So after a hard fight with lucy over the years, lets move to ardi? hmm whats next? nobody could ever conclude lucy, yet you guys are so determined to believe... now comes ardi... well see... Check out your NEBRASKA MAN. still never learns?Originally Posted by Malic
View Poll Results: Is Evolution a scientific fact?
- Voters
- 50. You may not vote on this poll
Results 911 to 920 of 1380
Thread: Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE
-
10-03-2009, 10:21 PM #911Banned User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,569
-
10-03-2009, 10:25 PM #912Banned User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,569
Theory... hahay. Brad all theory are still questionable... Originally Posted by chad_tukes
for one's your big ban theory, was shred by the string theory + relativity + .... remember parallel universe, and whats amazing is they had DISPROVEN IT IN 30min... after a DECADES OF STUDY. Sorry chad you must have read the old journals... upgrading helps.
-
10-03-2009, 10:27 PM #913obviously you have no idea how things work. nebraska man was different. lucy and ardi are real. Originally Posted by kebotDiNaMute
conclude lucy of what?
-
10-03-2009, 10:31 PM #914So the link is one jigzaw puzzle is that scientific, or a belief only that such is a feasible proof..... Originally Posted by chad_tukes
-
10-03-2009, 10:31 PM #915pls for your own sanity, stop treating science like dogmas. As new evidence unfolds the theory changes. Originally Posted by kebotDiNaMute
-
10-03-2009, 10:32 PM #916Banned User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,569
what i have is scientific method and evidence Originally Posted by chad_tukes
i don't have a religion kebs so i don't belong to one.
for the record, evolution is not a religion.
the big difference is you have your faith to back it up and i don't have one. what i have is scientific method and evidence.
--- evidence that does not support the claim...
--- dont forget the stories...
"for the record, evolution is not a religion"
Is it bad that there is this religious-like dimension to evolutionary thought? I see no reason to say that it is. If someone like Wilson -- who feels strongly that our nature will always demand a religious perspective and commitment -- wants to make a religion of his science, then this is surely his right as much as it is our right to accept or reject it as we will.
Is Evolution Just another Religion? :: Michael Ruse :: Global Spiral#
hmmm.... ambot lang chad, i see your commitment, and the religious perspective(Definitely FAITH). You got the ingredient its only a matter of time... as always with evo...
-
10-03-2009, 10:36 PM #917Banned User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,569
so why did you insist when it kept changing. What you see now might be a white color... later on blue... so again why insist when you can never be sure... when its not theory anymore malic we can talk about evolution as TRUE. Right now, other half is TRUE... the rest is your addon to avoid creator... Originally Posted by Malic
No, malic you are treating science as dogma.. why use science to support your faith? As I have mentioned malic,
lucy never had conclusion... and will never will be...
Ardi is not Human not Chimpz... but you want to believe he is your GRAMPA... tsk tsk tsk... you need to have the right ingriedent to create what you want. you cannot make a coffee with scissors and papers... dba simple raman unta...Last edited by kebotDiNaMute; 10-03-2009 at 10:44 PM.
-
10-03-2009, 10:40 PM #918Banned User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,569
I notice chad. Originally Posted by chad_tukes
that doesn't mean it's not out there
--- pure faith? hmmm i have the same statement tooo... so whats the difference? we don't have evidence yet you insist? why insist? thats very funny chad... you are moving from science-to-faith and use this faith-to-become-science, don't treat science like dogma.... same with malic... evolution is half science half faith... creatoinism is partly science and more faith.
We can agree on the science part... we can never agree on that faith... hmmm
-
10-03-2009, 10:50 PM #919okay so you want to do this with side comments, fine. Originally Posted by kebotDiNaMute
dogmas are fixed if you changed it you'll burn in hell. Science on the other hand had no problem re-aligning its theory as seen in the evidence provided.
im amazed to see your violent reaction whenever science re-positioned their stand on certain issues, this is not religion kebs, science must follow evidence.
what made you think that im taking science as dogmas? are you imagining a person?
of course ardi is not human and chimpz...Ardi is called Ardipithecus ramidus.
by the way the right word is not grampa but ancestor. you must know the difference, lazy mind you are.
-
10-03-2009, 11:01 PM #920educate yourself kebs. Read... Originally Posted by kebotDiNaMute
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
Science follows where the evidence leads them kebs. if the evidence only shows white then science would say that its white. then if in the future, more evidence unfold and it shows that its gray then science would call it gray. thats science, not dogmas.
Advertisement
Similar Threads |
|
Posting Permissions
|