Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[kebotDiNaMute]

okay so you want to do this with side comments, fine.

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.

whenever science re-positioned their stand on certain issues, this is not religion kebs, science must follow evidence.
--- yes when science is moving into different perspective, whats left is PSEUDO... you what that means? meaning its FALSE-SCIENCE. how can you insist its science? hmmm... malic what your are trying to do is you use science to validate your those faulty ideas. I have no problem with science only those faulty idea... we can start with faulty idea... we can talk about science later... If its not verified as TRUE and Correct a theory will still remain a THEORY because it cannot be proven TRUE AND CORRECT. dba? so again, why insist? hmmm....

Lets not talk about ancestor or grampa.. what i gave you is a picture of you and your grampa... don't be so serious about this... if you think its not a joke.. well you are free to beleive you look the same, if you think its a joke... yes it is in the first place...

[kebotDiNaMute]

educate yourself kebs. Read...

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.

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.
--- focus on this malic, What happen to the thoery if the evidence does not support its claim? tubaga ko ani malic.

--- better make a new theory then lets validate...

[Malic]

whenever science re-positioned their stand on certain issues, this is not religion kebs, science must follow evidence.
--- yes when science is moving into different perspective, whats left is PSEUDO... you what that means? meaning its FALSE-SCIENCE.

unsay what is left is psuedo? taka man lang ka oi. kong saona ang nakit-an nila is molecules ra nya later on kakita na sila sa atom pseudo diay na? kaligo oi para mhowasan ka. kapoya aning makig storya ta sa osa ka tao nga galupad.

kong saona ingon sila nga ang smallest particle is molecules nya naosab into atoms nya naosab na pod, psuedo diay na? false science na? taka man lang ka oi. they will change their position lagi depende sa evidence nga ma discover.

how can you insist its science? hmmm... malic what your are trying to do is you use science to validate your those faulty ideas. I have no problem with science only those faulty idea... we can start with faulty idea... we can talk about science later... If its not verified as TRUE and Correct a theory will still remain a THEORY because it cannot be proven TRUE AND CORRECT. dba? so again, why insist? hmmm....

faulty ideas? evolution is being taught in the universities approved by the scientific community, unsa may naka faulty diha ba?

Lets not talk about ancestor or grampa.. what i gave you is a picture of you and your grampa... don't be so serious about this... if you think its not a joke.. well you are free to beleive you look the same, if you think its a joke... yes it is in the first place...

nasakit ka kebs? lagpasa na nimo oi.

[Malic]

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.
--- focus on this malic, What happen to the thoery if the evidence does not support its claim? tubaga ko ani malic.

--- better make a new theory then lets validate...

basaha og balik oi. naa ang tubag didto.

[Alramzz]

If Evolution is true or that natural selection is at work but does this disqualify God?

[jamesmusslewhite]

you don't have to go to a public libraray, James. you can find reliable articles/sources on the internet. a scientist, like yourself, should have access to private databases (from the company you worked for or universities) to pull resources from. i'm surprised that you don't. i'm waiting.

No that is not correct I have not worked for Nasa for years, even so the information has to be entered into digital form and downloaded into a server. Books , magazines, newspapers are not obtainable because they are not scanned. Most good information found on the internet is from books, but information from the books are sometimes documented in web articles. The proper search string and some times 20-100 pages must be reviewed to find one that applies. The internet has information but every website has to be read and annualized to insure it meets the high standards imposed by members who set the following rules.

Rules imposed:
!.) Creationist can not use any information from Christian, Jewish, or Islamic oriented sites.
(where eles is the information of flawed evolution sciences, deceptions, and frauds will be found)

2.) Creationist can not use the Bible.
(members do not like the "G" because they do not believe so he can not possible exist)

3.) Creationist can not use science to try disprove Evolution.
(members think only evolutionist have the right to use science)

4.) Evolutionist will disregard and dismiss any evidence they deem fit.
(especially if it directly challenges evolution or is a question evolution can not explain)

5.) Evolutionist can use any evidence from any source as long as they like it.
(rather if it is from a evolutionist, Darwinian bias site, or credible science website - and can not be questioned by creationist)

6.) Evolutionist can ask you to prove God's existence, plan, purpose, miracles
(even though evolution can not disprove or explain God - yet the use of the Bible can not be used)

7. Evolutionist can only be considered mentally superior, and creationist as inferior intelligence.
(creationist can be called fools, stupid, close-minded, and what ever the deem appropriate)

8.) Evolutionist are allowed to add more rules as they deem fit to insure an advantage in debate.
(creationist must not get angry, because they may hurt the evolutionist and Darwinian feelings)

So you will need to be patient I will post it for you, but I want it righteous when I do. I even remember watching at least 1 documentary and read several articles on the Lucy issue, but it was 10 years ago or more. I will find it.

[cromagnon]

If Evolution is true or that natural selection is at work but does this disqualify God?

doesnt disqualify , but cant neither be qualify . in short relgions god claim is still a lie.

[Tirong-say]

Yup, the notion is the same, when we think that in the vastness of the universe and the greater expanse of the milky way, we're alone after all, for until now our knowledge and perception are limited to such..........

[chad_tukes]

No that is not correct I have not worked for Nasa for years, even so the information has to be entered into digital form and downloaded into a server. Books , magazines, newspapers are not obtainable because they are not scanned. Most good information found on the internet is from books, but information from the books are sometimes documented in web articles. The proper search string and some times 20-100 pages must be reviewed to find one that applies. The internet has information but every website has to be read and annualized to insure it meets the high standards imposed by members who set the following rules.

you HAVE NOT worked for NASA for years? i thought you did, James. you even posted it here in the forum on AUGUST 28, 2009---so which lie are we supposed to believe James? let me quote what you posted:

I am a retired Horticultural Biologist, and even work for NASA for 11 years in Houston, Texas. The more I tried to simulate nature, the more I began to appreciate the complexities of God's design.

[chad_tukes]

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...

don't put words into my mouth, kebs. i didn't say it's bad---i said it's CONTRADICTORY.

again, work on your comprehension skills.