Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[bigrebnc1775]

Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.

Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.

I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.

Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.

Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.

There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.

Wind and gravity are facts.

Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.

You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should not even be considered a theory.

I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.

There is insane evidence for evolution.

You might be arguing on a different topic though. There is something out there called abiogenesis, evolution makes absolutely no claims to the origin of life.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as evolution is concerned though, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is fact. What IS debatable is the method by which evolution occurs.

I want to find out since you say life didn't come from the sea as once was taught and that man did not evolve from apes where and when did human life begin on earth?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Usually i try to refrain from getting personal, don't push it or you might need to add me to your ignore list.

Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.

Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.

I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.

Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.

Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.

There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.

Wind and gravity are facts.

Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.

You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should not even be considered a theory.

I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.

Zero evidence for evolution? Really? Wanna talk about how various strains of bacteria have evolved into "super bugs" that are now resistant to antibiotics? That is a direct result of the bacteria evolving into something different because of a change in their environment.

Wanna talk about "non living matter"? Okay........first, what is it that makes something "alive"? I'll give you a hint........it's the electricity contained in that organism. Once the electricity has quit running in the body, it becomes simple material and will break down into its component elements via decay. It's the electricity in your body that makes you "alive".

Now.......with the experiment ran by scientists, they re-created the conditions of the Earth many millions of years ago but the experiment kept failing and not creating DNA strands (the building blocks of life) until AFTER they shocked it with electricity.

As far as Earth being the only place for living things? Again.......let's talk about the meteorite they found in the North Pole that was examined and proven to be from Mars which had BACTERIA FOSSILS IN IT. Ever consider that "life" could have come from another planet?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.

Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.

I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.

Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.

Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.

There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.

Wind and gravity are facts.

Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.

You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should not even be considered a theory.

I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.

Zero evidence for evolution? Really? Wanna talk about how various strains of bacteria have evolved into "super bugs" that are now resistant to antibiotics? That is a direct result of the bacteria evolving into something different because of a change in their environment.

Wanna talk about "non living matter"? Okay........first, what is it that makes something "alive"? I'll give you a hint........it's the electricity contained in that organism. Once the electricity has quit running in the body, it becomes simple material and will break down into its component elements via decay. It's the electricity in your body that makes you "alive".

Now.......with the experiment ran by scientists, they re-created the conditions of the Earth many millions of years ago but the experiment kept failing and not creating DNA strands (the building blocks of life) until AFTER they shocked it with electricity.

As far as Earth being the only place for living things? Again.......let's talk about the meteorite they found in the North Pole that was examined and proven to be from Mars which had BACTERIA FOSSILS IN IT. Ever consider that "life" could have come from another planet?

Do you understand most all organisms have the ability to adapt but because something can adapt does not mean it evolved into something new now does it ? Those bacteria are still bacteria correct ?

If something dies it means it was once alive correct ? there are many things that keep us alive not just electro currents oh boy.

Where did life get the electro currect to start life millions of years ago ? then we are back to the question you were asked earlier that you have ignored.

You let me know when they find life anywhere but earth. But can you explain how they can determine a rock came from mars when no man has ever been there ? How do you know the rock they say is from mars is not really from earth ?

Just to help you with the truth.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

 

[Montrovant]

Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.

Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.

There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.

Wind and gravity are facts.

Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.

You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should not even be considered a theory.

I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.

Zero evidence for evolution? Really? Wanna talk about how various strains of bacteria have evolved into "super bugs" that are now resistant to antibiotics? That is a direct result of the bacteria evolving into something different because of a change in their environment.

Wanna talk about "non living matter"? Okay........first, what is it that makes something "alive"? I'll give you a hint........it's the electricity contained in that organism. Once the electricity has quit running in the body, it becomes simple material and will break down into its component elements via decay. It's the electricity in your body that makes you "alive".

Now.......with the experiment ran by scientists, they re-created the conditions of the Earth many millions of years ago but the experiment kept failing and not creating DNA strands (the building blocks of life) until AFTER they shocked it with electricity.

As far as Earth being the only place for living things? Again.......let's talk about the meteorite they found in the North Pole that was examined and proven to be from Mars which had BACTERIA FOSSILS IN IT. Ever consider that "life" could have come from another planet?

Do you understand most all organisms have the ability to adapt but because something can adapt does not mean it evolved into something new now does it ? Those bacteria are still bacteria correct ?

If something dies it means it was once alive correct ? there are many things that keep us alive not just electro currents oh boy.

Where did life get the electro currect to start life millions of years ago ? then we are back to the question you were asked earlier that you have ignored.

You let me know when they find life anywhere but earth. But can you explain how they can determine a rock came from mars when no man has ever been there ? How do you know the rock they say is from mars is not really from earth ?

Just to help you with the truth.

Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? : Pharyngula

I just wonder if you notice the contradiction in complaining that it cannot be determined that a meteorite came from Mars, yet you expect man to be able to know whether or not there is life anywhere else in the universe?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Zero evidence for evolution? Really? Wanna talk about how various strains of bacteria have evolved into "super bugs" that are now resistant to antibiotics? That is a direct result of the bacteria evolving into something different because of a change in their environment.

Wanna talk about "non living matter"? Okay........first, what is it that makes something "alive"? I'll give you a hint........it's the electricity contained in that organism. Once the electricity has quit running in the body, it becomes simple material and will break down into its component elements via decay. It's the electricity in your body that makes you "alive".

Now.......with the experiment ran by scientists, they re-created the conditions of the Earth many millions of years ago but the experiment kept failing and not creating DNA strands (the building blocks of life) until AFTER they shocked it with electricity.

As far as Earth being the only place for living things? Again.......let's talk about the meteorite they found in the North Pole that was examined and proven to be from Mars which had BACTERIA FOSSILS IN IT. Ever consider that "life" could have come from another planet?

Do you understand most all organisms have the ability to adapt but because something can adapt does not mean it evolved into something new now does it ? Those bacteria are still bacteria correct ?

If something dies it means it was once alive correct ? there are many things that keep us alive not just electro currents oh boy.

Where did life get the electro currect to start life millions of years ago ? then we are back to the question you were asked earlier that you have ignored.

You let me know when they find life anywhere but earth. But can you explain how they can determine a rock came from mars when no man has ever been there ? How do you know the rock they say is from mars is not really from earth ?

Just to help you with the truth.

Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? : Pharyngula

I just wonder if you notice the contradiction in complaining that it cannot be determined that a meteorite came from Mars, yet you expect man to be able to know whether or not there is life anywhere else in the universe?

This thread should be moved to the conspiracy theory board now

 

[SmarterThanHick]

there is no evidence to make it a theory like many other so called theories that are taught in schools lacking evidence.

to which other theories are referring? this should be entertaining.

Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution

If by "faith" you mean "reproducible verifiable evidence with corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines" then sure, my "faith" is in "knowledge". You should not, however, pretend to set such "education" as equal to your faith, which is better defined as having zero supporting evidence found or reproduced anywhere in the universe.

but again, we've already gone over how religious nuts can only use such underhanded misdirection to make a point.

But if you're gonna say life came about through evolution

this is still false. doesn't really matter how many times you think you hear other people saying it when they're really not. what else do the voices tell you?

I want to find out since you say life didn't come from the sea as once was taught and that man did not evolve from apes where and when did human life begin on earth?

man did not evolve from apes. You keep making these really stupid assumptions in your questions that continue to prove you are clueless on this topic. How is it you feel you are in any position to actually evaluate this sound scientific understanding when you have absolutely no idea what it actually is? Do you actually believe any of these moronic claims or are you just making shit up as you go along?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

there is no evidence to make it a theory like many other so called theories that are taught in schools lacking evidence.

to which other theories are referring? this should be entertaining.

Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution

If by "faith" you mean "reproducible verifiable evidence with corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines" then sure, my "faith" is in "knowledge". You should not, however, pretend to set such "education" as equal to your faith, which is better defined as having zero supporting evidence found or reproduced anywhere in the universe.

but again, we've already gone over how religious nuts can only use such underhanded misdirection to make a point.

But if you're gonna say life came about through evolution

this is still false. doesn't really matter how many times you think you hear other people saying it when they're really not. what else do the voices tell you?

I want to find out since you say life didn't come from the sea as once was taught and that man did not evolve from apes where and when did human life begin on earth?

man did not evolve from apes. You keep making these really stupid assumptions in your questions that continue to prove you are clueless on this topic. How is it you feel you are in any position to actually evaluate this sound scientific understanding when you have absolutely no idea what it actually is? Do you actually believe any of these moronic claims or are you just making shit up as you go along?

man did not evolve from apes. You keep making these really stupid assumptions in your questions that continue to prove you are clueless on this topic. How is it you feel you are in any position to actually evaluate this sound scientific understanding when you have absolutely no idea what it actually is? Do you actually believe any of these moronic claims or are you just making shit up as you go along?

Round and round we go. You keep making these really stupid assumptions in your replies to me that continue to prove you are clueless on this topic. All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption. How is it you feel you are in any position to actually evaluate this sound scientific understanding that has been throughly researched for decades when you have absolutely no idea what it actually is? Do you actually believe any of these moronic claims or are you just making shit up as you go along? So tell me where did man come from? If not from apes or the sea as sciencist have shown in their research longer than you have been on this earth. Tell me where did man come from.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption.
You want me to provide supporting evidence showing that YOUR dumb remarks are completely unsupported? You realize that's not the way it works, right? If you make a claim, YOU need to support it. If I call you on your claim being bogus, you need to show it's not. Requesting that I disprove your unproved opinion is like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.

So tell me where did man come from? If not from apes or the sea as sciencist have shown in their research

OK I'm going to find the chart that dumbs this down the most in hopes that you can begin to grasp this concept:

Note where humans are. Note where apes are. Notice how the former in no way comes from the latter any more than either comes from hedgehog. Humans did not evolve from any animal alive on this planet today. You still don't understand that concept.

 

[hipeter924]

Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?

99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.

Philosophy does not work in this area.

Can you prove you are real, and that the reality you perceive is true? Phil 101 makes it clear you can't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption.
You want me to provide supporting evidence showing that YOUR dumb remarks are completely unsupported? You realize that's not the way it works, right? If you make a claim, YOU need to support it. If I call you on your claim being bogus, you need to show it's not. Requesting that I disprove your unproved opinion is like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.

So tell me where did man come from? If not from apes or the sea as sciencist have shown in their research

OK I'm going to find the chart that dumbs this down the most in hopes that you can begin to grasp this concept:

Note where humans are. Note where apes are. Notice how the former in no way comes from the latter any more than either comes from hedgehog. Humans did not evolve from any animal alive on this planet today. You still don't understand that concept.

oh so man did come from a primate. Why did you lie?

 

[Hawkins]

The story of ToE is something like this;

Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.

For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.

Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.

If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.

On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.

Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).

As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!

The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption.
You want me to provide supporting evidence showing that YOUR dumb remarks are completely unsupported? You realize that's not the way it works, right? If you make a claim, YOU need to support it. If I call you on your claim being bogus, you need to show it's not. Requesting that I disprove your unproved opinion is like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.

So tell me where did man come from? If not from apes or the sea as sciencist have shown in their research

OK I'm going to find the chart that dumbs this down the most in hopes that you can begin to grasp this concept:

Note where humans are. Note where apes are. Notice how the former in no way comes from the latter any more than either comes from hedgehog. Humans did not evolve from any animal alive on this planet today. You still don't understand that concept.

Chimps which your side claims is so close to a human can cross breed with apes but they can't with humans why not ? who is our nearest anceator these days ?

Why do you avoid so many questions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.

Philosophy does not work in this area.

Can you prove you are real, and that the reality you perceive is true? Phil 101 makes it clear you can't.

Take a hammer and hit your big toe then get back to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption.
You want me to provide supporting evidence showing that YOUR dumb remarks are completely unsupported? You realize that's not the way it works, right? If you make a claim, YOU need to support it. If I call you on your claim being bogus, you need to show it's not. Requesting that I disprove your unproved opinion is like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.


OK I'm going to find the chart that dumbs this down the most in hopes that you can begin to grasp this concept:

Note where humans are. Note where apes are. Notice how the former in no way comes from the latter any more than either comes from hedgehog. Humans did not evolve from any animal alive on this planet today. You still don't understand that concept.

oh so man did come from a primate. Why did you lie?

Oh his answer will be humans are primates. They Conveniently put humans in the same class as monkeys because of their very erroneous belief that we are related to them.

But yes he is ignorant to the fact that the theory teaches our nearest ancestor was a monkey or apelike creature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The story of ToE is something like this;

Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.

For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.

Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.

If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.

On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.

Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).

As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!

The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.

Wow great post,very well said.

The hick won't like it, but who cares.You expressed my thoughts perfectly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheists sure have a lot of FAITH into believe life somehow came into existence out of non-life.

It amazes me that people can hold such an unreasonable view.

You are made up of NON-LIVING MATERIAL.

How is that so difficult to understand?

OK, I just hope you're watching the video from my other thread.

Thank you for bringing that video to my attention.

 

[geauxtohell]

The story of ToE is something like this;

Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.

For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.

Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.

If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.

On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.

Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).

As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!

The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.

Finding a single fossil naturally out of place in the ground would falsify evolution. It's also a logical canard to insist that we must be able to reproduce a process that took hudreds of millions of years to occur in various different environments and atmospheres in a laboratory beaker for it to be considered "reproducible". You yourself admit that would be impossible. We can't quite recreate gravity either. That doesn't limit our study of it.

You are basically making the same absurd, albeit much more articulate points, that the anti-evolution crowd always makes. The scientific community certainly doesn't see the massive holes you claim are in the process.

Furthermore, what is your proposed alternative? If you are going to claim scientific rigor, then surely you can't claim that intelligent design or creation, which both rely on supernatural forces, can be falsified. Once you introduce an all knowing and powerful force into your model, the answer to any connundrum (i.e. the hypothetical out of place fossil) automatically becomes "God did it".

At any rate, in light of the OP, it's always entertaining to see anyone claim that they know what happens when we die. It's the final mystery and all the logic, scripture, parables, and firmly held beliefs on the planet have failed to bring a resounding answer to it. I have my doubts this thread will either. It will simply be something that we all find out in our way.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow great post,very well said.

The hick won't like it, but who cares.You expressed my thoughts perfectly.

You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?

Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The story of ToE is something like this;

Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.

For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.

Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.

If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.

On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.

Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).

As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!

The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.

You've wrote in one post what I have been trying to say the whole thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wow great post,very well said.

The hick won't like it, but who cares.You expressed my thoughts perfectly.

You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?

Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?

Some people are better at expressing themself, whats your fucking excuse?