Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Oncedeceived]

Hilarious.

Oh? Why is that hilarious?

 

[crjmurray]

Oh? Why is that hilarious?

I've found that explaining a joke often takes away from the humor. I think it is best to let a joke stand on it's own.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've found that explaining a joke often takes away from the humor. I think it is best to let a joke stand on it's own.

It won't be so funny when you realize the joke is on you.

 

[justlookinla]

I've found that explaining a joke often takes away from the humor. I think it is best to let a joke stand on it's own.

The punch line is "and they think they're no more than a sack of chemicals".

 

[crjmurray]

It won't be so funny when you realize the joke is on you.

Likewise.

 

[Zosimus]

Christians believe that the Bible contains truth and that study of the Bible leads to knowledge of the truth.

Naturalist scientists disagree. They believe that knowledge comes from sense experience, experiments, and a peer-review process.

Some people in this thread have challenged Bible apologists to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether the Bible were true.

I challenge those scientific apologists here to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether empiricism leads to truth.

 

[crjmurray]

Christians believe that the Bible contains truth and that study of the Bible leads to knowledge of the truth.

Naturalist scientists disagree. They believe that knowledge comes from sense experience, experiments, and a peer-review process.

Some people in this thread have challenged Bible apologists to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether the Bible were true.

I challenge those scientific apologists here to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether empiricism leads to truth.

Make a thread on that topic. See what happens.

 

[Loudmouth]

Christians believe that the Bible contains truth and that study of the Bible leads to knowledge of the truth.

Naturalist scientists disagree. They believe that knowledge comes from sense experience, experiments, and a peer-review process.

Some people in this thread have challenged Bible apologists to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether the Bible were true.

I challenge those scientific apologists here to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether empiricism leads to truth.

Creationists claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence. Therefore, it is up to them to show that their claims meet the standards set by science. It isn't up to scientists to show that the metaphysical axioms of the scientific method can be proven, which is a bit contradictory to begin with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence. Therefore, it is up to them to show that their claims meet the standards set by science. It isn't up to scientists to show that the metaphysical axioms of the scientific method can be proven, which is a bit contradictory to begin with.

I agree.

For any who want to do that, then they should walk their talk.

 

[justlookinla]

Creationists claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence. Therefore, it is up to them to show that their claims meet the standards set by science. It isn't up to scientists to show that the metaphysical axioms of the scientific method can be proven, which is a bit contradictory to begin with.

What creationists claim that? The Darwinist evolutionists in their claim of how humanity was created?

 

[Zosimus]

Creationists claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence. Therefore, it is up to them to show that their claims meet the standards set by science. It isn't up to scientists to show that the metaphysical axioms of the scientific method can be proven, which is a bit contradictory to begin with.

Please quote a few creationists who say so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please quote a few creationists who say so.

"Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West. "
http://www.discovery.org/about

It has long been known that the Intelligent Design movement seeks to give creationism a scientific veneer.

 

[Zosimus]

"Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West. "
http://www.discovery.org/about

It has long been known that the Intelligent Design movement seeks to give creationism a scientific veneer.

The link that you provided did not contain the word "creationism" on it anywhere.

Please provide a link in which Christians claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

"Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West. "
http://www.discovery.org/about

It has long been known that the Intelligent Design movement seeks to give creationism a scientific veneer.

The Darwinist evolutionists also seek to give Darwinist creationism a scientific veneer. What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

It has long been known that the Intelligent Design movement seeks to give creationism a scientific veneer.

Does it?

In your opinion?

 

[justlookinla]

The link that you provided did not contain the word "creationism" on it anywhere.

Please provide a link in which Christians claim that creationism is supported by the scientific method and scientific evidence.

Ain't gonna happen. But to be fair, neither should those who promote the Darwinist view of how humanity was created.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does it?

In your opinion?

By their own words.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

mia culpa.
i noticed that after i posted.
in my opinion, the argument isn't so much that god is real, but an argument that god is required due to the human condition.
morality MUST come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.

Well perhaps there is no morality. One could accept that and be consistent.

 

[justlookinla]

By their own words.

Notice folks that the switcheroo tactic is fully employed here. Now it's going to be about intelligent design which wasn't part of the original claim and will begin an argument about intelligent design being creationism or not.

Not exactly forthright.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no 'you' to think. There is no 'you' to experience anything. Reactive chemical compounds isn't a 'you'.

Why not? Are you under the impression you are a sack of chemicals plus some ectoplasm? What has ectoplasm got that plain chemicals don't have?