Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science. It maybe a theory, an idea, and even excepted by many in the field of science. However, it cannot aspire to be scientific unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is supported by the Bible. That doesn't make it scientific. Evolution is supported by the writings of Darwin. That doesn't make it science. Both possess areas of FAITH.No!
It's SCIENCE that deals in "Explainable/Explaining things."
Religion is FAITH - belief withOUT evidence.
`
If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science. It maybe a theory, an idea, and even excepted by many in the field of science. However, it cannot aspire to be scientific unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is supported by the Bible. That doesn't make it scientific. Evolution is supported by the writings of Darwin. That doesn't make it science. Both possess areas of FAITH.
Ah yes, idiot creationist talking point number 18. Apparently we cant know anything about volcanoes, unless we make one from scratch. And we cant know anything about star formation, unless we make a star in the lab.If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science.
Ah yes, idiot creationist talking point number 18. Apparently we cant know anything about volcanoes, unless we make one from scratch. And we cant know anything about star formation, unless we make a star in the lab.
This is just a desperate little piece of idiocy
that would get laughed out of any room of scientists.
What evolutionists continually fail to provide are specific examples for their "generalizations". A theory is an explanation and that is true. The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...Unfortunately, your lack of a science vocabulary results in nonsensical statements such as ''proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.'' You should not include definitions of terms / words you don't understand. A law as described in science is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. Note that science deals with natural phenomena as supernaturalism and magic are not science matters. A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes the motion of objects under certain circumstances when affected by other objects; the theory of gravity explains why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with new data.
Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena developed from logical hypotheses and testable observations and experiments. Science uses the word 'fact' when referring to something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is every reason to accept the evidence and testing as offering every compelling reason to accept the data as repeatable and accurate. The occurrence of gravity as well as biological evolution in this sense are facts. Scientists no longer question whether gravity or biological evolution are quantifiable because the evidence supporting the theories are so strong.
Okay, show me (for I sincerely wish to know the truth and truth is founded upon only fact) when and where has a canine been observed through experimentation and tenability to be changing into something other than a form of canine kind. Now I theorize you will say that "kind" is not a scientific term but "species" is. Says who? KIND is a general term that was in used for thousands of years. A wolf and a dog can mate and have pups. That is because they are of the same KIND. Species theoretically are not supposed to be able to mate. And yet is not wolves considered a species and dogs considered a species. I see domesticated and undomesticated. I see big and little, fuzzy and furry, light and dark ---- but a 6 thousand year old canine is still a canine. And we would recognize such as a canine. Prove me wrong.Unfortunately, your lack of a science vocabulary results in nonsensical statements such as ''proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.'' You should not include definitions of terms / words you don't understand. A law as described in science is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. Note that science deals with natural phenomena as supernaturalism and magic are not science matters. A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes the motion of objects under certain circumstances when affected by other objects; the theory of gravity explains why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with new data.
Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena developed from logical hypotheses and testable observations and experiments. Science uses the word 'fact' when referring to something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is every reason to accept the evidence and testing as offering every compelling reason to accept the data as repeatable and accurate. The occurrence of gravity as well as biological evolution in this sense are facts. Scientists no longer question whether gravity or biological evolution are quantifiable because the evidence supporting the theories are so strong.
Right, in this case it is true because ot is supported by every shred of evidence ever recorded in every single field of science. And all the evidence is mutually supportive. But you know squat about the theory or the evidence and so are not even entitled to an opinion on any of it.The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...
What evolutionists continually fail to provide are specific examples for their "generalizations". A theory is an explanation and that is true. The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...
Okay, show me (for I sincerely wish to know the truth and truth is founded upon only fact) when and where has a canine been observed through experimentation and tenability to be changing into something other than a form of canine kind. Now I theorize you will say that "kind" is not a scientific term but "species" is. Says who? KIND is a general term that was in used for thousands of years. A wolf and a dog can mate and have pups. That is because they are of the same KIND. Species theoretically are not supposed to be able to mate. And yet is not wolves considered a species and dogs considered a species. I see domesticated and undomesticated. I see big and little, fuzzy and furry, light and dark ---- but a 6 thousand year old canine is still a canine. And we would recognize such as a canine. Prove me wrong.
This is a LIE! Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.Evangelicals pretty much reject science, history and education.
This is a LIE! Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.
Scofield is not the only minister who regarded Dispensational Truth. And I never said he went to Princeton.Scofield only screwed Evangelicals and Fundamentalist over about 19015. They glommed on to his heresy because they rejected science and modernity. Of course its supported by history.
Princeton didn't teach Scofield.
No, they love their faith and it's object and think Genesis is 'science' Despite the facts.This is a LIE! Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.
.....the same way you mutated sheeple talk about everything else....like a parrot squawking out your trained responses.Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.
What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]
How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared originswww.smithsonianmag.com
Ah yes, the way morons view established scientific knowledge. You can't avoid telling on yourselves......the same way you mutated sheeple talk about everything else....like a parrot squawking out your trained responses.
This is why we need to teach creation science in public schools. All scientists know today is atheist science. These people foolishly ASSUME there was no creator and/or state God is religion. No such thing. This was even prophesized way before Darwin and his cronies made up atheist science. They purposely discarded the dominant science of the time in creation and catastrophism and convinced many to fall for the made up uniformitarianism and evolution lie.Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.
What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]
How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
.
This is why we need to teach creation science in public schools. All scientists know today is atheist science. These people foolishly ASSUME there was no creator and/or state God is religion. No such thing. This was even prophesized way before Darwin and his cronies made up atheist science. They purposely discarded the dominant science of the time in creation and catastrophism and convinced many to fall for the made up uniformitarianism and evolution lie.
"for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25
I could easily be a closed minded hypocrite and state, "This isn't even a science topic, but an atheist religion one." Yet, I recognize the creationists have a long way to go before getting creation science in all our schools. Hopefully, we can do it years before 2060, the year Sir Isaac Newton made a guess about the end of times.
>>Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.<<
Lol, the irony. I think it will be a BIG SHOCK for the atheist indoctrinated cultists like abu afak. I hope he doesn't work around electricity
Creation science or scientific creationism is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[10][11]
Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one.
Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[13][14][15][16][17]
Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[19]...
Creation science - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your side is religious, too. It is atheist and that is a religion. Don't lie because your science assumes atheism.No, they love their faith and it's object and think Genesis is 'science' Despite the facts.
Witness You, james bond, PoliticalChic and others.
`
Lol. You're one of the worst here in regards to creation science. The smarter students think there is something wrong with evolution as science does not back it up. They think evolution is a myth except for natural selection which was founded by creationists. Creationists have had the best scientists throughout history. Atheist scientists are biased and have discarded real science. Anyway, I'll put you down in the same level as abu afak which is pretty low.Creation science is not science. Its foundation myth.. You should teach your children creation science at home or in church and Sunday school NOT in the public schools..
You do know that if you insist on teaching mythology as history and science, you run the risk of driving your children away from Christianity altogether.
Your side is religious, too. It is atheist and that is a religion. Don't lie because your science assumes atheism.
The ones who have faith in atheism have a stronger belief in evolution even though science does not back up evolution. Otherwise, they're agnostic and just have an opinion.
