[Mongoose]

Best thread ever, weirdest thread ever, or thread that pushes me to try some sort of hallucinogenic substance?  Jury's still out.

Maybe I should go and ask what the rock thinks.

[Flipside]

The rock would have to ask the Mountain

[Scotty]

   You just killed all my interest in this thread.

At least until the next post.

[DarthWang]

I would ask to see the wording of the poll

These are often presented with deceptive phrasing so the results are often inaccurate

[iamzack]

I don't think I doubt polls like this too much. I know a girl who doesn't believe in evolution. She doesn't believe in young earth creaitionism, though. If you mention it, she gets all smug and goes "well, how long is a "day'?"

Usually someone turns around and just says "approximately 23 hours and 58 minutes." It's not worth the stress of arguing with one of the few people who don't refuse to recognize your existence.

[Narvi]

Wha?

See, people who disbelieve in evolution often say that it's just a theory. (What they fail to realize is that so is the theory of gravity.)

I riffed on that.

[Ghostavo]

Wha?

See, people who disbelieve in evolution often say that it's just a theory. (What they fail to realize is that so is the theory of gravity.)

I riffed on that.

Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.

[Mongoose]

Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.

Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed.

[Dilmah G]

Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.

Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed.

Yeah, that statement can't be true

[General Battuta]

Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.

Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed.

Yeah, that statement can't be true

He said there was more evidence for evolution. Which arguably is true.

[Flipside]

When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.

[Dilmah G]

I guess looking at all the species we have there is by number more evidence for evolution.

[Mongoose]

When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.

Well yes, puzzling out the exact mechanics of how natural selection leads to evolution is far more clear-cut than puzzling out the actual mechanics of gravity, but I was kind of being tongue-in-cheek at Ghostavo's apparent implication that it's hard to tell that gravity exists.

[Flipside]

I know, but I can't resist the odd bout of pedantry

[Ghostavo]

When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.

Well yes, puzzling out the exact mechanics of how natural selection leads to evolution is far more clear-cut than puzzling out the actual mechanics of gravity, but I was kind of being tongue-in-cheek at Ghostavo's apparent implication that it's hard to tell that gravity exists.

I wasn't saying it was hard to tell that gravity exists, I was just saying that the evidence for the theory of gravity while massive, is nowhere as big as the evidence for evolution. One just has to mention the graviton for it to become more apparent.

While both are scientific facts, their theories are more than just pointing both facts.

[Galemp]

How the natural world works is a question for science.

Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.

Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.

[Polpolion]

How the natural world works is a question for science.

Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.

Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.

Funny thing is, modern science is the child of philosophy.

[karajorma]

How the natural world works is a question for science.

Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.

Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.

Pretty much the exact same point I made on the Epicurus thread.

[Janos]

How the natural world works is a question for science.

Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.

Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.

Funny thing is, modern science is the child of philosophy.

And we are childs of small chordates that looked remarkably like a fillet of fish. Does not mean that we should act like one!

[Scotty]

I find it interesting that we have a more-or-less equivalent argument on the epicurius quote thread.