30 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarIn the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
If you have to make an assumption about the existence of God and having to reject a miracle, then it is not science.
Your definition of science is simply how one works science into your religious beliefs.
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh! So that's what he was saying. That was unreal. "making assumptions
In the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
about god", that's precisely what we're not doing. LOL!
Originally posted by C HessWe do not have to make an assumption about creation, like we do for evolution, for we have a book where we are told what happened. And anyway, the Cambrian Explosion has already shown that evolution is false. That leaves only Creationism as a reliable theory.
Oh! So that's what he was saying. That was unreal. "making assumptions
about god", that's precisely what we're not doing. LOL!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhich is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
In the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, whatever. You've become a farce my friend.
We do not have to make an assumption about creation, like we do for evolution, for we have a book where we are told what happened. And anyway, the Cambrian Explosion has already shown that evolution is false. That leaves only Creationism as a reliable theory.
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarEvolutionists try to make it one. They call it "abiogenesis" because they know "spontaneous generation" has been proven wrong by the Law Of Biogenesis, but they don't like that law.
Which is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
Originally posted by EladarAbsolutely not, because there is no need to assume divine intervention when discussing the origins of life. Even if God did intervene, there is no way we could establish it - God might have done anything - so we must reject the hypothesis for the same reason we reject the everything-created-last-week-hypothesis.
Which is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
01 May 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGod's way of creation may not be a miracle to someone as intelligent as God who understands how it is done. It may only be a miracle to dumb evolution scientist who obvious know very little about how life is created.
Absolutely not, because there is no need to assume divine intervention when discussing the origins of life. Even if God did intervene, there is no way we could establish it - God might have done anything - so we must reject the hypothesis for the same reason we reject the everything-created-last-week-hypothesis.
01 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere do you get off acting like you are some kind of expert on the subject? You have no degree in ANY science, your 2 years in college is not a qualification to speak as you do. You act as if you are the worlds expert on science and know everything about it when in fact all you can do is spout BS from your creationist buddies who ALSO have so much bias even if they are scientists they have no street cred in the sciences.
God's way of creation may not be a miracle to someone as intelligent as God who understands how it is done. It may only be a miracle to dumb evolution scientist who obvious know very little about how life is created.
You don't go into a scientific field with an agenda built in, that is the opposite of seeking the truth of a subject.
It was thought for centuries the sun rotated around the Earth and the Earth was the center of the universe.
Do you think the same? That is exactly the position you are in when it comes to evolution.
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe I am in the right position. My science teacher taught me that that the theory of evolution and millions and billions of years is baloney.
Where do you get off acting like you are some kind of expert on the subject? You have no degree in ANY science, your 2 years in college is not a qualification to speak as you do. You act as if you are the worlds expert on science and know everything about it when in fact all you can do is spout BS from your creationist buddies who ALSO have so much bias eve ...[text shortened]... .
Do you think the same? That is exactly the position you are in when it comes to evolution.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo we get to the cause of your delusions. You had a fricking IDIOT teacher who was NOT a teacher but a politician looking for converts. I am sorry for your brain and your delusions.
I believe I am in the right position. My science teacher taught me that that the theory of evolution and millions and billions of years is baloney.