Lol... this is funny how scientist looks at this... did you know that science contradicts itself? or atleast the theory of evolution makes it contradicting

When you've an intelligent comment or criticism, let us all know.

Welcome to the boards.

Kent Hovind lover in the house.

Point out where evolutionists say there was nothing.

You've been lied to and in turn are now lying to us. Get yourself educated.

Our science expert would agree. Chance isn't a good answer, and God is ten times worse.

Maybe you should stick to asking questions, because so far you're positive assertions are fallacious (in the other thread) and in this thread you banged out two strawmen in a row. You could also head to www.atheismfor12yearolds.com and see if you can convince some of them with these completely ignorant arguments.

Or maybe expecting that we all came from dirt! (that's where your bible says we came from)

Let me guess, next will "time" be our god?

Humans are animals, nut ball.

More crap. Care to prove that claim, or want to wait around for Yellow#5 to tear it a new asshole?

Aww, that's so cute. You're quoting psalms in a thread about Evolution. Adorable, just adorable! :smt018

You really want me to answer that retarded question? Maybe you should rephrase it in a way that doesn't make you look so dishonest. Molecules can't talk, and I wont entertain the thought.

Additionally this last statement of yours has nothing to do with your original proposition which is that "science contradicts itself." Care to take another stab at that one?

im 18, thanks for asking.. been a christian for about 1 year. me and my dads faith are totally different. I think I am more spiritual and he is well less spiritual..

I was just telling Jesussaves about your recent de-conversion from Jesus belief and here you are. Look at how quick you turn around, just months ago people would've been laughing at you. Yeah it's funny, but I don't know if we'll show him the light by laughing at him. It's not entirely his fault he was brainwashed.

did all this start when the universe began? because everything in this world seems to have a beginning and an end... and surely if it has a beginning then it will certainly end.

:shock: A good start to ensure idiocy?

The lack of logic, intelligence and common sense from the theists in this forum makes me want to bang my head againsty a wall!

Wrong, and completely misinformed as usual.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

"So we must ask - what did Pasteur prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally, only theoretically, "

Gotta love those irrefutable theories...

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

what a big if.

This was a nifty history lesson, but no empirical evidence for the prebiotic ooze. Just speculation. a big if.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

"There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997). "

Ok... so basically we agree that the primordial ooze has as much evidence for its existence as the teenage mutant ninja turtles' ooze. Maybe I'll start doing experiments on the turtle ooze so it will be considered scientific too.

There's been physical evidence.

Here's a good read.

Every post I get the same reaction. I say something like... "hey this theory isn't backed up by much empirical evidence. It's more of a string of speculatory theories."
Then the response comes...
"Oh well then, I guess it must be god or creation huh. You are a moron. Where's the evidence for that."
All I said was that there is no evidence for the primordial soup. Stop jumping to conclusions. I wasn't attacking your PHILOSOPHY of materialism. I did that in another thread.

What do you have nacker to propose in its place? Give us something. Cause you've yet to back up any of your remarks with a theory that replaces what you ignore. You're too lazy to read through an article but still consider yourself as an authority on the topic even though you have nothing to say. You're delusional.

They are open to new theories and always have been.

It just seems that being a theist makes you unable to actually learn about the subject and for some reason turns lab results into speculation no matter how much evidence there is for them. It's too bad... you sound like you might be rational... well you actually don't... since the majority of your questions seem to be rhetorical (you never accept any answer or any evidence if it?s not what you wanted) so you actually sound like the perfect example of a virus with legs. What virus you say? Your god.

You're someone who pushes the answer of god and you're telling me the scientific method is anti-free thought? That's funny.

Too bad you have nothing to bring forth to support your claim.

Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Theory is nothing more than speculation. You continue to state speculation as if it is an epiphany you?ve solely come to. There are though varying degrees of theory and varying degrees of speculation, believing and expressing otherwise is just generalizing selfishly for your own viewpoint. Also, there?s something very unnerving about your stance against speculation and for instead what you like to call ?fact?. I?m using quotations because from what I?ve observed, your idea of ?fact? has no groundings in what it actually is. There?s no fact without speculation and no theory without fact and speculation. If there was we?d have no direction to go, nothing to base anything on. The construction of fact itself cannot take place without theory otherwise the understanding of said fact would be impossible. There would be no understanding and fact would mean nothing.

Speculation:
a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

How is this negative? How does this unravel the theory of evolution when it is in it?s self the foundation? Does the existence of speculation within Einstein?s theory of relativity disavowal his discoveries? Does Newton?s speculation of mathematics, gravity, and everything his physics did somehow make his discoveries irrelevant? How does this effect Darwin?s speculation on what he observed?

It seems like your final sentence in this paragraph alludes to your outlook of the topics at hand. Any answers are met with animosity and swept under the rug as faulty speculation and nothing more, believing any holes cannot be filled and nothing is explained because of the said holes. Now I?m just curious? Newtonian physics, even Relativity? were full of holes (still are) yet what did they give us? We have satellites in orbit, we have technology that otherwise could have never came to be. We have our arms stretched into space, we?ve been to the moon, and we?ve sent artifacts of our own creation beyond our solar system. All this done with Newtonian physics, when we know today that they are ?wrong?, erroneous and refuted. When it comes to a theory ? its not that it is correct, it?s what it can explain. Explanation is devoid of meaning and is nothing more than explanation. There isn?t an example of why or how, there is example of what is. Sadly you seem to believe that holes in a theory destroy all meaning found within it, this is why you are wrong.

So, the chemical creation of amino acids, the precursor to all life on this planet, within the lab means nothing. The fact that the building blocks of replication can be formed out of chemical constituents, energy, and time doesn?t mean a damned thing? That?s an interesting way to look at how life can be formed. Then again you aren?t looking at how life can be formed; you?re looking at how you can refute claims of those trying to discover scientifically such processes. You know what a dishonest method is? Coming to a forum asking for ?information? and whenever given such information declaring it null and void with no explanation, reasoning, or theory outside of ? there is no physical evidence. Here?s a test for you ? prove gravity exists with physical proof.

You have a large problem in believing that every speculative idea about the holes found in the theory of evolution is intended to be factual dictum when I have never heard a researcher not follow such ideas with ?this is only in theory? or some other explanation. Otherwise the big orchestrated plot for evolution you?ve crafted, that creates non-knowing and ignorance through peer tested and argued assumptions, would be non-existent because any theory stated as fact without evidence that created such a theory or fact would be torn to shreds by the scientific community.

I?ve already tackled this. All theory is based on assumption otherwise we?d have nothing to test because theories would solely be based on fact and otherwise unquestionable and if such was true scientific research would have no direction or means to prove anything.

I cannot find a Darwinian who doesn?t point out such weaknesses, the holes found in the fossil record, and problems with mutations, but such holes are in no way more deceitful than the mind that is trying to interpret such topics. It?s just that if you think such problems are not of understanding but truthful examples of flaws in evolution, well you?re just ignorant of what genetics has taught us, what geology has shown us, and that in the past 40 years more has been done for evolution than anything following Darwin?s idea.

You know what my advice is? Read up on game theory. Read Dawkins? The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. There is actually little weakness in the areas you?re so sure there is.

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Believing that a weak fossil record is in anyway proof of the throes of evolutionary theory is an interesting outlook. I find the thought of a strong fossil record delusional? what are you to expect? You?re just stuck on needing current evolutionary evidence for the theory to be plausible, that?s like asking for a historical event to happen today to prove the existences of Revolutionary War.

You seem to be the one wanting a monopoly of free thought. You can?t understand the ideas of theory and believe speculation denounces the theory on the spot. You have no trust in the scientific method or any subsequent experiment that says something you don?t want it to say.

Scientific Method:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

I?m also a little curious about how your outlook on the theory of evolution would work if implemented towards creationism or your creed itself. I know one thing for sure, they wouldn?t be standing, all while evolution with its holes and speculation will continue to rise up past Newtonian physics and Relativity as one of man?s greatest observations.

Concluding that 'god' is the answer isn't stepping outside of the box, it's building a smaller more confining box within the theory's box that's blind to everything outside it. Also when it comes to the box of our theory, it's being built on from all sides and angles, from within and from outside.

Demonstrate to us how the supernatural can be measured, detected and falsified, nacker, and we'll be glad to consider it.

The problem is, the supernatural is by definition beyond nature, and as such if it does exists would be incoherent and unknowable to somebody looking for it here in the natural world.

No, YOUR convoluted rationalizations have demonstrated that it is necessary to YOU.

No, they don't. And we're already discussing this in another thread, please don't poinon the rest of the forum with it.

If you didn't want to actually answer my point, you could have simply said so.

What you have just posted is no different from the naked assertions you continue to make in the other thread.

Now, I asked you nicely, nacker, please honor a very simple request.