Science isn’t always the answer.

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

No, sorry. Your complaining about me is completely irrelevant, and i am not here to perform exercises to soothe you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

No, sorry. Your complaining about me is completely irrelevant, and i am not here to perform exercises to soothe you.

LOL cause you can not, loser.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

No, sorry. Your complaining about me is completely irrelevant, and i am not here to perform exercises to soothe you.

LOL cause you can not, loser.

Neato! Is tantrum time over? Good.

Now, given your big mouth, maybe you are willing to define what would constitute a "transition species" to you, or what evidence would compel you to admit the earth is almost certainly 4.54 billion years old.

You, of course, will never muster the courage to answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*crickets

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

No, sorry. Your complaining about me is completely irrelevant, and i am not here to perform exercises to soothe you.

LOL cause you can not, loser.

Neato! Is tantrum time over? Good.

Now, given your big mouth, maybe you are willing to define what would constitute a "transition species" to you, or what evidence would compel you to admit the earth is almost certainly 4.54 billion years old.

You, of course, will never muster the courage to answer.

I dont doubt the earth is 4 Billion years old you can not read I said so in the post you cited and ATTACKED anyone claiming it was only 6 or 7 thousand years old. As for transition species you can not find a single one. There is no compelling evidence now or ever that a mammal has ever spawned two or more species different from the original.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I dont doubt the earth is 4 Billion years old

Oh, okay, my misunderstanding then.

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

Oh really? And what would one look like? Be very specific, so that you don't waste my time.

That's twice you have been asked. You won't answer. And we both know why.

 

[forkup]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang. In fact it proves nothing, except that there is noise.

As for faith not being predictive, I would say the Bible is.

And yes, faith does provide certainty. I am absolutely certain of my faith, and that G-d exists. There is no question in my mind whatsoever. He is as real to me, as you are.

It indicates the big bang happened, who said anything about proof? So does the fact that scientists can observe the universe expanding. You just keep on circling back to the word proof. You stated that testing is not possible, which is a different proposition altogether.

If I tell you, one of the things we should find if the big bang happened is background noise and we subsequently find that noise that is a test that is passed. Wich is different from me saying that if we find this noise we KNOW the big bang happened. See the difference between the 2 assertions?

If enough of those kinds of tests pass the muster then we can start talking about a scientific consensus.

As to your assertions of the predictive nature of the Bible. Show me any instance of the Bible predicting anything? I also want to point something out. Rather or not you believe something to be true has no bearing on something actually being true. At least not in any scientific context. Asylums are full of people believing they are God and history is full of people who were absolutely certain about the existence of a different god or gods than yours.

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

What about the secrets of the universe we already figured out? For example, Jews don't recognize Jesus as the son of God and baptists don't recognize other baptists in Hooters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont doubt the earth is 4 Billion years old

Oh, okay, my misunderstanding then.

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

Oh really? And what would one look like? Be very specific, so that you don't waste my time.

That's twice you have been asked. You won't answer. And we both know why.

It is YOUR job to prove your claim not mine. You and science claim the exist prove it.

 

[miketx]

I dont doubt the earth is 4 Billion years old

Oh, okay, my misunderstanding then.

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

Oh really? And what would one look like? Be very specific, so that you don't waste my time.

That's twice you have been asked. You won't answer. And we both know why.

Typical prog babble lip flapping.

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Science is as far as I know the only reliable tool we have to figure out the answer to questions we have. So yes science is always the answer. Not because it has all the answers but simply because it's the only tool we have to actually get answers that have any hope of being correct.

Well said.

So, along with being an America hating traitor you're a science denier too? Dang, they always expose themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is YOUR job to prove your claim not mine.

Oops, you did it again. "Prove". You are really not getting this. Second, you're not being asked to support my claim, so your comment is not appropriate.

And i will be happy to support my claim, but i have to know the rules. Don't waste my time. What would a transition species look like? Be specific. Then we can test your claim that none have been found, versus the scientific consensus to the contrary. Your standards dont seem to be the standards used by the scientific community, so you should define them, so that we know what they are.

Like i said, you will never mister the courage to answer this. And we both know why.

 

[miketx]

It is YOUR job to prove your claim not mine.

Oops, you did it again. "Prove". You are really not getting this. Second, you're not being asked to support my claim, so your comment is not appropriate.

And i will be happy to support my claim, but i have to know the rules. Don't waste my time. What would a transition species look like? Be specific. Then we can test your claim that none have been found, versus the scientific consensus to the contrary. Your standards dont seem to be the standards used by the scientific community, so you should define them, so that we know what they are.

Like i said, you will never mister the courage to answer this. And we both know why.

Why do you keep proving my claim that you don't accept proof is spot on the money?

 

[forkup]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.

LOL you have never. Post a lin k to any thread where you called a left to task for claiming science proves human evolution for example.

No, sorry. Your complaining about me is completely irrelevant, and i am not here to perform exercises to soothe you.

LOL cause you can not, loser.

Neato! Is tantrum time over? Good.

Now, given your big mouth, maybe you are willing to define what would constitute a "transition species" to you, or what evidence would compel you to admit the earth is almost certainly 4.54 billion years old.

You, of course, will never muster the courage to answer.

I dont doubt the earth is 4 Billion years old you can not read I said so in the post you cited and ATTACKED anyone claiming it was only 6 or 7 thousand years old. As for transition species you can not find a single one. There is no compelling evidence now or ever that a mammal has ever spawned two or more species different from the original.

Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution This is a good example interesting because Archeologists were able to pinpoint where to find the geographical location of these fossils.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is YOUR job to prove your claim not mine.

Oops, you did it again. "Prove". You are really not getting this. Secobd, youre not being asked to support my claim, so your comment is not appropriate.

And i will be happy to support my claim, but i have to know the rules. Don't waste my time. What would a transition species look like? Be specific. Then we can test your claim that none have been found, versus the scientific consensus to the contrary.

Like i said, you will never mister the courage to answer this. And we both know why.

LOL YOU claim they were found why would I need to explain what they look like, I don't claim the exist you do, and can not support the claim nor can science, there is no fossil record of them there is no current example, you can not support the claim proof or conjecture it doesn't matter YOU and SCIENCE can not show me a single one. And don't waste my time with non Mammals. I do NOT doubt evolution I just doubt the claim that one species of mammal can create two or more distinctly different species.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

YOU claim they were found why would I need to explain what they look like

Because you are the one rejecting the idea that transitional species have been found, despite the absolute consensus to the contrary. Of course, every species is a "transitional species", if you ask a biologist. Stark examples for the layperson are A dinosaur with feathers, a fish with lungs, a snake with vestigial legs, a whale ancestor with vestigial rear legs, etc.

But you reject this, so it would be a waste of time to show you these things. So, define "transitional species", and what would be one, to you.

Of course, as i predicted , you will never, ever do this. Not ever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident,

I am not sure who these many people are, as scientists don't think selection is random or an accident. Maybe the same imaginary people trying to take away your Jebus?