|
***You are very confusing in this post. But I think you basically agree with me. Evolution is based on faith.***
You didn't understand one word.
***Most of science? I don't think 'most' of science can not be tested in a lab.***
Sorry, but most of what science considers as part of its theory cannot be tested. For every theory that has an observable that same theory has multiple unobservables (i.e., untestable).
***That is right. And we are not completely sure how the sun works. That is my point.***
Which is why you do not understand science. You are looking for absolute truth (which you probably thought you would receive since that's what you were told in church to expect to be told) and you are confused when you come to the world of science where absolute knowledge is not even the goal. This is why you equate science with religion since you think of anything that has unobservables as being religious. Poor, poor understanding of science.
***No you are not. In fact, many evolutionist are abandoning the big bang as well. I'll post about this soon.***
You have absolutely no clue to what goes on in colleges, universities, and scientific facilities throughout the world. Creationists have you believing that their view is in the majority. Tsk, tsk. Lying to a kid just to keep that kid from straying. Shame on them.
***Well, has Maxwell's theory been proven and repeated in a labratory? If so, I would say it is based on proof. The Big Bang can not be repeated and observed in a labratory, therefore faith is required to believe in it.***
No, Maxwell's theory has not been 'proven' in a lab. There are inconsistencies of Maxwell's theory in regards to quantum mechanics. The theory that was proposed to 'correct' these inconsistencies is QED (quantum electrodynamics). However, QED is still not fully consistent with the observations mentioned in that theory. For example, see:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9402293
You see Sam, you have a very immature view of science and this is what leads you to a misleading view of evolutionary science. The criteria that you expect science to achieve cannot be achieved by science. You should stick to fundamentalist religion. It seems you can have the absolute knowledge that you crave.
***Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your post is a very long way of saying that you do have faith in the unobservable. There is nothing wrong with that, creation has much faith also.***
You must have missed the part that we have faith in the process of making inferences (e.g., this pan is hot). If that nullifies science for you or brings it on the same level as religious faith in creationism, then I can see that you will probably never understand science.
Harv |
