@Root
Poor and shoddy terminology. ID is not taught in the science class because it simply is not science.
Yes you’re right, but the problem is, evolution isn’t science either and it IS taught in science class.
LOL, The scientific community accept evolution as a scientific fact! Indeed Biology is built upon evolutionary processes!
Well this is exactly what sonz was talking about with the Hitler example. Just because a lot of people accept evolution as science, and because the keep repeating it, doesn’t necessarily make it so!
This is the 3th or 4th thread in which we are discussing this and you haven’t yet been able to provide me 1 single irrefutable proof of evolution. Yet you keep claiming it is scientifically correct and proven, you keep insinuating that going in against creation is just plain stupid. You keep repeating yourself, but fail to bring data and proof as argument for your claims. If you sleep better at night believing evolution is a proven fact, well fine, believe what you want, and have a good nights rest. When you come back tomorrow, stop running around in circles, your making me dizzy :)
Evolution does not involve a creation!
Correct. Contrary to popular belief that evolution is
“nature’s way to accomplish new abilities”; the official theory claims that evolution and humans are a result of pure luck. A fluke, coincidence. But Root, ever wonder why most people do tend to think there’s something behind it, something they conveniently call “nature”? Because it’s bleeding obvious that its absurd to assume it’s all a fluke.
One must define what validates "scientist" status!
The same could be asked by the opposing party. In the end trusting that other people’s opinions are true just because they have a status is never fool-proof.
I agree, for a 5 year old
So tell me then, where doesn’t it make sense? Where’s the flaw? Why would it only make sense for a 5 year old? What did you find out at your six birthday that drove you to atheism? What makes creation illogical? Is there something we aren’t seeing or are you just resorting to insults because you again fail to defend your point of view?
As for your link. Just because people’s skulls have been changing does not mean that abiogenesis is right, nor that common descent is right.
@Mansio,
You’re right about the time + equation. That doesn't make any scientific sense. But Prime does has a good point. You need time for something to change but a lot of atheist wrongfully assume that big bang was the beginning of time.
(I say wrongfully because the official scientific accepted defenition of big bang doesn't claim that big bang is the beginning of time; but rather a proces that altered the state of our universe immensly). Now time is a material dimension as Einstein showed us. So the question is. If Big bang caused time to start
(big bang created the fabric of space-time), how could the process of the big bang initiate if there was no time? A process needs time to occur, or can something undergo a change without moving throughout time? Or to put it simply:
Big bang => time-space + universe
So at what speed did Big bang initiate if:
speed=distance traveled/time
speed=distance traveled/distance traveled trough the dimension of time
Seems you need time to have speed. So at what speed does a proces occur that creates time?
I’ll leave you to ponder on that for a while…
:)