Re:Proof? (Score 1)

Theories by definition, cannot be tested and fail. Something that is tested and is found valid or failed is called a hypothesis. You're right in that evolution is not an unquestionable fact, that is true, but it is the least questionable. The problem is that people think that there is reason to believe that the theory of evolution is "wrong." True, there is always room for improvement, but so far the theory of evolution has proven to be one of the most reliable and robust theories in science. Even the theory of gravity is incomplete and has many holes, and in many ways is less solid than evolution. Either way it far surpasses the creationism bull, and I really wish people would understand that things are figured out by testing and learning, not by reading the bible and blindly listening to anything. And the truth doesn't give pro-creationists ammo. The simple fact that they have no ammo is what they base it on. It's like, "hey there's absolutely no evidence for this, so therefore it must be devinely true." It all boils down to the philosophical argument that NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN. Science relies entirely on this fact (the only "real fact" [wow that twists the mind]). However, lots of things CAN be disproved, but things that are not based in reality cannot be disproved, like creationism. The simple fact that they base it on nothing that has ever been observed makes them able to say that it cannot be disproved, which is unfortunate because it is absolutely insane. It's like me saying I and only I see purple bunnies all the time, and since you can't see them, you can't prove they're not there. We have words to call these people like schizophrenic. I don't think the masses of religious people are in fact schizophrenic intrinsically, but from the outside the difference cannot be seen. Sometimes these people also make the unfortunate mistake of harming others because they "believe" in something that isn't true ("delusions"). Catholicism is a great example of that. I might also say fundamentalist Islam is another example, but I cannot quite see through the war propaganda enough to stand behind that claim. How many scientific organizations have systematically killed or raped? Maybe they haven't been around long enough, but I just don't think science is driven to harm the way religion is. OK that's enough, sorry I really love this debait.