ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal
-
-
Arrogant too.....
I am completely ok with leaving that one alone.....you scientist priests proudly claim as fairy stories
while expecting the world to believe in your evolution faith that is as empty as the unobserved "billions of years ago" assumptions....
I would point out to you to look at the "observable " proof of things like say, air or water.... or the ever expanding growth of the universe...
you tell me then, from where did they come - how did it start?
humility is a good thing too sometimes - but lost on you
-
LOL Diehard
-
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.[126]
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.[127]
-
Crap. I have the munchies and some chores...but I lol'd, and now I have to watch that
woody video again later. LOL !
Diehard nailed it !
-
We have left over evidence for evolution. We watch it happen in real time in bacteria and viruses. We can see it over generations in some animals.
You are really going to equate faith in a man in the sky making everything in a week to "faith" in the scientific and peer reviewed evidence and experiments over decades that have lead us to the scientific theory of evolution? That is mind-boggling.
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
-
Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.
Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.
What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?
Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.
How old is your book with the tooth fairy origin story though? That is the difference between a religion and a cult
-
Give it a few years. and I think I will be rolling in that naive Retard money.
-
like I said, arrogant.....
and ad hominems aside, I answered honestly dude....
-
I answered honestly as well.
I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with.
I just want to people actually try to support their beliefs.
-
What is wrong with someone believing in the tooth fairy being behind the Big Bang? I hope Fox News writes about how Toothfairians are being persecuted.
-
Quote -
I answered honestly as well.
I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with.
spoken like the two liner sychophant you are lol
-
Alright FairHooker, I am done. Believe whatever you want. Free country.
But don't drag down scientific theories to the level of creationism. Don't equate it to nothing better than faith. Especially when you can't even present anything to support your beliefs other than faith.
-
Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity.
Also, after the explosion, total amnesia as to what caused the explosion, and no evidence of what the spheres composed prior to the explosion.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Yes that is exactly what happened. All at once everything exploded and it all became perfect unique spheres. We will ignore the billions and trillions of years.
I will instead opt for believing the much more feasible explanation that a bearded man in the clouds planned it all.
-
Several of you in here were demanding evidence for intelligent design in such a pompous manner it almost seemed like you had evidence to support another theory.
I was merely reminding you that you don't.
-
Right, there is no evidence to support the big bang theory. None at all. Science just pulled that out of its ass and now we are forcing good, god fearing religious foke to believe in this blasphemous idea just out of spite and the war on religion!
Yeah, no evidence...
I went over this in an earlier post. Argument from Ignorance. Just because we can not fill in everything 100%, it is not a win for creationism/intelligent design.
And again, give me ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the other side. I honestly want to know.
-
Observation of results do not equal evidence supporting a theory. Weren't you all over somebody about causation & correlation?
Yes we can observe planets, light year phenomena, etc. We can't exactly say what caused it though.
To that point, a white beard seems as logical as any other theory (in that they're all utterly ridiculous).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login