Originally posted by Wesker
How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?
universal=A general or widely held principle, concept, or notion.
I did state that there is a minority like you that don believe in God.
Originally posted by Wesker
Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.
Originally posted by Wesker
WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?
Originally posted by Wesker
The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.
The foundation of science: the scientific method:
It is difficult to comprehend any aspect of science without first understanding the scientific method. This is a very important problem solving technique which has been extensively used by scientists in their quest to build their knowledge base and gradually gain insight into the workings of nature. The scientific method has general application throughout human life as well. 2 It typically involves a number of steps:
Observing something that is unexpected or unusual. Perhaps something that has been detected for the first time.
Gathering as much evidence as possible about the phenomenon.
Creating one or more hypotheses that might explain the observation(s), using intuition, analytical methods, trial and error, etc. The hypothesis is based upon the assumption that only natural forces are at work. That is, there are no supernatural forces intruding into the world causing unpredictable results at random times. If such forces did exist, it would make the study of science impossible.
Designing a test that will give predictable results if the hypothesis is true. (Sometimes the opposite is done: a test is designed to attempt to prove that a hypothesis is false, in order to eliminate it from consideration.)
Conducting the test; check the results. Determine if the hypothesis has merit.
Restarting, if the hypothesis has no merit.
If successful, publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.
Independent duplication of the above steps by others to confirm that the conclusions are reproducible.
At this point, a theory has been discovered. If the theory gains general acceptance in competition with others, then it may become an established theory. Its credibility is improved if it leads to the development of other theories and ultimately to a general advance in scientific knowledge. Established theories are sometimes called "laws," as in Ohms law, Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics.
The importance of falsification of theories and laws:
At any step in the scientific method, falsification is possible:
The hypothesis may not be confirmed.
Other scientists may not be able to duplicate the results.
Some new, better, more inclusive theory might come along that replaces the current one.
Implicit in the scientific method is the belief that nothing is absolutely proven for all time. Scientists hold that all truly scientific theories are capable of being falsified. That is, they must always be prepared for some future experiment or investigation that will prove that an existing theory is invalid. The scientific method is thus a self-correcting process; errors will eventually be detected and corrected.
The theory of evolution could theoretically be falsified at any time. Finding absolute evidence of a screwdriver, or the remains of a camp fire, or a human burial site imbedded in a rock layer with trilobite fossils would suggest that major revisions to biological evolutionary beliefs might necessary. Such a discovery would show that some intelligent life forms existed at the same time as trilobites did. Finding a verified human footprint in the middle of a fossilized dinosaur footprint would also throw the theory of evolution into question, unless an alternate explanation could be found. (Many such footprints have been found, but all have been shown to be non-human: either pious hoaxes manually carved into rocks to support the faith of believers, or weathered footprints of other animals.)
Originally posted by Wesker
Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.
Observations, methodology, logic that can be falsified. You seem a little too zealous to make such comments. Well sometime such theory that deserve to be countered while taking a crap. 🙄
Originally posted by Wesker
Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.
Originally posted by Wesker
Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right.
Oh well it does to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists and it's desperately trying to. If not the theory will die.
Originally posted by joesha28
well at least, we can witness creation of our owns hands. So believing that the universe been created is logical enough. Evolution has yet to be seen both big and small.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, new viruses, cross species viruses, radiation/toxin resistant cockroaches, color blindness, sickle cell anemia, left-handedness/ambidextrity, the increase in tuskless elephants, the fossil record, monotremes, the domain archea, and every other piece of evidence of evolution.
oh, and "god's will" is a copout, not an explaination.
Are they a whole new bacteria? tuskless elephants...a totally new creature that evolved from the Elephants? New viruses...were scientist sure that they did not exist b4? What got left-handedness/ambidextrity, color blindness got to do with evolution? Fossil record...for your info human footprints were found with dino-fossil too. oh yeah immurnity in creatures are God's creation and so are many thing. Supreme Being...Supreme Intelligence. 😎
Originally posted by Darth Jello
copout. There were never any footprints found with dino bones fred flintstone.
and lefty/colorblindness, etc. are specifically adapted human traits for certain tasks.
According to evolution it has to happen to the whole race. In your case all has to be all of the Human race to be a lefty or color blind. A significant event has to initiate such evolution build up. In this case there is none such significant event that cld have initiate evolution.
Originally posted by joesha28What? Are you so stupid, you can't read? Evolution is logical, and even if it isn't, how can you say god did it. And then say it's a science. If you so thoroughly disbelieve evolution, do some research and come up with a more reasonable and explained theory. Not bullshit religion.
well at least, we can witness creation of our owns hands. So believing that the universe been created is logical enough. Evolution has yet to be seen both big and small.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1199132698889517460&q=evolution
watch this video and look how stupid these people are. Somehow, Noah can build an arc by himself, fit every animal on it, know who's good and bad and steer by storms when he was just one person. And not only that, this massive flood, could only cut one of the HARDEST piece of rock in the world? That is so illogical I don't even know what they class as science anymore.
well at least, we can witness creation of our owns hands. So believing that the universe been created is logical enough. Evolution has yet to be seen both big and small.did you fall on your head as a baby or something, or are you just this plain ignorant