- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayAreas of faith people are flawed there too, I've not made any claim that is
If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!
Scientific system has people in it, I've pointed out to you that people are
flawed! You get a group together you can get a herd mentality, step away
from that which binds you together you are not accepted as one of the
good ones. Evolution is a binding theory those t ...[text shortened]... ll you the truth. We need
someone better than ourselves to help us, which I do believe is here!
not true, I think it is even more screwed up to tell you the truth. We need
someone better than ourselves to help us, which I do believe is here!
ive agreed before that there are many people who's desire for evolution to be true is higher than their desire for truth.
however there is still a mountain of honest, genuine scientists. if science was as easily corruptible and so eager to hang onto a popular view, then science would not make the progressions it has.
if science did not accept challenges and new opinions and views we would still be stuck in the dark ages.
the cold hard truth for you is that if its true and can be proven then science will accept it.
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfiePlease understand, I'm calling people flawed due to their nature. I've not
[b]Areas of faith people are flawed there too, I've not made any claim that is
not true, I think it is even more screwed up to tell you the truth. We need
someone better than ourselves to help us, which I do believe is here!
ive agreed before that there are many people who's desire for evolution to be true is higher than their desire for tr ...[text shortened]...
the cold hard truth for you is that if its true and can be proven then science will accept it.[/b]
meant to call anyone dishonest, that would mean that they know the truth
and yet will still deny it. I think we all can (me included) keep ourselves
happy in the dark about areas of our lives that we don't want to deal with.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJay"One out of?"
One out of?
That is more than likely why Behe is attacked over and over again!
urrgh!!!! behe has had numerous papers peer reviewed and published, there is only one that he claims is evidence against evolution.
the point is that the system does not look at a paper as 'for' or 'against' the papers are not even written as 'for' or 'against' scientific papers are full of science......if the science works (this means falsifiable evidence) then the papers are accepted.
12 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieAccepted and ignored I assume, but I could be doing the very thing I'm bad
[b]"One out of?"
urrgh!!!! behe has had numerous papers peer reviewed and published, there is only one that he claims is evidence against evolution.
the point is that the system does not look at a paper as 'for' or 'against' the papers are not even written as 'for' or 'against' scientific papers are full of science......if the science works (this means falsifiable evidence) then the papers are accepted.[/b]
mouthing here! If so my bad!
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf what you said is true, I'll go along with you, then why is it that there are
[b]"One out of?"
urrgh!!!! behe has had numerous papers peer reviewed and published, there is only one that he claims is evidence against evolution.
the point is that the system does not look at a paper as 'for' or 'against' the papers are not even written as 'for' or 'against' scientific papers are full of science......if the science works (this means falsifiable evidence) then the papers are accepted.[/b]
people even here how claim there is no evidence against evolution? Seems
like the two cannot be true at the same time?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayyou question their nature....what you are inadvertently saying is that over the years hundreds of thousands of scientist from all countries, of various religious views, who work in many fields in many project in direct competition with each other. have all managed to negotiate through a career in science in which they have had success based on their own ideas and research.........yet for some bizarre reason have all developed a hive mind when it comes to this one theory, for some reason on this one project they loose all free thought, they just dumbly accept the status-quo....yet return to other areas and challenge each other, new science, new maths, new physics, new invention, new biology, new chemistry.
Please understand, I'm calling people flawed due to their nature. I've not
meant to call anyone dishonest, that would mean that they know the truth
and yet will still deny it. I think we all can (me included) keep ourselves
happy in the dark about areas of our lives that we don't want to deal with.
do you know how bizarre this would be?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJay"people even here how claim there is no evidence against evolution?"
If what you said is true, I'll go along with you, then why is it that there are
people even here how claim there is no evidence against evolution? Seems
like the two cannot be true at the same time?
id be one of them. behe submitted his paper it was publlished. once it was published he claimed that it was evidence of i.d. (the paper itself doesnt metion i.d. or god or evolution). its a purely scientific paper.
so obviously a disagreement ensues. he says it is evidence, others say it isnt. regardless of if it is or isnt. his paper was reviewed the science was correct, he disproved a current bit of research. the process didnt care if it was evidence or not for i.d. all the process cared about was the science.
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieI'm not a fan of I.D. I think it is creation light!
[b]"people even here how claim there is no evidence against evolution?"
id be one of them. behe submitted his paper it was publlished. once it was published he claimed that it was evidence of i.d. (the paper itself doesnt metion i.d. or god or evolution). its a purely scientific paper.
so obviously a disagreement ensues. he says it is eviden ...[text shortened]... cess didnt care if it was evidence or not for i.d. all the process cared about was the science.[/b]
Thank you for your posts, gave me something to think about.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me ask you something. When you're confronted with a scientific theory, will you only accept it as true if you can watch every step in whatever mechanism or model it describes? For instance, will you only accept atomic theory if you can actually watch atoms interact directly?
We are comparing a biological to something else so you can see the issue
that are really there! Getting hardware in the right shape doesn't make it
function properly, have all the pieces to any piece of equipment all in the
right place without the proper power will not allow it all to function as it
should or at all if this isn't connected correctly. Yo ...[text shortened]...
of a computer together yet if the software isn't supportive you will not have
a functional PC.
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have just contradicted yourself. Are you claiming that Great Danes and Chihuahuas have always existed, or do you accept that these breeds of dogs have come from changes that added up into things that were never there before?
I've not debating small changes occur, I've admitted that and support the
idea! I even call it evolution in reality! What I do not go along with which you
support is that which none of us have seen and that is those small changes
adding up into things that were never there before over time!
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessWhat I accept as true are things I believe are, if they are scientific theories,
Let me ask you something. When you're confronted with a scientific theory, will you only accept it as true if you can watch every step in whatever mechanism or model it describes? For instance, will you only accept atomic theory if you can actually watch atoms interact directly?
things of faith, whatever the mechanism or model. Just because I say it
must be believed in and it isn't a fact does not mean it isn't true.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayignorance is bliss.
What I accept as true are things I believe are, if they are scientific theories,
things of faith, whatever the mechanism or model. Just because I say it
must be believed in and it isn't a fact does not mean it isn't true.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
12 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, I guess whatever you believe is true to you. Interesting world you must live in.
What I accept as true are things I believe are, if they are scientific theories,
things of faith, whatever the mechanism or model. Just because I say it
must be believed in and it isn't a fact does not mean it isn't true.