Originally posted by whobdamandog??? Evolution happens in reproduction and over millions of years...
Look in the mirror..a*s**l**s don't evolve, they're obviously created. According to natural selection, a species would have evolved past procreating a*s**les long ago...Just my two cents..or maybe 3..😉
Fin
YOU ****ING MORON GET A LIFE AND READ A TEXT BOOK
Originally posted by Wesker
Remember when you turned on your computer to get it to work? That's proof of -science-. Remember when you turned the ignition on your car? Again. Remember last time you made a phone call?Those are all instances in which science WAS right. That is, unless you have a faith-based answer for those. I'd LOVE to see that.
But my point is that you still needed to use the scientific method in those examples.
The scientific method tells us that scientific hypothesis must be tested using empirical observation, or just empiricism if you want. Now, empiricism is the belief(synonymous to faith) that present theories should be based on our observations of the world.
If you use the scientific method to prove science, it means that you are based on faith in empiricism, what means that religion and science are not so much different form each other... even science requires a little faith.
To not make use of faith to prove science you must do it without using the scientific method or any other belief system. Can you do it ?
Its impossible...
Evolution-changes as we learn more. Begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. It never stops researching untill everything is explained.
creationism-is rigid. It begins with fiction, then moves onto asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and even TORTURING those who disagree.
what christians don't understand that from the beginning Darwin said we're like this because of the environment we live in, and we develop over time to fit this environment better.
Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.
Sciences that support creationism: ...
Originally posted by Atlantis001
But my point is that you still needed to use the scientific method in those examples.The scientific method tells us that scientific hypothesis must be tested using empirical observation, or just empiricism if you want. Now, empiricism is the belief(synonymous to faith) that present theories should be based on our observations of the world.
If you use the scientific method to prove science, it means that you are based on faith in empiricism, what means that religion and science are not so much different form each other... even science requires a little faith.
To not use faith you must prove science you must do it without using the scientific method or any other belief system. Can you do it ?
Its impossible...
We're wading through semantics here...
Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.
Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning.
Originally posted by Wesker✅
We're wading through semantics here...Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on [b]logical proof or material evidence.
. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning. [/B]
Originally posted by Wesker
We're wading through semantics here...Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on [b]logical proof or material evidence.
. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning. [/B]
Good stuff Wesker.
Originally posted by xyz revolution
??? Evolution happens in reproduction and over millions of years...YOU ****ING MORON GET A LIFE AND READ A TEXT BOOK
You've proved to all that there is a God, based on natural selection not allowing for the evolution of ass*oles like yourself.
Now aren't you supposed to shut up?😉
Fin.
Originally posted by xyz revolutionThough I did watch on the Science Channel that with some quantum physics theories, that there was something connecting the big bang and some living type organism, possibly with some intelligence.....
no, no, no. Evolution says everything developed over time. Crating into more and more advanced. Therefore, by going back in time, you would get less and less advanced until you get to nothing. The Big Bang is the start of everything. By questioning the Big Bang you're questioning the beginning. You can't get before the big bang. I'm not saying the big bang is for definate but it makes more sense than a ****ing creator in the clouds.
Re: Prove creationism...I'll shut up!
Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:[list]
[*]god
[*]bible
[*]jesus
[*]religion
[*]evolution
[*]anything to do with the above[/list]
Stuff happened that I can't explain, therefor, creationism is true.