A scientific dissent from Darwinism

[GreenBean]

science doesn't deal in "proof"

Science doesn't deal in proof ??!!! Really Hello - what hole did you crawl out of ?

A scientific law can is usually boiled down to a mathematical equation, such as E = mc²; it's a specific statement based on empirical data, and its truth is generally confined to a certain set of conditions.

A scientific theory seeks to synthesize a body of observations of relative phenomena and seeks to prove a law - unproven it remains a theory no matter how much you hold your breath or stomp your feet.


These are all Scientific Laws

Newton's Laws of Motion
The Laws of Physics
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation


These are all Scientific Theories

Big Bang Theory
Theory of General Relativity
Theory of Evolution


I have a scientific THEORY of my own - it states that you are blithering idiot - I doubt that you can prove me wrong but lets have a go at it - shall we ?

 

[LittleNipper]

This is a scientific board

Show where god is repeatable
Provide ANY evidence of God

I just said He's not repeatable. That would make Him bound by His creation.

Faith not science

Science is not an educated guess.

 

[LittleNipper]

God is a sovereign being, which means He's not bound by your rules of repeatability.

You're still not making any sense.

You want God to be proven by science. Science demands repeatability. God is sovereign, which means He can choose how, when and where He acts. Correct so far?

This is a science board

You cannot point to faith as a substitute

Do you have faith that evolution is true or have you determined its supposed reality on your own.

 

[LittleNipper]

You want God to be proven by science.

Uh...what? No I don't....

And I think you basically agree with me (though your semantics are clumsy at best):

God cannot be "proven" either way, because magic cannot be proven or disproven. If no determinism, then no evidence is possible.

So keep your magical nonsense out of discussions of evidence based thought. They simply do not overlap at all. Believe whatever you want...but unless you mold those beliefs to accommodate the evidence, then your beliefs are simply wrong.

In this case, it's easy: just point at evolution and think, "God did that!". And there you have it ..conflict resolved...

Magic and the Supernatural are not the same thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, let's keep the Michio Kaku's out of the class room...

Of course (and i thought this was obvious, but I guess I should spell things out... wait, I did), I spoke explicitly and specifically about keeping the magical nonsense out of the classroom. So yes, we should keep Kaku's magical nonsense out of the science classroom.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Magic and the Supernatural are not the same thing.

They are 100% the exact same thing. I see you have retreated to your "Alamo", wher ALL of you magical thinkers end up in any sort iof debate. You will now proceed to fight the two following battles (which are stupid and to be ignored):

1) "Magic" and "my particular, favorite type of magic" are waaaay different

2) Faith and evidence-based determinations are the same thing

Spare us... the above are not true and will never be true.

 

[hadit]

Yeah, let's keep the Michio Kaku's out of the class room...

Of course (and i thought this was obvious, but I guess I should spell things out... wait, I did), I spoke explicitly and specifically about keeping the magical nonsense out of the classroom. So yes, we should keep Kaku's magical nonsense out of the science classroom.

Kaku is a respected scientist and would be very welcome in a science classroom. Tell me, what research have you done that gives you standing to say his perspective on the structure of the universe is, as you say, "magical nonsense"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kaku is a respected scientist and would be very welcome in a science classroom.

... when he is talking about science. what about this are you not getting? seems so simple...

No research is required to understand what is a scientific idea and what is not. Again, pretty simple. "Intelligent design"? Magical nonsense. Not science. Does not belong ion a science classroom.

 

[Old Rocks]

God exists because His Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ/Messiah has changed how I perceive things. I'm assuming nothing. As a child realizes his father, or a lamb recognizes its shepherd, so I know my Lord is real and loves me.

That's nice, but this is posted on the Science and Technology forum in a thread titled A scientific dissent from Darwinism. What you are arguing is totally religious and has nothing to do with an argument involving science.

If you do think it is a scientific argument, then as I said, "You are assuming the existence of God in order to prove the existence of God. It is no proof when you axiomatically assume the very thing you are trying to prove."

And how is that any different from what evolutionists do?

I don't understand your question.
Evolution is a science so a posting on the Science and Technology board is appropriate. The totally religious post indicating LittleNipper's Lord loves him is not appropriate as an evolution argument in the Science and Technology board.

That is what is different.

Evolution is not science. It is a hypothesis that uses science to try gain credibility. You cannot observe it. You cannot test it in any way, nor can you conduct any experiments on it. Google the scientific method. You might learn something.

Evolution is the most robust of the scientific theories. That you do not know this indicates you have less than a high school level education.

 

[abu afak]

science doesn't deal in "proof"

Science doesn't deal in proof ??!!! Really Hello - what hole did you crawl out of ?

A scientific law can is usually boiled down to a mathematical equation, such as E = mc²; it's a specific statement based on empirical data, and its truth is generally confined to a certain set of conditions.

A scientific theory seeks to synthesize a body of observations of relative phenomena and seeks to prove a law - unproven it remains a theory no matter how much you hold your breath or stomp your feet.

These are all Scientific Laws

Newton's Laws of Motion
The Laws of Physics
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation

These are all Scientific Theories

Big Bang Theory
Theory of General Relativity
Theory of Evolution
I have a scientific THEORY of my own - it states that you are blithering idiot - I doubt that you can prove me wrong but lets have a go at it - shall we ?

You DISHONEST ASSHOLE.

1. Despite omitting 95% of my post, you didn't rebut the portion you did quote.
NO "Proofs" are cited.

2. Clearly you PLAGIARIZED most of your post from various sources.
Links WITHHELD.

3. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sci...aw&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. What is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The Explanation of a phenomenon is called a Scientific Theory. Jul 28, 2017

2. Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Overview
A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.
As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and May be Found False when extrapolated."..."
[....]
LIKE theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be Falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data."..."​

And of course, you 70 IQ DISHONEST Cumstain, You certainly didn't refute the Editor-in-Cheif Scientific American, Nor show that theories can't be Facts.

You are full of venom, and are a Stupid and Dishonest Toad.

1. 'Short-quoting' me and not addressing the bulk.
2. Plagiarizing parts of your post.
3. Misrepresenting 'Scientific 'law' as absolute.
4. Not refuting that Theories can be facts.
5. You were/duh-still-are completely IGNORANT of what 'Scientific theory' means/meant vs just the casual usage.
​

Crawl back under your rock Genepis Boy.
`

 

[hadit]

Kaku is a respected scientist and would be very welcome in a science classroom.

... when he is talking about science. what about this are you not getting? seems so simple...

No research is required to understand what is a scientific idea and what is not. Again, pretty simple. "Intelligent design"? Magical nonsense. Not science. Does not belong ion a science classroom.

Yet he, a respected scientist who has done research all his life, sees design in the structure of the universe while you, a layman, cling dogmatically enough to the opposite thought that you can declare the results of his life's work to be"magical nonsense". Scientists seem to be less dogmatic than the laity.

 

[abu afak]

You want God to be proven by science. Science demands repeatability. God is sovereign, which means He can choose how, when and where He acts. Correct so far?

There's NO god in evidence here/anywhere, and you haven't shown any Genepis boy.

Evolution, OTOH, has overwhelming evidence.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet he, a respected scientist who has done research all his life, sees design in the structure of the universe while you, a layman, cling dogmatically enough to the opposite thought that you can declare the results of his life's work to be"magical nonsense".

What a worthless, specious bit of garbage this is. So, if I point out THREE scientists who agree with me and not Kaku, am I now ahead by a point? Or is it two points? His life's work? Whoah there sistah, that's a bit dramatic.

Yes, it is magical nonsense. There is no way to tell if it is true or not, it yields exactly NO useful predictions, and it is not necessary to explain anything, and it actually explains exactly nothing.

That is true no matter who peddles this magical nonsense, ... Kaku, you, your mom, the Pope, all magical nonsense....

 

[hadit]

Yet he, a respected scientist who has done research all his life, sees design in the structure of the universe while you, a layman, cling dogmatically enough to the opposite thought that you can declare the results of his life's work to be"magical nonsense".

What a worthless, specious bit of garbage this is. So, if I point out THREE scientists who agree with me and not Kaku, am I now ahead by a point? Or is it two points? His life's work? Whoah there sistah, that's a bit dramatic.

Yes, it is magical nonsense. There is no way to tell if it is true or not, it yields exactly NO useful predictions, and it is not necessary to explain anything, and it actually explains exactly nothing.

That is true no matter who peddles this magical nonsense, ... Kaku, you, your mom, the Pope, all magical nonsense....

IOW, your faith is absolute and dogmatic.

 

[hadit]

You want God to be proven by science. Science demands repeatability. God is sovereign, which means He can choose how, when and where He acts. Correct so far?

There's NO god in evidence here/anywhere, and you haven't shown any Genepis boy.

Evolution, OTOH, has overwhelming evidence.
`

I've said from the beginning that science cannot prove God exists. It's inadequate to do so.

 

[abu afak]

I've said from the beginning that science cannot prove God exists. It's inadequate to do so.

Science can't prove god, of course.
You can't prove god/gods, of course.

But the actual problem you evade is.... YOU can't point to any solid evidence of god/godS, while there is overwhelming evidence of many types for Evolution.

ooops
`

 

[Old Rocks]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

Just to clue you knuckleheads in Neither is a Fact. Evolution is the THEORY of evolution and God is part of a belief system -

Hmm, no , evolution is a fact. It is as well known a fact as the fact that the Earth revolves about the Sun.

True. Evolution is a fact, the how and why of it is the theory. The rocks tell know lies, nor does the DNA in every cell of our bodies.

 

[Old Rocks]

You want God to be proven by science. Science demands repeatability. God is sovereign, which means He can choose how, when and where He acts. Correct so far?

There's NO god in evidence here/anywhere, and you haven't shown any Genepis boy.

Evolution, OTOH, has overwhelming evidence.
`

I've said from the beginning that science cannot prove God exists. It's inadequate to do so.

Science addresses the natural, not the super natural.

 

[Old Rocks]

God exists because His Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ/Messiah has changed how I perceive things. I'm assuming nothing. As a child realizes his father, or a lamb recognizes its shepherd, so I know my Lord is real and loves me.

That's nice, but this is posted on the Science and Technology forum in a thread titled A scientific dissent from Darwinism. What you are arguing is totally religious and has nothing to do with an argument involving science.

If you do think it is a scientific argument, then as I said, "You are assuming the existence of God in order to prove the existence of God. It is no proof when you axiomatically assume the very thing you are trying to prove."

What evolutionists are presenting is anti -GOD and a humanistic belief. So sorry you cannot accept that evolutionism is distorting the facts to set the tone for their theory that works to exclude GOD and creationists on the grounds such doesn't follow the prerequisites that evolutionists themselves have established. You wanted a pile of all sorts fossils dumped together. You've been handed that. Evolutionists don't like to research this --- because the implications are disturbing. And I can see that now you have all sorts of excuses to disregard such facts. i don't disregard any evolutionists FACTS on the grounds they are not creationist, I simply try to rethink what they say from a different perspective. Evolutionists simply try to ignore and hide things they cannot deal with.

What evolutionists are presenting is an explanation of life evolving from simple creatures

What you are providing is wishful thinking based on fantasy

The "simple" creatures are NOT simple. Define "simple"! And a fantasy founded on humanism doesn't make it more "scientific" or the truth..

No brain, primitive organs

No dinosaurs mixed in with Troglodytes
More complex creatures came in higher strata

I think that you meant Trilobites. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

By definition God is unprovable, as He is a sovereign being. To be repeatable is to be less than God.

That made no sense on any level.

Think about what you're demanding. You're saying that you have to be able to repeat observations, correct? God is a sovereign being, which means He's not bound by your rules of repeatability.

Is God repeatable?

Different standards of proof?

We were created in GOD's image ---- I guess that means that while not GOD we have an innate desire to be godlike and not simply exist.

By definition God is unprovable, as He is a sovereign being. To be repeatable is to be less than God.

That made no sense on any level.

Think about what you're demanding. You're saying that you have to be able to repeat observations, correct? God is a sovereign being, which means He's not bound by your rules of repeatability.

Is God repeatable?

Different standards of proof?

We were created in GOD's image ---- I guess that means that while not GOD we have an innate desire to be godlike and not simply exist.

We were created in God’s image?

Does God have a penis?

Ask Mary.