Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Hellblazer]

we could all use some peace in this world. ('c',)

[NASYO]

good for you..

just try listening to "IMAGINE"

[Tattva]

evolution can never explain it at all.the origin of matter, space, energy and life.
================================================== ============

Its not that they cant but there is no evidence where they can BASED their theory.

well sir. please remember that in the beginning was the state of nothingness as in none. no matter, no chemical, no space, no energy. NOTHINGNESS.

This is not science. This is an assumption made by religious people. BB theory starts with energy not on nothingness. The concept of nothingness is an assumption that at the beginning there is nothingness, Sounds like Genesis 1:1 the void, but this is not science. Science says that according sa ilang observation energy was already there. Why came up with this theory? because mao ra man ilang na observe.

and if you will recall the first law of thermodynamics which state matter and energy cannot be created by another matter or energy. see the scientific flaws of your argument if we take science into consideration.

the 1st law of thermodynamic is about conservation of energy. Wala may ingun didto sir nga matter can not be created by another matter.


Sir ang energy maka formed ug matter. Dili kay ang energy is matter.

wala gani tay problema anang spirit world or creation kay hagbay ra ko sir ga sulti nga we have Faith. let science use science to prove itself. don not confuse me that I intend for you to drop evolution and transfer to creation, kay ang ako point is.... you are free to believe what you want kung evolution go ka evolution, but you cannot say that you have scientific evidence and facts for your theory kay sir sa tinud-anay wala.

and stop saying nga creation have no facts, we have but we also have faith to our GOD because this is a system of belief.

but if you say you only based your belief in scientific evidences and claims that's why you go for evolution, i think you have to wake up and see as well, that you have such a huge faith in something you thought was all scientific methods, evidence and facts. because there is a big hole that you always miss.

and sir any evolutionist will tie big bang as the origin of everything.

Contrary to your own belief sir that beyond what you think science have no answer to it.... actually they have.... and i see you are assuming too much to conclusive say that the entire scientific community have no answer just because you don't have one.

they have tried to imagine and speculate and call it a theory but in the process they have already broken a lot of scientific, mathematics and physic laws just to support their thery.

and if you can't answer my questions with scientific evidence, no worries I know that already from the very start, because as i have said there is not just an evidence to substantiate the theory.

and it is your own system of belief and i am ok with that as i know you are ok with my belief in creation.

but to you i say, if FAITH is required with creation so is with evolution, the same, faith is required as well.


by the way sir, are you still going for the spontaneous generation theory?

Yes some evolutionists will invoke BB theory to prove "origins" but the evidence is within the obsewrvable facts only, not beyond it. So if you asks a BB propronent about orign, He/she will reply that energy was the first cause.

And energy can be observe and it is evidence.

If according to your claim that they have broken a lot of scientific laws then you need to provide your evidence not just accusations.

I cant answer your question with scientific evidence? hahay. unsa man diay ning atong gi pang discuss karun.


Evolutioin requires faith? as in faith like a god created existence? Not really. changes in allele frequencies,fossil records, and common descent is where we based our theory. Maybe there are oppositions from the religious people but thats understandable. Wala pay Theory nga strong to refute evolution.

ikaw asa man gi base nimo imong theory nga God created existence? naa kay mga observable trends nga ma observe sa science? show it then. but kung faith ra aw wala tay mahimo ana padayun lang. But if you want a Scientific explanantion then i suggest that you leave your faith sa doorstep sa inyong church.


Diri na lang ni kutob akong pag depensa sa akong pagtoo sa evoltuion kay akong nakita nga mao ra gihapon ka.

Cge ka ug syagit dihag evidence show evidence nya kung naay evidence dili motubag sa pangutana nya mo misrepresnt pa jud ka. Matter and energy cant be created? energy cguro but matter pfft...nganu gud tawn dili ma create. nay ako pa imong sultihan nga i need to know my science, hahahahaha. maka hinumdum man pod ta sa mix breeding ani.

So bye now sir. Adios amigo...let your faith continue but let it stay that way. Never equate it as science.

[tripwire]

well sir. please remember that in the beginning was the state of nothingness as in none. no matter, no chemical, no space, no energy. NOTHINGNESS.

If I may, di ba that was suggested by the Bible?

science says matter came from chemicals and energy? sir let's just refresh our memory matter is defined as anything that has weight and occupy space, your chemical and energy have weight? occupying space? then sir both are already matter.

if it is outer space, matter is weightless - blackness is sometimes synonymous to matter because it occupies the entire space.
More on here.... http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Black+matter

and if you will recall the first law of thermodynamics which state matter and energy cannot be created by another matter or energy. see the scientific flaws of your argument if we take science into consideration.

I thought the 1st law of thermodynamics is energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, in essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Hmmm... I maybe wrong here.

wala gani tay problema anang spirit world or creation kay hagbay ra ko sir ga sulti nga we have Faith. let science use science to prove itself. don not confuse me that I intend for you to drop evolution and transfer to creation, kay ang ako point is.... you are free to believe what you want kung evolution go ka evolution, but you cannot say that you have scientific evidence and facts for your theory kay sir sa tinud-anay wala.

Exactly to some point... we believe because we know that is acceptable to us. But what science and scientists have given in support to their theories can not be dismissed also because that's the medium of study now.

and stop saying nga creation have no facts, we have but we also have faith to our GOD because this is a system of belief.

Not to disagree on your faith sir ho chia what the Bible suggested that in collaboration with one person and God was matter of "if you don't believe me then you're against me.." kind of thought. If the book of genesis was really true, there could be so many people involved di ba? I mean, there should be at least an entire family or village witnessing what God said. Kaso most of the stories (in the bible) came from one person. Science on the other half, shared ideas to other scientists and then these scientists test it themselves if it is acceptable of not. That's the beauty of science, the study does not stop.

Just a little contribution from a non-expert - all is well God bless.

[tripwire]

This is good material for both Evolutionist and Creationist... Please read on. We can start here as a mode of argument not some petty quarrels.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...efs_suit_says/

"what is a person doing in an evolutionary lab when they don't believe in evolution . . .?"

[Mr.Ho_chia]

can't both arguments be right? i mean, creation and evolution at the same time. both correct. can it be possible?

if only it is complementary of each other, however it is a direct contradiction of each other. how then can be both correct? surely one is and the other isn't but that is beside the point, it is a matter of choice.

what is important is that we understand that neither can be a complete scientific fact and both entails faith.

[tripwire]

NO offense to those who have faith in creation... Kasi, once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads. They cease being a scientist. So... Who is right?

Scientists feel that their beliefs can be proven correct because they are based on observation and measurements:

Evidence from geology, anthropology, paleontology, nuclear physics, astronomy, cosmology and many other sciences show that the Earth and the rest of the universe have been in existence far longer than 10,000 years.

Observations of nature show that all "kinds" did not come on the scene at roughly the same time. Rather, simple forms of life came first, and then evolved into more complex forms.
However, scientists cannot prove whether or not God or a collection of deities steered various processes over time. This is a speculation that cannot be tested.

Meanwhile, those who base their beliefs on their interpretation of the Genesis creation stories feel that their beliefs can be proven right, for the simple reason that they are based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Unfortunately, there exists no universally accepted proofs from nature that eliminate any of the main major belief systems. What evidence is accepted by one group is rejected by the others.

Source Here

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Ok. So beyond it what else is there? i mean what evidence are still there beyond "the larvae"?

whatever it is, beyond it wala nay evidence. So dili puede mo formulate ang science on something nga dili nila ma observe.


Unproven theory? like life came from chemicals and energies? Actually sir naa silay sound theory.

and what is that if i may ask? theory remain to be a theory unless substantial evidence is provided so as definitive claims can be achieve. otherwise it will be something suggestive that is worth pursuing.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

A billion of years is not an assumption sir. Gradual changes have been observed and small changes can be big.

This is science explaning the past no need for lab. This is science explaning the FACT in order to form a theory.


Sir im sorry but i have never heard any experimentations conducted to prove this claim you made---->"we have not seen a single cell amoeba becoming a multi-cellular organism, never, you know why sir, because experiments in the lab showed destruction of the mutated specie. that is what i am talking about."

so sir if you have any link or documents pls cite it...i want to be sure then i'll answer you.


Sir there is a question on my previous post about the fly? can you pls answer it.

sir can you prove that the earth is billions of years? let's start from there! show me your evidence that shows the age of the world to be billions of years.

actually that is science assuming to give logical argument for a speculative theory... that indeed by chance the theory can be possible even if it was already computed mathematically to be of great impossibilities .

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Sir im sorry but i have never heard any experimentations conducted to prove this claim you made---->"we have not seen a single cell amoeba becoming a multi-cellular organism, never, you know why sir, because experiments in the lab showed destruction of the mutated specie. that is what i am talking about." --- tattva

sir that is a logical explanation. otherwise evolutionist have already presented such evidence, mutating a single cell organism to multi-cellular and show this as evidence. but sorry none. and sir don't tell me that no evolution scientist have ever tried to manipulate genetic information to do just that.

and surely sir, it is a logical assumption that if you mutate in the cellular level it will certainly have effects to the organism, if you believe that it will be a good effect multiplied a thousand fold then you are wrong becuse so far what we see in genetic mutation in high degree produces cancers which are detrimental for the organism---- don't tell me you will need evidence for this, i will just have to refer you to text books or at the cancer institute of Aboitiz.