It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend.
As science is JUST a guess however, in the end they are the same thing.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend. Remember we are only working things out with our BEST GUESS, based on the level of technology we are able to use to come up with these conclusions.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Science is ALL guess work, based around the TOOLS and METHODS, we have available at any given moment.
Hardly any science is fact.
Physics and Quantum Physics being prime examples.
there is NO hard scientific fact that proves either theory as being the REASON we are here today.
Please refute my points instead of just providing witty remarks.
Originally posted by Mr Mask
Wow...
You think you just dropped proof that there is no creator?
Lol...
Wow...
All that with no controlled experiments, years of research or even a laboratory...
I guess the scientific process is dead...RIP.
Sorry, you proved nothing and your title is a direct lie...you can't prove anything...nor have you even made a good case.
Originally posted by mattias
What a waste of a thread, ever scientist now takes all their facts with a grain of salt because every single day how many thousands of pieces of information and data get proves obsolete and are "proven: wrong, only for those facts to be "proven" wrong again, to say that anything in this world is for sure is laughable, the only difference is for us creationists we don't NEED proof because we know in our hearts. That is why I feel sorry for you.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend.
Remember we are only working things out with our BEST GUESS, based on the level of technology we are able to use to come up with these conclusions.
As for ID/Creationism vs Atheism, it's really pointless to attempt to prove one or another wrong, the fact that you THINK you can is evidence that you know nothing at all.
Now that's not an insult. None of us know ANYTHING about what is "god" or the "afterlife" or what we are, how we got here etc.
We have opinions, some supported by faith, some by science. As science is JUST a guess however, in the end they are the same thing.
So no, you haven't disproved anybody's faith or ability to state that we were created, or we came out of the premordial soup.
Originally posted by milktoast
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Okay, I'll bite.
1. Your assumption is based on the idea that God is defined in terms of the natural world (natural causes). That's like letting ink on paper define the artist, and base that definition in terms of its own. The fact that ink is on paper (2D), would render it unable to define the artist (3D, 4D if you include time) in its own terms: thus, it is impossible for us (4D, I'll be generous) to define God (10D, 20D, we don't know) in natural terms. In a multi-dimensional reality that renders certain things obsolete – such as time and space; one must assume that God is defined in terms beyond natural understanding.
2. Refer to answer number one: We can't test what is impossible for us to understand.
3. Indirectly refer to answer number one. By admitting that science and evolutionary theory fail to address the question, "where did the universe come from",
you dismiss the fact that science and evolutionary theory are attempting to discover the origins of life; the origins of the universe;
and, as you put it, the "technical aspects of plastic manufacturing". How can one seek the origins of the universe, without seeking where the universe originated?
4. I am failing to understand the argument.
Europeans and Australians are nationalities, not species. Even if you make the leap from nationality to race, you've still failed to prove anything; as we are all human.
Unless you are trying to say Europeans evolved from Australians, or visa-versa. To do so would imply that Australians are inferior to Europeans, since the evolved product is usually superior. Again … I don't understand the logic.
For what it's worth … "A wise man fears and departs from evil, but a fool rages and is self-confident." Proverbs 14:16
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by iterationzero
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
That's from your quote....see how it says PREDICTIONS, based on THEORY. Well established or not, MOST scientific theory is not fact, as new information comes to light. Obviously some things as the snipped states have no new information, therefore the theory is considered fact.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Those of you out there that believe in creationism/ID/or whatever you're calling it since the Dover case ruled it to be pure religion, I will now put forth the biggest problem of your ideas.
Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TarzanBeta
There is evidence of macro evolution. It is observed in multiple species which actually changed withing a human life time.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TarzanBeta
Here's some
Start here
Even more
Here's a lecture
Another one
Plenty of evidence in there. However, this is off topic and doesn't address what we're talking about.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
The issue we are discussing here is not the existence of god, why does everyone keep redirecting this to the existence of god?
This thread is neutral as to the existence of a deity, we're discussing evolution. If you would like to put forth a discussion of a deity, please go to this thread
Why is it that theists can come into O&C threads and start preaching?