Science doesn't create anything? What happens when you're ill? You go see a doctor, what do you think created the medicine you'll be given, or the immunisation shots you've been given - the kind that eradicated Smallpox?
We put lables to nature and work out how nature works to a) increase our understanding and b) put it to practical use making our lives healthier, safer, and more interesting.
Yes, Newton defined gravity (And Einstein took it to the next level.) but that doesn;t mean Goddidit.
All science does is describe what is already here, it still can't say how things got here, for a fact, there are many elaborate theories, but no facts and I agree with you that ignorance is deadly.
@Ididucantoo Of course it's a theory, and that theory has lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of facts in line with it. Science will never call theory a fact, ever. comparing the two is dishonest. A theory explains how facts are related. The explanation of the relationship of known facts, can never be a fact.
If that explanation is supported by more and more and more facts, as time goes on it; and If that explanation can be experimented with and make predictions it then is theory.
They took something that already existed! They didn't create anything from nothing. They took something that already existed. Science is the study of things that already exist, things that were created by God. There is so much info out there if you want to find it you could. and it probably evolved into another virus, it didn't evolve into a chicken or something other than a virus did it?
evolution is the study of how organisims change over time, not how life originated, that science is called "biogenesis" and obviously it didnt turn into a chicken. but it did completely change, the other e coli virus would eat the nutrience in the tube like normally but the evolved e coli would benefit from part of the nutrience that the other e coli didnt use and the tube was filled with way more e coli, therefore prooving natural selection, it favored the genes that allowed it to produce more
but it was still ecoli. It didn't involve into something totally different like a water animal to a land animal. and it never will things were made after their "kind", and always will be their "kind"
yeah well you do know it takes millions of years for that to happen right... this was one major adaption, just think over thousands of years little adoptions like this would add up to it changing into another "kind"
Creationism is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. A scientific theory explains a set of observed phenomena and contradicts none of them. That holds true for theory of evolution, but not for any model of creationism that doesn't also claim that the creator wanted to make reality look like evolution happened, in short, a lying god.
Also, let me please be painfully blunt about one thing: Your understanding of the Big Bang theory is completely bogus.
Also, why are there waves on the sea? Because the wind blew. Is therefore the wind an intelligent creator?
And on the matter of "why cram evolution down our throats": That happens in science class. Would you rather have non-scientific stuff crammed down your childrens throats in that class? How about the babylonian creation myths? Or alchemy instead of chemistry, astrology instead of astronomy, the flat earth and the hollow earth "theories"...
all the other theories you mentioned were created by man, the Bible never said the earth was flat... man said that too, there is plenty of scientific evidence for intelligent design which could be taught as an option. waves on the sea also are affected by gravitational flow from the moon in the bible also... thanks for your thought, not painful, comments we just disagree that's all.
First of all, no, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. I've heard hundreds of examples of the last year or so, and not one of them stood up to the test of science. There are only a lot of frauds who like spinning conspiracy theories and milk money, but not a shred of actual scientific data supporting creationism, let alone a full-fledged theory (again, by the scientific meaning of the word, which is the relevant one for science class).
Secondly, whether the Bible says whether the world is flat or not is both a matter of interpretation and irrelevant here. The question is whether or not science class should only teach actual scientific theories or not.
Thirdly, moons gravity creates tides, not waves, but again, that is not really the point. It's whether the existence of waves shows that the wind is an intelligent creator. Is it?
Oh, and fourthly... What does it matter where a theory comes from? Especially as all theories are man-made. The important part is that they are theories: consistent models explaining sets of data and not contradicting it.
I know it frustrates you to try to have a conversation with me, because my answer is going to be God made the wind God is the creator of the universe but again science only describes, manipulates and harnesses the powers and forces that God created there is nothing here that science created, science just studies what God made and puts labels and names to things God created. science has repeatedly been wrong and changes over time, a Bible today is the same as a Bible from 100 years ago.
Actually with such an interpretation I have no problem; then again it isn't in itself creationism. Yes, science is the search for and refinement of models for natural processes; someone even once said that it was the never-ending quest for replacing wrong theories with less wrong theories.
The problem isn't in the first cause, whether that exists or not, and how you call it, but what happened a lot later, namely how all the different lifeforms that we see today came about.
Also, what is frustrating is that while you answer a question that I didn't ask, you don't address the question that I asked. You said that a painting is proof of the existence of a painter. Isn't by that same logic a wave proof of the existence of a waver? Well, yes, we seem to agree that that is the wind, but what does that say about the wind, and thus, what does necessarily follow about the painter, and what is only insinuated by common knowledge about painters?
Lastly, the current explanation for biodiversity hasn't changed in 150 years, either. Though the details are much clearer now than back then, and lots of evidence has come in, the basic formula is still that mutation and selection result in a change of frequency of characteristics in given populations.
But science has changed and will continue to change and the Bible has not and will not change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. No matter what science "discovers" science does not create life or things that sustain life, dirt, air, water.. all made by God.
you say that science changing is a bad thing, i disagree and so would ever scientist, thats the point if something is wrong it will be corrected, knowledge increased, a better understanding reached etc,
(1) science does more than you think, almost everything in your house is down to science, the clean water you drink, your refrigerator keeping your food fresh, the medicine keeping you health, the car you drive, even the food on your table is the result of science i.e sustainable farming.
(3)and the bible has changed, it been translated and altered many times over the years, the bible is not just one big book written in two parts, there are many different authors, and different times in history for the different parts the bible is made up from. the bible says this it's self, the authors were men who say they were inspired by god or directly channeled him or a servant of his.
(2) science has brought so much to the world, of course there have been negative aspect but that is much like religion it is not science/religion it's how people use it.
there are many famous scientist who are religious, evolution is by no means an atheist science any more than cell theory or gravity are atheist.
the bible condones slavery, among other immoral practices that we now know are barbaric, do you think that we should still condone these practices because there in the bible?
I mentioned wind just to say that there are things that we know exist that we can't see. Just like science knows cells are held together but they don't see what holds them together. My point is science has no answer for everything and it is simply the study of things God created. God is the creator science is knowledge and studying of what has been created. We would never agree because I believe God created the universe and everything in it.
the theory of evolution as been around for 150 and after all the experiments and literally thousands of scientist who have tried to disprove it, has shown that this is the best model we have, while creationism is not even science.
you have been lied to by people with an evil agenda, 'god' may have created the universe and life but he did it through evolution.
also look into the history of the bible, men wrote it, and men revised it to fit there purpose, look up 'the council of trent'
We'll just have to agree to disagree... I've been living the last 10 years of my life following the "lies" in the Bible and my life has never been better and that works for me. I have looked into all the stories, I have a B.S, I've taken Logic and Philosophy classes as well. Thanks for your comments.
i never said that the bible was lies just the creationist science.
people mess with religion to make it benefit there agenda, and the creationist have a anti science agenda.
look into the science of evolution, there is a reason that there is a consensus in the scientific world, because the science is good, i have seen alot of creationist science and it's very bad science most of it is a lie or distortion of the facts.
I think you are missing one key point: gravity is describable with math, along with the rest of the universe.... Including you and your silly bronze age beliefs.
I'm not missing that point.. that is my point exactly. Man is describing a law that God created with words man did not make or create gravity or electricity or magnetism or anything living man only uses words to describe them. Who made them? God. and science can only describe or interpret them as best that it can but science doesn't create anything. Thanks for your comments
1) "dirt" does not contain carbon one of the highest elements of the human body
2) mammals are "animals"
3) if we didnt have science, then we couldnt have "created" the modern technology we have
thekrazyredhead 11 months ago
Science doesn't create anything? What happens when you're ill? You go see a doctor, what do you think created the medicine you'll be given, or the immunisation shots you've been given - the kind that eradicated Smallpox?
We put lables to nature and work out how nature works to a) increase our understanding and b) put it to practical use making our lives healthier, safer, and more interesting.
Yes, Newton defined gravity (And Einstein took it to the next level.) but that doesn;t mean Goddidit.
Vehementi 1 year ago
What's more, evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not the origin.
The bible doesn't even do that, other than a cheap stupefying attempt with "god did it.".
tuberesponder 2 years ago
in SCIENCE a THEORY is an explanation of related FACTS.
The Bible says the Earth has four corners. That is not correct.
There can be an alternative view, but you, like scientists should support their view, with substance.
Not all alternatives are valid. invalid viewpoints are to be discarded.
You're nice, but ignorance is deadly.
tuberesponder 2 years ago
It's still a theory it is not a fact
The Bible says much more than that
All science does is describe what is already here, it still can't say how things got here, for a fact, there are many elaborate theories, but no facts and I agree with you that ignorance is deadly.
Thanks for your comment.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
@Ididucantoo Of course it's a theory, and that theory has lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of facts in line with it. Science will never call theory a fact, ever. comparing the two is dishonest. A theory explains how facts are related. The explanation of the relationship of known facts, can never be a fact.
If that explanation is supported by more and more and more facts, as time goes on it; and If that explanation can be experimented with and make predictions it then is theory.
tuberesponder 2 years ago
(Cont)Evolution unlike religion, has lots and lots of real independently verifiable facts.
No fact about the date of Jesus birth. No fact about the "day the earth was made." If evolution is only a theory, religion is a great deal LESS.
Religion has Less facts, Less truth, Less Knowledge, a great deal less honesty, less predictability, less experimentation, less reality.
Religion makes up for these failings with more lies, more unfounded unverifiable "knowing", more suffering, and more death
tuberesponder 2 years ago
@tuberesponder uve got to think of the time. four corners of the earth are north south east and west
MrSkidrow99 1 year ago
evolution has been proven, they took the e coli virus and put them in test tubes for 21 years and one of the test tubes evolved
ElijahDTF 2 years ago
They took something that already existed! They didn't create anything from nothing. They took something that already existed. Science is the study of things that already exist, things that were created by God. There is so much info out there if you want to find it you could. and it probably evolved into another virus, it didn't evolve into a chicken or something other than a virus did it?
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
evolution is the study of how organisims change over time, not how life originated, that science is called "biogenesis" and obviously it didnt turn into a chicken. but it did completely change, the other e coli virus would eat the nutrience in the tube like normally but the evolved e coli would benefit from part of the nutrience that the other e coli didnt use and the tube was filled with way more e coli, therefore prooving natural selection, it favored the genes that allowed it to produce more
ElijahDTF 2 years ago
but it was still ecoli. It didn't involve into something totally different like a water animal to a land animal. and it never will things were made after their "kind", and always will be their "kind"
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
yeah well you do know it takes millions of years for that to happen right... this was one major adaption, just think over thousands of years little adoptions like this would add up to it changing into another "kind"
ElijahDTF 2 years ago
Creationism is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. A scientific theory explains a set of observed phenomena and contradicts none of them. That holds true for theory of evolution, but not for any model of creationism that doesn't also claim that the creator wanted to make reality look like evolution happened, in short, a lying god.
Also, let me please be painfully blunt about one thing: Your understanding of the Big Bang theory is completely bogus.
garouHH 2 years ago
Also, why are there waves on the sea? Because the wind blew. Is therefore the wind an intelligent creator?
And on the matter of "why cram evolution down our throats": That happens in science class. Would you rather have non-scientific stuff crammed down your childrens throats in that class? How about the babylonian creation myths? Or alchemy instead of chemistry, astrology instead of astronomy, the flat earth and the hollow earth "theories"...
garouHH 2 years ago
all the other theories you mentioned were created by man, the Bible never said the earth was flat... man said that too, there is plenty of scientific evidence for intelligent design which could be taught as an option. waves on the sea also are affected by gravitational flow from the moon in the bible also... thanks for your thought, not painful, comments we just disagree that's all.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
First of all, no, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. I've heard hundreds of examples of the last year or so, and not one of them stood up to the test of science. There are only a lot of frauds who like spinning conspiracy theories and milk money, but not a shred of actual scientific data supporting creationism, let alone a full-fledged theory (again, by the scientific meaning of the word, which is the relevant one for science class).
garouHH 2 years ago
Secondly, whether the Bible says whether the world is flat or not is both a matter of interpretation and irrelevant here. The question is whether or not science class should only teach actual scientific theories or not.
Thirdly, moons gravity creates tides, not waves, but again, that is not really the point. It's whether the existence of waves shows that the wind is an intelligent creator. Is it?
garouHH 2 years ago
Oh, and fourthly... What does it matter where a theory comes from? Especially as all theories are man-made. The important part is that they are theories: consistent models explaining sets of data and not contradicting it.
garouHH 2 years ago
I know it frustrates you to try to have a conversation with me, because my answer is going to be God made the wind God is the creator of the universe but again science only describes, manipulates and harnesses the powers and forces that God created there is nothing here that science created, science just studies what God made and puts labels and names to things God created. science has repeatedly been wrong and changes over time, a Bible today is the same as a Bible from 100 years ago.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
Actually with such an interpretation I have no problem; then again it isn't in itself creationism. Yes, science is the search for and refinement of models for natural processes; someone even once said that it was the never-ending quest for replacing wrong theories with less wrong theories.
The problem isn't in the first cause, whether that exists or not, and how you call it, but what happened a lot later, namely how all the different lifeforms that we see today came about.
garouHH 2 years ago
Also, what is frustrating is that while you answer a question that I didn't ask, you don't address the question that I asked. You said that a painting is proof of the existence of a painter. Isn't by that same logic a wave proof of the existence of a waver? Well, yes, we seem to agree that that is the wind, but what does that say about the wind, and thus, what does necessarily follow about the painter, and what is only insinuated by common knowledge about painters?
garouHH 2 years ago
Lastly, the current explanation for biodiversity hasn't changed in 150 years, either. Though the details are much clearer now than back then, and lots of evidence has come in, the basic formula is still that mutation and selection result in a change of frequency of characteristics in given populations.
garouHH 2 years ago
But science has changed and will continue to change and the Bible has not and will not change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. No matter what science "discovers" science does not create life or things that sustain life, dirt, air, water.. all made by God.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
you say that science changing is a bad thing, i disagree and so would ever scientist, thats the point if something is wrong it will be corrected, knowledge increased, a better understanding reached etc,
(1) science does more than you think, almost everything in your house is down to science, the clean water you drink, your refrigerator keeping your food fresh, the medicine keeping you health, the car you drive, even the food on your table is the result of science i.e sustainable farming.
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
(3)and the bible has changed, it been translated and altered many times over the years, the bible is not just one big book written in two parts, there are many different authors, and different times in history for the different parts the bible is made up from. the bible says this it's self, the authors were men who say they were inspired by god or directly channeled him or a servant of his.
god never wrote the bible, and it says so itself.
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
(2) science has brought so much to the world, of course there have been negative aspect but that is much like religion it is not science/religion it's how people use it.
there are many famous scientist who are religious, evolution is by no means an atheist science any more than cell theory or gravity are atheist.
the bible condones slavery, among other immoral practices that we now know are barbaric, do you think that we should still condone these practices because there in the bible?
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
I mentioned wind just to say that there are things that we know exist that we can't see. Just like science knows cells are held together but they don't see what holds them together. My point is science has no answer for everything and it is simply the study of things God created. God is the creator science is knowledge and studying of what has been created. We would never agree because I believe God created the universe and everything in it.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
What other interpretation you want from it? ITS A FACT that it.
Viperfet 2 years ago
the theory of evolution as been around for 150 and after all the experiments and literally thousands of scientist who have tried to disprove it, has shown that this is the best model we have, while creationism is not even science.
you have been lied to by people with an evil agenda, 'god' may have created the universe and life but he did it through evolution.
also look into the history of the bible, men wrote it, and men revised it to fit there purpose, look up 'the council of trent'
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
We'll just have to agree to disagree... I've been living the last 10 years of my life following the "lies" in the Bible and my life has never been better and that works for me. I have looked into all the stories, I have a B.S, I've taken Logic and Philosophy classes as well. Thanks for your comments.
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
i never said that the bible was lies just the creationist science.
people mess with religion to make it benefit there agenda, and the creationist have a anti science agenda.
look into the science of evolution, there is a reason that there is a consensus in the scientific world, because the science is good, i have seen alot of creationist science and it's very bad science most of it is a lie or distortion of the facts.
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
...and look into what the wedge strategy is.
garouHH 2 years ago
I concur with Gsusreloded.
maverik713 2 years ago
Also, "evolution is just a theory" is tired and inaccurate. Please stop saying this, creationists.
333333344444 2 years ago
I think you are missing one key point: gravity is describable with math, along with the rest of the universe.... Including you and your silly bronze age beliefs.
333333344444 2 years ago
I'm not missing that point.. that is my point exactly. Man is describing a law that God created with words man did not make or create gravity or electricity or magnetism or anything living man only uses words to describe them. Who made them? God. and science can only describe or interpret them as best that it can but science doesn't create anything. Thanks for your comments
Ididucantoo 2 years ago
a being didn't make the universe like you are assuming
333333344444 2 years ago
god is dead
333333344444 2 years ago