Daenna wrote:You should really informed yourself from more official sources (the library? internet?), and study biology a bit more before saying it's all "speculations". OF COURSE nobody was there to witness the birth of our planet. Maybe if you'd pay more attention in class you would know? I dont know which grade you're in so don't take any offense. But all of the questions you asked have answers.... no scientist would dare claim anything before having gathered all the necessary evidence. If science was as amateurish as you think it is, we wouldn't be able to send people on the moon or cure cancer.
I'm really, really tempted to stop posting cause I get the feeling that people here are only half-interested in the answers they request
I must admit that I don’t normally respond to forums. However, I have never appreciated when one person makes another feel “stupid†or “inattentiveâ€Â- therefore, I cannot resist responding to this one. First I must address this comment:
“You should really informed yourself from more official sources (the library? internet?), and study biology a bit more before saying it's all "speculations". OF COURSE nobody was there to witness the birth of our planet. Maybe if you'd pay more attention in class you would know? I dont know which grade you're in so don't take any offense.
Actually, I thought the question was quite interesting seeing that science proves theories based on facts. Transitory fossils are highly questionable in science academia. Even within the scientific community, there is disagreement and dialogue. So the question is not stupid. The last time that I looked both in the library and internet, and yes, even in biology classroom, there continues to be lively debate concerning evolution.
Next in line is the statement:
“But all of the questions you asked have answers.... no scientist would dare claim anything before having gathered all the necessary evidence.â€Â
This is quite a naïve statement to make indeed. For one, you have evolutionary scientist making one claim and you have creation or intelligent design scientist making another claim. All have “evidence†to support their arguments. Bottomline; regardless if you are an evolutionist or a creationist or intelligent design, you will base your position on belief/faith (knowing (fact and speculation), assenting, and trusting).
Finally, I will address the following comment:
“If science was as amateurish as you think it is, we wouldn't be able to send people on the moon or cure cancer.â€Â
I am assuming that this comment was made in reference to the rc3222’s comment:
“But most of Evolution is just speculation, right?â€Â
I did not read rc3222 commenting that science was amateurish. The comment made was that evolution was speculation. Science involves asking questions and finding answers. Thus, we send men to the moon and we find cures. But we don’t have all the answers (ie people are still dying of cancer). Evolution is still a theory in the world of science. Actually rc3222 correctly defined “theory.â€Â
Main Entry: the•o•ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
Evolution will always be a theory in the scientific community for it defies logic “For every effect, there is a cause.†Evolutionist have failed to define and/or factually address origin. Where did the first cell or the first matter come from? One must either affirm eternal or self-existing matter (evolution) or eternal, self-existing God (creation) or an eternal higher being (intelligent design). Thus pertaining to existence, one will ultimately base their position on the most reasonable explanation as science (evolution or creation or intelligent design) will never be able to prove by scientific “fact†alone the question of origin (at least in this world as we know it).