That, whob, is a definition of science from scientists. And your definition of science makes no sense- it doesn't have to be natural at all.
Sorry if you thought those statements of fact from men with more qualifications than you can dream of are rambling- the fact that you think that says a lot about your closed mentality. Those claims, btw, say no such thing about nothing being found to be true. They simply talk about what tjhe nature of science is in a way which makes your view look very childish indeed. Nor do they use specialist language. That is all basic English.
As it is, you have a totally twisted view of how science works and it is infesting all your logic, which is why your posts are so lacking in intelligence.
And there you go again, you see- asking for proof like that. Go out and look for the evidence- there is MASSES of it. But if you are looking for incontrovertible evidence, you are playing a fixed game that can never be won.
Everyone- look at how whob works. A perfect example of the broken logic and complete lack of rationality from the Creationist set. Everything described in my posts above- the lack of logic, twisting of facts and total lack of cohesive argument power- he demonstrates.
And all long pig has done is make the same mistake again. In fact, long pig is actively lying- evolution has never,m ever ever claimed that life can be made from nothing.
And all long pig has done is make the same mistake again. In fact, long pig is actively lying- evolution has never,m ever ever claimed that life can be made from nothing.
I don't care either way, but what's the explaination on life just "popping" into existance?
The mixture of different elements like carbon and oxygen create life?
Originally posted by long pig
Oh yes, this is just so important to me I'd lie about it. 🙄 Get over it.I don't care either way, but what's the explaination on life just "popping" into existance?
you're either lying or you're just flapping your gums and blowing hot air when you know nothing of the theory.
you either made it up or you're regurgitating a lie.
either way, what you said is complete and utter bullshit.
dont shoot the messengers, its just a fact.
if you hate the theory so much then all the more reason to learn it.
know thy enemy, right? :/
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That, whob, is a definition of science from scientists. And your definitiuon of science makes no sense- it doesn;t have to be natural at all.
Science doesn't have to be natural?...lol..okay so where does "science" take place Ush..if it doesn't take place in the Natural world..where else does it take place and what else does it describe?
Does it take place and describe the metaphysical world? 😕
Please elaborate on this new discovery that you've enlightened us with my friend.
Sorry if you thought those statements ofg fact from men witb more qualifications than you can dream of are rambling- the fact that you think that says a lot about your closed mentality. Those claims, btw, say no such thing about nothing being found to be true. They simply talk about what tjhe nature of science is in a way which makes your view look very childish indeed. Nor do they use specialist language. That is all basic English.As it is, you have a totally twistd view of how science works and it is infesting all your logic, which is why your posts are so lacking in intelligence.
And there you go again, you see- asking for proof like that. Go out and look for the evidence- there is MASSES of it. But if you are looking for incontrovertible evidence, you are playing a fixed game that can never be won.
Everyone- look at how whob works. A perfect example of the broken logic and complete lack of rationality from the Creationist set. Everything described in my posts above- the lack of logic, twisting of facts and total lack of cohesive argument power- he demonstrates.
And all long pig has done is make the same mistake again. In fact, long pig is actively lying- evolution has never,m ever ever claimed that life can be made from nothing.
Once again strawman arguments..Attacking the arguer..rather than the argument. I have as of yet not received a response from you regarding any of my inquiries. So I'm assuming you don't have a response, and are unable to intellectually and independantly answer them.(independently meaning..not going to google and typing in "evolution..then cutting/pasting a response from someone else)
To be fair to you though..I will repost all questions once again..with the hope that you will at some point gather the information..or perhaps ability..to answer them. The questions/arguments are piling up Ush. And I as many others are eagerly anticipating your answers.
Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
So basically what you are implying Ush is that there is nothing that can be found to be true or have existed within the study of natural phenomena?
Science doesn't have to be natural?...lol..okay so where does "science" take place Ush..if it doesn't take place in the Natural world..where else does it take place and what else does it describe?
Does it take place and describe the metaphysical world? 😕
if you hate the theory so much then all the more reason to learn it.
know thy enemy, right? :/
😆
Don't paint me a religious nutt by spouting out silly leftist reactionary B.S my way, I could care less about religion.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a jesus-freak, kiddo. Grow up. 🙄
I guess a casual, adult debate is out of the question with all these far left extremist.
I recommend growing up, getting a job and chilling out. 😄
Originally posted by long pig
Hate the theory? Know thy Enemy?😆
Don't paint me a religious nutt by spouting out silly leftist reactionary B.S my way, I could care less about religion.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a jesus-freak, kiddo. Grow up. 🙄
WHO is assuming? 😂
the irony tickles me
To be fair..I haven't bashed anyone in this thread..I've actually been on good behavior. 😉
Notice how I've cut down on my smilies...lol..
Ush, PVS, and many others on the far left side of this argument on the other hand..have came on here with guns blazing.
Moving on..I'm still waiting for Ush's response. I seriously doubt I'll get one though. At least not a direct one that he has created by himself.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..I'm still waiting for Ush's response. I seriously doubt I'll get one though. At least not a direct one that he has created by himself.
well if you believe in ID... then none of us create anything... it's all there because someone/something else put it there
🙄
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
HaroldIt's his grandfather's first name.
NOW...I found out what the "H" in Jesus H Christ.
stands for:
A Sunday school teacher asked her second graders if anyone knew another name for God. She was picturing answers like 'Lord' or 'Almighty'.
After a long moment of silence a little boy raised his hand and said, "Howard."
"Howard?" replied the confused teacher.
"You know," continued the boy, "Howard be thy name."
It's Howard
sorry couldn't resist. 😮
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Ush, PVS, and many others on the far left side of this argument on the other hand..have came on here with guns blazing.
its been my observation that ush falls nowhere near the left.
what a sad strategy to label others as 'leftists' and then cry that
others are labeling you 😬
The concept of evolution is not a faith. It is a scientific theory. It is a model for the development of modern species. It is based upon a weight of repeatable experimentation and observation of tangible phenomena. The theory is subject to review and scrutiny. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is based upon said evidences, however all scientific theory is dynamic. Therefore if new evidences arise that contradict any scientific theory or do not fit the model that the theory proposes, or a new model is proposed that conforms with said evidence better, the theory is modified to encompass the new evidence/model or the theory is discarded and a new model proposed/accepted. New and/or contradictory substantive evidences cannot simply be dismissed. This is true of all scientific theory determined by scientific method.
The concept of intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is not based upon empirically determined evidences in repeatable experimentation. Intelligent design has not held up to scrutiny or review, to my knowledge not a single peer-reviewed article pertaining to the idea has ever been published in any reputable scientific journal. It does not take into account all evidences available. One of the underlying features of any intelligent design concept is the presupposition of a designer. This presupposition has never been proven, and likely can never and will never be verified by scientific method. This belief does not rest upon material evidences, oft dismissing contradictory evidences rather than incorporating said evidence, and altering the concept or discarding the concept for a new concept. It is a faith.
It should not be incorporated into scientific textbooks.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Oh yes Lucy...🙄
I apologise for insulting a direct relative, but I hope you can understand my confusion in light of the paradox of discussing the topic of 'intellligent design' with someone who was not subjected to such a molding.
I think the main problem with 'cretinism' - am I spelling that correctly? - is that that it is borne out of irrational fundamentalism rather than reason and logic. Simple as that, my fiend.
(Side note: The word 'cretin' is derived from Swiss French meaning 'Christian' - another example of evolution succintly following what came before it!)
I'm too good.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The concept of evolution is not a faith. It is a scientific theory. It is a model for the development of modern species. It is based upon a weight of repeatable experimentation and observation of tangible phenomena.
Evolution..or "change" within a particular family of plant, animal, etc has never been defined by the ID side of this debate as being a "faith." Variation amongst animal families..such as dogs, cats, equine, etc..is a concept that is widely accepted most proponents of the mainstream scientific community. The "faith" part of Neo Darwinism..lies in two of the fundemental principles.
1. Life seemingly formed from nothing more than a primordial soup of elements..spontaneously out of nowhere..with no intelligence guiding it.
2. The existence of minor gentic differences and mutations within an animal/plant family, alludes to the existence of mutations on a grand scale.(ie Macro Evolution)
There is nothing testible/observable/or scientific that supports either of these philosophical concepts. Just because mutations and variations within nature exist, one can not logically infer that they support "Naturalism."
That's where the deceptive part of Modern Evolutionary theory kicks in. It attempts to validate itself, by known variables..which have in no way been proven/observed/ or shown to be related in anyway to the 2 fundemental philosophical TOE beliefs listed above.
If anything..one could logically infer that variation and mutations give more credo to the belief that nature has a "design" to it.
I have never debated that ID was not a philosophical concept..merely..I have just attempted to point out..that Neo Darwinism is a philosophical concept as well. To state that it is not is obsurdity...seeing as how the fundementals of the theory have as of do not have any tangible evidence supporting them.
In my opinion, I have religous beliefs akin to intelligent design theory because the universe is too ordered and mathematical to not have SOME sort of higher force playing a hand in the universe.
HOWEVER. It's not science. It's more of philosophy. I wouldn't mind intelligent design being taught in philosophy or a religion class but I feel it has no place in a science classroom.
....couldn't have said it better myself, Drac.
Originally posted by BobbyD
In my opinion, I have religous beliefs akin to intelligent design theory because the universe is too ordered and mathematical to not have SOME sort of higher force playing a hand in the universe.
in my experience it's "intelligence" that causes the most disorder in the world