Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rainycity" data-source="post: 53485388" data-attributes="member: 246231"><p>There's only one theory of evolution. Intelligent design and creationism aren't scientific theories. They make no testable predictions, and they don't have sufficient evidence. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Being presented with an abundance of evidence for an idea, and being unable to grasp what the evidence implies, means that you're either unable to link facts together to form a coherent framework, or you're simply denying what you're presented with. Gravity is a fact, if you jump into the air you'll come back to the ground again, that's a fact, if you can't see how facts point to reality, then I can't understand where you're coming from at all. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>That's not how it works. Somebody makes an observation, and develops hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they see. They test the hypothesis to see whether it explains the phenomenon. A good hypothesis allows you to make additional predictions, i.e. if evolution is true, we'd find progressively modified fossils in chronologically ordered strata (and that's EXACTLY what we find). The more predictions you verify, the stronger the hypothesis becomes.</p><p></p><p>When there's no more doubt left that the hypothesis explains the phenomenon, it becomes a <strong>scientific theory</strong>. There's no faith required to accept the explanation, unless you have some serious issues with nihilism.</p><p>Go and read the reams and reams and reams written about the creationist misuse of the term "scientific theory" - it's not the vernacular "theory" you're trying to mischaracterize it as.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> How much more proof do you need?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Already dealt with.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Who's contesting it? Certainly nobody with the scientific credentials qualified to do so, is contesting it. The only "contest" is coming from creationists who don't know the science anyway, but nobody cares what they think. Before something can be taught in a science classroom it undergoes a process of scrutiny, creationists want a free pass, because creationism would never pass the test, they want special consideration so what isn't science can be taught in a science classroom. </p><p></p><p>What exactly do you want, you don't value facts and scientific theories, you think science is a religion and if it was a religion, it couldn't be taught in american schools. So you want students to stop learning about science? history? do you use facts to support your beliefs and claims? to establish the historicity of the gospels?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rainycity, post: 53485388, member: 246231"] There's only one theory of evolution. Intelligent design and creationism aren't scientific theories. They make no testable predictions, and they don't have sufficient evidence. Being presented with an abundance of evidence for an idea, and being unable to grasp what the evidence implies, means that you're either unable to link facts together to form a coherent framework, or you're simply denying what you're presented with. Gravity is a fact, if you jump into the air you'll come back to the ground again, that's a fact, if you can't see how facts point to reality, then I can't understand where you're coming from at all. That's not how it works. Somebody makes an observation, and develops hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they see. They test the hypothesis to see whether it explains the phenomenon. A good hypothesis allows you to make additional predictions, i.e. if evolution is true, we'd find progressively modified fossils in chronologically ordered strata (and that's EXACTLY what we find). The more predictions you verify, the stronger the hypothesis becomes. When there's no more doubt left that the hypothesis explains the phenomenon, it becomes a [B]scientific theory[/B]. There's no faith required to accept the explanation, unless you have some serious issues with nihilism. Go and read the reams and reams and reams written about the creationist misuse of the term "scientific theory" - it's not the vernacular "theory" you're trying to mischaracterize it as. How much more proof do you need? Already dealt with. Who's contesting it? Certainly nobody with the scientific credentials qualified to do so, is contesting it. The only "contest" is coming from creationists who don't know the science anyway, but nobody cares what they think. Before something can be taught in a science classroom it undergoes a process of scrutiny, creationists want a free pass, because creationism would never pass the test, they want special consideration so what isn't science can be taught in a science classroom. What exactly do you want, you don't value facts and scientific theories, you think science is a religion and if it was a religion, it couldn't be taught in american schools. So you want students to stop learning about science? history? do you use facts to support your beliefs and claims? to establish the historicity of the gospels? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
Top
Bottom