olylifter420
Well-Known Member
in a sense you are negating evolution because of the fact that such things cannot stand falsification, therefore since these hominids had these rituals or beliefs in a higher power which you claim is not true, they too would not believe in evolution and would not be considered a part of evolution due to their beliefs.
you want falsification, here is one for you...
you say that you will stand by science not matter what, you wholeheartedly follow all of einsteins laws and theories he proposed. You must know of the theory of relativity? WEll it is being disproven by a 12 year old boy.
what is that to say about the rest of the theories and laws out there? That they may not hold true when put under the right tests and done by the right mind. So, the same thing that you say about my religion and beliefs, the same can be said about all of the your beliefs in these theories and laws that you and countless others follow.
you want falsification, here is one for you...
you say that you will stand by science not matter what, you wholeheartedly follow all of einsteins laws and theories he proposed. You must know of the theory of relativity? WEll it is being disproven by a 12 year old boy.
what is that to say about the rest of the theories and laws out there? That they may not hold true when put under the right tests and done by the right mind. So, the same thing that you say about my religion and beliefs, the same can be said about all of the your beliefs in these theories and laws that you and countless others follow.
Okay so you have a theory oly. You made a hypotheses and came up with some supporting evidence. The next step is to try to falsify your theory. Only by surviving attempts to be made false, can a claim be considered true. Essentially your claim is that because higher thinking individuals have always adapted deity worship into their culture, this suggests there is some truth to it. So to falsify, can you think of any beliefs which have been around for a substantial amount of time which we know to be untrue? Doesn't the old fallback, Santa Clause, qualify as such? People have believed in Santa for a very very long time, and the belief transcends culture and geographic location. Even if at one time there was indeed a sort of Santa Clause, does that fact give any more weight to what we believe today? If people believed in Santa from the beginning of time, would it make him any more real? We know there is no Santa, hes a myth, and that is exactly what we call unproven beliefs that were shared by our ancestors, myths. So really, what does your research prove except that the belief in god has been around for a long time? It is OK to make the assumption you did, but as you see, your assumption does not survive falsification. The responsible thing to do is abandon the theory. Unfortunately when we are talking about objective evidence, you do not have the luxury of interpreting it as you see fit.