What the most controversial opinion you have?

@EnBeeTea said in #47:
> What do you call proper arguments by the way?

Arguments that are supported by scientific evidence.

@bingndensum said in #48:
> Do we know by how many dimensions the world (and thereby evolution) progresses? No.
> The present theory of evolution's based on 4-dimensionally emerging empirical data.
> Now you tell me: Who knows what's being 'built' here?

I don't understand what you mean.

@Mrchess78 said in #50:
> Human beings need to stop living under volcanos.
> And on flood planes.
> I mean who knew or suspected that a VOLCANO might ERUPT or a FLOOD plane might FLOOD, yet it makes the NEWS constantly.

Okay, but the people who live in such places might not have the chances to move.

@EnBeeTea said in #46:
> @Moving_Pieces
>
> Not a bad opinion.

Thanks.

@Katzenschinken said in #51:
> I don't understand what you mean.

Precisely.

@Katzenschinken said in #51:
> Arguments that are supported by scientific evidence.

Ok then, can you prove me the evolution is true, specifically about the age of the world on something else than just theory? Is there a proof found somewhere in the world? Like fossils for example.

@bingndensum said in #54:
> Precisely.

No. More a case of you asking an unspecific question which doesn't in any way show what it has to do with evolution. But let me clarify what I don't understand and allow you to be more specific.

When you are talking of a world that consists of more dimensions than the four we commonly use (time being the 4th dimension) do you mean this in the sense like in some subsets of String theory where an 11-dimensional space is postulated? And if we for the sake of the argument assume that these additional dimensions exist (even if we so far didn't find a shred of evidence for them) how in your opinion do they render the existing evidence for evolution worthless? And if so, does this only apply to evolution or also to other sciences, for instance physics? If not, why not? And if yes, is it your opinion that basically all science is throwing the dice and if we gather evidence for a certain fact then it is barely coincidence that the evidence supports that fact?

Looking forward to your answers.

@EnBeeTea said in #55:
> Ok then, can you prove me the evolution is true, specifically about the age of the world on something else than just theory? Is there a proof found somewhere in the world? Like fossils for example.

Didn't you just say that *you* wanted to convince *me* with some arguments?

@EnBeeTea said in #52:
> Okay, but the people who live in such places might not have the chances to move.
Yes that's true, but I meant that in this day in age its ridiculous that year in year out we hear the same old story of "we got flooded and lost everything" , or "we got erupted on by a volcano and lost everything" or "a tornado in tornado alley blew everything away and we lost everything". Haven't the human race moved beyond this unnecessary nonsense yet? I'm talking mainly about the west here, I mean they find billions of dollars or pounds to fly rockets around but oddly can't do the same for this issue.

@Katzenschinken

It's not about evolution theory being "wrong", or "right". It being "incomplete" will do just fine.
Ad dimensions: It doesn't require superstrings. Given that the system it describes is larger than a few atoms, the wave function contains far more dimensions, and it explodes into infinity.
Do you believe that we know what goes on in there (as in the world of the quantum state)?
The answer's no. We have no idea.

IKEA. Just saw that this rhymes with IKEA. Cool.

@bingndensum said in #59:
> @Katzenschinken
>
> It's not about evolution theory being "wrong", or "right". It being "incomplete" will do just fine.
> Ad dimensions: It doesn't require superstrings. Given that the system it describes is larger than a few atoms, the wave function contains far more dimensions, and it explodes into infinity.
> Do you believe that we know what goes on in there (as in the world of the quantum state)?
> The answer's no. We have no idea.

Apart from the fact that you still don't want to elaborate how your ramblings (sorry, if that expression hurts you) are related to the evidence for evolution I feel that now it is the time for Isaac Asimov:
hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html