popular sources" are not telling the truth? Or is it just harder to hide the truth when you can't use the lingo?
If the 'lingo' means nothing to you, then you have an opportunity to learn. This is in your ability and your unwillingness to learn just shows you are afraid to learn something that might show your myths are wrong. the 'lingo' is used to be *more* precise with the language, not less. EVERY area of specialization requires specific terminology to function.
Humans are want to lead themselves into superstition because they have a problem sticking to the simple truth. They always seem to want to embellish things....but then so do evolutionary scientists. There is no way to prove what happened before humans were here to document anything. That is what 'prehistoric' means after all.
Pre-historic means there are no written records. But there is *plenty* of physical evidence that is often much more reliable than the written records.
Oh dear......Should we create a special forum?
