Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Ah well.... even though creatonism is a very flawed theory, science wise, don't raise evolution to the level of ifallible science. After all, evolution is a also, be it in a much much lesser extend, a flawed theory. A) It doesn't explain how life originated and B) it has no predictabilty as in how species will have evolved in a few millions years. Especially B) is a necessity for any scientific theory.

And quantum mechanics is probably going to be replaced by something new... Einstein alwasy had soem second thoughts about it, the number of scientists that find it hard to sustain is growing. Just check out the latest issue of Scientific American among others.

Originally posted by queeq
After all, evolution is a also, be it in a much much lesser extend, a flawed theory. A) It doesn't explain how life originated

It doesn't propose to. That's like saying nuclear physics is flawed because it didn't predict the existence of ice-cream.

Originally posted by queeq
B) it has no predictabilty as in how species will have evolved in a few millions years.

Science isn't in the business of predicting the future. That is not a requirement for being a scientific theory anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science isn't in the business of predicting the future. That is not a requirement for being a scientific theory anyway.

unfortunately, this is incorrect 🙁

the purpose of science is to build models that accurately predict the results of future controlled experiments.

queeqs point is more revealing of how difficult it is to simulate evolution in a lab setting. However, there are modern studies on bacteria that have produced predictable evolutionary gains.

Obviously there is a moving goal post here. They only predicted that the bacteria would gain the ability to take food from a new source, not the specific mutations that would occur. So its likely that any evidence will fail to meet that marker.

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, this is incorrect 🙁

the purpose of science is to build models that accurately predict the results of future controlled experiments.

True but he said "how species will have evolved in a few millions years" which is completely different.

Originally posted by inimalist
queeqs point is more revealing of how difficult it is to simulate evolution in a lab setting. However, there are modern studies on bacteria that have produced predictable evolutionary gains.

Obviously there is a moving goal post here. They only predicted that the bacteria would gain the ability to take food from a new source, not the specific mutations that would occur. So its likely that any evidence will fail to meet that marker.

There's a story about Darwin and some sort of moth that he predict would exist. Does that count? (assuming it isn't apocraphal)

Inamilist, the quotes in your signature are again hauntingly lonely. I am sad when I read them.

...so long story short, quit posting and go get yourself laid.

😐

Science can predict the future like dropping the ball, it hasn't dropped yet but science says that when it does drop it will hit the floor based on the conditions. It doesn't mean that it is correct but based on the evidence that you have this can be a prediction of things to come, doesn't mean that it will happen because other variables can come into play that would change the outcome.

Originally posted by Digi
Inamilist, the quotes in your signature are again hauntingly lonely. I am sad when I read them.

...so long story short, quit posting and go get yourself laid.

😐

He has great taste in quotes. I always liked Roark more than Galt and d'Anconia actually.

Dagny is a bit of the cool people mattress, don't you think?

Who is John Galt?

B) it has no predictabilty as in how species will have evolved in a few millions years. Especially B) is a necessity for any scientific theory.

So then meteorology is flawed too?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Who is John Galt?

The best response I've ever heard was "kind of a dick".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Try answering the question.

Read the first post I made before we started this argument.
I said people have been worshipping God(s) before even Jesus was born.
It does not pertain specifically to the Christian God, thus I said God(S).
God as in the Illusionary Being(s) that people worship.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
It seems you did not understand what I meant.
Thus the facepalm.

Read the first post I made before we started this argument.
I said people have been worshipping God(s) before even Jesus was born.
It does not pertain specifically to the Christian God, thus I said God(S).
God as in the Illusionary Being(s) that people worship.

I understand what you are talking about. However, you are not telling me what you believe. I know that people believe a lot of stuff, but what's the reason behind it all? To me atheism is just another belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand what you are talking about. However, you are not telling me what you believe. I know that people believe a lot of stuff, but what's the reason behind it all? To me atheism is just another belief.

I find the atheistic logic humanly flawed; they've been doing research about the cosmos for hundreds of years but they have never proven anything worth significance. All of their laws and theories are evidently drawn from pure assumption.
They are so narrow-minded, that they withdraw from believing that there MIGHT be a possibility that God does exist.
They keep nit-picking on Christianity especially. Why do they have that utmost abhorition towards Christianity? What if what Christians worship is true?
And what about the other religions? There are God worshippers even before Jesus was born.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It doesn't propose to.

I know evolution doesn't propose to know how life originated, but it is a bit of a problem. A model how life evolves without knowing how it originated is lacking something. It's a given, but still should be part of study. I think it's a tad to easy to leave it out. IMHO

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science isn't in the business of predicting the future. That is not a
requirement for being a scientific theory anyway.

As pointed out, you couldn't be more wrong. Science should be able to predict and not just in laboratories. That's where it starts to see if a theory works, but the theory proves itself if one rpedicts things to happen and they do take place. No scientific theory is complete without predictive qualities. Shows how much you know about the rules of science.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
How did you arrive on the assumption that I am an atheist?
😬
I am most certainly not. I find that an insult, mind you.

I find the atheistic logic humanly flawed; they've been doing research about the cosmos for hundreds of years but they have never proven anything worth significance. All of their laws and theories are evidently drawn from pure assumption.
They are so narrow-minded, that they withdraw from believing that there MIGHT be a possibility that God does exist.
They keep nit-picking on Christianity especially. Why do they have that utmost abhorition towards Christianity? What if what Christians worship is true?
And what about the other religions? There are God worshippers even before Jesus was born.

"Atheists and theists alike should also prove the origin of life and back it with proof before they ask other belief systems to do so."

Believing is God would just be as flawed because you do not hold the idea that there COULDN'T be a god so you are a F'n hypocrite yourself.

Bible thumpers like your self keep nit-picking at science to try and prove that it is wrong but then use the same science to try and prove that you are right, hypocrite and you call us narrow minded?!?

Astrology hasn't made any important discoveries????

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Now I find that to be a F'n insult and just shows how bigoted you are. You are such a F'n hypocrite...

"Atheists and theists alike should also prove the origin of life and back it with proof before they ask other belief systems to do so."

Believing is God would just be as flawed because you do not hold the idea that there COULDN'T be a god so you are a F'n hypocrite yourself.

Bible thumpers like your self keep nit-picking at science to try and prove that it is wrong but then use the same science to try and prove that you are right, hypocrite and you call us narrow minded?!?

Astrology hasn't made any important discoveries????

I have to see the facts with my own eyes before I conclude if such arguments are valid.

So far, both sides have proven nothing.
Religion and science have made so-called "laws" and "theories" based from pure assumption, by the limited minds of us human beings.
We cannot even begin to grasp the concept of life, much more procreate life in our own hands.
Scientists have researched for hundreds, if not thousands, of years about how life is created.
How come we still not have the answer to such questions?? Is it going to take another hundred years before we have the knowledge about procreation?

Religion has not proven that we came from Adam and Eve. And science has not proven that we came so-called "single-celled organisms" or "apes" either.
The man who came up with that "single-celled organisms" theory must have been high on 'shrooms.😂

BTW, herbfu2 for calling me a Bible thumper.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Astrology hasn't made any important discoveries????

Since when is astrology a science????

Originally posted by queeq
Since when is astrology a science????

Originally posted by queeq
I know evolution doesn't propose to know how life originated, but it is a bit of a problem. A model how life evolves without knowing how it originated is lacking something. It's a given, but still should be part of study. I think it's a tad to easy to leave it out. IMHO

It's a whole other area of study. You can't citicize evolution for not being something that isn't evolution in the first place. That's completely insane.

You might think that it means something is "lacking" but that isn't how science works. They're two unrelated problems, neither is responsible for proving the other just as physics isn't responsible for proving psychology.

Originally posted by queeq
As pointed out, you couldn't be more wrong. Science should be able to predict and not just in laboratories. That's where it starts to see if a theory works, but the theory proves itself if one rpedicts things to happen and they do take place. No scientific theory is complete without predictive qualities. Shows how much you know about the rules of science.

Predicting exactly what will happen over millions of years with hundreds of thousands of unknowable variables is totally different from being predictive under controlled conditions. Nice try.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
We cannot even begin to grasp the concept of life, much more procreate life in our own hands.

It's pretty well known where babys come from. Very well known actually.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Scientists have researched for hundreds, if not thousands, of years about how life is created.

Science hasn't existed for thousands of years you nutcase.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
How come we still not have the answer to such questions??

Because the absolutes you're looking for don't exist. If you want them I suggest you start believing in Creation.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Is it going to take another hundred years before we have the knowledge about procreation?

No, you should learn that when you hit puberty.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
How the fu*k did you arrive with the conclusion that I believe in God?
I DO NOT!

I have to see the facts with my own eyes before I conclude if such arguments are valid.

So far, both sides have proven nothing.
Religion and science have made so-called "laws" and "theories" based from pure assumption, by the limited minds of us human beings.
We cannot even begin to grasp the concept of life, much more procreate life in our own hands.
Scientists have researched for hundreds, if not thousands, of years about how life is created.
How come we still not have the answer to such questions?? Is it going to take another hundred years before we have the knowledge about procreation?

Religion has not proven that we came from Adam and Eve. And science has not proven that we came so-called "single-celled organisms" or "apes" either.
The man who came up with that "single-celled organisms" theory must have been high on 'shrooms.😂

BTW, herbfu2 for calling me a Bible thumper.

So if science is wrong and religion is wrong and you seem to be OH so very smart then where did life and everything come from, what is your theory?