Evolution Proven!

[Doveaman]

Revision of theories is a strength of scientific study, not a weakness.

It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.

 

[Doveaman]

Your implication was that we don't doubt ourselves - we do. That's why we have peer review and many other techniques for making sure that our theories are constantly refined and improved, and occasionally disproven altogether.

That's why we have the Bible

 

[Doveaman]

"God did it" explains red shift? *rolls eyes*

Goddidit explains nothing and is simply a creationists excuse to not have to answer anything about concepts that they simply do not understand.

Red shift is a misunderstanding, another flaw in scientific interpretation.

"God did it" is a more accurate explanation.

 

[Nostromo]

It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.

The paying public? About 2/3 of all scientific research is done by private corporations who generate their own funds. What would be the point anyway?

It's hard to tell whether you're a genuine fanatical bible thumper or just a troll.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.

Your basically discribing religion. not science.
science never claims to have the absolute truth to begin with. it tells people up front that its making the best working model using the data we have. and that new data might mean the model needs to be revised, or abandoned. or that it is covered under the current model. either of these three are perfectly acceptable since they further our understanding. which is the goal.

 

[pgp_protector]

I've figured out one thing

Reasoning Equivalent

God Did it = Because

 

[AV1611VET]

it tells people up front that its making the best working model using the data we have.

And unfortunately, people believe it.

Was this the 'best working model'?

 

[Doveaman]

You were asked if you can explain it.
You answered yes.
God did it isn't an explication

It's not?

"Can anyone explain who ate the last cookie out of the cookie jar?"

I did it --- Case Closed.

"Can anyone explain who created the Universe?"

God did it --- Case Closed.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's not?

"Can anyone explain who ate the last cookie out of the cookie jar?"

I did it --- Case Closed.

"Can anyone explain who created the Universe?"

God did it --- Case Closed.

The question is who, but how.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is who, but how.

Creatio ex nihilo --- that's an acceptable scientific answer.

Scientists may not believe it, but it's an acceptable bottom-line answer.

 

[Nostromo]

Was this the 'best working model'?

As far as I can tell, if it's a toss up between NASA and the Southern Baptists, NASA are still marginally ahead in the space race.

 

[SithDoughnut]

That's why we have the Bible

Which is but one hypothesis out of many. The difference is that the Biblical hypothesis is believed by people to be fact without any evidence to turn it into a valid theory. I'm not going to go into any details or attempt to turn this into GA - I know how the admins on this site feel about non-Christians discussing their religion - but the Bible is an unproven scientific hypothesis.

After all, if the Bible shows you reality, then either there are a lot of realities or there is something wrong with the Bible. Otherwise every Christian would agree.

 

[kharisym]

Creatio ex nihilo --- that's an acceptable scientific answer.

Scientists may not believe it, but it's an acceptable bottom-line answer.

Since it's scientifically acceptable, what predictions does it make that we can test and verify?

 

[SithDoughnut]

It's not?

"Can anyone explain who ate the last cookie out of the cookie jar?"

I did it --- Case Closed.

"Can anyone explain who created the Universe?"

God did it --- Case Closed.

Prove that you exist.

Now prove that God exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is but one hypothesis out of many. The difference is that the Biblical hypothesis is believed by people to be fact without any evidence to turn it into a valid theory. I'm not going to go into any details or attempt to turn this into GA - I know how the admins on this site feel about non-Christians discussing their religion - but the Bible is an unproven scientific hypothesis.

Using the Bible for a science book is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary for a computer manual.

After all, if the Bible shows you reality, then either there are a lot of realities or there is something wrong with the Bible. Otherwise every Christian would agree.

The Bible shows us history*, and as far as I know, there is very little disagreement as to what went on behind closed timelines.

* It also speaks of the present and the future, but from Words that have already been written.

God wrote our history --- in advance.

 

[Doveaman]

What, in your mind, constitutes proof of something?

If it's in the Holy Bible, then it has been proven.

Or more specifically, what would constitute proof of an expanding universe?

A voyage to the edge of it, traveling faster than the speed of light, to take a closer look.

[edit] I suppose I should add that nothing is ever really proven, in an absolute sense, before anyone picks me up on it.

No need to 'pick', God has been absolutely proven to be absolute.

This isn't going to turn a law vs theory farce is it?

Nope.

Look up what the word theory really means, how it is used in science.

"Speculation" to the highest degree.

Many theories are so well evidenced that they are taken as facts.

If it's a fact, how can it be falsified?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Its interesting though. that a book that has the history of the world written in advance. never seems to be able to predict a event happening. only after the fact do people point out the 'obvious' true perdiction made by it. if nothing else, that is one thing science has going for it, it actually makes correct predictions before hand to show it knows what its talking about.

best working model based on available data. if something go's wrong, thats possible. because its the best working model, not the absolute truth. if we figure gas cant explode. then find a way that it can. the body of knowledge is increased. thats why it works. we dont instead stick our heads in the sand and say the gas did not explode, surely some fiend but tnt in there in attempt to sabotage our 'belief'.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The Bible shows us history*, and as far as I know, there is very little disagreement as to what went on behind closed timelines.

* It also speaks of the present and the future, but from Words that have already been written.

God wrote our history --- in advance.

History uses the scientific method just like almost everything else. I'd consider it a science in its own right.

If you think there is no disagreement on history, then I presume either you know that the Bible is most likely incorrect or you haven't met many historians.

 

[BananaSlug]

Don't you just hate it when you take a great amount of time an effort to reply to a post and the person you are replying to just ignores what you posted?

 

[AV1611VET]

Its interesting though. that a book that has the history of the world written in advance. never seems to be able to predict a event happening.

It has done Its part --- in spades --- and will continue to do so.

only after the fact do people point out the 'obvious' true perdiction made by it.

Anyone can make a prediction after-the-fact. Here's the real trick though --- keep the Bible's prophecies from happening.

There's where the Bible separates the men from the scientists, as they say.

if nothing else, that is one thing science has going for it, it actually makes correct predictions before hand to show it knows what its talking about.

Is that why we have hundreds of thousands dead in Haiti?

best working model based on available data.

Spare me the rhetoric please; when "best" gets routinely and anticapatorily and gleefully obsoleted --- it cheapens the word and renders it ineffective, in my opinion.

Today's "best" is tomorrow's "junk".

And it's interesting that you have to clarify "best" by saying "based on available data".

if something go's wrong, thats possible.

No, that's expected.

For those of you who like to bring up computers all the time, this is why we have Windows 7 --- the other "best" versions were rendered obsolete by the "best" version, which will be rendered obsolete by the "best" version tomorrow.

because its the best working model, not the absolute truth.

Do it right the first time, or don't brag to us plebeians how we should bow at science's altar.

If you can't do it right the first time, then quit publishing magazines telling us in words we can't understand how we need the latest gadget to survive, if it's just an intermediate gizmo in the first place.

Wait until the last issue, then brag incessantly where you came from, not where [you think] you're going.

if we figure gas cant explode. then find a way that it can. the body of knowledge is increased. thats why it works.

No, it's not --- you got the rhetoric before the facts.

If we figure gas can't explode, the body of knowledge increases first, then we find a way that it can.

we dont instead stick our heads in the sand and say the gas did not explode, surely some fiend but tnt in there in attempt to sabotage our 'belief'.

Neither do we.