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

[schmuck]

---

hahaha...ow it was just an illustration.



im trying to make a sense out of your FSM here, obviously it lacks proof. and again does your FSM has the attribute of God ?

so whats the official definition of your FSM? did your FSM create the world? did your FSM create life?

by the way the FSM book was obviously made for mockery. so why believe in it? you know what Igot this feeling that you are trying so hard to push FSM into the argument, its not making any progress.

Yep. There is a whole story of the FSM creating the world. The FSM is that powerful. The FSM argument is not making any progress to you because it is using irony. Remember that old saying I mentioned?

[Aethyr]

[quote=necrotic freak;7539945]Where did life come from?/quote]

Charles Darwin


The Second Question and so on... : Where Did Charles Darwin came from.

Evolutionist Knock out

[server]

gkan tas gkan tas gkan tas gkan tas

[LOLzZz]

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.

so what's the problem? you are sliding away from the issue. Did I ask you about the method used by modern science? geocentrism and how it was embraced by the scientists before and during the time of Galileo is where you should focus on.

my point is this, theory does change and I brought up the case of Galileo as an example to point out to you that even if a certain Theory has gained acceptance and approval by most schools still it is not a guarantee that that Theory can survive. That's the point, look at your argument it is totally out of the way. your focus is on the minor issues and thats hilarious,usually people who does that have run out of answers.

Correct! they got their theory wrong and that's my point. Geocentrists of course were scientists regardless of the kind of scientific method they used. If I were to follow your line of reasoning, is it correct for me to say that the scientists of our country are lesser scientists because they lack the sophisticated tools to use in finding more accurate results? of course not. See, thats where your logic fails. but again thats not the main point of our discussion. Im bringing up this case to point out that Theory can change. Approval from certain organizations doesn't always mean that the theory is worth believing.

Science persecuted Galileo, yep and I have given my reason, just scroll up. no im not kidding its a fact.



klaro kaayo dili motobay sa evolution discussion kay wala may ika presentar nga ebidensiya. Ari gyud siya sa out of topic nga discussion. haha. hangtud karon wa gihapoy ikapakita nga ebidens.

[kureigu.maikeru]

" 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

---genesis 1:27

naa ko naremember ba nga ingon sa akoa sa tiguwang (himasa ni siya ug biblical books) nga ang dios daw duha iya *** male and female.

[schmuck]

so what's the problem? you are sliding away from the issue. Did I ask you about the method used by modern science? geocentrism and how it was embraced by the scientists before and during the time of Galileo is where you should focus on.

my point is this, theory does change and I brought up the case of Galileo as an example to point out to you that even if a certain Theory has gained acceptance and approval by most schools still it is not a guarantee that that Theory can survive. That's the point, look at your argument it is totally out of the way. your focus is on the minor issues and thats hilarious,usually people who does that have run out of answers.

Correct! they got their theory wrong and that's my point. Geocentrists of course were scientists regardless of the kind of scientific method they used. If I were to follow your line of reasoning, is it correct for me to say that the scientists of our country are lesser scientists because they lack the sophisticated tools to use in finding more accurate results? of course not. See, thats where your logic fails. but again thats not the main point of our discussion. Im bringing up this case to point out that Theory can change. Approval from certain organizations doesn't always mean that the theory is worth believing.

Science persecuted Galileo, yep and I have given my reason, just scroll up. no im not kidding its a fact.



klaro kaayo dili motobay sa evolution discussion kay wala may ika presentar nga ebidensiya. Ari gyud siya sa out of topic nga discussion. haha. hangtud karon wa gihapoy ikapakita nga ebidens.

are you drugs dong??

Scientists are scientists because the use the scientific method IRREGARDLESS sa "tools" nga ilang gigamit. Pataka ka man lang oi.

Dong, nag research na ka sa retroviral insertions dong?

[LOLzZz]

Yep. There is a whole story of the FSM creating the world. The FSM is that powerful. The FSM argument is not making any progress to you because it is using irony. Remember that old saying I mentioned?

sorry but i dont believe you. it is claimed as a satirical book.

oh really there is? the FSM must be the God.

[schmuck]

sorry but i dont believe you. it is claimed as a satirical book.

oh really there is? the FSM must be the God.

Bingo!
Palakpakan all around

[LOLzZz]

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.

are you implying that the scientists before and during Galileo's time never used any math equation in their quest for logical explanations about the universe? tsk tsk...haha! you are so wrong.

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

nice rule but evolution have violated these rules. hahaha! thank you for posting this. now i can quote you on this. careful now.

[LOLzZz]

Bingo!
Palakpakan all around

thank you thank you...do you know that God appeared to Moses as a burning bush? God can be in any form he wants.