Monkeys to Men

[Subduction Zone]

Not everyone agrees with your assumption that scientist was the result of theory of evolution which came out of the heart of the scientist which is idolatry.

Wrong, simply wrong. The problem is that you are making a false idol of the Bible and projecting again.


Science is respected because it works.

 

[Smidlee]

Wrong, simply wrong. The problem is that you are making a false idol of the Bible and projecting again.


Science is respected because it works.

Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.

Technology works while science is constantly has to be corrected because it's based on human opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.

Technology works while science is constantly has to be corrected because it's based on human opinion.

Still wrong. You should not be relying on the Bible for your science. That is your flaw. You are breaking the Second Commandment by making a false idol of a work of man. And no, it has nothing to do with "the heart of the scientist". Try to cut down on the word salad and you might make an accurate post.

The reason that science is always changing is because it is always self correcting. Science may not be 100% correct, but it is always becoming more and more correct. That is a major flaw of your Bible. It is loaded with errors and there is no way to correct it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.

Technology works while science is constantly has to be corrected because it's based on human opinion.

Science is based on evidence, not on opinion.

 

[Smidlee]

Science is based on evidence, not on opinion.

You are on the jury in a trial of a murder. Evidence is presented where in your opinion the defendant is guilty then suddenly one piece of evidence turn the4 tables and you realize the defendant was framed. Evidence doesn't interpret itself which is why the court has juries. The evidence is not what changed.

 

[Smidlee]

Still wrong. You should not be relying on the Bible for your science. That is your flaw.

I never claimed I relied on the Bible for my science as science has to have a foundation from which it rests upon. If you know anything about the history of science you would know men in the past used to based science on that view as well. The Bible doesn't deal with science that is constantly changing but the heart of scientist which all science come from. I'm honest about my worldview in which my scientific views rest upon. Your views rested upon evolution as truth. It's Dawkin's religious views that cause him to assume design found in nature is an illusion. Intelligent Design goes against his faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed I relied on the Bible for my science as science has to have a foundation from which it rests upon. If you know anything about the history of science you would know men in the past used to based science on that view as well. The Bible doesn't deal with science that is constantly changing but the heart of scientist which all science come from. I'm honest about my worldview in which my scientific views rest upon. Your views rested upon evolution as truth. It's Dawkin's religious views that cause him to assume design found in nature is an illusion. Intelligent Design goes against his faith.

You certainly don't rely on actual science. Yes, the Bible used to play a role in man's beliefs. But as time went by they found that it was not a reliable source when read literally, need I remind you of Galileo?

And no, the Bible does not deal in science any way at all. And now you have claimed that you rely on the Bible. And no, my views don't rest upon "evolution as truth". My views rest simply upon evidence and the scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. Quite often creationists get cause and effect reversed.

 

[Smidlee]

You certainly don't rely on actual science. Yes, the Bible used to play a role in man's beliefs. But as time went by they found that it was not a reliable source when read literally, need I remind you of Galileo?

And no, the Bible does not deal in science any way at all. And now you have claimed that you rely on the Bible. And no, my views don't rest upon "evolution as truth". My views rest simply upon evidence and the scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. Quite often creationists get cause and effect reversed.

Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.

 

[ananda]

IMO degrees of DNA similarity does not show progressive evolution; instead, it shows the effect of kamma (e.g. a monkey might have been reborn as a monkey due to somewhat more negative kamma than a man).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.

Nope, you don't even know what evidence is. Or did you forget how all of the creationists here failed that challenge?

 

[Smidlee]

Nope, you don't even know what evidence is. Or did you forget how all of the creationists here failed that challenge?

So now you think you got a monopoly on evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you think you got a monopoly on evidence?

We have a monopoly on scientific evidence. Of course that is only the fault of creationists. Do you know what scientific evidence is?

 

[Smidlee]

We have a monopoly on scientific evidence. Of course that is only the fault of creationists. Do you know what scientific evidence is?

I think you are in denial. All evidence has to be interpreted by a human being. Pride of man cause him to think he has a monopoly on evidence, truth and science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are in denial. All evidence has to be interpreted by a human being. Pride of man cause him to think he has a monopoly on evidence, truth and science.

Nope, there is a specific definition of scientific evidence. Your side has none because it will not follow the scientific method. I am not saying that they could not have any. The fact is that the few competent scientists that you have are afraid of putting their ideas in such a form that they could have scientific evidence.

I am more than happy to go over this topic with you.

 

[Smidlee]

Nope, there is a specific definition of scientific evidence. Your side has none because it will not follow the scientific method. I am not saying that they could not have any. The fact is that the few competent scientists that you have are afraid of putting their ideas in such a form that they could have scientific evidence.

I am more than happy to go over this topic with you.

All science has to have a foundation which can't be proven by science. Your foundation (religion) is evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All science has to have a foundation which can't be proven by science. Your foundation (religion) is evolution.

Wrong try again. The foundation of science, which is not a religion, please quite projecting, is not evolution. Evolution is a result of science. You are getting cause and effect reversed again.

I thought that you wanted to discuss that nature of evidence? Or is that still to scary of a subject?

 

[Smidlee]

Wrong try again. The foundation of science, which is not a religion, please quite projecting, is not evolution. Evolution is a result of science. You are getting cause and effect reversed again.

I thought that you wanted to discuss that nature of evidence? Or is that still to scary of a subject?

What does it take for an animal to become a scientist? As long as you don't know your own heart there is little need to talk about evidence.

 

[Gracchus]

Perhaps I should have put in a sarcasm disclaimer.

Poe's Law was formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005. The law emerged at the Creation & Evolution forum on the website Christianforums.com. Like most such places, it had seen a large number of creationist parody postings. These were usually followed by at least one user starting a flame war (a series of angry and offensive personal attacks) thinking it was a serious post and taking it at face value. Nathan Poe summarized this pattern in his original formulation of the law: “”Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.”

– Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does it take for an animal to become a scientist? As long as you don't know your own heart there is little need to talk about evidence.

More nonsense on your part. I must run for now so take your time on your next answer.

 

[The Cadet]

Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.

All right. Please outline your theory of how life diversified, the falsification criteria, and what evidence there is for this.