When you said "disproves possibilities but are you saying hubble did not reveal many possibilities we never even thought of before?" you are completely missing my point. Obviously scientists propose possibilities for how things work, but they can't PROVE them. They can only disprove all competing possibilities.

You took my statement about science PROVING something turned it into a strawman, claiming that I had said that scientists couldn't propose a hypothesis. If you can't argue with me while being honest about what I've posted, then don't bother. It sickens me to see someone distort my or another's words in some pathetic attempt to always be right.

and this after you begin a post with "you seem so bitter and angry". lol. fine, then you're sick. wish you well soon. but it was your words that said to me that "scientific method can ONLY disprove possibilities". "disprove possibilities" is your term not mine and it was your description of what you see the scientific method to be that i found absurd. if you don't think science does anything other than disprove possibilities then say so for crying out loud. it's not for me to make your comments clear.

so yes let's argue without either distorting the other's words. and let's agree that nobody is attempting "to always be right". and by all means let's not make rediculous statements like, "you seem so angry and bitter", that have not a thing to do with the issue even if you did have some idea of my emotional disposition which of course you don't. you argue your position, i'll argue mine. now. the issue we are stuck on is the scientific method. i await your well thought out, complete and cognitive opinion as to just what you think the scientific method is. if i agree then we'll have a basis for discussing science issues. if i disagree then we'll be wasting time.

This post was inappropriate. I've been under a lot of stress and took it out on jrbogie, for that I sincerely apologize.

only you can waste your time. this is a dating site and i'm here for my amusement and entertainment and i find your posts to be both. i'll comment on your posts as i see fit. you can read them, not read them, reply, ignore at your will.

This thread is silly. Why do people argue about darwin when they no nothing about him or his theory. He was a man of god. He never denounced his theory that is just a rumor.

Get with it people. Regardless of your beliefs it always seems that the people who know the littlest about evolution and darwin tend to have the biggest issues with it.

so true. i know very little about darwin or evolution so i'd never author a thread about either. but as i'm here on a dating site for my amusement and entertainment i find people who think they do know something to be great sport. and it occupies my free time much more affectively than dating. hmmmmm. can anybody prove they get dates from mingle?

if it's only a theory, why is it replacing creationism in schools? I know, creationism has not been 'proven' either (it is a matter of faith and belief), but surely both sides of the argument are being unreasonable?
As a response to not being able to see God and therefore not having proof: You can't see air and yet people believe that's what we breathe. The moon landings are another hotly disputed area, just because it's on TV does that mean it's real? We all know cartoons aren't real and they're on TV.

As for the scientific argument (in this case evolution). Scientists also said the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us. They then later established this wasn't the case. Or is it? It's all a matter of what people believe.

statements like I believe in global warming/ I don't believe in global warning are common place.

It all boils down to belief and having faith in what you believe.

no theory is replacing creationism in schools. it's the law of the land that creationism or any other religion not be taught in schools. you can begin with the first amendment for your research.



air can be seen in LA. moon landings are disputed only by wacko conspiracy theorists. cartoons are real. they're on real tv every day.



science has nothing to do with belief. but after these last few statements i can see that.........................ah, hell, nevermind.

I don't live in the US, therefore I don't feel the need to check the first amendment. Do bare in mind that other countries have differnt laws.

air can be seen in LA? I'm genuinely curious about that, could you tell me more?

so cartoons depict real life? Perhaps I didn't explain that one very well. I meant reality with reference to the cartoons. Unless of course Bugs bunny is you neighbour?

So whether someone believes what scientists say is not belief? you just read something that's classed as scientific and accept it and know it's true? That's interesting considering how many scientists contradict themselves. (and yes I know people within religions do this too)

ah my appologies. but you questioned why creationism was not taught in schools so i gave you an answer that applies to public schools in america. i'm well aware that other countries have other laws but i try to stay away from answers that i know little about.



we call it smog. but that's but one example of air that we can see. a cloud is nothing but air with a higher content of moisture that makes the air visible. but being able to see air is not necessary to suggest that is real anyway. have you never felt the wind blow? is wind anything other than moving air? have you never smelled the air near a sewer treatment plant? what does seeing something have to do with proving it's existence? we have five senses that provide evidence of what exists around us.



you brought up cartoons in a thread about proof, not me. i addressed cartoons tongue in cheek. cartoons are real depictions of comedic carracters conjured by cartoonists. has nothing to do with proof. has only to do with fantasy not unlike stories in the bible, the koran or santa stories i tell my grand daughter.



i read quite a bit of science related material but i have never read something and accepted it as something know to be true. for the very reason that you bring up, that many scientists contridict themselves and even attempt to disprove what other scientists theorise nobody of a scince mind would ever believe anything they read in science or anyplace else to be true. nothing can be proven. i offer this from the great theoretical physicist, stephen hawkings:

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."

Stephen Hawkings, The universe in a nutshell.

this is where the religious minded go astray when arguing against science. they assume that we think like they think. that we accept things on faith, believe things to be proven as fact. we don't, we always realize that just because a theory survived testing for hundreds of years we can never know that it will survive the next test. if somebody tells you that believe something that the read to be true, they are not a scientist.

(ditto that)