Fact vs Fiction

[sonz]

Adolf Hitler said if you tell a big lie and repeat it often it will be believed. That is true of evolution which is science fiction accepted as scientific fact. Its proponents deny it is atheistic but their dogmatic rejection of intelligent design proves that it is.

Judges ban creationism in public schools because it promotes belief in God. But atheism, disguised as evolutionary science, is permitted.

By distorting the First Amendment, they make it illegal for teachers to say that some scientists reject evolution or that the theory is not a fact. Such radical interpretations of the constitution destroy freedom.

"Congress" in that amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... ") has been broadly defined to include schoolboards and teachers. But it only prohibits Congress from creating a state religion. God's existence is a theological topic, even for atheists. When science teachers tell students that the theory of evolution is a fact, they promote atheism, which isn't a scientific concept.

In contrast to the supernatural creator in the Bible, evolutionists believe in a natural "creator." In their view, the creation was its own creator.

Not all scientists accept evolution.

Allan Sandage, an astronomer, said, "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." John Kramer, a Canadian biochemist, said, "The complexity of nature clearly points to a creator." Robert Hosken, a biochemist from Australia, agreed, "I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces."

Are these scientists ignorant about science? Belief in God is more logical than atheism. Simple paper clips or complex electronic devices wouldn't exist without intelligent human creators. What about the first humans and animals?

Their creation by a supernatural creator makes the most sense.

ROBERT KOHTALA

Chassell

[root]

Adolf Hitler said if you tell a big lie and repeat it often it will be believed. That is true of evolution which is science fiction accepted as scientific fact. Its proponents deny it is atheistic but their dogmatic rejection of intelligent design proves that it is.

Are you nuts!

Judges ban creationism in public schools because it promotes belief in God. But atheism, disguised as evolutionary science, is permitted.

Poor and shoddy terminology. ID is not taught in the science class because it simply is not science.

By distorting the First Amendment, they make it illegal for teachers to say that some scientists reject evolution or that the theory is not a fact. Such radical interpretations of the constitution destroy freedom.

LOL, The scientific community accept evolution as a scientific fact! Indeed Biology is built upon evolutionary processes!

In contrast to the supernatural creator in the Bible, evolutionists believe in a natural "creator." In their view, the creation was its own creator.

Evolution does not involve a creation!

Not all scientists accept evolution.

One must define what validates "scientist" status!

Their creation by a supernatural creator makes the most sense.

I agree, for a 5 year old?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stm

[PrIM3]

Science believes that Nothing+Time=Everything

[mansio]

Prim3

Science does not believe. It observes and draws conclusions.
You cannot add nothing to time because if there is nothing there is no time.
Nothing+time=everything is a religious statement.
You belong to those who confuse science with religion.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muezzin]

Think of it this conflict between science and religion this way: Science says the sun will come up tomorrow because of thermodynamics, the orbit of the Earth, and all the other astrophysics which my miniscule mind cannot comprehend.

I say the sun will come up tomorrow, simply because it does.

I see no contradiction.

[sumay28]

Prim3

Science does not believe. It observes and draws conclusions.
You cannot add nothing to time because if there is nothing there is no time.
Nothing+time=everything is a religious statement.
You belong to those who confuse science with religion.

It's easy to observe and draw the wrong conclusion

[Abdul Fattah]

@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…
:)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Think of it this conflict between science and religion this way: Science says the sun will come up tomorrow because of thermodynamics, the orbit of the Earth, and all the other astrophysics which my miniscule mind cannot comprehend.

I say the sun will come up tomorrow, simply because it does.

I see no contradiction.

Wrong.

A scientist would say "it is probable that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow." We have no way of being absolutely certain that it will. Just because something has happened billions of times in the past doesn't mean it's 100% certain to happen in the future. That's the problem with inductive arguments.

Peace

[Muezzin]

Greetings,


Wrong.

A scientist would say "it is probable that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow." We have no way of being absolutely certain that it will. Just because something has happened billions of times in the past doesn't mean it's 100% certain to happen in the future. That's the problem with inductive arguments.

Peace

Okay. In that case I'd say, if it doesn't come up, it wasn't meant to. There's still no contradiction.

[Usmansaab]

lol i know what u mean

[Abdul Fattah]

Wrong.

A scientist would say "it is probable that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow." We have no way of being absolutely certain that it will. Just because something has happened billions of times in the past doesn't mean it's 100% certain to happen in the future. That's the problem with inductive arguments.

Peace

I don't know about that Callum I'd say a philosopher never makes assumptions about the future based on the past. But a scientist usually does assume that the laws of physics from the past and present will also aply in the future. So maybe there could be other events that keep the sun from rising, but if nothing will happen then the scientist assumes the sun will rise.

[czgibson]

Hi Steve,

I don't know about that Callum I'd say a philosopher never makes assumptions about the future based on the past. But a scientist usually does assume that the laws of physics from the past and present will also aply in the future. So maybe there could be other events that keep the sun from rising, but if nothing will happen then the scientist assumes the sun will rise.

I'm not denying that. You've used the word 'assume', which illustrates the point I was trying to make: no scientist would claim to have certain knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow, merely that it is probable that it will happen.

Peace

[root]

Yes you’re right, but the problem is, evolution isn’t science either and it IS taught in science class.

lol, evolution not being science. Would not like to have been at your school Steve...........

[Abdul Fattah]

lol, evolution not being science. Would not like to have been at your school Steve...........

Well then, for the last time show me evidence. Science is based on facts not on assumptions therefor evolution cannot be considered science. It's as simple as that, and if you did go to my school at least you'd have a proper education. Belgium is third on the list of best educations globaly following Japan wich is at number one and some scandinavian country (i forgot wich one) at the second place.

[Organized Chaos]

evolution is based on facts?


btw, where are the facts for ID?


check out talkorigins.net

also, check out this i put togather.