lightmelon
my petition is actually against the chief of police and will probably get me a lot of reprisal but he has done a lot of bad since he has been in office. Namely denying some the equal protection of the law. While placing others above the law.
I wish you good luck in that. Fighting police corruption is something we can certainly agree on.
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "scientists" as we understand them today never thought the earth was flat. Even before the scientific method had come into as rigorous of definition as it has now, the principals that it uses had shown that the earth was round, and had even calculated the diameter of the earth to an impressively accurate number, considering the tools available (it was pretty much done with a stick and some rope + MATH!)
Could you explain exactly with what you disagree? I didn't quite follow. You disagree that science knows that the earth is round? I don't think that's what you mean. You disagree that science "knew" things, beyond what we would now consider a shadow of a doubt, and were completely wrong, if so [THIS IS A DIRECT QUESTION I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER], what scientific knowledge, by the standards we hold today, was considered known beyond a shadow of a doubt by the scientists of the time, but has now been proven actually directly wrong? [END OF DIRECT QUESTION] I actually can think of one example, though it was turned over in the infancy of the western world adopting the scientific method, and was never seriously elaborated on or improved upon, because when people studied it in order to do that, they realized really quickly that it was, you know, totally wrong.
That is absolutely true, but do you think they'll be laughing at you for not feeding toilet waste right into drinking water? Science improves things. This applies to both direct theoretical science and technology/applied science. In the first case, we could look at Newton's conception of gravity or Darwin's conception of evolution. Compared to what we know and can do with it now, the originators' theories were ridiculously rough and incomplete. In the latter case, we can look at plumbing or computers - 20-year-old plumbing looks horrible to you, and 20-year-old computers could do less than my mobile phone and hold about 1% of the data of a drive I have that is the size of my thumbnail. (And again, the same method that tells us evolution happened gave us that technology.)
However, I don't look at a computer from 1989 or 1969 and think "haha those stupid guys didn't know how to build computers." I don't look at Ada Lovelace's programs and think "Ha, all she could do was solve equations? Dumb!" or look at Alan Turing's programs and think "Man, it took him so long to crack THAT code. Everyone knows how to crack harder codes than that." As a computer scientist, I stand on the shoulders of giants, not to mention those of regular stature, who themselves didn't have the privilege of so many shoulders upon which to stand.
It's the same with plumbing. The people that improved the technology that you use used the technology that was improved upon the technology that was improved upon the plumbing of 20 years ago, and they the plumbing of 20 years before that. You're not going to suddenly make the great plumbing of 50 years from now by saying "Science and technology doesn't know what it's doing - look how much it's changed. I'm going to ignore it."
It sure does.
No, it isn't.
Wrong.
A)Man IS an ape. But the link between man and what you think of as an ape (aka the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees) is all over sub-Saharan Africa. Or rather, the fossils are now in various museums and labs, but were FOUND in Africa.
None except for Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis (basically considered homo sapiens), Homo floresiensis.
And those aren't names of individual fossil finds, or individual ape finds. Those are species. Most have fossils of multiple individuals, some dozens of individuals.
Additionally the missing link is in our genetics, specifically Chromosome II and endogenous retroviruses. Look them up on talkorigins, and promise me that you actually read the articles, and then I would be happy to answer anything in it that you didn't actually understand, or further objections not addressed by talkorigins.
I fully believe that no matter what is found you will claim it is not a missing link. Out of curiosity [THIS IS A DIRECT QUESTION I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER] what would you consider such a "missing link" to look like? That is, what find would make you say "that sure does support evolution"? What would it look like?[DIRECT QUESTION DONE]
Preferably, to keep us from having to repeat things half of us have probably repeated hundreds of times, before making an argument about how there's no evidence for evolution, do a keyword search on said site and see what it has to say.
No. Scientists were chastised BY THE RELIGIOUS for bringing to light things with the scientific method. This includes the earth revolving around the sun and the orbits of the planets being ellipses. It has never happened that religion has chastised science and then science later found religion and not previous good science to be true.
[SEVERAL DIRECT QUESTIONS]How do you feel about drinking treated water, or heating your house with electricity or gas in the winter? Are these also relying on man and not God? Should they not be long-term solutions? If not, how and why do they differ from medicine? [DONE WITH DIRECT QUESTIONS]
