If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[Loudmouth]

Have you edited Wikipedia to fit your belief that activation energy cannot be the cause

Activation energy is not the cause for the order of atoms that decay. As I said before, every atom of an isotope has the same activation energy. So why don't they all decay at the same time?

Secondly, I don't need to edit Wiki because they are saying the same thing I am. From here:

"As discussed above, the decay of an unstable nucleus (radionuclide) is entirely random and it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay."

Thirdly, it is not a belief, it is an observation.

Balderdash! Causes are experienced throughout the physical universe, but Leprechauns are not.

The Christian God is not experienced or observed either, nor is this "intelligent cause" that you keep speaking of. What is observed is quantum level events that are random and unpredictable without a known cause. What causes a photon to land in a specific spot in an interference pattern in a double slit experiment? No one knows, but the overall pattern can be predicted. It is called the problem of the observer. One of the better known thought experiments is Schroedinger's Cat. Do a google on this cat and be prepared to abandon common sense.

 

[livingdeadgirl07]

First of all, evolution is a proven theory.

There has been no proof provided by science that confirms miracles the bible has claimed ever happened, and if you believe there has, I suggest you get your head checked. It's pretty easy to write a fictional piece of literature and include factual places.

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest you read the book "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It may help to clear up some confusion.

(p.s., evolution is not a proven theory. It remains a theory, thus making "proven theory" an oxymoron. There is no such thing, as a "proven theory")

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest you read the book "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It may help to clear up some confusion.

(p.s., evolution is not a proven theory. It remains a theory, thus making "proven theory" an oxymoron. There is no such thing, as a "proven theory")

Sorry that you are living dead, some day you may come to find that much of what you have been told is in error. We can start with Lee Strobel who has not told the truth about his stories or why he has written them. If you wish to stick around, you may learn a great deal.

 

[Lord_Marx]

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest you read the book "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It may help to clear up some confusion.

(p.s., evolution is not a proven theory. It remains a theory, thus making "proven theory" an oxymoron. There is no such thing, as a "proven theory")

In science a theory is more or less a fact.

 

[random_guy]

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest you read the book "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It may help to clear up some confusion.

(p.s., evolution is not a proven theory. It remains a theory, thus making "proven theory" an oxymoron. There is no such thing, as a "proven theory")

Actually, there's no such thing as a proven theory since you can't prove things in science. D McCloud is wrong since evolution isn't a proven theory. However, it is a scientific theory, which is the basically the best thing you can have in science, just like theory of relativity and germ theory.

To clear up any confusions, theories do not get promoted into facts or laws. Laws are usually mathematical descriptions for observations, like the Law of Gravity. Just because something is a Law, doesn't mean it's correct. Again, the Law of Gravity gives incorrect results at high speeds or near massive objects.

 

[Dannager]

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest you read the book "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It may help to clear up some confusion.

Stobel's books are pretty one-sided in both his examination of opinions and interviews. They boil down to op-ed books at the core. I'm not a big fan of Strobel's method in presenting what he refers to as evidence, nor with his selection of interview subjects (he likes the DI a lot).

(p.s., evolution is not a proven theory. It remains a theory, thus making "proven theory" an oxymoron. There is no such thing, as a "proven theory")

As others have pointed out, you are correct, to a degree. There is no such thing as a proven theory, that's right. However, your saying that it "remains a theory" tells me that you might not understand what scientific theories actually represent. Theories, in the scientific sense, don't graduate to or become facts or laws. Theories are simply explanations for observations and evidences, and if a theory still stands that means it is strong. In fact, the longer a theory stands, and the more effort that has been put forward towards testing the theory, the stronger the theory is. At well over a century old, evolutionary theory is one of the strongest theories that the scientific community currently has.

 

[JohnR7]

Stobel's books are pretty one-sided in both his examination of opinions and interviews.

Lee Strobe is one of the good guys, he does not insult your intelligence and he does not waste your time. Like a good journalist, he does the research and condenses it down. Along with Josh McDowell, they do a good job of presenting their case.