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.

 

Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Can we please all agree that "Mother Nature" is the force that 'intelligently designed' everything, using evolution, please? Throw them a bone and they might run after it.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Furthermore, humans are created twice in Genesis.


That is not correct. The way the Jews wrote back then was to give a brief description, then later on they fill in the details.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



Originally posted by SuperiorEd

The question is backwards.


No, it's quite forwards.



It should be, "What has science contributed to the creationist/intelligent design point of view?"


And then it would be a short thread because the answer would definitively been "Absolutely nothing"



It has been obvious since time began that we are created.


I'm quite sure nobody really cared for the first 13.699999 billion years of existence. And no, it isn't obvious, the universe doesn't necessitate the need for a creator.



It's taken science this long to figure it out. Theories essentially amount to faith, not fact.


Theories are explanations of facts, why are creationists so ignorant about this basic scientific term?



Science tells us that 90% of matter is unobservable. We only see 10% of what is actually there.


...no, 90% of matter is not directly observable, we happen to be able to observe that 90% due to its gravitational pull. Why are creationists so ignorant about science in general?



Humans can only tune in to a small band of this frequency of information.


And via our tools we can tune in to the rest and translate it into observable information. I can't hear about 20 khz, but I can buy a microphone that allows me to see 45 khz sounds as a waveform.



Science places its faith on the theory of the 10% when it cannot observe the 90%.


Except that it can observe that 90%.



Ironically, the 10% of what is seen confirms the claims of the Bible that all you see comes from what is not visible.


Yet somehow Genesis posits that Yahweh is able to wrestle with a human (and lose to a human even after cheating).



Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.


Ad hoc rationalizations.



Romans 1 says that it is obvious and you have no excuse to not see it right there in front of you daily.


Romans is a silly book.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.


I love that I was quoted and then all of the questions that I asked were entirely ignored.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


...no, they are two different accounts, the order of all the events is entirely different. They even use two different terms for the same being. In Genesis 1 Elohim creates whilst in Genesis 2 it's YHVH.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


...nope. I'm not going to concede anything to stupidity for the sake of those who refuse to accept science that is clear as day.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Exactly. None. That's the point. They're rhetorical questions. What's interesting is that nobody who is in favor of ID/Creationism has bothered to answer any of the questions as given.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
 


...no, they are two different accounts, the order of all the events is entirely different. They even use two different terms for the same being. In Genesis 1 Elohim creates whilst in Genesis 2 it's YHVH.


Gen 1:26
'elohiym

Gen 2:7
'elohiym



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Thank you for ignoring the word directly proceeding the word you quoted. "יהוה Yĕhovah" directly proceeds 'elohiym. And once more, the two accounts are contradictory.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
 


Thank you for ignoring the word directly proceeding the word you quoted. "יהוה Yĕhovah" directly proceeds 'elohiym. And once more, the two accounts are contradictory.


Yĕhovah is LORD. Same person in both chapters. They are not contradictory. Do you even understand how the Jews wrote back then? I thought you were smart?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The real question is what the hell has ANYTHING contributed to science in that fact? This is such an arbitrary argument it sickens me. Do you know what all science is? GOOD FEELINGS AND THE PURSUIT OF THOSE GOOD FEELINGS.

Now we look at intelligent design, and I'm not stating RELIGION, just stating that something or someone could have created all the processes we experience each day, and this is simply a good feeling that people have. Yes it is completely based on faith and it is harder to prove than concrete evidence, because we don't have some loud ominous voice stating "I'M THE ******** CREATOR *****!". Science will never prove why we are here; it will help us sort out our reality at the moment though. Science is useless for discovering creation.... we need to be open minded - whether your faith is based in the tangible or the intangible.

To be honest, I think some of science even diverts minds away to what reality is. I was watching a show last night about how the planets were formed, and these scientists were so boldly explaining how materials were busted out of nowhere and tons of collisions happened and this is the 100% explanation as to why the planets exist right now.

Pop Quiz: Have any of the scientists ever lived when the universe was created?
Answer: HELL no.

And this false information could lead you rolling down the side of a hill that is completely falsified information but you believe it SO MUCH just because some dude who is wearing a lab suit and can count to really high numbers told you it was your reality. Heck, numbers are even made up.

NOBODY knows how this existence came into existence, but we all have our own good feelings about it. How I view it, we should create fellowship from our diverse views and try to piece the puzzle together. We may never ultimately know and may never know, but it sure as hell is fun to be strapped in for the ride.

The ultimate answer to your question is a question itself: What has science given us to the 100% explanation as to why things came to be? (There's another arbitrary question to counter yours
)

The reason intelligent design is so attractive to believe, is the perfection we see with the existence we have today. How everything perfectly flows... how heavenly bodies are perfectly spherical... how our world is so perfect and imperfect at the same time (imperfection develops flavor and enjoyment)... If you came from the background of a computer programmer you'd understand a bit more. It is SO difficult to create even 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of this existence and be able to make it run without crashing... but a reality so sweet? What the heck... it's hard not to say this is created intelligently. If it is merely an accident, I would truly soil myself and take photos for you, but we will never know about that until our time has come to be given that knowledge
.

In essence, you can't really compare science to faith, because the two different parties are searching for different things all together... it is a very loaded question. This is the same with evolution vs. creationism, because they are not comparable at all... one is a diversity theory while the other is a total existence theory.

My two cents...... more like 1000 cents. Ha!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 



Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
 


Thank you for ignoring the word directly proceeding the word you quoted. "יהוה Yĕhovah" directly proceeds 'elohiym. And once more, the two accounts are contradictory.


Yĕhovah is LORD. Same person in both chapters.


Yes, and in Genesis 1 you get the term "God" used, simply "Elohim" (I'm Romanizing for the sake of everyone else on here). In Genesis 2 you get the consistent use of "Lord God" or "Yahweh Elohim". They're clearly two different literary traditions sandwiched next to each other.



They are not contradictory.


Briefly:
Genesis 1: Animals created first, then humans (both male and female created simultaneously)
Genesis 2: Man created first, then animals, then woman

So there's a contradiction on the order of creation and a contradiction on whether humans or animals were created first.



Do you even understand how the Jews wrote back then?


...well, since there's no evidence that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written at the same time, I'd like to ask what time period you're referring to...



I thought you were smart?


Well, I am aware of the proper use of punctuation.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 


Ah...more stupidity that simply ignores the post at hand and devolves into an aggressive diatribe against a science which is so clearly not understood by the one attacking it.

Oh, and this is all just a giant red herring. It's deflecting from the matter at hand.


Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The real question is what the hell has ANYTHING contributed to science in that fact?


Evolution has contributed to the advance of medical science. Relativity has contributed to a whole range of things, my favorite daily application of which is the calibration of GPS satellites. Newtonian mechanics allowed us to get people into space.



This is such an arbitrary argument it sickens me.


Um...how is it arbitrary? Merely labeling it arbitrary does nothing to make it so.



Do you know what all science is? GOOD FEELINGS AND THE PURSUIT OF THOSE GOOD FEELINGS.


...no, science is the systematic and evidence-based exploration of the natural world. It has nothing to do with individual feeling. Science is the testing of the natural world and the inference of ideas from tests and observable evidence within the natural world. Please, learn to science.



Now we look at intelligent design, and I'm not stating RELIGION, just stating that something or someone could have created all the processes we experience each day, and this is simply a good feeling that people have.


Ok, and where's the evidence for that? What would be the predictions of that scenario? What would be the beneficial applications of this idea?




Yes it is completely based on faith and it is harder to prove than concrete evidence, because we don't have some loud ominous voice stating "I'M THE ******** CREATOR *****!".


...except that there should be something predictable in a world that was created. You should have some indication of its creation. A created world shouldn't appear the same as a world which arose from natural processes.

And faith? What has faith ever given the world? As Nietzsche put it best:

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."




Science will never prove why we are here;


Newsflash: Successive changes in genetic code via natural and sexual selection as well as genetic drift.



it will help us sort out our reality at the moment though. Science is useless for discovering creation.... we need to be open minded - whether your faith is based in the tangible or the intangible.


Open-minded doesn't mean 'I'm going to accept anything as long as someone says it'. An open mind is one that is open to correction, not one that blindly accepts.



To be honest, I think some of science even diverts minds away to what reality is.


Really? Because it's based in all that evidence and stuff...



I was watching a show last night about how the planets were formed, and these scientists were so boldly explaining how materials were busted out of nowhere and tons of collisions happened and this is the 100% explanation as to why the planets exist right now.


...no scientists is 100% sure of anything. 99.9% sure. And you do realize that there are centuries of scientific research that go into those models that explain planetary formation, right? And nobody is claiming that 'materials were busted out of nowhere'.



Pop Quiz: Have any of the scientists ever lived when the universe was created?
Answer: HELL no.


Pop Quiz: If you found a pile of fecal matter on a floor would you likely blame it on the household pet? HELL YES.

You don't have to be there to get a strong inference. Everything the Big Bang model predicts in the universe has been found to be true. There isn't a single fact of the universe that contradicts that theory.



And this false information could lead you rolling down the side of a hill that is completely falsified information but you believe it SO MUCH just because some dude who is wearing a lab suit and can count to really high numbers told you it was your reality.


Ah the old "dude in a lab coat" argument. You know why I accept the things that the dude says? Because he can back them up with evidence. He has to write scientific papers which are submitted to intense peer-review processes. You can actually look at the specific papers, you can look at the specific responses, you can look at the data sets. You're allowed to pick them apart if you wish.

I'm not just taking the guy at his word, I'm taking him at his evidence.

Science: It works.



Heck, numbers are even made up.


Technically they are an representative abstraction....not so much made up as derived. I mean, mathematics as a system is a way of making sense of the natural world. 2 doesn't exist, but you can count 2 of something.



NOBODY knows how this existence came into existence, but we all have our own good feelings about it.


Except the scientists, who actually bother to back up their ideas, which aren't just 'good feelings', with evidence and mathematical proofs. Hell, there are a bunch of guys in Europe firing off a giant particle accelerator to attempt to gather more evidence to gain a better understanding.



How I view it, we should create fellowship from our diverse views and try to piece the puzzle together. We may never ultimately know and may never know, but it sure as hell is fun to be strapped in for the ride.


Yes, let's just randomly put ideas that are unsupported together, that'll work out great. Oh, that's how religions are formed.



The ultimate answer to your question is a question itself: What has science given us to the 100% explanation as to why things came to be? (There's another arbitrary question to counter yours
)


No science claims to answer any 'why' question. Meaning is something separate from science. Meaning might not exist beyond subjective interpretations. The only 'why' that science deals in is cause. Why did the object hit with the force it hit with? Mass times acceleration.

Science doesn't deal in 100% certainties, it deals with the best answer depending on the available evidence. The system is designed so that corrections can be made based upon the introduction of new evidence. Furthermore, this is a definitively difficult issue that you're presenting, you can't expect anyone to have a definitive answer yet.

Scientists are doing their best and they're working hard to test all of their ideas constantly against new data. They're constantly discovering more....unlike you, who just prefers 'good feelings'.



The reason intelligent design is so attractive to believe, is the perfection we see with the existence we have today.


Yes, the perfection in a universe that it mostly empty, whose areas occupied by matter are mostly volatile.



How everything perfectly flows... how heavenly bodies are perfectly spherical...


Perfectly spherical. Okay, you're clearly ignorant of science. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Actually, I'm just going to ask you to provide evidence of a single, definitively perfectly spherical 'heavenly body'.



how our world is so perfect and imperfect at the same time (imperfection develops flavor and enjoyment)...


So it's perfect...but it's not. Yeah, being contradictory isn't deep, it's illogical.



If you came from the background of a computer programmer you'd understand a bit more.


Special pleading. You don't know my background, don't assume anything. I've dabbled in programming.



It is SO difficult to create even 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of this existence and be able to make it run without crashing... but a reality so sweet?


So you're just going to pull arbitrary numbers from your butt? "1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th" of the diameter of the universe would be about 1.609344 × 10^-17 meters (feel free to check my math), that's less than a Femtometre, or 1/8th the diameter of a gold nucleus.



What the heck... it's hard not to say this is created intelligently.


Not really. This was not created intelligently
Bam.
Right there.



If it is merely an accident, I would truly soil myself and take photos for you, but we will never know about that until our time has come to be given that knowledge
.


So more meaningless statements...



In essence, you can't really compare science to faith, because the two different parties are searching for different things all together... it is a very loaded question.


Except that the question I'm asking relates directly to the natural world and is therefore within the realm of science rather than faith. It is a claim about the natural world.



This is the same with evolution vs. creationism, because they are not comparable at all... one is a diversity theory while the other is a total existence theory.


And also there is actual evidence for evolution whilst there is absolutely none for creationism.



My two cents...... more like 1000 cents. Ha!


More like 1 yen.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


If you came from the background of a computer programmer you'd understand a bit more. It is SO difficult to create even 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of this existence and be able to make it run without crashing... but a reality so sweet? What the heck... it's hard not to say this is created intelligently. If it is merely an accident, I would truly soil myself and take photos for you, but we will never know about that until our time has come to be given that knowledge
.

I have this background. Your argument does not make any more sense, though.
edit on 22-3-2011 by john_bmth because: messed up quote



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
If I remember correctly Gen2 is older then Gen1. I don`t got the time check right but I am pretty sure most actual bible scholars think this. I am not taking about retarded ID groups or any other groups that uses Moses`life as a IRL timeline.

I could be wrong but I think this is correct .. iirc.

(I will look latter when I got more time)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Haha, you are quite fun my friend. Indeed a solidly put mind.

I wanted to throw some things out there to see how you would react and have a sort of one one one conversation with you. Anywho... first I'll start out by stating we should take this as a debate versus an argument, because I don't have any hard feelings towards you since I don't even know you yet!

Alright after that. It seems as though you have a counter for absolutely everything, and your world is completely made up from statistics, evidence, and very tangible documentation gathered across however many years.

Now you state science can give you "99.9%" accuracy, and that still is not 100%, and it is not 99.9% based on what reality is.

So we have this existence, or this consciousness... right? And we CAN measure certain elements from this. But you can't relate dog # to the entire creation of consciousness itself.

Trust me, I've more than humored your view on the reality we are having, but it seems like it is being too close minded. Perhaps it is the thought that there should be more is what drives me to not accept what evidence we are given throughout the years.

It's interesting how you can take historical evidence so seriously when the accounts from the creationist side are written in the same way, but with less numbers. And you may argue that all of the writings have been tampered by man to show a bias towards their liking, but who is to say scientific evidence can't be tampered the same way?


You will keep saying you get daily statistics from all sorts of sources and yet none of these came from the beginning of time. Creationism is an idea of the beginning, not an idea of the present now. Science can give us insight as to how to interpret what we are experiencing right now without even contradicting creationism. Science is merely our language for our conscious observations, but it is not even similar to what the idea of creationism is.




Science doesn't deal in 100% certainties, it deals with the best answer depending on the available evidence. The system is designed so that corrections can be made based upon the introduction of new evidence. Furthermore, this is a definitively difficult issue that you're presenting, you can't expect anyone to have a definitive answer yet. Scientists are doing their best and they're working hard to test all of their ideas constantly against new data. They're constantly discovering more....unlike you, who just prefers 'good feelings'.


You even say this and yet you are so determined to undermine any other viewpoint that isn't even comparable to science. So let me rephrase it all. Science is our interpretation of current and possible reality, and there is nothing wrong with it at all, in fact it is the only provable reality we will ever have. But any creationist viewpoint is jumping far ahead of what is provable trying to see what could be a possibility for the like... If an alien landed at your doorstep tomorrow and told you you could unlock your conscious mind and traverse dimensions, you'd believe it then because it's tangible and right in front of you. But this is another ridiculous example that may light your wick.

What creationism does for science is it gives science a possibility to explore. It gives it one of the biggest and most controversial battlegrounds to traverse while defining what we are experiencing. It opens doorways to walk in and take a look at, even briefly if it doesn't float your boat, and it allows us to close doors on the things that we can't yet prove. Creationism is another idea just like any other that we can build off of whether it is believable or not.

... so perhaps that will answer your first question for you! As simple as it is


We have our conscious minds and I just don't want to take them lightly. I'm not quite sure if I can argue that consciousness came from evolution, but then again I can't explain to you how it was created either. I feel this life is very special....

I may not respond for a while because I'm gonna be busy for a while now
but I do want to have more conversation....!

Regards



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
 


Thank you for ignoring the word directly proceeding the word you quoted. "יהוה Yĕhovah" directly proceeds 'elohiym. And once more, the two accounts are contradictory.


Yĕhovah is LORD. Same person in both chapters. They are not contradictory. Do you even understand how the Jews wrote back then? I thought you were smart?



wrongo

serious biblical scholars have shown that the bible/torah has been edited and censored by at least four groups

Documentary_Hypothesis


The documentary hypothesis (DH) (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis[1]), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these is usually set at four, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis assumes that the text of the Torah as preserved can be divided into identifiable sources that predate its compilations by centuries, the Jahwist (J) source being the oldest, dating to as early as the 10th century BCE, along with the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P), dating to the 8th to 6th centuries. The final compilation of the extant text is dated to either the 6th or 5th century BC. In an attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text, and refusing to accept traditional explanations to harmonize them, 18th and 19th century biblical scholars using source criticism eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent, sources, each originally a complete and independent document. The hypothesis developed slowly over the course of the 19th century, by the end of which it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P.[2]



during the reign of Josiah the "originals of the Torah" was "found" while doing some repairs of the temple, apparently everybody had been following the wrong Law.


yeah right.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
So, I sat back and read all the answers so far. I am not surprised my post below was blown off. This is the answer science cannot and will not wrestle with. Our source (God) is greater than all the material world and it is obvious by examining the human species. We humans are the top of all creation in complexity, function and ability. Science says our source is the Earth. This is not possible since nothing rises above its source anywhere in nature apart from consciousness being involved. Go back billions of year if you like, but no substance that is matter can rise without choice from consciousness. I would really like to hear someone touch this one because it is untouchable.

By the way, THEORY is NOT fact. It is theory until it is fact. Theory changes daily and fact does not change. There is no such thing as a "fact so far." That is called a theory. In case you have not noticed, there are no facts available in this universe. Why? Simple. Nothing has ever been the same twice. We travel through space and have never been in the same spot twice. Our solar system travels. The Galaxy travels. All substance and mater is in a constant state of becoming something unique from the last. NO EVENT OR PIECE OF MATTER HAS EVER BEEN THE SAME. There is something that is the same--true Mathematics and governing laws. Those are ROCK SOLID!

Sorry, but you can't have governing laws without a governor. You cannot have math without a source greater than the numbers. All rivers flow from the source and then return by governing laws. No river flows back to its source apart from conscious effort. Therefore, science has it wrong. Dawkins has it wrong. This truth should be evident.

What is greater than God? Apart from observation of His reality, it is not possible to comprehend. This does not make it improbable by any means. If I create a conscious computer program and assign it a point of development to reach, it will have no idea there is a higher point of development apart form further programming. It may question how anything could possibly exceed its proud achievements and ability to understand its environment. But, apart form observation of the real environment the creator lives in, efforts would be useless against the barrier of the energy used to create the information in the program. Now, take a creator God and draw your conclusions.

Which do you choose: Random evolution from accidental chance or a created reality with all the evidence you need left right there in front of you. NOTHING in nature misses the opportunity to be the mirror reflecting this truth.


Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If you would like proof of ID, here it is right in front of you:

Can a river rise above its source? NO Apart from consciousness, ALL that you can observe in nature moves away from its source. There are no exceptions. Are you greater than what we think is our source (Earth)? YES What does that tell you about your true source? Consciousness is the ability to move against the flow and back toward the source. The earth does not rise. Substance does not rise. Only consciousness. Pride is believing that you are above the source. Disbelief is foolish in light of this obvious proof.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.

edit on 21-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is sometimes made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven. Wikipedia

In simpler language,


As used in science, "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation. It is much more full-blown.

A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another. What Is a Theory?

And as for your ‘source’, it’s not what you say it is. As far as any unbiased judge can tell, it’s just a book.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
while the religionists are arguing about Inteligent design /creationalism
(it was found in court to be he same thing)
VS the Theory of evolution...

while the Luciferians are putting fish genes in tomatoes
and breeding giant salmon that will take over the whole species they project in 40 generations they figure....

oh and spider goat milk body armour

OP if you don't get a reasoned debate, don't be too disappointed.


no evolution?
even religion has evolved


PS
how is it successive generations of cockroaches become tolerant to pesticide?
god made them to evolve that way
jeez
edit on 23-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The Big Bang Theory, which is the prevailing cosmological theory of the creation of the universe was proposed by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître which explains whey there are remarkable similarities between this theory and Genesis.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join