Many people claim that science disproves
the Bible’s account of creation. However,
the real contradiction is, not between
science and the Bible, but between
science and the opinions of Christian
Fundamentalists. Some of these groups
falsely assert that according to the Bible,
all physical creation was produced in six
24-hour days approximately 10,000 years
ago.

The Bible, however, does not support
such a conclusion. If it did, then many
scientific discoveries over the past one
hundred years would indeed discredit the
Bible. A careful study of the Bible text
reveals no conflict with established
scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s
Witnesses disagree with Christian
Fundamentalists and many creationists.
The following shows what the Bible really
teaches.

When Was “the Beginning”?

The Genesis account opens with the
simple, powerful statement: “In the
beginning God created the heavens and
the earth.” (Genesis 1:1 ) A number of
Bible scholars agree that this statement
describes an action separate from the
creative days recounted from verse 3
onward. The implication is profound.
According to the Bible’s opening words,
the universe, including our planet, Earth,
was in existence for an indefinite time
before the creative days began.
Geologists estimate that the earth is
4 billion years old, and astronomers
calculate that the universe may be as
much as 15 billion years old. Do these
findings—or their potential future
refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1 ? No.
The Bible does not specify the actual age
of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is
not at odds with the Biblical text.

How Long Were the Creative Days?

What about the length of the creative
days? Were they literally 24 hours long?
Some claim that because Moses—the
writer of Genesis —later referred to the
day that followed the six creative days as
a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of
the creative days must be literally 24
hours long. (Exodus 20:11 ) Does the
wording of Genesis support this
conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the
Hebrew word translated “day” can mean
various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour
period. For example, when summarizing
God’s creative work, Moses refers to all
six creative days as one day. ( Genesis
2:4 ) In addition, on the first creative day,
“God began calling the light Day, but the
darkness he called Night.” ( Genesis 1:5 )
Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is
defined by the term “day.” Certainly,
there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily
stating that each creative day was 24
hours long.

How long, then, were the creative
days? The Bible does not say; however,
the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2
indicates that considerable lengths of
time were involved.

Six Creative Periods

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew,
and he wrote it from the perspective of a
person standing on the surface of the
earth. These two facts combined with the
knowledge that the universe existed
before the beginning of the creative
periods, or days, help to defuse much of
the controversy surrounding the creation
account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis
account reveals that events starting
during one “day” continued into one or
more of the following “days.” For
example, before the first creative “day”
started, light from the already existing
sun was somehow prevented from
reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by
thick clouds. (Job 38:9 ) During the first
“day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing
diffused light to penetrate the
atmosphere. *

On the second “day,” the atmosphere
evidently continued to clear, creating a
space between the thick clouds above
and the ocean below. On the fourth
“day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared
to such an extent that the sun and the
moon were made to appear “in the
expanse of the heavens.” ( Genesis
1:14-16 ) In other words, from the
perspective of a person on earth, the sun
and moon began to be discernible. These
events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that
as the atmosphere continued to clear,
flying creatures—including insects and
membrane-winged creatures—started to
appear on the fifth “day.”


The Bible’s narrative allows for the
possibility that some major events during
each day, or creative period, occurred
gradually rather than instantly, perhaps
some of them even lasting into the
following creative days. *

According to Their Kinds

Does this progressive appearance of
plants and animals imply that God used
evolution to produce the vast diversity of
living things? No. The record clearly states
that God created all the basic “kinds” of
plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11,
12, 20-25 ) Were these original “kinds” of
plants and animals programmed with the
ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions? What defines the boundary of
a “kind”? The Bible does not say.
However, it does state that living
creatures “swarmed forth according to
their kinds.” ( Genesis 1:21 ) This
statement implies that there is a limit to
the amount of variation that can occur
within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and
modern research support the idea that
the fundamental categories of plants and
animals have changed little over vast
periods of time.

Contrary to the claims of some
religious fundamentalists, Genesis does
not teach that the universe, including the
earth and all living things on it, was
created in a short period of time in the
relatively recent past. Rather, aspects of
the description in Genesis of the creation
of the universe and the appearance of life
on earth harmonize with recent scientific
discoveries.

Because of their philosophical beliefs,
many scientists reject the Bible’s
declaration that God created all things.
Interestingly, however, in the ancient
Bible book of Genesis , Moses wrote that
the universe had a beginning and that life
appeared in stages, progressively, over
periods of time. How could Moses gain
access to such scientifically accurate
information some 3,500 years ago? There
is one logical explanation. The One with
the power and wisdom to create the
heavens and the earth could certainly
give Moses such advanced knowledge.
This gives weight to the Bible’s claim that
it is “inspired of God.” * — 2 Timothy
3:16 .

You may wonder, though, does it
really matter whether you believe the
Bible’s account of creation? Consider
some compelling reasons why the answer
does matter.

[Footnotes]
In the description of what happened on the
first “day,” the Hebrew word used for
light is ’ohr, light in a general sense, but
concerning the fourth “day,” the word
used is ma·’ohr′, which refers to the
source of light.

For example, during the sixth creative day,
God decreed that humans “become many
and fill the earth.” ( Genesis 1:28, 31 ) Yet,
this event did not even begin to occur
until the following “day.”— Genesis 2:2 .

For more information on this subject, see the
brochure A Book for All People, published
by Jehovah’s Witnesses.


- Genesis does not teach that the earth
and the universe were created in six 24-
hour days just a few thousand years ago

- Events starting during one “day”
continued into one or more of the
following “days”.

- Modern research confirms that all living
things reproduce “according to their
kinds”

- Penguins: By courtesy of John R. Peiniger
[Picture Credit Line on page 24]
Nebula: IAC/RGO/David Malin Images

* ;DTakes from seat. Waiting for the unrepentant skeptics*

I agree with Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Profound if you ask me. The story makes sense even though I disbelieve certain aspects but I do agree God would have effected a primordial population from which today's organisms evolved.

Uyi Iredia: I agree with Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Profound if you ask me. The story makes sense even though I disbelieve certain aspects but I do agree God would have effected a primordial population from which today's organisms evolved.

how?

Not going to waste time going through all that op. Don't need to read a book featuring; cockatrices; talking snakes, donkeys and fires; virgi.n births and zombies; capricious, malevolent omnixx.x gods that thrive on pissing all over logic and common sense; etc etc to be able to tell you it's a story book. Especially when said book was written during a period when most thought the earth flat (some even thought it on top of a turtle) with the sun revolving around it. Why you'd go through such lengths to try and prove otherwise, frankly, bewilders me. Perhaps during that age it was compelling fiction, but by today's standards it's clearly not.

Anyways, I'll leave you with this; if I went to a shooting range, took a shot, walked over to were the bullet hit then drew the target around it, would you take my claim of being a brilliant shot seriously?

wiegraf: Not going to waste time going through all that op. Don't need to read a book featuring; cockatrices; talking snakes, donkeys and fires; virgi.n births and zombies; capricious, malevolent omnixx.x gods that thrive on pissing all over logic and common sense; etc etc to be able to tell you it's a story book. Especially when said book was written during a period when most thought the earth flat (some even thought it on top of a turtle) with the sun revolving around it. Why you'd go through such lengths to try and prove otherwise, frankly, bewilders me. Perhaps during that age it was compelling fiction, but by today's standards it's clearly not.

Anyways, I'll leave you with this; if I went to a shooting range, took a shot, walked over to were the bullet hit then drew the target around it, would you take my claim of being a brilliant shot seriously?

I dont see how your question which portray human reasoning can fit the bible account.

it is not just a story but a historic story of what happened in the past.

It would be foolish to argue this cos the inconsistency in the Bible is so ,much that it would take too long to point this out, what is important is that everyone believe in whatever they choose to believe in, being a Christian doesn't make you better, amd science would never ever agree with Religion never, its pointless trying to relate both, Science is base on knowing while Religion is based on ignorance and believin even though what you believe in isn't rational, so this sought of debate is irrelevant and compete waist of time and please for the fact that someone doesn't believe in what you believe in doesn't make him or her wrong.... Peace

JMAN05:

I dont see how your question which portray human reasoning can fit the bible account.

it is not just a story but a historic story of what happened in the past.

The question does not portray 'human reasoning', what does that even mean? It portrays the sort of reasoning you have in the op. Have you been through the many islamic 'scientific' threads? Or even just google articles on these 'scientific claims', there are myriad. If you have, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you consider them valid? These sorts of posts (or 'human reasoning') all share the same characteristics, featuring vague, hit and miss predictions and making absolutely NO testable hypothesis/insight of any merit. In short; nonsense.

Consider claims about where the gods have been. At first, trees, rocks, etc. Find no gods there? Look for text that can be interpreted as it being elsewhere, like the sky. Tower of babel is now built, god destroys it. But look at this, science has now enabled us to venture into the sky, so what do you do? Look for text that claims he's immaterial. Brilliant. There's no way you can test such nonsense. Now, considering history and a lot of other similar drivel in said storybook, exactly why do you expect to be taken seriously by skeptics? People not interested in subscribing to blind, irrational faith? Really? (To top it up, some of you have the gall to label us arrogant).

When using text from your bible scientists are able to come about a theory which predicts light bending around the sun to a high degree of accuracy, before it's been even observed or conceived of by any of us poor mortals, and show that it is indeed so, then we'll take you seriously. Don't show up after science has figured out history then stretch definitions to fit your purpose and expect to be taken seriously. Really. What happens now if science, which is built around refinement and falsification, shows one those 'days' you have above never took place, or figures out there's a couple of other days hidden in there? You'll now perform gymnastics again, claiming that's not what the bible text meant. The bible can never be wrong... It was xx.Bleep blah blah blah more BS. Just like how I would shift the target at the shooting range after having missed the target completely, then claim I'm a perfect shot, see?

The above is rough (for one, no time to be thorough), but it should get my point across (to the sane, at least)

[quote author=wiegraf]

>>the question does not portray 'human reasoning', what does that even mean?>>

It meas that you cant understand some divine utterances by having a carnal outlook. Some words have spiritual meaning.

<< It portrays the sort of reasoning you have in the op. Have you been through the many islamic 'scientific' threads? Or even just google articles on these 'scientific claims', there are myriad. If you have, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you consider them valid? These sorts of posts (or 'human reasoning') all share the same characteristics, featuring vague, hit and miss predictions and making absolutely NO testable hypothesis/insight of any merit. In short; nonsense.>>

a) I dont think there is any hit and miss claim there. The bible is clear on that subject.
b) is evolution testable? I hope it is still nonesense.

<<Consider claims about where the gods have been. At first, trees, rocks, etc. Find no gods there? Look for text that can be interpreted as it being elsewhere, like the sky. Tower of babel is now built, god destroys it. But look at this, science has now enabled us to venture into the sky, so what do you do? Look for text that claims he's immaterial. Brilliant. There's no way you can test such nonsense. Now, considering history and a lot of other similar drivel in said storybook, exactly why do you expect to be taken seriously by skeptics? People not interested in subscribing to blind, irrational faith? Really? (To top it up, some of you have the gall to label us arrogant).>>

a) God is immaterial and had always been so even before your space research. Just tell me when the space research started, let me tell you christians position prior to that.

c) when did we believe that God was in trees?

<<When using text from your bible scientists are able to come about a theory which predicts light bending around the sun to a high degree of accuracy, before it's been even observed or conceived of by any of us poor mortals, and show that it is indeed so, then we'll take you seriously. Don't show up after science has figured out history then stretch definitions to fit your purpose and expect to be taken seriously. Really. What happens now if science, which is built around refinement and falsification, shows one those 'days' you have above never took place, or figures out there's a couple of other days hidden in there? You'll now perform gymnastics again, claiming that's not what the bible text meant. >>

Never do we follow blindly against the bible. For example science has not discovered that the Noah's flood took place, have we changed our belief?

Skeptics has labelled the bible as mythology, have we agreed with you guys? Skeptucs doubted bible's authenticity because of some names it mentioned that no evidence were found then, yet some years after those claims, archaeologists many times proof the bible as being historical.

Are you guys not the ones shifting theories of evolution to suit new discoveries? Do you all now agree on the Darwinian theory of evolution?

Is it only the christians that work on faith, do not evolutionist work on the same thing? For eg evolution cannot be tested in a lab, your believing in it even requires more faith than christianity.

Life emerging from water is not possible according to scientific facts, is it not faith that you still believe in it?

<<The bible can never be wrong... It was xx.Bleep blah blah blah more BS. Just like how I would shift the target at the shooting range after having missed the target completely, then claim I'm a perfect shot, see?>>

That is the same babble filled in evolution. YES THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG.

<<The above is rough (for one, no time to be thorough), but it should get my point across (to the sane, at least)>>

At least the sane will also be skeptical about a theory which lacks wholistic scientific backing.

Can something come from nothing? Yet you expect someone with his sanity to believe that.

Teesoft12: It would be foolish to argue this cos the inconsistency in the Bible is so ,much that it would take too long to point this out, what is important is that everyone believe in whatever they choose to believe in, being a Christian doesn't make you better, amd science would never ever agree with Religion never, its pointless trying to relate both, Science is base on knowing while Religion is based on ignorance and believin even though what you believe in isn't rational, so this sought of debate is irrelevant and compete waist of time and please for the fact that someone doesn't believe in what you believe in doesn't make him or her wrong.... Peace

True faith and true science can NEVER contradict each other.

Science is based on knowing through physical methods. Religion is based on knowing through revelation from God. Faith transcends the scope of science.

wiegraf: Not going to waste time going through all that op. Don't need to read a book featuring; cockatrices; talking snakes, donkeys and fires; virgi.n births and zombies; capricious, malevolent omnixx.x gods that thrive on pissing all over logic and common sense; etc etc to be able to tell you it's a story book. Especially when said book was written during a period when most thought the earth flat (some even thought it on top of a turtle) with the sun revolving around it. Why you'd go through such lengths to try and prove otherwise, frankly, bewilders me. Perhaps during that age it was compelling fiction, but by today's standards it's clearly not.

Anyways, I'll leave you with this; if I went to a shooting range, took a shot, walked over to were the bullet hit then drew the target around it, would you take my claim of being a brilliant shot seriously?

To this day, religious and non-religious people say "the sun rises and sets." Does that mean that we are all senseless?

wiegraf:

The question does not portray 'human reasoning', what does that even mean? It portrays the sort of reasoning you have in the op. Have you been through the many islamic 'scientific' threads? Or even just google articles on these 'scientific claims', there are myriad. If you have, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you consider them valid? These sorts of posts (or 'human reasoning') all share the same characteristics, featuring vague, hit and miss predictions and making absolutely NO testable hypothesis/insight of any merit. In short; nonsense.

Consider claims about where the gods have been. At first, trees, rocks, etc. Find no gods there? Look for text that can be interpreted as it being elsewhere, like the sky. Tower of babel is now built, god destroys it. But look at this, science has now enabled us to venture into the sky, so what do you do? Look for text that claims he's immaterial. Brilliant. There's no way you can test such nonsense. Now, considering history and a lot of other similar drivel in said storybook, exactly why do you expect to be taken seriously by skeptics? People not interested in subscribing to blind, irrational faith? Really? (To top it up, some of you have the gall to label us arrogant).

When using text from your bible scientists are able to come about a theory which predicts light bending around the sun to a high degree of accuracy, before it's been even observed or conceived of by any of us poor mortals, and show that it is indeed so, then we'll take you seriously. Don't show up after science has figured out history then stretch definitions to fit your purpose and expect to be taken seriously. Really. What happens now if science, which is built around refinement and falsification, shows one those 'days' you have above never took place, or figures out there's a couple of other days hidden in there? You'll now perform gymnastics again, claiming that's not what the bible text meant. The bible can never be wrong... It was xx.Bleep blah blah blah more BS. Just like how I would shift the target at the shooting range after having missed the target completely, then claim I'm a perfect shot, see?

The above is rough (for one, no time to be thorough), but it should get my point across (to the sane, at least)

And the sane would know that the Bible is not a science textbook.

italo:

And the sane would know that the Bible is not a science textbook.

Thank you, captain obvious, for stating what is exactly my point. Indeed, like I've already stated, it's a stone age story book. As you seem to agree with me on that, next time I come across you making your si.lly claims about the church not doing any wrong during the galileo issue, a SCIENTIFIC matter, I'll take my time to e-whip you properly.

No, the bible neither makes directly nor inspires scientific claims. All that nonsense in the op, perhaps you need glasses as you appear blind, or did you not note any.....scientific claims? You know, like the claim skydaddy created everything, or that of evolution not being responsible for speciation? When you claim we should toss out evolution because GOD!!?, do you not note any....scientific claims? When you guys claim fetuses have souls and therefore no abortions, do you not note any.....scientific claims? Or at the extreme level, when xtian scientists or jws refuse medical treatments, do you not note any....scientific claims?

Or please, consider my earlier post

wiegraf: a book featuring; cockatrices; talking snakes, donkeys and fires; virgi.n births and zombies;

Nah brah, non of these are scientific. I suppose the myriad 'miracles' littered through the book have naught to do with science.

Let's not even get into historical accounts bros; you cannot even show jesus existed.
Yet you expect us to take another patched up version of this claim, one you remix every time science exposes it, one you claim to be an absolute truth with every iteration no less, from this your story book seriously?

Why? No, really, who do you guys think you are? Do you see us wasting your time with such palpable nonsense?

In before you pull the spiritual evidence and 'carnal' knowledge nonsense like the op. Foo.lish hubris. And also note, science doesn't claim to have all the answers whereas you, on the other hand, clearly do; GOD!!??

You claim this info has been available for what now, 2000 years? Well, please, explain to me why didn't these learned scholars of yore, armed with this ultimate, infallible truth, simply tell us they did not mean 'days' literally? We had to wait till science disproved that bit of nonsense then suddenly, twisting and turning and it's now: 'oh no we never meant days. We meant millenia....'. This is even ignoring other absurdities in the genesis claim, mind you.


You've now wasted more of our time, as you're wont to through history, redrawing the target. After all, your storybook must be infallible, yes?

I am completely confused as to how you expect us to put up with your nonsense. Really...


@op, I'll be back to deal with your comical collection of contradictions and ignorance later. It's so wrong on so many levels that well..

wiegraf:

Thank you, captain obvious, for stating what is exactly my point. Indeed, like I've already stated, it's a stone age story book. As you seem to agree with me on that, next time I come across you making your si.lly claims about the church not doing any wrong during the galileo issue, a SCIENTIFIC matter, I'll take my time to e-whip you properly.

No, the bible neither makes directly nor inspires scientific claims. All that nonsense in the op, perhaps you need glasses as you appear blind, or did you not note any.....scientific claims? You know, like the claim skydaddy created everything, or that of evolution not being responsible for speciation? When you claim we should toss out evolution because GOD!!?, do you not note any....scientific claims? When you guys claim fetuses have souls and therefore no abortions, do you not note any.....scientific claims? Or at the extreme level, when xtian scientists or jws refuse medical treatments, do you not note any....scientific claims?

Or please, consider my earlier post




Nah brah, non of these are scientific. I suppose the myriad 'miracles' littered through the book have naught to do with science.

Let's not even get into historical accounts bros; you cannot even show jesus existed.
Yet you expect us to take another patched up version of this claim, one you remix every time science exposes it, one you claim to be an absolute truth with every iteration no less, from this your story book seriously?

Why? No, really, who do you guys think you are? Do you see us wasting your time with such palpable nonsense?

In before you pull the spiritual evidence and 'carnal' knowledge nonsense like the op. Foo.lish hubris. And also note, science doesn't claim to have all the answers whereas you, on the other hand, clearly do; GOD!!??

You claim this info has been available for what now, 2000 years? Well, please, explain to me why didn't these learned scholars of yore, armed with this ultimate, infallible truth, simply tell us they did not mean 'days' literally? We had to wait till science disproved that bit of nonsense then suddenly, twisting and turning and it's now: 'oh no we never meant days. We meant millenia....'. This is even ignoring other absurdities in the genesis claim, mind you.


You've now wasted more of our time, as you're wont to through history, redrawing the target. After all, your storybook must be infallible, yes?

I am completely confused as to how you expect us to put up with your nonsense. Really...


@op, I'll be back to deal with your comical collection of contradictions and ignorance later. It's so wrong on so many levels that well..

<<Let's not even get into historical accounts bros; you cannot even show jesus existed.
Yet you expect us to take another patched up version of this claim, one you remix every time science exposes it, one you claim to be an absolute truth with every iteration no less, from this your story book seriously? >>

a) evidence shows Jesus existed.

b) we do not twist when science proves their theory. Where was science when the bible said the earth was hanging on nothing? Was it the belief of the society at the time? Where was science when those in the past discovered that some sicknesses were contageous, didnt science discover it later?

<<Why? No, really, who do you guys think you are? Do you see us wasting your time with such palpable nonsense? >>

I dont understand.

<<In before you pull the spiritual evidence and 'carnal' knowledge nonsense like the op. Foo.lish hubris. And also note, science doesn't claim to have all the answers whereas you, on the other hand, clearly do; GOD!!??>>

We do not claim to know all. Some biblical truth comes progressively. But God knows all, but the bible doesnt contain all of them. The one the bible has is enough to serve God.

<<You claim this info has been available for what now, 2000 years? Well, please, explain to me why didn't these learned scholars of yore, armed with this ultimate, infallible truth, simply tell us they did not mean 'days' literally? We had to wait till science disproved that bit of nonsense then suddenly, twisting and turning and it's now: 'oh no we never meant days. We meant millenia....'. This is even ignoring other absurdities in the genesis claim, mind you.>>

The word "day" in the bible refers to duration of varying lengths.

For eg, Moses refers to the six creative days as just a DAY. gen. 2:4. At gen. 2:2 the bible says that God "proceeded" to rest on the seventh day. That seventh day was still ongoing during the time of the apostles. Heb. 4:4, 5, 11. Their are other examples. So the word "day" in the bible doesnt always refer to a 24hour duration. This has been in the genesis account many years before science.

<<You've now wasted more of our time, as you're wont to through history, redrawing the target. After all, your storybook must be infallible, yes?>>

Your evolution theory seem to be the one redrawing its target not the bible.

<<I am completely confused as to how you expect us to put up with your nonsense. Really... >>

What? And why do you call it nonesense?

<<@op, I'll be back to deal with your comical collection of contradictions and ignorance later. It's so wrong on so many levels that well.>>

Ok.

Bros, learn to use the 'quote' tags abeg

First off, basics

I want to tax you. You ask why, I state it's for the highway we're building, it clearly will boost the economy, etc etc. Good, I've given you a valid reason at least. You might holler about how you think rail may be better, or whatever, but at least I gave you a valid reason. Now, if I told you was taxing you as penance to the great flying pig for your having the nerve to have eaten pig meat, you'd be right to consider that rude, no? When did I even show you the pig existed, and, depending on context, even assuming (and note the 'assuming' and 'context') it did why should you even care? Hope you that's clear now.

Scientific method;

wiki:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

Read it and digest it well. Every word in there is relevant.

Now, you see the red? The scientific method can produce inaccurate or even false results. In fact it will very likely produce wrong results in the early stages of enquiry. Then via an objective, rigorous, open, method of elimination (falsifiability), replete with testing, confirming, etc, the correct (or more accurate) picture is then deduced. The well tested premises then become accepted theories.

They require basically no faith, you know why? Simple, THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE.

Empirical and testable by anyone with half a brain, training and the equipment. The fruits of which you use everyday (probably hypocritically I might add), even now the technology you're using to read this are the fruits of this method. They work, and objectively so.

And note this, science starts from "do not know" to "know more". Not from "know", then you start twisting reality to try to fit that image. It's about refinement, even your op understands this;

op:

Do these findings—or their potential future refinements

That's what is called keeping an open mind. Evolution remains a fact, just as the sun shining is one, there is no way to deny that, but details may be blurry and will be refined with time. That's how it works.

You, on the other hand, already know the answer to everything; GOD!!?? Because your story book said so...

JMAN05:
It meas that you cant understand some divine utterances by having a carnal outlook. Some words have spiritual meaning.

This alone is enough for most to dismiss your post and pay it no more attention, as it's complete (and comically arrogant) nonsense. If you cannot show me without resulting to some glorified nonsense, then don't waste my time..

So, WHEN EXACTLY DID YOU SHOW 'SPIRITUAL' EXISTS?

I should accept your word because you say so? Abi na u get my life?

JMAN05:
a) I dont think there is any hit and miss claim there. The bible is clear on that subject.
b) is evolution testable? I hope it is still nonesense.

It says days. It's been days through history, you now change it to years, even billions, because science has proved it rubbish. That is the very definition of hit and miss. And that's just the beginning. God created everything firsthand for millenia, now the catholic church holds that evolution is responsible for speciation. Something about 'souls', which of course, they've never proven to exist. When we fully crack consciousness I wonder what next they'll come up with? I genuinely have no clue.

And of course we have; plants before the sun; moon as light, etc. You clearly aren't looking at the evidence, you're simply making $hit up as science chases your god through the trees, to the mountains, skies, etc.

Evolution is VERY testable. Tested across various fields of sciences, all of them pointing in the same direction. For instance, not once has a fossil been found somewhere that would contradict it. Vestigial organs, ubiquitous in nature, confirm it. Shared ancestry, shared code in your dna and that of other life, showing the history of your origins, confirms it. Predictions are made, such as what genes are in this evolutionary trail and which are in that, when did they diverge, etc, and are confirmed. Even predictions of bacteria becoming resistant to medication are modeled after...evolution.

Google is your friend, do use it instead of making si.lly claims about nonsense. Then again, if you think the many sciences repeatedly confirming evolution is nonsense simply because a book of fairy tales, featuring my good friend the talking donkey, says so, then you obviously aren't qualified to judge on what is nonsense.

JMAN05:
a) God is immaterial and had always been so even before your space research. Just tell me when the space research started, let me tell you christians position prior to that.

c) when did we believe that God was in trees?

Your god was in the sky during babbel brah, same thing. He'd have been in the trees had other gods not been chased from them by common sense circa xtianity's creation.

Space research claims, for one, that intuitively speaking, the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round.

JMAN05:
Never do we follow blindly against the bible. For example science has not discovered that the Noah's flood took place, have we changed our belief?

You just state you don't follow blindly, then state you believe Noah's flood took place despite the fact there's absolutely NO evidence the event took place other than what is writ in your story book? Do you even know what 'follow blindly' is?

And if you intend to believe the tale of Noah's arc despite the lack of evidence, then just why do you have a problem with 'days' being literal in the genesis account? Why wasting time trying to justify it? It's the same thing; claims made with absolutely no evidence to back them up. But noah's arc is fine whereas 'days' in genesis is not?

JMAN05:
Skeptics has labelled the bible as mythology, have we agreed with you guys? Skeptucs doubted bible's authenticity because of some names it mentioned that no evidence were found then, yet some years after those claims, archaeologists many times proof the bible as being historical.

Bros, you cannot even show jesus existed...

If the bible isn't mythology, what is it, science? Really?

JMAN05:
Are you guys not the ones shifting theories of evolution to suit new discoveries? Do you all now agree on the Darwinian theory of evolution?

Whether we agree or not is irrelevant. It's a FACT

JMAN05:
Is it only the christians that work on faith, do not evolutionist work on the same thing? For eg evolution cannot be tested in a lab, your believing in it even requires more faith than christianity.

Cannot be tested in a lab? See above..

JMAN05:
That is the same babble filled in evolution. YES THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG.

Good, so the talking donkey did indeed exist.

Please show me this talking donkey, or at least how that was possible. Perhaps it was donkey-like species?

JMAN05: Life emerging from water is not possible according to scientific facts, is it not faith that you still believe in it?

Well, you really need to read up...

For instance, here's a lungfish.

JMAN05:
At least the sane will also be skeptical about a theory which lacks wholistic scientific backing.

That is correct, however evolution doesn't lack scientific backing in any shape, form or manner. Perhaps you think astronomy is not a science as well. After all, it too is mostly built around observing past events, then making deductions and accurate predictions, models, confirming its discoveries with other sciences, etc.

As for evidence for your talking snakes and donkeys on the other hand...

JMAN05:
Can something come from nothing? Yet you expect someone with his sanity to believe that

Well done! Yet santa, aka GOD??!!, can come from nothing?

I dont know how to make use of those quote tags.

<<Read it and digest it well. Every word in there is relevant.

Now, you see the red? The scientific method can produce inaccurate or even false results. In fact it will very likely produce wrong results in the early stages of enquiry. Then via an objective, rigorous, open, method of elimination (falsifiability), replete with testing, confirming, etc, the correct (or more accurate) picture is then deduced. The well tested premises then become accepted theories.

They require basically no faith, you know why? Simple, THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE.

Empirical and testable by anyone with half a brain, training and the equipment. The fruits of which you use everyday (probably hypocritically I might add), even now the technology you're using to read this are the fruits of this method. They work, and objectively so.

And note this, science starts from "do not know" to "know more". Not from "know", then you start twisting reality to try to fit that image. It's about refinement, even your op understands this;
>>

But evolution starts from "know to do not know".

<<That's what is called keeping an open mind. Evolution remains a fact, just as the sun shining is one, there is no way to deny that, but details may be blurry and will be refined with time. That's how it works.
>>

Sun can be seen and proven, but life from water cant.

<<This alone is enough for most to dismiss your post and pay it no more attention, as it's complete (and comically arrogant) nonsense. If you cannot show me without resulting to some glorified nonsense, then don't waste my time..
>>

The truth pains bro. Pls endure it.

<<So, WHEN EXACTLY DID YOU SHOW 'SPIRITUAL' EXISTS?

I should accept your word because you say so? Abi na u get my life?
>>


explore ESP.


<<It says days. It's been days through history, you now change it to years, even billions, because science has proved it rubbish. That is the very definition of hit and miss. And that's just the beginning. God created everything firsthand for millenia, now the catholic church holds that evolution is responsible for speciation. Something about 'souls', which of course, they've never proven to exist. When we fully crack consciousness I wonder what next they'll come up with? I genuinely have no clue.
>>

- Why didnt you quote my reply above before this response? I ve vividly explain that "day" stuff. Let your reply be in accordance with my reply above.

- you need to ask catholic why they believe so.

<<And of course we have; plants before the sun; moon as light, etc. You clearly aren't looking at the evidence, you're simply making $hit up as science chases your god through the trees, to the mountains, skies, etc.

Evolution is VERY testable. Tested across various fields of sciences, all of them pointing in the same direction. For instance, not once has a fossil been found somewhere that would contradict it. Vestigial organs, ubiquitous in nature, confirm it. Shared ancestry, shared code in your dna and that of other life, showing the history of your origins, confirms it. Predictions are made, such as what genes are in this evolutionary trail and which are in that, when did they diverge, etc, and are confirmed. Even predictions of bacteria becoming resistant to medication are modeled after...evolution.

Google is your friend, do use it instead of making si.lly claims about nonsense. Then again, if you think the many sciences repeatedly confirming evolution is nonsense simply because a book of fairy tales, featuring my good friend the talking donkey, says so, then you obviously aren't qualified to judge on what is nonsense.
>>

My brother evolution cannot be tested in a lab just like creation cannot be tested. I should educate you on that. As such it is not scientific.

You said no fossil has been found to contradict it? Please what happened during the Cambrian Period?

<<Your god was in the sky during babbel brah, same thing. He'd have been in the trees had other gods not been chased from them by common sense circa xtianity's creation.
>>

Where did you get this lies from?

<<Space research claims, for one, that intuitively speaking, the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round.
>>


what did Aristotle teach in the 4th century BCE concerning where the earth was hanging?

<<You just state you don't follow blindly, then state you believe Noah's flood took place despite the fact there's absolutely NO evidence the event took place other than what is writ in your story book? Do you even know what 'follow blindly' is?
>>

We do not FOLLOW BLINDLY AGAINST THE BIBLE, that is what i said. Stop cut and conclude method. I am trying to tell you that we do not twist the divine record to suit science when the statements in the bible is very clear and its in tune with the truth.

Have the bible ever been following science? When Aristotle propounded the theory about where earth hangs, did we go and twist it and then retwist it later? Please face the fact and stop this blind statements. If this is done by other religion, the bibke stands still on its teachings. Science will know later just like they often do.


<<And if you intend to believe the tale of Noah's arc despite the lack of evidence, then just why do you have a problem with 'days' being literal in the genesis account? Why wasting time trying to justify it? It's the same thing; claims made with absolutely no evidence to back them up. But noah's arc is fine whereas 'days' in genesis is not?
>>


Do you have scientific evidence to prove that life can come from water?

Respond to my comment on the "day" and stop this noise.

<<Bros, you cannot even show jesus existed...
>>

You can ask Josephus about Jesus.

<<If the bible isn't mythology, what is it, science? Really?
>>



bible is not science, but agrees with true science.

<<Whether we agree or not is irrelevant. It's a! FACT
>>

It is also irrelevant whether you agree with the existence of a creator.

<<Cannot be tested in a lab? See above..
>>

In the book EVOLUTION, using Dr. Karl Popper as an authority, the book states "a hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of emperical falsification does not belong in the realm of science
". Dr Propper applied this criterion to evolution. He says " I have come to thr conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program".

<<Good, so the talking donkey did indeed exist.

Please show me this talking donkey, or at least how that was possible. Perhaps it was donkey-like species?
>>


there was a supernatural force behind it.

<<Well, you really need to read up...

For instance, here's a lungfish.
>>

Is that a scientific prove of life coming from water?

<<That is correct, however evolution doesn't lack scientific backing in any shape, form or manner. Perhaps you think astronomy is not a science as well. After all, it too is mostly built around observing past events, then making deductions and accurate predictions, models, confirming its discoveries with other sciences, etc.
>>

See Popper above.

<<As for evidence for your talking snakes and donkeys on the other hand...
>>

It is a supernatural power. Explore ESP.

<<Well done! Yet santa, aka GOD??!!, can come from nothing?
>>

He has no beginning. Are you cleared? Keep running from the question.

JMAN05: I dont know how to make use of those quote tags.

Are you physically blind as well? Or can you not see the 'quote post' button?

JMAN05:
But evolution starts from "know to do not know".

JMAN05:

Sun can be seen and proven, but life from water cant.

No, genius, life can be seen and 'proven'. For instance, you!

Stars can be seen, their formation on the other hand, NO. Why? Because it takes at least thousands of years. It can be proven that stars exist though, as the stars....exists. And the method about which they are formed can be inferred using the...scientific method.

Just like speciation can be studied by looking at all the clues, the results collectively are called; evolution. Hope that's clear.

JMAN05:

The truth pains bro. Pls endure it.

Thank you. This risible arrogance is a good excuse to use to treat you like the halfwit you are henceforth.

JMAN05:
explore ESP.

So, ESP is 'true' science, evolution is not?

JMAN05:
- Why didnt you quote my reply above before this response? I ve vividly explain that "day" stuff. Let your reply be in accordance with my reply above.

I didn't even read it, as the post you replied to wasn't directed at you. Not to mention that despite being as learned as you appear to be, you seem unable to grasp the concept quoting text properly.

But regardless, you seem to have missed it again..Sorry, I forgot what I was dealing with.

Here, slo-w-l-y; I do not care what drivel you come up with because you will simply change it again when science shows you how foo.lish you have been.

There, hope it's clear as well. Phew..

JMAN05:
- you need to ask catholic why they believe so.

Oh, so you do not agree with them, why? Simply because your story book, or your interpretation of it, says so. And you expect me to just bleat with you I suppose?

JMAN05:

My brother evolution cannot be tested in a lab just like creation cannot be tested. I should educate you on that. As such it is not scientific.

You said no fossil has been found to contradict it? Please what happened during the Cambrian Period?

Please educate me.

JMAN05:

Where did you get this lies from?

GOD??!! via HOLY BIBLE??!!:


Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Let's see, god got jealous or something, or simply didn't want brahs peeping whenever he entered the shower (why? soap related?), so he decided to come down and f.uck $hit up, yah'weh style.

Perhaps you think the bible is lying?

JMAN05:

what did Aristotle teach in the 4th century BCE concerning where the earth was hanging?

Erm, good ser, what does this have to do with anything? You seem confused.

Like I've already stated, science refines itself. Even then, assuming (and note the 'assuming' please) he were applying the scientific method, guess what, he wouldn't have been operating on faith. He would have been going along with the evidence, emperically tested, etc. Not so with you guys. The answers already there, GOD??!! Now it's time to twist the story to your narrative. Get it?

JMAN05:
We do not FOLLOW BLINDLY AGAINST THE BIBLE, that is what i said. Stop cut and conclude method. I am trying to tell you that we do not twist the divine record to suit science when the statements in the bible is very clear and its in tune with the truth.

You don't follow blindly against the bible? Does that mean you usually don't follow it except for when it is blind? You're giving me a headache with nonsensical statements such as this, please stop it.

So, now, tell me, what does following the bible BLINDLY, despite evidence to the contrary, entail? Have you heard of blind faith?

JMAN05:
Have the bible ever been following science? When Aristotle propounded the theory about where earth hangs, did we go and twist it and then retwist it later? Please face the fact and stop this blind statements. If this is done by other religion, the bibke stands still on its teachings. Science will know later just like they often do.

Roger. ESP and talking snakes

JMAN05:
Do you have scientific evidence to prove that life can come from water?

I have lots to show we evolved, see the previous post. Abiogenesis though, my good halfwit, is a different story, but we'll crack it soon enough.

JMAN05:
Respond to my comment on the "day" and stop this noise.

Read my post about the book about talking donkeys and stop this noise.

JMAN05:

You can ask Josephus about Jesus.

Excellent evidence. I'll ask robin about batman.

JMAN05:

bible is not science, but agrees with true science.

Let me guess, you know what true science is? Eg, walking on water and zombies via cutting edge ESP?

JMAN05:

It is also irrelevant whether you agree with the existence of a creator.

So long as you don't put a jihad or something similar on me, yes.

JMAN05:
In the book EVOLUTION, using Dr. Karl Popper as an authority, the book states "a hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of emperical falsification does not belong in the realm of science
". Dr Propper applied this criterion to evolution. He says " I have come to thr conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program".

Bros, who's your authority? I thought it was GOD??!! You're here now calling a PHILOSOPHER. Again, by this definition, fields like astronomy and paleontology are not sciences, as you see, no one actually sees stars or fossils form.

So now, let's consider what the vast majority of actual scientists consider as science, link here (maybe just read the whole thread when free).

But I'm sure a genius like you, that can't figure out how to press the 'quote post' button, knows what the good scientists do and don't consider science.

JMAN05:
there was a supernatural force behind it.[quote author=JMAN05]

Heheheheh...

[quote author=JMAN05]
Is that a scientific prove of life coming from water?

Speciation my friend, lots of it. For abiogenesis, we'll figure out exactly how soon enough. But very likely it was water, yes.

JMAN05:
See Popper above.

It is a supernatural power. Explore ESP.

Does this ESP use telekinesis and telepathy by chance?

JMAN05:

He has no beginning. Are you cleared? Keep running from the question.

And to end this, another demonstration of your half-thinking, good halfwit.

Well done! So god can have no beginning, but nature can't?

Everything seems black and white in your head, you seem to have absolutely no capability to conceptualize...

JMAN05:

I dont see how your question which portray human reasoning can fit the bible account.

it is not just a story but a historic story of what happened in the past.

U wanted to clearify the errors in the bible.
The bible said that vegetation came before sunlight, how is it possible?

JMAN05:

In the book EVOLUTION, using Dr. Karl Popper as an authority, the book states "a hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of emperical falsification does not belong in the realm of science
". Dr Propper applied this criterion to evolution. He says " I have come to thr conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program".

Look at what googlod came up with..

KARL POPPER:

Origin and evolution of life

The creation–evolution controversy in the United States raises the issue of whether creationistic ideas may be legitimately called science and whether evolution itself may be legitimately called science. In the debate, both sides and even courts in their decisions have frequently invoked Popper's criterion of falsifiability. In this context, passages written by Popper are frequently quoted in which he speaks about such issues himself. For example, he famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories." He continued:

[b]"And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work.[36]"

He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached".[37]

Popper later said:

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory—that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.[37][/b]

He explained that the difficulty of testing had led some people to describe natural selection as a tautology, and that he too had in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and had tried to explain how the theory could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest:

My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.[37]

Popper summarized his new view as follows:

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program.[38]

These frequently quoted passages are only a very small part of what Popper wrote on the issue of evolution, however, and give the wrong impression that he mainly discussed questions of its falsifiability. Popper never invented this criterion to give justifiable use of words like science. In fact, Popper says at the beginning of Logic of Scientific Discovery that it is not his aim to define science, and that science can in fact be defined quite arbitrarily.

Popper had his own sophisticated views on evolution that go much beyond what the frequently-quoted passages say.[39] In effect, Popper agreed with some of the points of both creationists and naturalists, but also disagreed with both views on crucial aspects. Popper understood the universe as a creative entity that invents new things, including life, but without the necessity of something like a god, especially not one who is pulling strings from behind the curtain. He said that evolution must, as the creationists say, work in a goal-directed way[40] but disagreed with their view that it must necessarily be the hand of god that imposes these goals onto the stage of life.

Instead, he formulated the spearhead model of evolution, a version of genetic pluralism. According to this model, living organisms themselves have goals, and act according to these goals, each guided by a central control. In its most sophisticated form, this is the brain of humans, but controls also exist in much less sophisticated ways for species of lower complexity, such as the amoeba. This control organ plays a special role in evolution—it is the "spearhead of evolution". The goals bring the purpose into the world. Mutations in the genes that determine the structure of the control may then cause drastic changes in behaviour, preferences and goals, without having an impact on the organism's phenotype. Popper postulates that such purely behavioural changes are less likely to be lethal for the organism compared to drastic changes of the phenotype.[41]

Popper contrasts his views with the notion of the "hopeful monster" that has large phenotype mutations and calls it the "hopeful behavioural monster". After behaviour has changed radically, small but quick changes of the phenotype follow to make the organism fitter to its changed goals. This way it looks as if the phenotype were changing guided by some invisible hand, while it is merely natural selection working in combination with the new behaviour. For example, according to this hypothesis, the eating habits of the giraffe must have changed before its elongated neck evolved. Popper contrasted this view as evolution from within or active Darwinism (the organism actively trying to discover new ways of life and being on a quest for conquering new ecological niches),[42][43] with the naturalistic evolution from without (which has the picture of a hostile environment only trying to kill the mostly passive organism, or perhaps segregate some of its groups).

Popper was a key figure encouraging patent lawyer Günter Wächtershäuser to publish his Iron–sulfur world theory on abiogenesis and his criticism of "soup" theory.

About the creation-evolution controversy itself, Popper wrote that he considered it "a somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief" with a footnote to the effect that "[he] agree[s] with Professor C.E. Raven when, in his Science, Religion, and the Future, 1943, he calls this conflict 'a storm in a Victorian tea-cup'; though the force of this remark is perhaps a little impaired by the attention he pays to the vapours still emerging from the cup--to the Great Systems of Evolutionist Philosophy, produced by Bergson, Whitehead, Smuts, and others."[44]

Oh wow. He actually doesn't seem to share your view. He even explores the 'soup', or your water...

Is this quote mining? I hope you weren't being deliberately dishonest. I hope you weren't twisting stuff just to make it conform to your worldview, good ser....

Random; his views are somewhat interesting, and similar to some of mine, like with consciousness.

[quote author=wiegraf]

<<Are you physically blind as well? Or can you not see the 'quote post' button?>>

What i mean is being able to separate it as you do. Of course i quote before i write my comments.


<<No, genius, life can be seen and 'proven'. For instance, you! >>

Show me life.

<<Stars can be seen, their formation on the other hand, NO. Why? Because it takes at least thousands of years. It can be proven that stars exist though, as the stars....exists. And the method about which they are formed can be inferred using the...scientific method.

Just like speciation can be studied by looking at all the clues, the results collectively are called; evolution. Hope that's clear.>>

Can it be proven using scientific method?

<<Thank you. This risible arrogance is a good excuse to use to treat you like the halfwit you are henceforth.>>

It pains.

<<So, ESP is 'true' science, evolution is not?>>

It has been proven.

<<I didn't even read it, as the post you replied to wasn't directed at you. Not to mention that despite being as learned as you appear to be, you seem unable to grasp the concept quoting text properly.

But regardless, you seem to have missed it again..Sorry, I forgot what I was dealing with.

Here, slo-w-l-y; I do not care what drivel you come up with because you will simply change it again when science shows you how foo.lish you have been. >>

Just like Aristotle?

<<Oh, so you do not agree with them, why? Simply because your story book, or your interpretation of it, says so. And you expect me to just bleat with you I suppose?>>

The bible never said so.

<<Let's see, god got jealous or something, or simply didn't want brahs peeping whenever he entered the shower (why? soap related?), so he decided to come down and f.uck $hit up, yah'weh style.

Perhaps you think the bible is lying?>>

God never came down in a literal sense.

<<Erm, good ser, what does this have to do with anything? You seem confused.

Like I've already stated, science refines itself. Even then, assuming (and note the 'assuming' please) he were applying the scientific method, guess what, he wouldn't have been operating on faith. He would have been going along with the evidence, emperically tested, etc. Not so with you guys. The answers already there, GOD??!! Now it's time to twist the story to your narrative. Get it?>>

Of course we are not like you.

<<You don't follow blindly against the bible? Does that mean you usually don't follow it except for when it is blind? You're giving me a headache with nonsensical statements such as this, please stop it.>>

How do you know it is wrong when your theory will change tomorrow?

<<So, now, tell me, what does following the bible BLINDLY, despite evidence to the contrary, entail? Have you heard of blind faith?>>

Are not in the same blindness when no experiment has proven that life can come from water? And nothing comes from nothing? Has the cambrian period not shown that your theory is faulty? Yet you blindly bellieve in it. Is that not faith?

>>Roger. ESP and talking snakes>>

ESP is a scientific fact proving the existence of supernatural power. That gives you hint on how a snake can talk.

<<I have lots to show we evolved, see the previous post. Abiogenesis though, my good halfwit, is a different story, but we'll crack it soon enough.>>

Dont tell me what it is. Your post above never proved life came from water.

<<Read my post about the book about talking donkeys and stop this noise.>>

Till you eyes is open.

<<Excellent evidence. I'll ask robin about batman.>>

What constitutes evidence for you?

<<Let me guess, you know what true science is? Eg, walking on water and zombies via cutting edge ESP?>>

Still blind. Try again.

<<So long as you don't put a jihad or something similar on me, yes.

Bros, who's your authority? I thought it was GOD??!! You're here now calling a PHILOSOPHER. Again, by this definition, fields like astronomy and paleontology are not sciences, as you see, no one actually sees stars or fossils form. >>

Not my authority but authority of the book I quoted.

Science has an expanded meaning, but what i mean is the one that can pass the test of scientific method. If not, we will be working on faith too.

Just like you just wake up and tell us a coke and bull story that piam paim, gra gra, some materials mixed and life emerged, and piam piam gra gra, fish got legs, got hands and came out of water. Even if you see gradual changes in animals due to mutation, how can you assume that it was the same thing that happened in the past? You said you have fossils? Is that your fossil record conclusive? Is it not filled with assumptions?

“The flesh and hair on such
reconstructions have to be filled in by
resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin
color; the color, form, and distribution of
the hair; the form of the features; and
the aspect of the face—of these
characters we know absolutely nothing
for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of
Race (New York, 1971), James C. King,
pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’
conceptions are based more on
imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists
must create something between an ape
and a human being; the older the
specimen is said to be, the more apelike
they make it.”—Science Digest, April
1981, p. 41.

<<So now, let's consider what the vast majority of actual scientists consider as science, link here (maybe just read the whole thread when free).

But I'm sure a genius like you, that can't figure out how to press the 'quote post' button, knows what the good scientists do and don't consider science.>>

I know what science is, but any evidence lacking imperical confirmation, has atom of faith in it. Just like evolution does.

Lack of emperical evidence always leads to speculation that require faith.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If
progressive evolution from simple to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these
full-blown living creatures in the
Cambrian should be found; but they have
not been found and scientists admit there
is little prospect of their ever being
found. On the basis of the facts alone, on
the basis of what is actually found in the
earth, the theory of a sudden creative act
in which the major forms of life were
established fits best.”—Liberty,
September/October 1975, p. 12.

Read this:


Do we come from animals?
again, this raises questions. some
evolutionists, knowing our difference with
animals now believe in God, but thinks
that He doesnt care about our affairs.
think of it; how do we gain this amazing
brain that stores info and produces
dreams, identifies different colors and
interpretes them, enabling us to have
emotional meaning to it. animals cannot
do this. evolutionist test intelligence
based on brain size. but research has
shown that to be false. and it thru this
brain size that evolutionists determine
how creatures were nearer to being
humans.
how did our different languages come
about? animals has no vocal cords and
cannot produce intelligible words, how
then were we able to produce different
languages?
have you explored the RNA and the DNA?
these cannot evolve concurrently, but
none can exist without the other. so
none of them can come first and the
other second. Now, doesnt it defy reason
to believe that it happened? great faith
indeed!
The bible explains that His creations
confirm His existence that it is
inexcussable. If science have discovered
how life came, then why not produce that
life, why cant we proof that this life can
come from nonliving thing, no doubt using
it to resurrect the dead. but this is
unattainable.
why could this book called the bible able
to make good predictions that later came
true? how can it tell us where our earth
is hanging when the writers had no
advanced technology? how did humans in
the past gain the knowledge of the
contageous effect of some sicknesses
when this was discovered years later by
physicians? who could possibly have told
this men that the dust from the ground is
a possible explanation to our body
makeup? granted science has made it
possible for us to understand some
biblical statements, however, these words
have been there, they were never
changed immediately after the scientific
discoveries were made.
If you say you are confused about what to
believe in religion, it is understandable,
however, it may not be reasonable to say
that there is no Supernatural Being or that
nothing supernatural exists.
When i explored evolution, i thought I
would have no questions again, that
everything could be proven. But i was left
with questions upon questions. in short
the theory is filled with assumptions,
which also requires my faith on
impossibilities.
Some will say that faith in evolution is
better. but how can that be? for eg,
something cannot come from nothing.
THIS IS A FACT. Yet you believe that it
happened. Now I on the other hand says,
somebody with a Supernatural power
made it work out. granted I cannot proof
His existence scientifically, just like you
cant proof urs nor is yours in agreement
with reason. now, which one is
reasonable to cast faith on? if something
cannot come from nothing, it means that
something is there to make something
come up. assuming that the big bang is
true, what made it to occur if we are to
go back to when nothing visible existed.
is it not reasonable that something
invisible must have done something?
another eg, LIFE CANNOT COME FROM
NONLIVING THING. I said God made it
possible, you said no, but you cant prove
it scientifically. well, i as well cant prove it
scientifically, but we have a record of
humans being resurrected from the dead.
which one is worthy of a reasonable faith?
the one with evidence or a claim that
cannot restore a life?

[quote author=wiegraf]

<<Are you physically blind as well? Or can you not see the 'quote post' button?>>

What i mean is being able to separate it as you do. Of course i quote before i write my comments.


<<No, genius, life can be seen and 'proven'. For instance, you! >>

Show me life.

<<Stars can be seen, their formation on the other hand, NO. Why? Because it takes at least thousands of years. It can be proven that stars exist though, as the stars....exists. And the method about which they are formed can be inferred using the...scientific method.

Just like speciation can be studied by looking at all the clues, the results collectively are called; evolution. Hope that's clear.>>

Can it be proven using scientific method?

<<Thank you. This risible arrogance is a good excuse to use to treat you like the halfwit you are henceforth.>>

It pains.

<<So, ESP is 'true' science, evolution is not?>>

It has been proven.

<<I didn't even read it, as the post you replied to wasn't directed at you. Not to mention that despite being as learned as you appear to be, you seem unable to grasp the concept quoting text properly.

But regardless, you seem to have missed it again..Sorry, I forgot what I was dealing with.

Here, slo-w-l-y; I do not care what drivel you come up with because you will simply change it again when science shows you how foo.lish you have been. >>

Just like Aristotle?

<<Oh, so you do not agree with them, why? Simply because your story book, or your interpretation of it, says so. And you expect me to just bleat with you I suppose?>>

The bible never said so.

<<Let's see, god got jealous or something, or simply didn't want brahs peeping whenever he entered the shower (why? soap related?), so he decided to come down and f.uck $hit up, yah'weh style.

Perhaps you think the bible is lying?>>

God never came down in a literal sense.

<<Erm, good ser, what does this have to do with anything? You seem confused.

Like I've already stated, science refines itself. Even then, assuming (and note the 'assuming' please) he were applying the scientific method, guess what, he wouldn't have been operating on faith. He would have been going along with the evidence, emperically tested, etc. Not so with you guys. The answers already there, GOD??!! Now it's time to twist the story to your narrative. Get it?>>

Of course we are not like you.

<<You don't follow blindly against the bible? Does that mean you usually don't follow it except for when it is blind? You're giving me a headache with nonsensical statements such as this, please stop it.>>

How do you know it is wrong when your theory will change tomorrow?

<<So, now, tell me, what does following the bible BLINDLY, despite evidence to the contrary, entail? Have you heard of blind faith?>>

Are not in the same blindness when no experiment has proven that life can come from water? And nothing comes from nothing? Has the cambrian period not shown that your theory is faulty? Yet you blindly bellieve in it. Is that not faith?

>>Roger. ESP and talking snakes>>

ESP is a scientific fact proving the existence of supernatural power. That gives you hint on how a snake can talk.

<<I have lots to show we evolved, see the previous post. Abiogenesis though, my good halfwit, is a different story, but we'll crack it soon enough.>>

Dont tell me what it is. Your post above never proved life came from water.

<<Read my post about the book about talking donkeys and stop this noise.>>

Till you eyes is open.

<<Excellent evidence. I'll ask robin about batman.>>

What constitutes evidence for you?

<<Let me guess, you know what true science is? Eg, walking on water and zombies via cutting edge ESP?>>

Still blind. Try again.

<<So long as you don't put a jihad or something similar on me, yes.

Bros, who's your authority? I thought it was GOD??!! You're here now calling a PHILOSOPHER. Again, by this definition, fields like astronomy and paleontology are not sciences, as you see, no one actually sees stars or fossils form. >>

Not my authority but authority of the book I quoted.

Science has an expanded meaning, but what i mean is the one that can pass the test of scientific method. If not, we will be working on faith too.

Just like you just wake up and tell us a coke and bull story that piam paim, gra gra, some materials mixed and life emerged, and piam piam gra gra, fish got legs, got hands and came out of water. Even if you see gradual changes in animals due to mutation, how can you assume that it was the same thing that happened in the past? You said you have fossils? Is that your fossil record conclusive? Is it not filled with assumptions?

“The flesh and hair on such
reconstructions have to be filled in by
resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin
color; the color, form, and distribution of
the hair; the form of the features; and
the aspect of the face—of these
characters we know absolutely nothing
for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of
Race (New York, 1971), James C. King,
pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’
conceptions are based more on
imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists
must create something between an ape
and a human being; the older the
specimen is said to be, the more apelike
they make it.”—Science Digest, April
1981, p. 41.

<<So now, let's consider what the vast majority of actual scientists consider as science, link here (maybe just read the whole thread when free).

But I'm sure a genius like you, that can't figure out how to press the 'quote post' button, knows what the good scientists do and don't consider science.>>

I know what science is, but any evidence lacking imperical confirmation, has atom of faith in it. Just like evolution does.

Lack of emperical evidence always leads to speculation that require faith.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If
progressive evolution from simple to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these
full-blown living creatures in the
Cambrian should be found; but they have
not been found and scientists admit there
is little prospect of their ever being
found. On the basis of the facts alone, on
the basis of what is actually found in the
earth, the theory of a sudden creative act
in which the major forms of life were
established fits best.”—Liberty,
September/October 1975, p. 12.

Read this:


Do we come from animals?
again, this raises questions. some
evolutionists, knowing our difference with
animals now believe in God, but thinks
that He doesnt care about our affairs.
think of it; how do we gain this amazing
brain that stores info and produces
dreams, identifies different colors and
interpretes them, enabling us to have
emotional meaning to it. animals cannot
do this. evolutionist test intelligence
based on brain size. but research has
shown that to be false. and it thru this
brain size that evolutionists determine
how creatures were nearer to being
humans.
how did our different languages come
about? animals has no vocal cords and
cannot produce intelligible words, how
then were we able to produce different
languages?
have you explored the RNA and the DNA?
these cannot evolve concurrently, but
none can exist without the other. so
none of them can come first and the
other second. Now, doesnt it defy reason
to believe that it happened? great faith
indeed!
The bible explains that His creations
confirm His existence that it is
inexcussable. If science have discovered
how life came, then why not produce that
life, why cant we proof that this life can
come from nonliving thing, no doubt using
it to resurrect the dead. but this is
unattainable.
why could this book called the bible able
to make good predictions that later came
true? how can it tell us where our earth
is hanging when the writers had no
advanced technology? how did humans in
the past gain the knowledge of the
contageous effect of some sicknesses
when this was discovered years later by
physicians? who could possibly have told
this men that the dust from the ground is
a possible explanation to our body
makeup? granted science has made it
possible for us to understand some
biblical statements, however, these words
have been there, they were never
changed immediately after the scientific
discoveries were made.
If you say you are confused about what to
believe in religion, it is understandable,
however, it may not be reasonable to say
that there is no Supernatural Being or that
nothing supernatural exists.
When i explored evolution, i thought I
would have no questions again, that
everything could be proven. But i was left
with questions upon questions. in short
the theory is filled with assumptions,
which also requires my faith on
impossibilities.
Some will say that faith in evolution is
better. but how can that be? for eg,
something cannot come from nothing.
THIS IS A FACT. Yet you believe that it
happened. Now I on the other hand says,
somebody with a Supernatural power
made it work out. granted I cannot proof
His existence scientifically, just like you
cant proof urs nor is yours in agreement
with reason. now, which one is
reasonable to cast faith on? if something
cannot come from nothing, it means that
something is there to make something
come up. assuming that the big bang is
true, what made it to occur if we are to
go back to when nothing visible existed.
is it not reasonable that something
invisible must have done something?
another eg, LIFE CANNOT COME FROM
NONLIVING THING. I said God made it
possible, you said no, but you cant prove
it scientifically. well, i as well cant prove it
scientifically, but we have a record of
humans being resurrected from the dead.
which one is worthy of a reasonable faith?
the one with evidence or a claim that
cannot restore a life?

wiegraf:

Look at what googlod came up with..



Oh wow. He actually doesn't seem to share your view. He even explores the 'soup', or your water...

Is this quote mining? I hope you weren't being deliberately dishonest. I hope you weren't twisting stuff just to make it conform to your worldview, good ser....

Random; his views are somewhat interesting, and similar to some of mine, like with consciousness.

well, never knew he changed his position. ok, then let him explore abiogenisis and tell us how life came from water. how ape-woman came about, how they developed vocal cords, how they met and how they got different skin color. which was the first skin color and how did another skin color come about?

@Jman, a little tutorial on how to separate quotes. I can't make sense of your posts.

When you quote someones post, you usually see this '[/quote]' at the end. Copy it and paste it at the end of the part you want to separate. Then put this '[.quote]' (without the dot)at the beginning part of the area you want to separate.

Eg,

Jman is a jehovahs witness

is an instance of how I did it. Hope this helps...

Jman, a little tutorial on how to separate quotes. I can't make sense of your posts.

I really wanna learn it.

When you quote someones post, you usually see this '' at the end. Copy it and paste it at the end of the part you want to separate. Then put this '[.quote]' (without the dot)at the beginning part of the area you want to separate.

I am practicing already.

Eg, Jman is a jehovahs witness is an instance of how I did it. Hope this helps...

still testing.

Mr. Troll

thanks.

JMAN05:

well, never knew he changed his position. ok, then let him explore abiogenisis and tell us how life came from water

without the dot
[/quote] how ape-woman came about, how they developed vocal cords[/quote] which cords [/quote] how they met and how they got different skin color. which was the first skin color and how did another skin color come about?[/quote]

JMAN05:

thanks.

alright. Can you now go back and edit your former posts?

Mr Troll: alright. Can you now go back and edit your former posts?

pls it will be next time. but read it carefully you will understand the post.