Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
deaddude said:Science does not ask for proof merely the ability to be tested and possibly disproven. The big bang theory is supported by the discovery of the red shift. Primordial soup theory is supported by numerous experiments.
Genesis is also supported, but by religous evidence, one does not test God, it even says so in the Bible. it is not testable but no less viable as a possibility. However it is not science nor should it try to be, to try and make it a science is to eliminate the element of faith.
SpidermanTuba said:Any idea which is rigorously tested through observation will be accepted by scientists.
Are you suggesting we modify science to include ideas which are not testable? What would be the point?
So it took God 6 infinitely long days to create the Earth? What is 6 times infinity? You're not too good with math, are you?
The Big Bang is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence, namely, the observed fact that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from us. This is not "creationism" - this is a theory which is testable and has in fact been tested.
SpidermanTuba said:This is why ID is not a scientific theory. There is no way to gather evidence, which can be communicated to other scientists, which would either show it to be true or not.
Furthermore, I fail to see what it has to do with God. ID doesn not even propose that a God must exist. Further, evolution does not propose that a God must not exist.
WTF are you talking about? Take your meds.
liberalogic said:I don't deny the existence of God, but I struggle with the concept of having an almighty being and how he came into existence. My problem with religion is that it can only take you so far until the questioning ends:
Who put us here?
God put us here.
Who put God there?
God exists outside of space and time and therefore has always existed.
I'm not saying that there is science to back up God's existence (which is why i detest ID), but as an individual I just feel like there has to be more. And I do understand the meaning of faith and its power, but at the same time, it leaves me feeling a bit empty because it doesn't work on a "logical" (shall we say) level.
Abbey Normal said:I do not claim to be an evolution expert, so I can't "assure you", but where are all the transitional form fossils to support this observable theory?
manu1959 said:scientific wmd's they are there i tell you
Abbey Normal said:Maybe if we get all our kids out in the backyard to dig holes to China...
GotZoom said:Isn't that interesting. He was here at the beginning of our last series of responses but now has mysteriously disappeared.
manu1959 said:if they belive it is evidence it is evidence who are you to tell them it is not?
if you can belive that "nothing, bang, soup, man" can occur and your evidence is the writtings of scientists, written millions of years after the fact....and force those writtings to be taught in all schools without exception.....then you should at least be tollerant and allow those that belive...."nothing, six days, rest, man".... equal time ..... their theroy is as plausible as yours
a man once said....."science was created by man to help man undertstand what God had done and how it was done."
oh yea, symetrical arguments are hard to do after a bottle of vino
manu1959 said:what about the scientist that say the big bang is crap? and that the scientist of the 50s and 60s were wrong?
which experiment duplicated the creation of life from primodial ooooz? where did the find a sample of the oooz to duplicate the conditions?
deaddude said:They proved that living cells could form from nonliving organic compounds under conditions similar to what could theoreticly be found on primordial earth.
no1tovote4 said:Link us up. So far as I understand it, none of those experiments has produced any positive results to the creation of even a single cell.
GotZoom said:So, in your assuring, intellectual wisdom spidey, answer this question for me.
What must happen for X to be 100% proven? Must you see it? Touch it? Feel it?
What are the requirements for something to be factual?
SpidermanTuba said:"proven" and "fact" are more along the lines of something a lawyer would worry about.
Science is more concerned with whether or not a theory is useful. A theory is useful if it predicts past, present, and future observation.
manu1959 said:your ability to go to class and take tests is laudable and has nothing to do with my trust....my trust is earned through respect .... post 46 proves you are a liar .... a self proclaimed well eduated liar with a need to prove they know what they know but a liar none the less ....
Abbey Normal said:I do not claim to be an evolution expert, so I can't "assure you", but where are all the transitional form fossils to support this observable theory?
manu1959 said:what about the scientist that say the big bang is crap? and that the scientist of the 50s and 60s were wrong?
