Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
I never said you evolved i said you exist. Your argument is that you can't prove your existance (the implied statement is nothing is provable) based on my logic. You don't understand the necessity of a counter theory.
|
My argument had nothing to do with whether one can prove their existence. Did you even read my post
s? That was an exclamation about the logic you used. Let me break it down for you so there is no way to dodge my questions anymore. With this being the third time I am asking you. Please try to answer my question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
simple answer (grade 9 science class)
Because the underlying assumptions of of the theory have not been proven or disproven (the enviroment that evolution exists was created by absolutely random events).
Laws have their underlying assumptions proven
For evolution to become a law like the law of constant gravity you must prove that the originally proto mass that was the universe popped into existance via random event even though such an act violates the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of mass and energy).
|
What you are saying here is basically. "Evolution cannot become a law, because it is based off the big bang theory, which cannot be proven". Correct? Please let me know if I've misunderstood you here.
So with that(again), My question(s) is.
Why does it matter where we came from to make evolution law? What does evolution have to do with the big bang theory?
And for the record, the comment about whether I could prove I exist, was ripping on this comment of yours
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
simple answer (grade 9 science class)
Because the underlying assumptions of of the theory have not been proven or disproven (the enviroment that evolution exists was created by absolutely random events).
|
With your logic, anyone who believed the big bang theory could not be proven to exist as the underlying assumption of their creation could not be proven.
