Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

---

ho chia, I think you established that immature behavior before.

Ani na lang ho chia... believe what you believe and we believe what we believe... simple as that. Kai dili man ka maminaw ug rason mai pa continue what you think. Provided, ho chia you don't come knocking at our face that "god did it!". Because it is not observable or scientific study.

kataw-anan man ka dong oi. ikaw dong mature ka? hahahaha.
unsa to imo instruction nyor? knocking on your face that God did it? maka tawa manko nimo nyor. bwahahaha!
I am free with what i want to believe and you have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do. the same way ako para nimo nyor mao pud.

For as long as you keep your religion to yourself, aw, watay problem. because your religion in not at all observable much more an empiric science. No evidence! but imagination ra. so keep it!

maayong hapon VP.

[Sinyalan]

Nya, ho chia... asa man akong saging? Padala na nimo?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Nya, ho chia... asa man akong saging? Padala na nimo?

OT:
nagsabot na baya ta sir nga mokatkat nalang ka puno sa saging kay ikaw baya ni ingon nga ungoy ka.dli ako.

[Sinyalan]

nagsabot na baya ta sir nga mokatkat nalang ka puno sa saging kay ikaw baya ni ingon nga ungoy ka.dli ako.

mao bitaw ingnan tika nga padala ang saging kay unggoy man kaha ko!

Hi-tek kaayo nga unggoy sa ho chia, kamo na mogamit ug internet unya VP pa gyud. Asa ka mangahoy ana?

[Hellblazer]

guys, lets just leave them be. ('c',)

[Mr.Ho_chia]

guys, lets just leave them be. ('c',)

OT:
yah. i think that's a good idea

[Tattva]

a... you don't subscribe to it? YOu see monk...ey! eventually you can never progress with all your arguments kay you can't even explain your stand in the origin of life how much more the evolution of simplier life to a more complex one. See your confusion!

Wa pa ko ga sugod sa akong defense about organic evolution. So i think its pre-mature nga mosulti ka nga walay progress. review our posts kung daghan na bako nasuwat about organic evolution. Pls dont confuse biological evolution with organic evolution.

i will challenge you to post it. ipakita palihug kay daghan na kaau ka ug accusations nga wlay proof. and pls kung ganahan ka ug honest to goodness nga discussion palihug refrain from being childish. kanang style nimo dili na magsilbi nako. As far as im concerned i want my presentations to be free from straw man arguments and ad hominems.

yah. and if i say that breath of life from GOD is the reason for our existence! before science can show a proven evidence of spontaneous generation to support evolution theory. how then can you disprove that?

and if I say that the evidence of brining forth their own kind is unfolding, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute and second by second right before our very eyes and until you have the evidence that something else could have replace it then all you have are assumptions and speculations.

and these are all evidence now! in the present! and before we negate to theory, let's prove it first! or your bolinaw brain would say show the evidence first!

yah. eaxactly why the law of biogenesis came to be, kay before scientist see that from a dead meat, they observed life form generating, but it was proven later that it is not the dead meat producing life form but rather larvae deposited by flying insects.

got it monk?law of Biogenesis! which your evolution is trying to break with spontaneous generation! nga without evidence!

so dodong noy kung kita ka tae sa tao dha sa taas sa antena sa globe sa talamban. mo hunahuna pud ka nga spontaneous human feces generation in glode antena? unya maski wala ka kita naay tao ni katkat didto, you will never entertain an idea that a human being climb up there and release himself? but spontaneous human feces generation? pagka bolinaw gyud!

prove it! show evidence dodong!

Mao nay pasabot sa Scientific evidence Mr.Sio_mai. ---- dili na scientific evidence bolinaw monk..ey! it is what you call scientific theory!

manipulative ug confused! gi kutaw ang evidence ug theory. what can you expect from a bolinaw!

buhat sako siomai ako sagulan bolinaw utok para imo! bwahahaha

I believe you find it hard to defend your stand on micro to macro. gusto ka ari ka kuha ug argument sa organic evolution, ok ari ta diri.


Breath of life as our origin for existence?

Wrong and highly speculative. Science has never detected any FACTs and evidence for this "breathe of life". No traces of god. It is very hard for any creationists to prove the existence of God even they confessed that creationism is not science. So why bother disproving it? We have the admission.

This is how science investigates.

When they are searching for answers to a certain abstract prediction. Science will always look for evidence and from evidence they formulate theory and mechanism.

example within the context of our discussion...

Science as they investigate the origin of life found out that there are observable facts that they can use as evidence for what we call now as spontaneous generation.

mag binisaya ta ha para daghan makasabot. Kung mag investigate gani ang science mangita jud na ug EVIDENCE.
dili sila puede mo draw ug conclusiuon base on speculation. So kung unsa ilang nakita mao pod ang ilang gamiton para mo formulate ug theory.

So unsa man ang ilang nakita? mao kninig gitawag nato karun nga spotaneous generation. Although lisod dawaton sa oban pero mao man ang ilang nakita so mao ra pod na ang ilang isuwat as evidence. dili puede nga mo draw sila ug conclusion outside sa evidence nga ilang nakita. in other words dili sila puede mo conclude nga "ah Ginoo maoy nag buhat ani" kay nganung dilio man puede kay wala man silay nakitang OBSERVABLE FACTS para mo point towards sa theory nga "a god did it."


So again science will draw conclusion form what they observed sa evidence and evidence points out to spontaneous generation. Lisod dawaton? YES but if we want to be scientific then there is no way to treat this findings but accept it as evidence, maybe its a weak evidence but thats how science work. Its better to start with a weak evidence rather than adopting a SPECULATIVE theory.

And science has been doing this procedure for many times already, started a weak theory then later on as evidence continues to unfold ang simple nga theory will grow into a strong one provided with evidence not speculations.

life coming from chemicals? lisod sabton sa but they rather believe in it kay naa may evidence rather than accept a theory base on speculations.

From the dust of the earth and breathe of life from god,life begins? Evidence or any observable facts is absent.


*saying that spontaneous generation is a weak theory is entirley my own opnion for science thinks otherwise. ato lang ng klarohon.

[Tattva]

and if I say that the evidence of brining forth their own kind is unfolding, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute and second by second right before our very eyes and until you have the evidence that something else could have replace it then all you have are assumptions and speculations.

about man ni sa micro to macro noh? Sir osa ra jud intawn akong request, tuabag sa tong mga questions nako kay dili man ta mo progrees kung dili to nimo tubagon.

yah. eaxactly why the law of biogenesis came to be, kay before scientist see that from a dead meat, they observed life form generating, but it was proven later that it is not the dead meat producing life form but rather larvae deposited by flying insects.

got it monk?law of Biogenesis! which your evolution is trying to break with spontaneous generation! nga without evidence!

Life coming from larvae deposited by insects? in other words, Life didnt come from God but from a larvae. Therefore disproving Creationism that a god created a fully formed creature.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Wa pa ko ga sugod sa akong defense about organic evolution. So i think its pre-mature nga mosulti ka nga walay progress. review our posts kung daghan na bako nasuwat about organic evolution. Pls dont confuse biological evolution with organic evolution.

i will challenge you to post it. ipakita palihug kay daghan na kaau ka ug accusations nga wlay proof. and pls kung ganahan ka ug honest to goodness nga discussion palihug refrain from being childish. kanang style nimo dili na magsilbi nako. As far as im concerned i want my presentations to be free from straw man arguments and ad hominems.


I believe you find it hard to defend your stand on micro to macro. gusto ka ari ka kuha ug argument sa organic evolution, ok ari ta diri.


Breath of life as our origin for existence?

Wrong and highly speculative. Science has never detected any FACTs and evidence for this "breathe of life". No traces of god. It is very hard for any creationists to prove the existence of God even they confessed that creationism is not science. So why bother disproving it? We have the admission.

This is how science investigates.

When they are searching for answers to a certain abstract prediction. Science will always look for evidence and from evidence they formulate theory and mechanism.

example within the context of our discussion...

Science as they investigate the origin of life found out that there are observable facts that they can use as evidence for what we call now as spotaneous generation.

mag binisaya ta ha para daghan makasabot. Kung mag investigate gani ang science mangita jud na ug EVIDENCE.
dili sila puede mo draw ug conclusiuon base on speculation. So kung unsa ilang nakita mao pod ang ilang gamiton para mo formulate ug theory.

So unsa man ang ilang nakita? mao kninig gitawag nato karun nga spotaneous generation. Although lisod dawaton sa oban pero mao man ang ilang nakita so mao ra pod na ang ilang isuwat as evidence. dili puede nga mo draw sila ug conclusion outside sa evidence nga ilang nakita. in other words dili sila puede mo conclude nga "ah Ginoo maoy nag buhat ani" kay nganung dilio man puede kay wala man silay nakitang OBSERVABLE FACTS para mo point towards sa theory nga "a god did it."


So again science will draw conclusion form what they observed sa evidence and evidence points out to spotaneous generation. Lisod dawaton? YES but if we want to be scientific then there is no way to treat this findings but accept it as evidence, maybe its a weak evidence but thats how science work. Its better to start with a weak evidence rather than adopting a SPECULATIVE theory.

And science has been doing this procedure for many times already, started a weak theory then later on as evidence continues to unfold ang simple nga theory will grow into a strong one provided with evidence not speculations.

life coming from chemicals? lisod sabton sa but they rather believe in it kay naa may evidence rather than accept a theory base on speculations.

From the dust of the earth and breathe of life from god,life begins? Evidence or any observable facts is absent.

ok tattva.... it sounded fair enough. lets look at evolution the second time around and drop all the unnecessary side comments.


-hit the links please:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organic+evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

you see tattva. If you go for evolution theory.... it talks not just current changes from a certain specie to an entirely new specie. It start from the beginning,,, which means the state of nothingness and up to the very present.

so to argue a certain part only and not the entirety of it......,. is just incomplete. you should be able to explain everything to replace creation. otherwise you will be in a situation where in you will acknowledge creation for some part and evolution on the most part. and if you are that.... what will that make you? an evolutionist who believe in creation? so confusing.

-------------------------------------
Tattva..... you may not have get what i have been saying from the very start. I believe as i have said that creation entails a lot of faith. Belief based on faith to the Judeo-Christain GOD and I don't have any problem if you don't see any evidence of GOD and the possibilities of the Breath of LIfe.

Again What I am saying is, We have faith and we see the creation as a proof of a creator. for example if you see a painting in a forest one will surely know that a painter paint it, the same with a watch, that there is a watch maker even if we don't see them. the same with The creator, seeing the creation is enough evidence for the believers and the faithful. however for the non-believer it is not enough that is why they are non-believers.

going to the evolutionist. YOu claim you have science behind your back. let scrutinize it. the Big bang theory started it all. and from the very start science has been prostituted for the theory to prosper ( sorry for language) let me substantiate it.

BIG Bang says----- from the state of nothingness, all the dirt gathered in a single space not bigger than a period of any text book in an area of immense heat.

let's scrutinize it: From nothingness.... so where did matter came from(the dirts)?
where did the space came from (the dot)?
where did the energy came from (immense heat)?

if you are familiar of physics law --- you surely know what would CONSERVATION of Angular momentum means.
right?

remember that the big bang says that those dirts converge in a single point in an area of immense heat and as a result that matter keep on spinning and spinning and spinning until it can no longer hold itself and goes BOOOOMMMM!!!!! the big bang and all the planets, stars, etc... the universe was formed,

applying the law of physics (conservation of angular momentum---- an empirical science if you wish to test it yourself) in the big bang.... since it is spinning clockwise everything that is thrown from that spinning should assume the same directional spin from where it originates in a frictionless environment which remember this is a state of nothingness ---- the questions is in our solar system 3 of the planets (including pluto) is spinning counter clockwise, at least a couples of satellites (moon) are spinning counter clockwise also!

why?

the universe is ruled by Laws.... gravity, inertia, thermodynamics........... etc. who is the law giver? it just sprout out and evolve with the big bang? See? it is hard to ignore these facts and not attribute it to the creator, these Intelligent design is hard to miss much more to neglect.

these are scientific, mathematics and physics laws at work and we cannot deny true scientific facts and replace it with speculations based on any observable "facts" (if you can call that), without the evidence.

see? dha palang you can see the flaws in evolution. and to say it, as scientific is something that shouldn't be accepted at face value unless there is an evidence. Hey, we are talking about science here. but as i have said if this is a none-fact theory. not a scientific fact and probably a kind of system of belief may not be necessarily a religion but closer to it. then there is no problem tattva.

I don't have any problem if science keeps on investigating and push all walls for that scientific evidence which is necessary to eliminate any objection/s then go ahead. it is hard to argue for something factual in front of our faces, right?. and this is science we need evidence for it.

what is that observable evidence for spontaneous generation? all i hear is they see evidence for spontaneous generation, where is the details? and if it is true, we have to scrap the law of Biogenesis which state that only life begets life, we can't certainly have two opposing laws. law of spontaneous generation and law of biogenesis, right?

sayon raman gud mo sulti bro nga naay observable facts. Sa paranormal bro, daghan observable facts, ghost, and paranormal investigation, can we convict accused individuals kay naay observable facts ang paranormal investigation, unya nakit-an nila sa bolang crystal?

if you have such observable facts, work on it and build on that theory, gather more evidence and understand it. if we can show factual evidence of spontaneous generation then by all means! but sad to say sir, wala, its all possibilities and probabilities. never an exact scientific proof or evidence.

it is not a weak evidence, for it is not an evidence yet. so go ahead work on it, dba? but lets not do further speculations nga tinuod gyud ning evolution kay naa nay observable facts nga not yet proven. dba? how can we be so open for more speculations? and imagination nga possible gyud. mura for me we can not do that in the name of science. and most of the scientist understand that..... that's why evolution until now is still a theory.

evolution of chemicals and not life coming out from chemicals. Hydrogen was speculated (not proven of course) to have been produce during the big bang. but we have more than just hydrogen in the periodic table, right? for evolution to work it is also to be proven or evidence should be provided that out from hydrogen other chemicals evolved... like mg, k, Na, U, Cl, etc.. etc... and that alone is impossible sir.

again this is not about you turning away from evolution and go for creation, this is just a realization for all.

that creation from the beginning GOD.........and all came to be (which evolutionist says magical) and

evolution from the beginning dirt.... and all came to be is no different at all. both entails a lot of faith and a belief system. and not that evolution have scientific evidence at all.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

microevolution sir, is a change in the organism brought about by different factors, you see those in birds, there are sparrow larger than the other and darker in colors than the other. Humans, naay putot, pandak, 6 ang tudlo, higante, lagum, puti, pula, naay hermaphrodites, these are all genetic mutations.

also bacterial resistance to antibiotics cause by bacterial mutation. but sir they remain to be sparrows, humans and the same bacteria. they don't change to a different kind. and it is happening before our very eyes everyday. that's totally scientific fact. but to apply it to

a macro level like a fly becoming an elephant is totally far out! but huge speculations and imagination. that speculation and imagination is worth pursuing i must admit but until we see evidence it will be just that... a speculation and an imagination.