Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
faith - strong belief or trust in someone or somethingToo similar
confidence - the feeling of being certain that something will happen or that something is true
They are extremely similar.
There's lots of evidence for how the Big Bang occurred. The CMBR is just one notable example of how you can observe the Big Bang without actually having been there.Evidence is something that is proven solid. Your evidence is assumption, the CMBR is hardly eye opening if you know its possibly not from the big bang. It could be the byproduct of something else just as well.
I only take knowledge with a grain of salt if it doesn't include a word with the 3 letters ass in it. Either that or if its observable.
You're right, it is biased. Towards science.SO IT MUST BE FROM THE BIG BANG GREAT SCOTT CALL THE PRESIDENT
You know why it's "assumed" to be left over from the Big Bang?
BECAUSE THE MODEL loving PREDICTS THE BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THEY FOUND IT
I welcome anyone to point me in the direction of science in support of creationism. I'd be amazed if there wasn't more reputable research that overrules it.I bet i can throw my ball farther than your ball, and if yours goes farther, i'll just think up an even better ball that flys farther. But then YOU will think of a better ball that goes farther than mine. But then ILL-
Lol, once again, it seems like you're definitely not studying much into your oppositions claims and beliefs. EVERYONE makes this mistake too easily. They're not JUST saying a space god made everything. They actually do the same thing as "credibility scientists" do and pull from the things around them to make a legitimate point. But often they go ignored because "flying space god".
Creationism just has no evidence at all.
Science doesn't aim to prove anything. You are a patent example of a person who doesn't really understand how the scientific method works at all.But if its not your belief its not allowed to hold ANY credibility whatsoever. Just assume they are idiots and be on your way. As SOOo many people do. War is a bitch isn't it? when everyone thinks the other person is the badguy. You are bound by the enemy complex.
Why exactly do we use words like proof or fact then? If the scientific method isn't there to prove anything why is it such a horrific thing to do to question the living stuff out of it? People get into an outrage over it too easily.
Believing in an explanation as indisputably and imprescritably true is unscientific because science aims to refine its explanations.
This is not true, and I'm willing to bet you cannot cite a well-designed experiment that supports this claim.
Uh oh, looks like someone from the OPPOSING side has disbelief in its enemies. Of course I don't, because I'm not a Creationist. However, there is a website that actually Lists experiments done by researchers with Creationistic views.
http://creation.com/
Okay, so is the theory of gravity just supported, and not "proven"? Sure, everything ELSE seems to move in accordance with gravity existing, but that doesn't mean it's right.They problem here is everything listed can be examined here and now. With living witnesses. A big explosion of the past can't be observed, so there is a difference in "proof". Its just that biiiiiiiiig convenient time gap you guys always have.
Is germ theory just supported, not "proven"? Sure, there are diseases that are linked to germs, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is pasteurization just supported, not "proven"? Sure, every time it's been done it kills nearly all harmful agents, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Supported but not proven. Naturally. You can point to me that manatees exist and its proof of the origin of the universe being from manatees and their gassy farts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Supported by:
- Cosmic background radiation
- Redshifted celestial bodies
- Expanding universe
- The entire field of cosmology
I don't 'beleive'[sic] in evolution. It's supported by all evidence that organisms undergo changes in genetic traits over time, and the theory of evolution explains how that happens. It's by far the most well-substantiated explanation for this phenomenon, and until science refines it into something different, it's what should be taught as science in public schools.Big shocker, Creationists have put things forth that can be considered well substantiated. They're in just as much of the same position as the rest of every other beleif on the planet. They have an idea but not well proven. Nobody has a leg up over anyone. Beliefs are received through social popularity.
You either have not read some of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies about evolution, or you're misinformed about how strongly substantiated the theory of evolution is. I wouldn't ever call an explanation a 'fact' because science always tries to understand the uncertainty of its results, but evolution is extremely well-substantiated. If you think evolutionary biologists know 'jack stuff', you are misinformed.Yes yes, you beleive it and you're studied into it and you think its true. Good for you.
Sorry, *one of them is backed by knowledge, the other is backed by a two-thousand year old bookOk so
Evolution is true. Creationism is false. There's a good reason why one of them should not be taught in schools.And you also have people who can say the exact same thing like "creationism is true and evolution is false theres a good reason it should not be taught in schools". You see where I'm going here?
