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

[LOLzZz]

---

LOLzZz giud..,

wa na koi rason nga makigdiskurso nmo..,

wa man sab ko mamugos nimo ga makigdiskorso ka nako. ikaw ray nangablit diha.

[baby.angel]

Bingo!
Palakpakan all around

hala oi. d giud na mu.work niya imong level schmuck. d cia ka.G

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

proof beh..

wa man sab ko mamugos nimo ga makigdiskorso ka nako. ikaw ray nangablit diha.

d ra ordinaryong kablit ang angai nmo doy. kablit sa alimpatakan. aron mahigmata sa imng gpang.ingn.

[hitch22]

So many non-sense to clean up, but I'll separate the droppings from the dried leaves.

Geocentrists of course were scientists regardless of the kind of scientific method they used.

WHAT IS A SCIENTIST? Here's a simple definition: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. OF COURSE, SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE. THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES REAL SCIENCE FROM PSEUDOSCIENCE.

GEOCENTRISM is not a scientific theory. What prediction was it able to make accurately? AGAIN, FOR A THEORY TO BE CALLED "SCIENTIFIC", IT HAS TO BE BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. If we say that any theory embraced by "scientists" in the medieval period should be called a scientific theory, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL CALL ASTROLOGY AND ALCHEMY A SCIENCE.

Remember, this was the Middle Ages. SCIENCE WAS JUST A SUB-FIELD OF THEOLOGY. The Church held all the power and money. "Scientists" in those days didn't dare bring up theories that may be deemed heretical. So, they started out with hypothesis that conform with scriptures and tried to find evidences to fit that pre-determined conclusion...THAT'S A NO-NO IN SCIENCE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THAT'S WHY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS KEY TO SCIENCE.

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.

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES CHANGE. But it's a change that does not overthrow the previous theory. It refines it---or in the case of a unification, encapsulates it---and makes it more comprehensive and precise. But it doesn't mean that the older scientific theory was false.

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?

METHOD, NOT TOOLS. Newton had more primitive tools than what scientists in our country have today.

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

THE CHURCH DID. YEP. CHECK THE VATICAN ARCHIVES ON THE INQUISITION.

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.

I think you're responding to this statement I made...

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.

Did I say they didn't use Math in Galileo's time? Of course, Mathematical logic is one of the method (under the umbrella of LOGIC) that the Medieval Church embraced to arrive at conclusions. And yes it's true that the Church looked down on the methods of experimentation of the Arabs. GALILEO was an odd ball in his community because he dared to be different. And that puts him on the camp of SCIENCE, and those who persecuted him on the camp of the CHURCH.

AND, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!

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.

Aw, kung ganahan ka mosugod ko ug presentar sa akong argumento para sa Evolution, ato sa ning undangon ning debate bahin sa SCIENCE-PERSECUTED-GALILEO...

Klaro man nga dili ka molihok sa imong position. Ako pod, paminaw nako nga binuang manang thesis nimo. AGREE TO DISAGREE? YOU HAVE TO TELL ME THOUGH IF YOU WANT THE LAST WORD ON THIS ISSUE. KAY KUNG DILI GANI, AW HALA SIGE KUMBATI TANG DUHA

[LOLzZz]

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?

huh? mao bitaw na akong pasabot. read it again.

[LOLzZz]

hala oi. d giud na mu.work niya imong level schmuck. d cia ka.G



proof beh..



d ra ordinaryong kablit ang angai nmo doy. kablit sa alimpatakan. aron mahigmata sa imng gpang.ingn.

murag ikaw may wa ka G. pataka ma gani ka ug sulod, kasabot ka kung unsay akong gibuhat ni schmuck? hahaha!

proof ? unsaon man paghatag sa proof nga homana man to. kasaot ka kung unsa ng proof?

[schmuck]

hala oi. d giud na mu.work niya imong level schmuck. d cia ka.G

Lisud jd magpawatsinanggo sa dili makabantay. Murag sayang ang effort.

[chad_tukes]

"faith" is believing even the unseen, so to say that you have brain is therefore of faith coz even though you have'nt seen your brain, but yet you believe you have.

old argument and most importantly --- it doesn't make sense. you are equating the presence of my brain to the presence of GOD. i know i have a brain because i can read and reply to your post, therefore, i'm 100% sure it exist (even though i can't see it). i cannot even fathom the thought of comparing the existence of my brain to that of God's.

[LOLzZz]

So many non-sense to clean up, but I'll separate the droppings from the dried leaves.

calling your opponents argument as non-sense is normal for someone who is unable to give counter points.

WHAT IS A SCIENTIST? Here's a simple definition: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. OF COURSE, SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE. THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES REAL SCIENCE FROM PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Agree.

[quote=hitch22]GEOCENTRISM is not a scientific theory. What prediction was it able to make accurately? AGAIN, FOR A THEORY TO BE CALLED "SCIENTIFIC", IT HAS TO BE BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. If we say that any theory embraced by "scientists" in the medieval period should be called a scientific theory, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL CALL ASTROLOGY AND ALCHEMY A SCIENCE.

Remember, this was the Middle Ages. SCIENCE WAS JUST A SUB-FIELD OF THEOLOGY. The Church held all the power and money. "Scientists" in those days didn't dare bring up theories that may be deemed heretical. So, they started out with hypothesis that conform with scriptures and tried to find evidences to fit that pre-determined conclusion...THAT'S A NO-NO IN SCIENCE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THAT'S WHY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS KEY TO SCIENCE.

SCIENTIFIC

THEORIES CHANGE. But it's a change that does not overthrow the previous theory. It refines it---or in the case of a unification, encapsulates it---and makes it more comprehensive and precise. But it doesn't mean that the older scientific theory was false.

really? so you think that geocentrism is not false? hahahaha! come on. your semantics against history, oooops you lose, history is the winner.


METHOD, NOT TOOLS. Newton had more primitive tools than what scientists in our country have today.

even if one has the proper method but lacks the most accurate tools still the result would be unsatisfactory. Galileo had revolutionized astronomy because he had invented the right tool for the job.

THE CHURCH DID. YEP. CHECK THE VATICAN ARCHIVES ON THE INQUISITION.

AND science too never leave that out. do you know that there were many priests who were also scientists at that time? and also at that time the Roman Church also owns Universities, do you know that?





I think you're responding to this statement I made...


Did I say they didn't use Math in Galileo's time? Of course, Mathematical logic is one of the method (under the umbrella of LOGIC) that the Medieval Church embraced to arrive at conclusions. And yes it's true that the Church looked down on the methods of experimentation of the Arabs. GALILEO was an odd ball in his community because he dared to be different. And that puts him on the camp of SCIENCE, and those who persecuted him on the camp of the CHURCH.

AND, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!

I will not answer this one. Out of topic issues are used often by people who runs out of sensible answers. you are using this to evade the questions on evolution.

As ive said I brought this out to prove that THEORY can change and approval or acceptance of certain theory by an organization does not necessarily mean that a theory is worth believing.

Aw, kung ganahan ka mosugod ko ug presentar sa akong argumento para sa Evolution, ato sa ning undangon ning debate bahin sa SCIENCE-PERSECUTED-GALILEO...

Klaro man nga dili ka molihok sa imong position. Ako pod, paminaw nako nga binuang manang thesis nimo. AGREE TO DISAGREE? YOU HAVE TO TELL ME THOUGH IF YOU WANT THE LAST WORD ON THIS ISSUE. KAY KUNG DILI GANI, AW HALA SIGE KUMBATI TANG DUHA

hahaha mamasangil lagi dayun. ikaw ray ni lihis sa dalan sa atong discussion. kay tinood bitaw nga Science persecuted Galileo unsa man diay gigamit sa simabahan as basis sa ilang pag persecute ni Galileo, magic? hahaha! you always left out science anang dapia when it is too obvious nga apil ang science sa pag persecute ni Galileo. timan.e nga naay mga scientists nga mga pari atong panahona.

huh? ako nahinoon ang dili molihok hahaha, ka klaroana nga ni evae ka sa discussion sa evolution. klaro kaayo oi deny pa jd hahahaha.

dugay nakong kumbati ikaw ray ga tago tago. so asa man imong ebidens beh? million years imong ebidens? hahaha. kungmao na wa ka mo follow sa imong scientific method hahaha!

[LOLzZz]

Lisud jd magpawatsinanggo sa dili makabantay. Murag sayang ang effort.

kabaloman gud ka dong kana imong style di na magsilbi nako. you think nga imong style maka pa daog og debate hahahaha! diha ka maayo sarcasm and mockery walay unod imong topic. kong tubayan ka mo undang na hinoon ka, walay klaro.

[schmuck]

kabaloman gud ka dong kana imong style di na magsilbi nako. you think nga imong style maka pa daog og debate hahahaha! diha ka maayo sarcasm and mockery walay unod imong topic. kong tubayan ka mo undang na hinoon ka, walay klaro.

Kibaw ka nganung dili ka mutuo sa FSM? Unsaon? Be a spritual man. Ang problema kai kung willing ba ka. Mao na ang pangutana. Mangita ka pirmi og proof pero kung i-guide ka sa mga tao pdung sa path that leads to The FSM, most of your likes would decline. Kataw-anan diba?

Ang proof is out there bai. Ang problema naa sa imo pero wala tika gi blame.