- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Neither is valid as validated by physical only present state science.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Neither is valid as validated by physical only present state science.It uses the same logic you used, only to come to a different conclusion. Why do you think the Tree of Life claim is not a valid one, and water from the flood in space is?
I am referring to the elusive dark matter and dark energy that no scientists have been able to detect despite the millions of dollars wasted over the years on trying to do so.
Sure we can observe effects in space, but those effect can also be attributed to God energy since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable.
One definition of a scientific theory is:
A fallible human interpretation of an observation, an interpretation that can never be proven to be true since scientific theories are never proven and therefore never true.
The theory that pulls birds out of dinosaur hats and pulls humans out of the hats of apes by the wave of a peer-review magic wand.
You are the one who has to provide evidence that chance and necessity can assemble man.
The creation of cars, their adaptive abilities, similarities in design, trends from simple to more complex cars are not what are used to infer that cars cannot evolve from carriages. It hinges on the mechanism of adaptation employed by cars which restrict such a mode of transformation regardless of the aforementioned phenomena. Hence the creator of cars made no kind of insinuation that cars could develop from a bicycle through the use of that mechanism since the mechanism for adaptation in a car never constituted such.
Anyone would do when compared to your invisible, dark entities. None have been empirically verified.Which god? Theres hundreds.
The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.You still have not shared your evidence for yours btw.
There are many things we can prove and know to be true as long as we can detect them. The same cannot be said of your invisible, dark entities that are to this day undetectable.I don;t think it is a very good one. The same applies to the "theory" of your existence. In your example, no-one can know anything ever or make any assumptions. But no doubt there will somehow be an exception for God ad the Bible...
Therefore the evolution of bird from dinosaur and human from ape is inferred, not proven. Thats my point.Where would you like to start with a review of the evidence for evolution? The fossil record? DNA research? Extant species in mid-evolve? The strange way that species are spread over out planet?
Or the evidence is not properly investigated by the experts.Either evolution is true, or we have a creator that has gone out of his way to make it seem like it is, it seems.
Magic wands are more the district of people who want to deny physics in favor of metaphysics.Magic wands are more the district of people who want to deny science in favor of Bible literacy.
You have magically appearing big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, the stretching of space/time, not to forget, a universe expanding faster than light speed.They have magically appearing and disappearing water, an impossible boat, kangaroos running back to Australia from mount Ararat without leaving a trace while living on plants that survived several months of being under seawater, a 6000 year old universe created with light already underway from distant stars for millions of years, talking snakes and, not to forget, a tabernacle-shaped earth.
No, it is not. It is for this very reason that it is called dark matter; it is undetectable.Actually the whole point of of dark matter it is that it is detectable,
So it may very well be God energy since you dont know what it is yet or how it works.we just don't know what it is yet or how it works.
How do you even know it is gravity you are seeing since you are unable to detect any mass present to produce gravity? You must first empirically verify that there is mass present to produce gravity before you can call it gravity.We can empirically detect it's gravity, we just cannot detect it optically.
Why not call it God energy since it consists of "god particles"?Once we figure out what it is, we will stop calling it Dark Matter and give it a proper name.
Actually, Im even more confused now.It is not Science that has no answers - you just didn't know about them yet. Now you do! Profit!
In search of the “god particle” and “extraterrestrial life”.Wasted? Since when are science dollar ever wasted?
Irrelevant to my point. See above.That computer you're typing on? FUNDED BY SCIENCE DOLLARS. Literally everything around you has in one way or another been funded and discovered with science.
There’s the bronze-age and there’s the dark-age. The big bang model of the universe is based on the dark age; it’s 96% in the dark.If you want to go live back in the bronze-age, go ahead, I won't stop you.
A firm grasp on reality is enough for me.Unless you have a firm grasp on Quantum Field Theory, let the people who have spent a decade in school do what they do best.
The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.Saying 'goddidit' is just giving up. Science doesn't do that. If the evidence supported this so called 'god energy' then that would be the accepted explanation.
Wikipedia:Did writing that drivel make you feel better? This clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding about what a scientific theory is, and how the scientific method works.
So?...What peer-reviewed papers are you reading? You know quite a few dinosaurs had feathers, right?
When you find out what actually happened get back to me. In the mean time, evolution theory can take a hike.And in the evolutionary chain it was recently discovered that rather than us splitting off from chimpanzees, it may have actually been the other way around!
The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.
Therefore the evolution of bird from dinosaur and human from ape is inferred, not proven.
Or the evidence is not properly investigated by the “experts”.
Birds from dinosaurs and humans from apes are not proven to be true. They are only inferred to be true based on the evidence.
It’s like guilt being inferred upon an innocent man in a court of law based on the fallible human interpretation of the evidence. This often happens in the court of law, even after “expert” investigation of the evidence by people with PhDs.
In search of the “god particle” and “extraterrestrial life”.
Wikipedia:
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge...Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.”
“[/B] Experiments are used by people all the time, whether it's testing the effects of a drug, or trying to cook something new. The scientific method is an attempt to ensure that we learn as much as possible from these tests, since there are many challenges to running a good experiment”
A dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur with feathers. Nothing more.
When you find out what actually happened get back to me. In the mean time, evolution theory can take a hike.
It's not a straw man. You don't like it when a more affectionate appellation like "natural" is removed. That's all that's happening here.Other than the fact 'chance and necessity' are just a straw man,
Actually it is not viable. Testing of the Darwinian mechanism has come leaps and bounds.we have conclusively proven that common descent is a fact. It's supported by every field of science. You are the one who must provide evidence that a god exists.
You are mistaking you for me. In the event of Darwinism's demise, you fall back on the Thor argument, I don't.Even if you could somehow prove that evolutionary theory was completely wrong tomorrow, that 1) wouldn't prove creationism,
Lucky for you, we are dealing with the property of intelligence where your understanding should be up to par.and 2) wouldn't prove the existence of a deity, much less a specific one...
No we don't say cars don't evolve. We say testing of the mechanism of adaptation in a car shows that that mechanism is not viable in accounting for the diversity of machinery on the planet.Cars don't evolve, humans make cars. They don't have DNA that mutates through successive generations, and therefore can't evolve. A nice strawman though.
It's not a straw man. You don't like it when a more affectionate appellation like "natural" is removed. That's all that's happening here.
Actually it is not viable. Testing of the Darwinian mechanism has come leaps and bounds.
You are mistaking you for me. In the event of Darwinism's demise, you fall back on the Thor argument, I don't.
Lucky for you, we are dealing with the property of intelligence where your understanding should be up to par.
No we don't say cars don't evolve. We say testing of the mechanism of adaptation in a car shows that that mechanism is not viable in accounting for the diversity of machinery on the planet.
The mutations are selected because they are needed for the conditions which arise.No, it's still a straw man. It's chance (beneficial mutations) and selection pressure (natural selection).
Actually Darwinism has never overcome multiple factors to establish itself.Saying it's not viable is does not prove anything, other than the fact you're completely deluded by your religious convictions. Yes, the evidence and tests confirming the theory of evolution to be absolutely true has come leaps and bounds. What is the point you're making with that statement? We know more than we ever have, and every thing we find confirms the theory. We have never found a single piece of evidence that breaks the theory.
As just outlined, you would continue to look for evidence to refute intelligent design after the Darwinian attempt.What 'Thor' argument? And please stop calling it 'darwinism', which is a derogative term, not a scientific one. No, if the theory of evolution was somehow completely gone tomorrow, we'd start looking for a new theory to fit the evidence and observations we have. We don't just jump to 'oh our theory that has fit perfectly for so long is gone, god really must have been the one to have done it!' Which is what you guys already without even trying to get rid of the theory yourselves.
Intelligent DesignSo a deistic god? Still gets you not a single step closer to your theistic judeo-christian god.
Finally, we get past the first phase. It has only taken couple posts and several weeks. Testing and observation done on the adaptive mechanism(s) do not support Darwinian evolution.And yet it's still an absolutely false analogy. The theory of evolution has many different mechanisms behind it, and they've all been proven to work, and continue to work today. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, they happen, it's part of reality.
The mutations are selected because they are needed for the conditions which arise.
Actually Darwinism has never overcome multiple factors to establish itself.
As just outlined, you would continue to look for evidence to refute intelligent design after the Darwinian attempt.
Intelligent Design
Finally, we get past the first phase. It has only taken couple posts and several weeks. Testing and observation done on the adaptive mechanism(s) do not support Darwinian evolution.
It's chance and necessity.And that is natural selection... what was the point of that whole exchange if you're just confirming the science?
The potency of random mutations, long-term trends derived from short-term analysis, etcOh? And what would these 'factors' be? It is universally established in science and education everywhere. The only real place it gets any problems is from the religious creationist movement in the US, led by political goals, not science.
Creationism uses the work done in ID. Archeology also uses ID. Neither Archeology nor Creationism are ID directly.Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, which automatically makes it not science. Would you also please stop calling evolution 'Darwinism'? It's disrespectful and rude. If you're here to attempt to establish creation or ID as a legitimate science, then do so, but rudely dismissing evolution with baseless claims and false statements is not doing your reputation any favors.
Actually ID is falsifiable and is already used in multiple branches of physical scienceA meaningless political stunt. It meant nothing then and it means nothing now. It's unfalsifiable and not science.
It's okay to modify the theory. Modify it to accommodate discoveries such as the limitations of adaptation,, the impotency of random mutations, irreducibly complex systems, the intelligent mechanism used in adaptation, etc.It might help you to cite some sources rather than spouting this completely absurd nonsense. The mechanisms you talk about are the entire basis of the theory. When we discover a new mechanism we modify the theory. Saying the mechanisms don't support the theory that was created to link and explain how they work is just ludicrous to the highest degree!
What gaps?God of the gaps?
CERN.Verify it empirically. Do some experiments as you demand of us. What are you waiting for?
Logical inference is not truth. I prefer truth.Inferred from the evidence we have. You seem to have some kind of grudge against logical inference?
Maybe humans and apes ate the same fruit and picked up the same virus.You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that genetics prove beyond any doubt at all that humans and apes have common ancestors. Unless your god is so tricky he inserted retroviral DNA in just the right locations on all of these species so it would look exactly like common descent, just to test our faith.
No. Im just saying innocent people are sent to prison wrongfully simply because of poor interpretation of the evidence by the experts.Somebody's been drinking the 'Expelled' kool-aid. Still on about some massive global scientific conspiracy to cover up all that evidence for creationism?
You obviously dont know how science works. Proven true does not apply to scientific theories.Well, yes, originally those common ancestors were deduced via the massive pile of evidence and reason, but now they are proven true by DNA evidence.
Even with all this evidence an innocent man can still be convicted. So to each man his own analogy. Either analogy can be applicable, in my opinion.This is not a very good analogy, so I made a more fitting one:
It's like a suspect being arrested due to inferred guilt from the weapon found at the scene belonging to the suspect, shoe prints matching the suspects, fibers matching the suspects clothes and his fngerprints on the gun and a window of the house. This would normally be quite enough evidence to convict a criminal. But it's like have all this evidence, and being quite certain, then having the lab come back and say that the DNA in the blood found on the suspect matched the DNA of the victim.
Yep. We can finally prove the existence of God once and for all.Yes, we built CERN to help search for the Higgs Boson. It's an experiment to verify a theory... isn't that what you wanted?
Good luck.And extraterrestrial life? Very little funding goes to that, and because of the odds of there being at least some sort of life present somewhere else in the galaxy are so astronomically good, we're taking our chances.
Actually, I was just focusing on the most important part. Experimentation is the most reliable way in making sure our eyes are not deceiving us. After all, eyewitness reports are very unreliable. I dont think we should trust our eyes alone to try to figure out what we are seeing at such great distances, otherwise we might only see 4% of the universe and miss the other 96%.Did you really think I was going to let you get away with quote mining? Here's the part you took out with the '...'
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge."
And the part directly following:
"Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."
So basically all that's been proven is your ability to make use of dishonest tactics. I think your intent was to try to get the quote mine to suggest that experimentation was the only way to verify and corroborate scientific evidence. Well, just by reading the rest of the quote, your entire premise becomes moot.
What experiment have you run to test dark matter and dark energy? Where can we even find some dark matter and dark energy to test?Again, all this says is that in science we run experiments to test ideas...
Im aware of that.We are pretty set on how it went down.
Dinosaur becoming bird and ape becoming man.What part are you curious about?
It's chance and necessity.
The potency of random mutations, long-term trends derived from short-term analysis, etc
Creationism uses the work done in ID. Archeology also uses ID. Neither Archeology nor Creationism are ID directly.
Actually ID is falsifiable and is already used in multiple branches of physical science
It's okay to modify the theory. Modify it to accommodate discoveries
such as the limitations of adaptation
the impotency of random mutations
irreducibly complex systems
the intelligent mechanism used in adaptation
Maybe humans and apes ate the same fruit and picked up the same virus.
This glorious piece of nonsense deserves being singled out. You hear that all you HIV positive people? Nothing to do with sex at all. It's all because you ate the same fruit.
Hilarious, excellent atheist witness
See belowAnd yet if you would look at some peer-reviewed papers you'd see how all of these support the theory.
Intelligent design - ConservapediaThe fundamental problem is that no 'work' gets done in ID, it's a politically motivated sham. Archeology does not in any way, shape or form 'use' ID, and I know quite a few archeologists who would frown upon you making such an accusation.
One example.Show me how it's falsifiable, rather than just make the claim that it is. And no, it's not used any any branch of science whatsoever. Curious as to why? Because ID isn't science!
This video should help you out should you choose to watch it.And what are these fabled limitations that only you and your creationist ilk have stumbled upon?
Already have.I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear about them!
It hasn't. One long term experimentation on random mutation includesBeen debunked multiple times, so stop using it. Again, just makes you look ignorant.
They haven't been debunked.None have been shown to exist. They have been proposed, and all of them have been debunked. Irreducible complexity is Behe's little pride and joy, yet has no basis in science.
It's was simply designed as another god of the gaps idea.
I'm not talking about natural selection. From 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000Natural selection is just that; natural. It's very good at forming the illusion of design though.
Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design
YouTube - Irreducible complexity cut down to size
The first part of the video mainly deals with animations on the eye.DEBUNKED.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?