posted
It's a bit hazy, but I remember hearing that a country in Europe (or posilby Asia), tried once to arbitarilly set pi to 4. They eventually didn't do it, due to th efact that trading with the international community would have been completly buggered. "So, what's the circumference of these tires then?" "Oh, around 40cm. Or 40 inches. One of the two. I dunno, about as big as my arm? Thereabouts?"
The thing about Maths is that it proves itself. The other sciences need outside evidence, whereas one theory in Maths proves another, and you only need to diddle on a calculator to prove it.
And as far as I am aware, it's almost impossible to 100% prove something in the sciences. Yo ubasically keep testing until you fail to disprove the theory, correct? And so far, No-one has come up with a peice of evidence which completly refutes evolution, right?
------------------ Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish -The Day Today
To tell the truth, while evolution seems to explain the physical evidence fairly well, the total amount of material supporting it is somewhat sparse. I have no problems using evolution to explain some of the workings of the universe any more than I am loath to use Newtonian physics to explain and predict the happenings in my everyday world (except for those rare occasions when I travel at near-light-speed velocities ).
If the heliocentric theory did not disprove God's existence (nor prove it) then evolution stands little chance of doing the same.
).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
