it seems that all the links that I provide for you seem to be faulty or in error. why is that? why is it that not one of these links I have given you have anytruth according to you?

No, my problem is that you are providing NO links. I have only seen three links from you, in one post about the laws of gravity. Everything else you are not supporting. Maybe you're quoting some things without giving credit (plagiarising) and I just hadn't picked up on it.

Zip

Expert, didja ever think that maybe your information is allways wrong because you've been fundamentally miseducated?

A lot of athiests believe that Christianity is man made and made up.
A lot of science is made up too, people have been known to fake or get wrong the bones they find of apes that supposed to form the missing link.
People say science changes its mind all the time.
People say religion changes its view all the time,

But can we prove devolution? Where man and earth is distablising and continually becoming currupt since the time of Adam and Eve. Genetic faults such as aging of man and animals and death. The once one climate earth of Noahs day becoming the weather patterns of today and the stresses of the earth that creates eathquakes and the scattering of man all over the world, GENESIS:11. Are we living in a degrading earth rather than an evolving earth and did the dinosaus get big because there was no death during those days and only when the curruption occured the plants and animals started growing thorns and maybe animals grew larger teeth because the rules of the universe had changed through the curruption of sin. As sin got deeper so did the consequnces hence the flood and the life span of man. The continuous dying of species to the rate in which they suppose to evolve are we in fact living in a devolving state.

Originally posted by The time lord
A lot of athiests believe that Christianity is man made and made up.
A lot of science is made up too, people have been known to fake or get wrong the bones they find of apes that supposed to form the missing link.

This is false. There is not "a lot" of falsified scientific finds. There have been some in the past, but by no means has there been an abundance.

People say science changes its mind all the time.
People say religion changes its view all the time,

The most basic foundation of science is the scientific method. If new evidence proves an old theory to be incorrect, a new hypothesis is formed and tested in light of the new information. If scientific theories did NOT change in light of new evidence, then they would not be "scientific" theories. They would be "uninformed and illegitimate crackpot lunacy." (Like the theory of creation as set forth in the bible.)

But can we prove devolution? Where man and earth is distablising and continually becoming currupt since the time of Adam and Eve. Genetic faults such as aging of man and animals and death. The once one climate earth of Noahs day becoming the weather patterns of today and the stresses of the earth that creates eathquakes and the scattering of man all over the world, GENESIS:11. Are we living in a degrading earth rather than an evolving earth and did the dinosaus get big because there was no death during those days and only when the curruption occured the plants and animals started growing thorns and maybe animals grew larger teeth because the rules of the universe had changed through the curruption of sin. As sin got deeper so did the consequnces hence the flood and the life span of man. The continuous dying of species to the rate in which they suppose to evolve are we in fact living in a devolving state.

So, dying is against evolution? Among the structural basis of evolution is a theory called "natural selection." I'm sure you're familiar with this. It demands that some less useful genes literally die out so that more useful genes can become more popular. Death is a primary factor in this process.

About the environment today, well, its state is the subject of an ongoing debate. We don't know for sure if it's really gone totally haywire, what the implications of that may be, and what its root cause is, or if it's just part of a natural up-and-down process that the Earth has been involved in for billions of years.

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

.
The Universe, as far as i can see, does not have a cohesive conscious mind, which equates one idea with being true and one idea as not true.

Proof is subjective. It is not absolute.
It is based on belief.
Belief is based on emotional connections in the brain [nervous system]

I think what you may be asking is does the idea hold up to strict and careful scrutiny.
We speak of proving a case in a court of law, the purpose being to convince a judge or jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Considering the flimsy [sometimes no] circumstantial evidence on which some convictions are handed down and the clear cases of guilt that are let go, its incredibly inconsistent and close to meaningless.

Science functionally speaking operates that convincing, verifiable evidence [repeatable experiments] has to be presented to a group of interested examiners. They upon finding logical falacies can point them out for dismissal of an idea or further inquiries into it. It is intimately tied up with egotism, careers, economics, and political & religious agendas. But as problematic as that is it works as a crude winnowing device, separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

I think the real strictures of science are that it deals with the World/Universe as a tangible commodity and presumes that it operates in a logical methodical way.

If an assertion is made, for it to be a convincing proof, the chain of logic leading to it must be demonstratable to a clear headed rational person [possibly of very high articulation of mind].
If there are weak or missing links in the chain or if initial accepted axioms of the assertion/proposition can be show to be erroneous then these are presented to challenge it or knock it down.

It is much easier to do this in the completely imaginary abstract realm of math.

With reality where science operates the astronomical numbers of individual particles and events don't allow for absolute analysis.
Certain laws of physics are accepted, such as Newton's, but perhaps should, in light of quantum mechanics, have the qualifier of being of super-Universal astronomical likelyhood of being the case.

Q: Can it be proven?
A: Can you be convinced by evidence and logic? If so, by how much?

You may not be convinced a gun works, but i am convinced enough that i will keep one around, k?

If i become seriously ill, i hope i can afford the best modern medical care around, even if you haven't been convinced of it effects.

If i have to balance my finances i will use a calculator, you, on the other hand, may if you see fit consult a psychic.

I am not being completely cheeky in these comments, my mind is open, i just have never seen any clear, consistent, and convincing [to me] evidence to dissuade me from my beliefs.
.

As slank said, that's why we have "theories" in science. They are open to fasifiability.

Thanks, also, slank, for the plug --
"Zipdot's Psychic Financial Advisory and Tax Service" is still getting off the ground, but I see that the future looks bright.

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

.
I am glad to see you have a positive outlook on the future zipdot.

If you can come up with convincing data showing effective, consistent success for people managing their money, you might get me to experimentally send some your way.

Scientific theories may be falsifiable, but the nature of science is the one able to spot and call out the falsehood takes the glory and the liars get burdened with shame. This does become more difficult though as the science becomes more complex and intricate and requires expertise to understand it.

warning: when the tech-lingo gets incomprehensible, proceed with extreme caution.

The beauty of science is that Naked Truth is the game.

Ever transitory ever changing, travelling hither and yon it is the persuit of the mecurial light of truth.
.

It's amazing how placid & civilized this thread becomes when Expert999 isn't blathering on about something or the other.

Perhaps I should leave well enough alone. I might awaken the beast again.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

I think we've flogged this poor dead horse enough. Somebody change the subject. How about someone starting a thread on the Supreme Courts decision concerning file sharing--that should spark a lively debate.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

science is not based on theory, science is based on fact.

from dictionary.com here is the definition

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

evolutionists cannot apply any of this the evolution theory. if you look at the very first post on this thread, you will see the six different kinds/steps of evolution. and you can see which ones can be observed. if you cannot observe than you dont have science.

evolution and science are not the same and they so not go together.
if you look at the first post on this thread, there are six steps to evolution. and certain ones have to happen before the others.

Science is not based on theories, it is based on facts and observations of those facts, testing those facts. and a logical conclusion
during the conslusion.

dont be offened just because you have to use the excuse of my links having the error of flaw, or fake.

you wait until you die, you will see that I was right the entire time.

Expert999, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're #ing serious or not.

Originally posted by expert999
science is not based on theory, science is based on fact.

No, it's not. I have already explained the scientific method in detail earlier in this thread.

from dictionary.com here is the definition

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

evolutionists cannot apply any of this the evolution theory. if you look at the very first post on this thread, you will see the six different kinds/steps of evolution. and you can see which ones can be observed. if you cannot observe than you dont have science.

You quite obviously do not know what "observation" is. I am "observing" your behaviour from here in Houston. Am I right next to you watching you? No. With evolution, we observe results. We observe evidence. We observe changes. Et #ing cetera.

We formed a THEORY based on OBSERVATIONS about the natural world and the differences between species, THAT is SCIENCE. The THEORY which was based on OBSERVATIONS is backed by EVIDENCE. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

evolution and science are not the same and they so not go together.

They're "not the same" and they "so" not "go together". Riiiiigggght...

Science is not based on theories, it is based on facts and observations of those facts, testing those facts. and a logical conclusion
during the conslusion.

Again, I would point you to my post about the scientific method since you seem to be completely misunderstanding it. This is quite frustrating to me...

dont be offened just because you have to use the excuse of my links having the error of flaw, or fake.

You HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY LINKS in like 6 PAGES!

you wait until you die, you will see that I was right the entire time.

Actually I won't see a damn thing because I'll be DEAD, like the DEFINITION of THE WORD.

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

ok you just admitted that evolution is not science,
so you cannot prove that evolution happened.
which means that it requires faith to believe that it happened.
since you cannot prove it
because you cannot observe a big bang. and you cannot observe a star forming.
you cannot observe the planets forming.
and you cannot observe the past.

therefore you cannot prove that the big bang or anything after that happened up until today.

therefore, evolution is a religion if you believe in it. you cant prove it.
you cant prove my theory.
so whats the differece, besides the fact they are total opposites?
none of them can be proven.

let me ask you something, what came before the big bang? what occupied the universe?

Originally posted by expert999
ok you just admitted that evolution is not science,
so you cannot prove that evolution happened.
which means that it requires faith to believe that it happened.
since you cannot prove it
because you cannot observe a big bang. and you cannot observe a star forming.
you cannot observe the planets forming.
and you cannot observe the past.

therefore you cannot prove that the big bang or anything after that happened up until today.

therefore, evolution is a religion if you believe in it. you cant prove it.
you cant prove my theory.
so whats the differece, besides the fact they are total opposites?
none of them can be proven.

let me ask you something, what came before the big bang? what occupied the universe?

We've been back and forth through this. Read my previous replies. You are trolling now.

I guess you could call "Expert999" a "camp." I think this should be locked. If Expert continues ignoring all of the previous responses he has gotten, I will just have to answer every question / claim he asks / makes with a link to my original answer from the FIRST time he asked / claimed it.

Zip

As I said on page one, he won't listen to facts.

Please just lock this thread, and intelligent argument is not going to happen with expert.

For the sake of all humanity lock it.

.
Sounds like expert999 will only accept eyewitness accounts.

Newsflash - eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

When timetravel becomes available maybe someone can send him back in time to watch the whole thing, all 3.5 BILLION years of it. [warning the 3 billion years, before multicelled organisms will be excruciatingly boring] Take lots and lots of Doritos and Sodas. repeated for emphasis LOTs and LOTs of doritos and Sodas.

I have to wonder. What exactly will change in your life today or tommorrow that has you all that concerned about Evolution anyway?
If you want to deny Evolution in light of genetic science that is your choice, but if you accept genetic science, what exactly is the big deal?

I can't see where it is a pressing concern. Anyone, did i miss something?
.

Originally posted by slank
I can't see where it is a pressing concern. Anyone, did i miss something?
.

The pressing "concern" is the evangelical misconception that the observed fact of evolution somehow conflicts with the concept of a supreme deity creating all that is. This concerns them as they feel it invades their faith.

However, as is often the case in 99.98% of these debates, the evangelical creationists neglect to consider that the observed fact of evolution might simply be but one tool in their God's tool chest.

to restate what SO just said
Intelligent Design
This allows for both, religious based creationism and evolution to work and complement each other