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.
Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
That is the thing -- there is no such thing as a fact. Scientifically speaking, what we call facts is something that we almost sure to be true -- like 99.9999999999....999% sure. But there is always a small chance -- however negligible -- that something else makes planes fly. That is if they do fly -- you might be dreaming them up. Like in "The Matrix" movie.
Here is Stephen Hawkings quote from "A Brief History of Time":
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Your choice
My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Your choice
My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
So you are saying there is no difference - or at least it is negligible - between the faith I need to believe in a god, or the faith that I can survive in space without air?
I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.You sure like that term.
Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
BTW: Prediction validated.
Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
yes you can.Yes,smoke and dust.
Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
Can you see the wind driving them ?
Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.You can add condensation as well.
Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, scientific explanation of how it comes about..
If there is no air you have no condensation.
No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
wrong again , if the pull of gravity was slightly less we could fly ,after all flying is just a very long jump.No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
That is the thing -- there is no such thing as a fact. Scientifically speaking, what we call facts is something that we almost sure to be true -- like 99.9999999999....999% sure. But there is always a small chance -- however negligible -- that something else makes planes fly. That is if they do fly -- you might be dreaming them up. Like in "The Matrix" movie.
Here is Stephen Hawkings quote from "A Brief History of Time":
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Humans cannont live in space without air. That is a fact. A fish cannot survive out of water. A human cannot live in water without SCUBA gear. These are boni fide facts. Now, a human may one day grow gills, but I very much doubt it.
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
Oh no natural selection created intelligence
How do you know the conditions of the earth if supposedly by theory shortly before life the earth was bombarded by meteors ?
How bout all tranitional organisms ?
Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Your choice
My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
yes you can.Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
Can you see the wind driving them ?
there are several ways ,smoke and dust denote the direction of the wind and outline it's basic shape
there are also microscopic techniques, film,
you feel and smell the wind.
two of your three main senses informing your third.
so your question is bullshit!
Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Your choice
My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
Sorry but you posted answers to my questions that can't be verified, to believe your views would require faith.
if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, scientific explanation of how it comes about..
If there is no air you have no condensation.
ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
again it's an amazingly stupid statement
