Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

Well it is irrelevant. Not only are we extremely similar looking to primates but we are relatives through our genetic make up.


[youtube]x-WAHpC0Ah0[/youtube]
YouTube - Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2

No you’re wrong, it is very relevant whether you claim so or not. How about this, you tell me why it’s irrelevant?

I am going to tell you why it IS relevant. Differences are relevant because it shows we are different then the apes. I mean that part is obvious. Now why are the similarities not proof we have a common ancestor? This is why, because all living stuff has similarities to them. That does not prove they are related though. People can build a table out of wood, they can also build a house out of wood, does that make the table and the house related? No. Yea they are made up of the same stuff (wood) but they are vastly different in structure and purpose. That is my point with humans and chimps.

You&#8217;re trying to say that similar biological stuff in us and chimps proves a common ancestor, NO IT DON&#8217;T. You have to ASSUME that similar stuff PROVES common ancestor. Let&#8217;s distinguish fact from assumption, or fact from theory. Let me even be nice to you by saying this, let&#8217;s suppose your THEORY is correct, that we have a common ancestor, STILL it is a theory, that means, lets distinguish the theory from the FACTS. Here are the facts, we have some similarities with apes, but we also have similarities with other animals to, on the biological level. That is a FACT. Here is another fact; we have DIFFERENCES with the apes and other animals on all levels and the biological level. That is a fact as well. Ok, here are the theories; your theory is that from the fact that we have similarities, this shows common ancestor. < That is a theory, and that is a FACT that it&#8217;s a THEORY. Here is my theory, from the differences AND similarities, God created DIFFERENT creatures, using SIMILAR building blocks. This is a common designer in other words. So, there is my theory and it is a fact that it&#8217;s a theory. But I did say I could prove God&#8217;s existence, this part is not the proof though, I will get to that part soon enough, but one thing at a time.

Here is a good article to read in response to the Chromosome 2 issue. This shows that it is not proof of common ancestor. http://swordandshield.biz/Human-Chromosome-II-A.pdf

Regardless. This method is used in our everyday lives. What is meant by "true science" and "false science"? Science does not deal in absolutes or "proofs". It's discoveries aren't static. The field of science is open to change and welcomes change to its discoveries.

What I mean by true science is this. True science distinguishes fact from theory, it does NOT mix the two, it can CONNECT the two, but it will NOT MIX them in order to confuse it&#8217;s audience. Second, true science makes TRUE predictions. In other words it will not discover something, THEN say it predicted it AFTER it discovered it. Also when it does make a REAL prediction before a discovery, when the thing is discovered it will FULFILL that prediction. If it does NOT fulfill that prediction, then that prediction is FALSE (false science). Thirdly true science is OPEN to be challenged, it does not get it&#8217;s pants in a bundle when others challenge it. It does not have the attitude &#8220;don&#8217;t question my theories&#8221;. Next true science is not proud, it goes where the WEIGHT of the evidence points, it does not go where the NUMBER of people follow parse. Many things in history get revolutionized, we can&#8217;t follow that, we must follow the evidence, not the consensus based on a revolution. If anything, WE MUST be the revolutionaries, not follow the consensus from those who already did a revolution. If we don&#8217;t do that, we are COWARDS, SICK cowards. THIS is how true science works. The opposite of this, is FALSE science.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

I'm going to hold you to that.

Good, I am also going to hold myself to being truthful to.

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don&#8217;t know.

Dawkins contradicts himself, first he says he doesn&#8217;t know how it started, and then he says he knows how it started by saying it was a self replicating molecule. So which is it, he knows or don&#8217;t know?

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it&#8217;s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

So Dawkins ADMITS there is EVIDENCE for a designer. How much more clearly can it be his admittance? He is not admitting that there IS a designer, but he admits that there is EVIDENCE for one.

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

This is totally in line with what Dawkins wrote in "The God Delusion", where he states that IF there was a God, there would have to be something greater than God to create Him, and something greater than that...etc, etc...

The reason why this designer could not jump into existence is because he ALWAYS existed. Science has shown that there is a FIRST cause, Dawkins is now saying that there is not a first cause, something greater would be above that designer, then above that one and above that one and it keeps going back infinitely.

Dawkins contradicts science by saying this. There cannot be an infinite amount of causes, there has to be a FIRST cause.

I would say that your misleading statement of Dawkins supporting the ID movement in any way is a bald faced lie.

No, it&#8217;s not a bald faced lie. And here is why:

First: I defined what intelligent design was already. Anybody who believes in God or gods or goddesses or even ALIENS can use intelligent design because of the complexity of our world.

Second: I did not say Dawkins BELIEVED in God, the biblical God or gods or any of that. But I said that he IMPLIED it by his statements here. Let me quote myself to remind you of what I said

&#8220;Actually believe it or not, Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design without even wanting to&#8221;

Notice the last part of the sentence &#8220;without even WANTING TO&#8221;. That means I realized Dawkins is not trying to support intelligent design, but rather that he IMPLIED it was real.

So, I am not lying about anything. But nice try, but it&#8217;s not going to work, you won&#8217;t catch me in ONE lie or contradiction, not ONE. If you do catch me in a REAL contradiction, I will be VERY impressed.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Jollybear, did not you claim that you had earth shattering proof for the existence of your god? Could you present it please?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Good, I am also going to hold myself to being truthful to.

So Dawkins ADMITS there is EVIDENCE for a designer. How much more clearly can it be his admittance? He is not admitting that there IS a designer, but he admits that there is EVIDENCE for one.


So, I am not lying about anything. But nice try, but it’s not going to work, you won’t catch me in ONE lie or contradiction, not ONE. If you do catch me in a REAL contradiction, I will be VERY impressed.

Another lie. At no time does Dawkins "ADMITS there is EVIDENCE for a designer".

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.


Impressed yet?

 

[tumbleweed41]

In fact Jollybear, I am done with you.

I am satisfied that you see no problem with using deceit in your arguments. I find this disheartening in a so called "Truth Seeker".

Good luck in your search for "truth"

 

[Jollybear]

nonebeliever_92

Jollybear

, did not you claim that you had earth shattering proof for the existence of your god? Could you present it please?

I am going to present it in another thread after I am finished here; I will make the thread and present it and then let you all throw darts at it if you will.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Another lie. At no time does Dawkins "ADMITS there is EVIDENCE for a designer".

Your wrong, it&#8217;s not a lie, he does admit there is evidence, he just does not believe that evidence, or he thinks that the weight of the evidence points away from it.

You know what bothers me about people like you? It&#8217;s the fact that I am willing to not call you a liar, yet I VERY WELL COULD call you one, but I choose to refrain and STICK to the actual issues and arguments and points.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it&#8217;s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.


Impressed yet?

Notice what Dawkins said, you highlighted it yourself. &#8220;You might find a signature of some sort of designer&#8221; and &#8220;I suppose it&#8217;s possible that you might find EVIDENCE for that&#8221; and &#8220;and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.&#8221; Those three sections are an acknowledgement that there is evidence, but that he disagrees with that evidence at the present time. But even if he agreed with it, then that designer would have evolved is what he is saying.

Call me a liar all you want, his words speak for themselves.

In fact

Jollybear, I am done with you.

That is fine, it&#8217;s your choice. It&#8217;s probably for the best as well, because debating through attacking characters helps no one nor helps any case. But your attacks does not lesson my confidence in my integrity.

I am satisfied that you see no problem with using deceit in your arguments.

Just because you make a judgment does not make it true. I use no deceit in my arguments. But believe that all you wish, that is your choice.

I find this disheartening in a so called "Truth Seeker".

You find it disheartening based on your false judgment. And I am not a so called truth seeker; I am a true truth seeker. If that is the best you got is that you have to go to the level of attacking ME instead of continuing to address my points that just shows how low you are.

Good luck in your search for "truth"

Thanks, I think.

One last comment, all of us have to live in the same world, so we have to live together, and calling others liars does not help with that living together. Try to learn something about that.

Just because people disagree with you does not mean you have to go to that low level; and definitely someone who is willing to build a case for their views you should all the more not go to that level.

But, I see this kind of attitude time and again, EVEN AMONG&#8217;S religious people and even Christians. It&#8217;s a sad ordeal indeed.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

" it&#8217;s possible that you might find EVIDENCE" is not equal to "there is evidence but I don't agree with it"

This reeks of dishonesty.

 

[Jollybear]

Satans_Serrated_Edge

" it&#8217;s possible that you might find EVIDENCE" is not equal to "there is evidence but I don't agree with it"

This reeks of dishonesty.

Dawkins has stated elsewhere that there is an APPEARANCE of design, but there is not TRUE design. Things just look designed, but are not designed. That appearance is evidence, he disagrees with it though and thinks it&#8217;s not good ENOUGH evidence.

I don&#8217;t see how I am being dishonest?

Dawkins stated emphatically clear that one COULD possibly find (and we have in fact FOUND evidence) evidence of a signature by a designer. But he makes clear that if this was found (and it is found in the DNA CODE) he would not attribute it to a God, but rather a designer who also evolved.

I understand what he is saying, but the fact that he says that if it was FOUND (correction, it IS found) he would still not accept it as evidence for God, but rather some KIND of designer who evolved and seeded our planet shows his doubt.

Where is my dishonesty? Tutor me through this, because I don&#8217;t see how I am being dishonest, let alone REEKING with it?

 

[Jollybear]

You know what i find dishonest? I find it dishonest when people use that line all to often in saying "your dishonest" without adressing points and sticking to the issues.

THAT is dishonest.

 

[Gabethewiking]

You know what i find dishonest? I find it dishonest when people use that line all to often in saying "your dishonest" without adressing points and sticking to the issues.

THAT is dishonest.

Jolly, I do not think you mean to be dishonest, you may seriously believe what you are saying, but Dawkins is responding to a imaginary SCENARIO he could possible IMAGINE happen in FantasyLand, directly asked by Stein, just watch the movie.

Also, you have the Fact of Evolution, something Dawkins is aware of being a Professor in the Field, so he knows the FACT of Evolution and then gives SPECULATION ab out abiogenesis because Bein Stein DEMANDS him to give it, so he gives a POSSIBLE scenario.

Did you not watch the movie? And do you not know the facts of Evolution? YUour opinion, nor Dawkins opinion is relevant to the FACT that EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

 

[Jollybear]

Gebethewiking

Jolly, I do not think you mean to be dishonest, you may seriously believe what you are saying,

Thank you, someone sees the light. You are absolutely correct, I do NOT MEAN to be dishonest, and if one does not INTENTIONALLY MEAN IT then they are NOT IT. To be dishonest, you have to deliberately INTEND IT or do it.

Yes I really believe what I am saying.

but Dawkins is responding to a imaginary SCENARIO he could possible IMAGINE happen in FantasyLand, directly asked by Stein,

Yes, I understand that is what Dawkins was doing. I understand Dawkins does not believe in God nor intelligent design, but he admits not just here but elsewhere that there is an appearance of design. He is saying here, that if design WAS true, it still would not be by a God, but rather a super evolved intelligent being up there in space. That is my understanding of what he is saying in this video.

just watch the movie.

I did watch the video, I would not give the video if I did not watch it first myself.

Also, you have the Fact of Evolution, something Dawkins is aware of being a Professor in the Field, so he knows the FACT of Evolution and then gives SPECULATION ab out abiogenesis because Bein Stein DEMANDS him to give it, so he gives a POSSIBLE scenario.

Bein stein is not demanding Dawkins to ADMIT intelligent design, but is probing him to answer HOW this complex chemicals and life could have evolved or got created. To which Dawkins first says he don&#8217;t know, then says he does know (a contradiction). Then says even if it was designed, that still would not prove a God to him.

I understand what is going on in the video.

Did you not watch the movie? And do you not know the facts of Evolution? YUour opinion, nor Dawkins opinion is relevant to the FACT that EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

Yes I watched the video. Yes I know ABOUT the CLAIMS that evolution is factual, but I do not AGREE that they are factual.

I also agree that my opinion and Dawkins opinion does not matter for evolution. But evolution is not a fact, it is tons of theories about facts. If it was a fact, I would believe it, but since I don&#8217;t believe it, it is not a fact. I believe ALL facts, actually correction, I KNOW all facts are facts. You cannot believe something you know, belief involves taking a leap, with facts there is no leap to take, since you would know. But, I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact, and I disagree with it being a fact, therefore it is not a fact. Does this make me uneducated about the information about evolution? No, I have read a lot about it and debated about it before, not just on this website. I know about the issue, I don&#8217;t agree it is a fact.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If it was a fact, I would believe it, but since I don’t believe it, it is not a fact. I believe ALL facts, actually correction, I KNOW all facts are facts. You cannot believe something you know, belief involves taking a leap, with facts there is no leap to take, since you would know. But, I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact, and I disagree with it being a fact, therefore it is not a fact. Does this make me uneducated about the information about evolution? No, I have read a lot about it and debated about it before, not just on this website. I know about the issue, I don’t agree it is a fact.

If it was a fact, I would believe it
but since I don’t believe it, it is not a fact
I KNOW all facts are facts
I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact
and I disagree with it being a fact
therefore it is not a fact

I know I said I was through with you Jollybear.
But this is priceless:clap

I am going to use this as an example of Creationist "logic".

 

[Gabethewiking]

Thank you, someone sees the light. You are absolutely correct, I do NOT MEAN to be dishonest, and if one does not INTENTIONALLY MEAN IT then they are NOT IT. To be dishonest, you have to deliberately INTEND IT or do it.

Yes I really believe what I am saying.

I do not know why I take my time to respond, I know you wont listen to me Jolly.

Yes, I realize you actually believe what you are saying, the problem others have is that you ignore the fact that they show you are wrong, if you would realize you are wrong and amend your opinion, no one would have issues, now you just continue to spout things that are false, hence calling you dishonest.

It takes alot talking to someone denying reality, give them credence here.

Yes, I understand that is what Dawkins was doing. I understand Dawkins does not believe in God nor intelligent design, but he admits not just here but elsewhere that there is an appearance of design. He is saying here, that if design WAS true, it still would not be by a God, but rather a super evolved intelligent being up there in space. That is my understanding of what he is saying in this video.

Will you listen to me? I doubt it, but here goes...
Yes, human minds tend to make it APPEAR as design, nothing strange, just as you see a man in the window even if their is none there, the mind makes the assumption there is design related to human concept such as engines or whatever it may be.

I did watch the video, I would not give the video if I did not watch it first myself.

You seem to look at it with biased eyes Jolly.
The movie is a false propaganda movie making up lies, almost every single thing coming from Stein is a lie, they do not even define and explain what Evolution is as it is clear they do not know. The movie is a farse, if you take it seriously, you been lied and tricked, seriously Jolly, there is no big conspiracy here.

Bein stein is not demanding Dawkins to ADMIT intelligent design, but is probing him to answer HOW this complex chemicals and life could have evolved or got created. To which Dawkins first says he don’t know, then says he does know (a contradiction). Then says even if it was designed, that still would not prove a God to him.

Dawkins responded, we do not know. And then he is asked how it could have come, Scenario/Imaginary from something OTHER then Evolution, so Dawkins take panspermia as an example.

His point was once again, the god concept is irrelevant as aliens would also have to be explained by fact, and this would likely be a kind of Evolution.

I understand what is going on in the video.

Yes, Ben Stein lying and acting like a moron without any education and knowledge in the field in an attempt to get money from the generally uneducated Creationist consumers. You seem to have been pulled in by it, which is sad. Evolution is a fact Jolly, nothing will change this.

Yes I watched the video. Yes I know ABOUT the CLAIMS that evolution is factual, but I do not AGREE that they are factual.

That you agree or not is irrelevant to the Fact of Evolution Jolly. If I do not accept it, Dawkins does not accept it or anyone else does not accept it does not change the Fact of it. You need to realize this, your opinion is irrelevant to the Evidence.

I also agree that my opinion and Dawkins opinion does not matter for evolution. But evolution is not a fact, it is tons of theories about facts. If it was a fact, I would believe it, but since I don’t believe it, it is not a fact. I believe ALL facts, actually correction, I KNOW all facts are facts. You cannot believe something you know, belief involves taking a leap, with facts there is no leap to take, since you would know. But, I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact, and I disagree with it being a fact, therefore it is not a fact. Does this make me uneducated about the information about evolution? No, I have read a lot about it and debated about it before, not just on this website. I know about the issue, I don’t agree it is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact, if you go against this you need to provide evidence for such a claim as we have 150 years of accumulated Evidence for the Truth of Evolution.

Belief is not relevant to the Fact of Evolution, only Evidence are relevant.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

If it was a fact, I would believe it
but since I don&#8217;t believe it, it is not a fact
I KNOW all facts are facts
I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact
and I disagree with it being a fact
therefore it is not a fact

I know I said I was through with you Jollybear.
But this is priceless

I am going to use this as an example of Creationist "logic".

Funny, real funny. The POINT of what I was saying is, I am honest, if I KNOW something is a fact, I won&#8217;t go into denial and deny it. I will acknowledge it as being a fact. If I know something as being a fact, I will not PRETEND (dishonest) NOT TO KNOW. If I know something to NOT be a fact, but rather a theory, I will not PRETEND (dishonest) to know that it is a fact, when in fact it is a theory.

That is the point. Make fun of me all you wish. If you&#8217;re going to use it as creationist logic, make sure you attach this part to it, what I just explained. For if you don&#8217;t, then WHO IS dishonest? Think about it now.

 

[Jollybear]

Gebethewiking

I do not know why I take my time to respond, I know you wont listen to me Jolly.

Don&#8217;t lose heart, I am reading every word you say. Even if you write out a monster post, I will still read EVERY SINGLE WORD of it.

Yes, I realize you actually believe what you are saying, the problem others have is that you ignore the fact that they show you are wrong,

Problem is they have not shown me I am wrong, I have shown them that there evidence is subjective at best and at worst fragmented. To which I get ridiculed for that, and my arguments not addressed.

if you would realize you are wrong and amend your opinion, no one would have issues,

Again the problem is, I am told to amend my views without having ALL my questions and arguments addressed. For me it doesn&#8217;t work like that, and for TRUE SCIENCE it also does not work like that.

now you just continue to spout things that are false, hence calling you dishonest.

Ok, well instead of people calling me dishonest, they should use that same energy instead to address why it is false what I spout instead of just saying it&#8217;s false and that I am dishonest. For you see, that helps no one, not their case and not me, nor does it dampen my case.

It takes alot talking to someone denying reality, give them credence here.

I am denying your views of reality, I don&#8217;t deny actual reality.

Will you listen to me? I doubt it, but here goes...
Yes, human minds tend to make it APPEAR as design, nothing strange, just as you see a man in the window even if their is none there, the mind makes the assumption there is design related to human concept such as engines or whatever it may be.

Again you are only saying there is appearance of design but not true design. Prove to me there is NO design, don&#8217;t just tell me there is no design and don&#8217;t just tell me there is an illusion of design, prove this to me.

&#8220;engines&#8221; are designed, because engines are complex. Life and the world is MORE complex, thus obviously MORE designed then engines.

You seem to look at it with biased eyes Jolly.
The movie is a false propaganda movie making up lies, almost every single thing coming from Stein is a lie, they do not even define and explain what Evolution is as it is clear they do not know. The movie is a farse, if you take it seriously, you been lied and tricked, seriously Jolly, there is no big conspiracy here.

I am not looking at the movie with biased eyes. I understand what stein is asking and I understand what Dawkins is saying and not saying.

If however I am looking at the movie with biased eyes, then so are you, just with a different bias.

Plus, in the speech of stein in that video I gave, where did he lie? All he did was ask some questions. Point out exactly what his lie was for me?

Dawkins responded, we do not know. And then he is asked how it could have come, Scenario/Imaginary from something OTHER then Evolution, so Dawkins take panspermia as an example.

His point was once again, the god concept is irrelevant as aliens would also have to be explained by fact, and this would likely be a kind of Evolution.

Dawkins contradicted himself, first he says he does not know how life began, matter of fact in another video I seen he also says he does not know how the big bang started either. So he does not know how it started, then he contradicts that by saying he DOES KNOW by the fact he says the molecules self replicated. But then he says he does not know how that happened. Well if he does not know how it happened, how does he know it happened by chance and without a designer? He contradicts himself and it is very obvious that he does it.

Also I said before and I&#8217;ll say it again, I do not believe there is a conspiracy among ALL scientists. Yes some are honest and some are dishonest and some are ignorant and some don&#8217;t care, they just go with the flow of the present day consensus. The real conspiracy is from the DEVIL who INSPIRED this revolution.

Yes, Ben Stein lying and acting like a moron without any education and knowledge in the field in an attempt to get money from the generally uneducated Creationist consumers. You seem to have been pulled in by it, which is sad. Evolution is a fact Jolly, nothing will change this.

Ben asked Dawkins some questions, how is that a lie? And you can say repetitively over and over again that evolution is a fact and nothing can change that, but still that does not make it a fact, prove it.

Evolution is a Fact, if you go against this you need to provide evidence for such a claim as we have 150 years of accumulated Evidence for the Truth of Evolution.

Belief is not relevant to the Fact of Evolution, only Evidence are relevant.

I agree belief has no bearing on facts, evidence is what matters. I go against macro evolution and that there is no design in the world, I go against that. And I have evidence for my claims. First off, I have already shown that your evidence for macro evolution is subjective at best and at worst fragmented. Secondly I have shown there is design in the world, I have dealt with this very little though, to which I will deal more.

But I am going to deal with it more in making another thread. I have a WHOLE list of evidences for the existence of God. And I am going to PROVE my case. But, only after I finish in this thread, which will be when all others stop responding to me in this thread.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If it was a fact, I would believe it, but since I don&#8217;t believe it, it is not a fact. I believe ALL facts, actually correction, I KNOW all facts are facts. You cannot believe something you know, belief involves taking a leap, with facts there is no leap to take, since you would know. But, I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact, and I disagree with it being a fact, therefore it is not a fact.

Wow..just...wow

Every time I meet someone like you my view that we really haven't come that far as a species is heartily re-enforced.

Stay in school, kids!

 

[tumbleweed41]

For anyone who might be reading this exchange.

In the Scientific Method and Process.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

 

[tumbleweed41]

But I am going to deal with it more in making another thread. I have a WHOLE list of evidences for the existence of God. And I am going to PROVE my case. But, only after I finish in this thread, which will be when all others stop responding to me in this thread.

Deal.

Everyone stop responding to Jolly so he can concentrate on his new thread with concrete evidence of God.

 

[Jollybear]

Satans_Serated_Edge

Wow..just...wow

Does that suppose to help enforce your case? Wow&#8217;s don&#8217;t do nothing for your case, sorry. And they certainly don&#8217;t intimate me to think I have no integrity, so why even bother?

Every time I meet someone like you my view that we really haven't come that far as a species is heartily re-enforced.

Ok, choose that if you will, although I do not understand how I have helped reinforce your view on macro evolution. Could you fill me in perhaps?

Stay in school, kids!

Yes, stay in school kids, but don&#8217;t leave your brain at the door, exercise critical thinking skills, don&#8217;t believe everything your told, don&#8217;t be naive, and don&#8217;t be closed minded. That is a BIG lesson kids you will need to learn, as most have not yet learned it.