DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
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.
Why the speculation buzz words in every article?
Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy
Therefore it should only be taught as theory, and not paraded as fact.
Sorry but alot of your rebuttals have no actual back up and are just more provisional facts.
Facts don't change, only theories do. As we gain a better and better understanding of the world. Which is precisely the reason why science is the best method we have to describe the world. Because it tests and retests its theories and modifies or discards any that are found wanting.
Theories, particularly in the scientific meaning of the world, that change are infinitely preferable to dogma that doesn't change even when that dogma is clearly wrong.
BTW: Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is taught as fact, and the (scientific) theory of evolution is taught as theory. Which is as it should be.
Theories explain facts. Evolution theory explains the facts of evolution, just like germ theory explains the facts of germs and gravitation theory explains the facts of gravity.
Another person that fails at science terminology...
newsflash: really strong theories, are "still theories". Theories don't turn into facts in science. Theories explain facts. Evolution theory explains the facts of evolution, just like germ theory explains the facts of germs and gravitation theory explains the facts of gravity.
Your rebuttal is one of semantics and scientific illiteracy.
Yes but evolution is not taught as theory is it?
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
Your also wrong that wrong dogma doesn`t get changed. Of course it`s die hard adherents refuse to budge as their interests are malevolent. But many have challenged and changed false dogmas even at the cost of their own lives, would you? Do you not know of Martin Luthers stand against the Catholic church? William Tyndale who translated bible into english so the common man could see how false teachers were taking advantage of them?
The theory of evolution is taught as a theory.Yes but evolution is not taught as theory is it?
Wrong.
The so called facts being backed up by those theories are not facts
, but mathematics that can be wrong
Is it not a fact that germs can potentially cause you to be sick?Even germ theories and facts are found to be wrong.
Evolution is taught as fact in schools
, and they dont say "we think" the world or atifacts etc are so many millions of years old, they say "we know"
I used to be an atheist, but when God showed up it was all over. Your welcome to your sad delusion, but I know God is real and I never will go back.
i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.I've been asking how the specialized tissue evolves that makes it possible; down to the molecular level. So far....crickets.
i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.
so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:If it's organic and living, what makes it a robot? What do you define as a "robot" that allows such a thing to be alive? If it's alive, I assume it's a living thing and not a robot.
Actually, that's wrong. 100% certainty is almost unheard of in science. Scientific papers include extensive statistical analysis that checks for the likelihood of their results being found by random chance. If there's greater than, say, a 1% probability of their results being caused by chance, their findings are deemed not significant. In science, significance is used in the statistical sense of the word, not its common use. Papers that demonstrate findings with high statistical significance are the most reliable, but no one says their work is 100% accurate. Instead they say something like "the chance that this happened by chance is 0.0000000000000000001%"
You’d have to have VERIFIABLE evidence of the designer, not faith in the designer, to be accepted as science
The gene that makes a bacterial light sensing pigment is the same gene that is the “ master control gene” for eye formation in animals that have eyes. There is the molecular level you asked for . IIRC it’s called bacteriorhodopsin
Not really, it just means the mixture formed an exothermic reaction that happened quickly . Exothermic means that the starting products were at a higher energy state than the end products and it gave off that excess energy as heat. Simple chemical reaction that once started goes by itself
No. Design can only be concluded if there is evidence of human manufacture. If there is no evidence of human manufacture then no conclusion can be reached, one way or the other.so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:
(image from https://www.amazon.com/Treehut-Genuine-Leather-Quality-Movement/dp/B00PT75I7Y)
That's such a weird line to take, since the theory of evolution has helped with many forms of biomedical science, especially with heritable diseases and problems.
I didn't necessarily need to find out that my sister and I stand a good chance of inheriting glaucoma from our father, but it's because of the work done with the theory of evolution that we know that (rather unpleasant) fact.
How did the "master control gene" evolve?
Oh please. Like you'd understand them or are sincerely interested in them. Anything evidence we present to you will be hand waved away.
Whenever a Creationist acts like they're sincerely interested in the evidence, they're being dishonest.
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?