Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[baby.angel]

---

Exactly
Bulls eye sis!
Let's give them a big LolzZz again

wa pud ko kasabot nganong ang uban cgeg ingn nga ang evolution theory kuwang pa or FSM lacks proof.. ang bible/creationism d.i?

im trying to make a sense out of your FSM here, obviously it lacks proof.

[LOLzZz]

wa pud ko kasabot nganong ang uban cgeg ingn nga ang evolution theory kuwang pa or FSM lacks proof.. ang bible/creationism d.i?

ang bible/creatioism? dili man kuwang og proof. LOLzZz!

[necrotic freak]

Is there any evidence yet?

[hitch22]

there were already schools, where do you think Galileo got his education? of course they were scientists. you call there science psuedo science? haha...get your facts right.

You said No . tsk tsk..it proves your ignorance. Geocentrism is the accepted model of that period upheld by the scientists of that century. Was not systematic? hahahahahahaha....who told you that? they used Babylonian mathematics where we derive our algebra,geometry and other from of arithmetics. wow...another evidence that you don' really know what you are talking about.

whoa! who told you that geocentrism was a pseudo-science during their time? anyways its obvious that you have lapses. this discussion proves that even if communities or school of sciences has accepted a certain theory still its subject to change. So NAS approval of evolution means nothing.

ow it was science according to the great minds of old. you can call it whatever you like tho.

oh you didnt get it. Ptolemy is both and astronomer and astrologer. has nothing to do with the science of that time. its like saying that Dawkings is both a scientist and atheist.

wrong. the fact that you used the word modern science indicates that there was a science before that. they were scientists, they chart the heavens using mathematical equations.

Here's my point. The FIRST example of THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN USE was Newton's development of the clockwork universe. Newton was the first to arrive at his theories using the constant interplay of observation and theory. He built on the observations and experiments by Galileo and Kepler. And he used the cycle of observation, theory, test-against-new-observations repeatedly until his investigations achieved a complete understanding of the phenomenon being studied. And after he incorporated all of his understandings into his sweeping theory of motion, his theory was then used to make predictions like the re-appearance of Halley's comet. And only after many such tests was the theory accepted by scientists. THAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ACTION.

Sure, we owe our algebra/geometry to the Babylonians. The Geocentrists probably got their methods of astronomy from Babylonian astronomers too. AND THEY GOT THEIR THEORY WRONG, despite how obvious it was to the senses that the earth did seem to be center of the universe. But what I'm getting at is the use of the modern scientific method. IF WE ARE TO DEFINE A SCIENTIST BY THE USE OF SUCH METHODS, THEN I CLAIM THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT GEOCENTRISTS WHO OPPOSED GALILEO CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS SCIENTISTS IN THIS SENSE. GET WHAT I MEAN? Call it semantics. We have to define the terms, first, before we take on your claim that SCIENCE PERSECUTED GALILEO.

YES, the argument you have to win is that SCIENCE PERSECUTED GALILEO. THIS IS YOUR THESIS. Name the scientific organization that did the persecution. Name the SCIENCE TRIBUNAL that handled "science heresy". Are heresy trials part of the scientific method? How was this persecution carried out? Is that part of the scientific method too? As far as I'm concerned, heresy trials and persecution are not within the purview of SCIENCE. Anyone can challenge the theories in science, as long as the scientific method is followed. As far as I'm concerned, I know only of one office which tried and persecuted Galileo: THE INQUISITION.

SCIENCE PERSECUTED GALILEO? OF COURSE NOT. YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

[hitch22]

I'll now go into detail about the scientific method...particularly to dispel all the nonsense you've seen dished out by creationists in this thread. For this first post I'll lay out the GOLDEN RULES OF SCIENCE...and then follow it up with THE SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE.

Actually the methods of experimentation have been practiced by Arab intellectuals long before Galileo. However, these methods were looked down on by the powerful Christian Church during Galileo's time. The Christian church maintained that conclusions could only be reached by discussion and logic, as had been taught by Aristotle. That was the prevailing "scientific way of thinking" in medieval Europe. So, whoever were the scientists that were in cahoots with the Office of the Inquisition...can we really call them scientists? OKAY, THAT BLOWS THE SCIENCE-PERSECUTED-GALILEO THESIS OUT OF THE WATER.

Over hundreds of years, the golden rules of science have been honed and perfected to ensure meticulous accuracy and impartiality. And they start with something that was anathema to the medieval church

#1 THOU SHALT BASED THY CONCLUSION ON THE EVIDENCE

Evidence in its most basic form is an observation. So this rule means that a conclusion has to be based on observations. This isn't only the basis for scientific method. It's the basis of our entire legal system. No court of law starts with a conclusion that a suspect is guilty or innocent, then passes sentence, and then later hears the evidence to confirm the infallibility of its verdict.

#2 THOU SHALT MEASURE OBJECTIVELY (NOT GUESS SUBJECTIVELY)

#3 THOU SHALT BACK UP STATEMENTS WITH EVIDENCE
In other words, just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.

#4 THOU SHALT USE LARGE SAMPLE NUMBERS

#5 THY TESTS SHALT BE BLIND

#6 THY TESTS SHALT HAVE CONTROLS

#7 THOU SHALT CITE THY SOURCES OF INFORMATION

#8 THY SOURCES OF INFORMATION MUST BE RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, AND BACKED BY EVIDENCE

#9 OPINION IS NOT A FACT

#10 THOU SHALT NOT CHEAT

All scientific research has to follow these golden rules. And if the rules aren't followed, then it's not science.

....THE SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE coming up soon

[necrotic freak]

...but the thread's GOLDEN QUESTION is.

Where did life come from? Can somebody answer this before we proceed to scientific procedure and those life long thiories?

[devilsburger]

^^ check this one out brad..the answer to your question...

Where Did Life Come From?

by Thomas F. Heinze, revised July 2004

Spontaneous Generation?

“The scientific principle that life only comes from life is called Biogenesis.” {Essenfeld, Gontang, Moore, Addison-Wesley Biology, 1996, p. 223} It states that spontaneous generation does not happen, instead, every living thing has come from some other living thing. It is one of the best proved scientific principles, sometimes called the Law of Biogenesis. Even the most atheistic schoolbook authors admit that all the scientific evidence, both observational and experimental, upholds this basic scientific principle. More and more school books, however, are now claiming that there once was an exception to this basic principle of science; that a first living cell came about as very complex chemicals evolved and formed life without the help of a Creator. Since this is spontaneous generation, and almost everyone now knows that spontaneous generation is anti scientific, the name has been changed to “abiogenesis” which comes from roots which mean: “not biogenesis”. You may be thinking,“So there are two views on where life came from, so what?”

If the Biology textbooks are right, there is no God who created living things, and it follows that there is no heaven or hell! What should we live for, and what should be our moral standards? Here is a typical atheistic response: “It is very hard to admit that there is only one single reason for each of us to come into this world: to transmit our DNA to the next generation. There is absolutely no other purpose for us to be born.” {Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 130.}

If this is right, any moral rules that limit our sexual activity hinder us in accomplishing the “one single reason for each of us to come into this world”. Hollywood is a leader in exporting the new moral standards throughout the world. Some Middle Eastern Muslims go to the movies and think they have understood American culture. They call America “the great Satan,” and are willing to strap on bombs and give their lives to strike back at us. Why not? They believe that in death they will be rewarded with 72 virgins. Some western men, thankful that Hollywood and the schools are desensitizing girls to sin, are going after their 72 virgins in the here and now.

I started studying the origin of life to compare the scientific evidence that favors an intelligent Creator with that which favors abiogenesis. I had read about the subject a good deal, so I went into the study believing that I would find more scientific evidence favoring an intelligent living Creator who designed and made life, than that which supports abiogenesis. I was also influenced by the fact that I read the Bible every day. It explains that God created certain categories of living things. In addition, years ago at Oregon State College, I accepted God’s offer of salvation based on the fact that Christ paid for my sins, and since then have seen Him doing all kinds of things in my own life and the lives of other Christians. Knowing God and having found Him trustworthy increased my expectation that I would find more evidence that life was created by an intelligent and capable designer than I would find supporting abiogenesis.

In spite of all this, I was not prepared for what I found! After reading book after book promoting abiogenesis, some written by expert origin of life researchers, it began to dawn on me that I had not found a single book that gave even one shred of scientific evidence that life had begun by abiogenesis. I have a request out on this website for anyone who knows of any to let me know, and no one has. Compelled by their faith in the atheistic idea that God did not create life, the authors of books promoting abiogenesis support their thesis with speculation, made up fables, and scenarios instead of evidence.

As I searched, I was able to find a great deal of scientific evidence, but it was against abiogenesis, and for an intelligent Creator. As you read ahead, watch as I pile the evidence before you; first evidence against abiogenesis, and then evidence for an intelligent planner and Creator.

There is a great deal of solid evidence, but I have had to look beyond the textbooks to find it. First life researchers, for example, who have tried for years without success to make a cell, or even just one of its components in their laboratories face a problem. They may be atheists and want abiogenesis to have happened, but if they repeat the made up stories textbooks use to convince students that life, or some step toward life happens easily, why can’t they make it happen in their labs? Are they incompetent? If they give that impression, financing for their research will dry up. With motivation like that, researchers sometimes present real scientific evidence instead of making abiogenesis sound easy.

The same is true when a scientist holds a new or minority position on some point because the majority position really won’t work. If he doesn’t point out the holes in the dominant theory, why should anyone accept his replacement for it? When we look for it, the truth shows up.

[cromagnon]

Whales evolved from a land mamal ....

[baby.angel]

ang bible/creatioism? dili man kuwang og proof. LOLzZz!

LOLzZz giud..,

wa na koi rason nga makigdiskurso nmo..,

[cromagnon]

mountains of proff..