So teaching that God created everything is not science but teaching that we all evolved from rocks and sea water three billion years ago somehow is? What kind of sense is that supposed to make?Perfect sense, as one has at least some evidence to back it up, the other has nothing.
Perfect sense, as one has at least some evidence to back it up, the other has nothing.
Grand Canyon anyone? Evolution claims it as evidence of a river that existed for millions of yearsEvolution is about biology. It says nothing about geology.
Evolution is about biology. It says nothing about geology.
Also yes, I agree both have evidence. One has empirical. There is more to the world than empirical evidence and mathematical equations. Everyone is entitled spirituality. It doesn't mean that it can be used in science just like how science can't be used in it.
Verdict: troll.
Evolution is about biology. It says nothing about geology.
Also yes, I agree both have evidence. One has empirical. There is more to the world than empirical evidence and mathematical equations. Everyone is entitled spirituality. It doesn't mean that it can be used in science just like how science can't be used in it.
Verdict: troll.
Saying that evolution says nothing about geology merely shows how ignorant you are. Every other evolutionist in this thread knows just how fail that statement was.Scientists rely on repeatable experimentation. Religionfags rely on blind faith.
I am not trolling, and accusing me of trolling is just plain stupid. I am asking people to kindly realize that both sides are biased and that neither side can be proven. 'Nuff said.
Scientists rely on repeatable experimentation. Religionfags rely on blind faith.
Yeah, science makes assumptions. The difference is that they expand upon these assumptions and attempt to PROVE them.
I was actually going to say something similar to what Trigger said, but I couldn't think of how to word it at all. He's not really trolling, more like you're not getting the point. His mention of Bacon reminded me of what I was thinking about.
The Scientific Method is based on experimentation and gathering information based on the change of one variable. Conclusion follows that whatever results differently is caused by that one variable, because of causality. There is no secondary case that tests variables for evolution, Darwin's studies were not from controlled environments with singular selected variables, thus it is merely speculation as Trigger said.
Evolution may have a higher standing than Creation as far as proof or plausibility, but in any case it still can't me taken as true/fact until it satisfies Scientific/Philosophic requisites for knowledge.
The Scientific Method is based on experimentation and gathering information based on the change of one variable. Conclusion follows that whatever results differently is due to that one variable, because of causality. There are no tests with single variables for evolution, Darwin's studies were not from controlled environments with selected variables, thus it can be merely speculation as Trigger said.Too bad you don't know what evolution is about and are clearly not involved in the scientific world whatsoever.
Evolution may have a higher standing than Creation as far as proof or plausibility, but in any case it still can't be taken as true/fact until it satisfies Scientific/Philosophic requisites for knowledge.
You're disregarding a historical source as evidence for Creationism.Quite a lot. Do you think a science education is just reading **** in books? Dohoho.
Tell me, how many scientific experiments have you yourself done to prove everything you've read in your science book? It's strange to me that you'll accept statements from a secondary source, but not one from a primary source.
All you can really say about experiments is that they prove that certain processes CAN OCCUR. They say nothing about WHEN they occurred or IF they occurred at all in the past. History is forever buried in mystery. There is no possible way (short of breaking Einstein's laws of relativity and going back in time) for us to objectively know what happened in the distant past of origin "science".Why do you even post if you have no clue.
Boy, if you were so educated and so scientific, why didn't you come off as such from the beginning instead of throwing petty insults? Why didn't you scientifically show us how we were so incorrect, using rational thought, reason, and actual evidence, in a calm, disinterested tone?Because like I said, your posts are what stupid trolls would say.
Funny how you just attacked us off the bat, like a religious fanatic would've done...
My Wikipedia copypasta sensors are blaring rather loudly at the moment, by the way.
Because like I said, your posts are what stupid trolls would say.
Do show me what I copypasted of wikipedia instead of making an even bigger fool out of yourself.
Quite a lot. Do you think a science education is just reading **** in books? Dohoho.
Read the book "shortest history of time" by Stephen Hawking. In this book he explains specifically what evolution is / does, lists facts of experiments all over the world and also shows that material can be formed out of nothing with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (if you have never heard about it, it's the biggest machine ever build to simulate the big bang)
Here I've been trying to bring a controversial conversation to a close before anyone got TOO worked up, and you just had to come in and start making extremely biased posts with no room for anyone to disagree with you, and on top of that had to insult those who dared speak up. Here's a wake-up call, good sir: there is much debate over what is true and what is not in the case of origin science, and until you realize that your view is not the only one REGARDLESS OF ITS TRUTH OR FALSITY, I suggest you leave this forum and not come back. We don't need your kind here.>implying my posts are biased
You : Religionfags listen to the Bible for no reason.The appeal to authority works in the science case because... science has been shown to be reliable.
Me : You listen to a science book for no reason.
You : You don't know anything about science.
LOL ok.
Again, that only proves that a Big Bang is possible. That in no way proves that the universe started with a Big Bang. Who says God didn't create the universe, and we just discovered another way to do so? Have you heard of cloning? Cloning is a method to create life, but it is not THE method that creates life.>Proofs in science
The Big Bang is possible. That's nice, how does that prove anything?
Before telling me I don't know jack about Science, you should read up on some Philosophy. Philosophy is the mother of Science after all.