Dinosaurs evolved into birds.

[Uphill Battle]

*cough*

It shows a literal reading of Genesis to be wrong, although it is nothing more than a myth.

It certainly shows that you don't BELIEVE a literal reading of Genesis is anything but wrong, at least. And your unprovable assertion that it's myth.

 

[underthesouthercross]

yes they are, because half of the stuff they come up with is so untrue that scientist argue about it straight away becuase someone always wants to claim their point of view on false truth

 

[Nightson]

It certainly shows that you don't BELIEVE a literal reading of Genesis is anything but wrong, at least.

Incorrect, a literal reading of Genesis is in conflict with the physical world.

And your unprovable assertion that it's myth.

Science is silent on its mythiness or lack thereof.

 

[Nightson]

yes they are, because half of the stuff they come up with is so untrue

The other half being the stuff you personally agree with despite knowing nothing about any of it.

that scientist argue about it straight away

Debate happens in science, thats why it works.

becuase someone always wants to claim their point of view on false truth

Your conclusion assumes the premise.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Incorrect, a literal reading of Genesis is in conflict with the physical world.



Science is silent on its mythiness or lack thereof.

based on your interpretation of evedince, yes. You may be wrong, (pardon the irony, heaven forbid.)

Then why the assertion?

 

[caravelair]

based on your interpretation of evedince, yes. You may be wrong, (pardon the irony, heaven forbid.)

Then why the assertion?

"interpretation" of evidence is not an issue, because evidence is not "interpreted" in science. it either fits the predictions of a theory, or it does not.

 

[Uphill Battle]

"interpretation" of evidence is not an issue, because evidence is not "interpreted" in science. it either fits the predictions of a theory, or it does not.

bull. When something is unknown, it is pigeonholed to fit, until it is either proved, or falsified, in which case, they have to figure out another way to explain it.

Science is not nearly the pure thinking that you would like to believe.

 

[caravelair]

bull. When something is unknown, it is pigeonholed to fit, until it is either proved, or falsified, in which case, they have to figure out another way to explain it.

sorry, but that's not how it works. scientific theories make falsifiable predictions. if the data matches our predictions, then this is evidence for that theory. if the data does not match the predictions, then the theory is falsified.

edit: i think i may have misunderstood what you wrote at first. yes, if a scientific theory is false, then they need another way to explain the evidence, and that new explanation will also be testable. what is the problem with that? the new theory is tested in the same way, data either fits the theory, or it doesn't. so where is the interpretation part?

Science is not nearly the pure thinking that you would like to believe.

science is not open to interpretation, as you would like to believe.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

bull. When something is unknown, it is pigeonholed to fit, until it is either proved, or falsified, in which case, they have to figure out another way to explain it.

And that's why science works, and creationism does not.