Which came first...

[Code-Monkey]

The only intellectual superiority I see on the part of scientists is their warranted confidence in the fact that their claims are emperically supported, whereas those of whomever is likely arguing with them, are not.

If I see an apple fall, and I begin to notice the pattern, then I make a prediction and it happens as I suggested. Does that mean that my claim that it will always happen has just been empirically supported?

1. If something happens at least 10 times, then it will continue to always happen again in the future.
2. This happened 10 times.
3. Therefore, this will continue to always happen again in the future.

 

[Muko]

"Evolution takes just as much faith as creation!!!!11!!"

If you have some empirical evidence for it, I believe Dr. Hovind is still offering like $50k for it. I'd suggest going to see him... after all, science is based completely on empirical evidence... right?

"Evolution is one big conspiracy to stifle the holes in the theory and fill the world with baby eating atheists!!!one!!"

'Fraid I never said anything even close to that.

Look, I don't have a problem with science, I personally like science, and I always have. I simply don't like lies, and I especially don't like when I'm skeptical of a certain theory that I'm called an idiot for it. I thought science was open to opposing theories? It doesn't seem that way to me. Did you know that it's about impossible to get any anti-evolution piece into a scientific journal? No matter how many facts you have, it won't be accepted. Even if you don't draw the conclusion that evolution isn't true, if it is damning to any "proof" of evolution you might as well not submit it. That's the reason Christian science journals are around in the first place.

 

[:æ:]

If you have some empirical evidence for it, I believe Dr. Hovind is still offering like $50k for it.

The prize is listed as $250,000 actually, but the offer is a fraud. His criteria require more than simple demonstration of biological evolution, but rather it requires basically a falsification of theism. Since theism is unfalsifiable, his offer is simply a sham.

I thought science was open to opposing theories?

Creationism is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable.

Did you know that it's about impossible to get any anti-evolution piece into a scientific journal?

No it isn't. It's about impossible to get non-scientific religious nonsense into a scientific journal, and rightly so.

No matter how many facts you have, it won't be accepted.

That's simply false. The problem is that creationism has no factual basis.

Even if you don't draw the conclusion that evolution isn't true, if it is damning to any "proof" of evolution you might as well not submit it.

How in the world would that work? "I have evidence damning to the theory of evolution, but I'm not concluding that evolution isn't true." Anyone whose thesis is approximated by that sentence isn't thinking clearly to begin with.

That's the reason Christian science journals are around in the first place.

"Christian science" is not "Creation science." There is nothing anti-Christian about evolution, your faulty biblical interpretations notwithstanding.

:æ:

 

[puregrl]

The chicken, i agree with the first one, an egg cannot survive on its own.
It would get eaten or something, a chicken could peck things away, hahaha

 

[Quijote]

uhmm...the chicken because it's an actuality...the egg is a potentiality...????