What's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"

[Godobeyer]

Yes, the word "theory", like so many other words, has multiple definitions.
That you continuously pick the definition that best fits your agenda over the definition actually being used reveals your refusal to learn.

Your agenda is making "theory" equal to fact in meaning,I gave you the official definition of "theory".

I done with you officially.

 

[McBell]

Your agenda is making "theory" equal to fact in meaning,I gave you the official definition of "theory".

I done with you officially.

Ignoring definitions you dislike, even after having them explained, is nothing more than dishonesty.

 

[Godobeyer]

Ignoring definitions you dislike, even after having them explained, is nothing more than dishonesty.

hhhhhh,I don't ignore , it's you

 

[McBell]

hhhhhh,I don't ignore , it's you

Your denial only reinforces my point.

 

[Godobeyer]

Your denial only reinforces my point.

.

I done with you and your point

 

[McBell]

.

I done with you and your point

Are you also "done" with everyone in the other thread telling you the same thing I am in this one?

Could it possibly be you are wrong?
Even if it is a teensy weensy tiny itsy bitsy bit?

 

[Godobeyer]

Are you also "done" with everyone in the other thread telling you the same thing I am in this one?

Could it possibly be you are wrong?
Even if it is a teensy weensy tiny itsy bitsy bit?

Done

 

[McBell]

Done

again?

You are like Finger Hut magazines.
I have gotten one every three months that claim it will be the very last one unless I order from it.
I have not ordered from it.

 

[gnostic]

For my experience here,with you and some others, you (despite I gain some apologies) and others being rude many times with me ,just because I am in disagreement with you.

Your experience is essentially meaningless, if you cannot grasp basic biology and basic methodology on how theory is refuted or verified...and they can only be verified or refuted through observation; observation as in tests/experiments, or in evidences. The test-evidence require it to be measurable or quantifiable.

It's theory
Finally I win

You clearly don't know what a "scientific theory", because otherwise you would say something so ignorant.

A scientific theory is supposed to explain any natural or even man-made phenomena, explaining the facts.

A scientific theory is the accepted explanation, because they have been well-tested and well-substantiated, through successful repeated testings or through empirical evidences.

Without the evidences or test results, then evolution would have been false a long time ago. Instead, the theory of evolution is even more substantiated than the theory of gravity, because there are more evidences to support that it is true.

Creationism is not a fact and not a scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

In fact, creationism even fail to be hypothesis, because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. Creationism is based on blind faith alone, because it require believing allegedly all-powerful "invisible" god. "God did it" is not explanation, it is just a matter of belief and faith alone.

The same thing is true about ID. The Designer which they have no way of testing for this Designer's existence. Hence, the ID is another pseudoscience, just like creationism.

The cause-and-effect don't work with creationism and ID; the reason being that there are no empirical evidences to support either a Creator or a Designer.

In science, you can't have evidences for one (EFFECT), without (evidences for) the other (CAUSE). Both CAUSE and EFFECT required evidences in both instances.

Do you know the Boolean Truth tables?

Scientific theory work pretty much like the AND boolean. Both have to be true, in order for the final outcome to be true.

Let's say the "evidence" is denoted by 0 = false, and 1 = true, and existence is represented by that CAUSE = God and EFFECT = nature

CAUSE | EFFECT | AND (T or F)
--------------------------------------------
0 | 0 | 0
1 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 0
1 | 1 | 1​

We have evidences for NATURE (eg universe, sun, tree, human) existing, but no evidences for God existing. In the table above, this is like the 3rd row.

 

[Godobeyer]

You clearly don't know what a "scientific theory", because otherwise you would say something so ignorant.

A scientific theory is supposed to explain any natural or even man-made phenomena, explaining the facts.

A scientific theory is the accepted explanation, because they have been well-tested and well-substantiated, through successful repeated testings or through empirical evidences.

Without the evidences or test results, then evolution would have been false a long time ago. Instead, the theory of evolution is even more substantiated than the theory of gravity, because there are more evidences to support that it is true.

Creationism is not a fact and not a scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

In fact, creationism even fail to be hypothesis, because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. Creationism is based on blind faith alone, because it require believing allegedly all-powerful "invisible" god. "God did it" is not explanation, it is just a matter of belief and faith alone.

The same thing is true about ID. The Designer which they have no way of testing for this Designer's existence. Hence, the ID is another pseudoscience, just like creationism.

The cause-and-effect don't work with creationism and ID; the reason being that there are no empirical evidences to support either a Creator or a Designer.

In science, you can't have evidences for one (EFFECT), without (evidences for) the other (CAUSE). Both CAUSE and EFFECT required evidences in both instances.

Do you know the Boolean Truth tables?

Scientific theory work pretty much like the AND boolean. Both have to be true, in order for the final outcome to be true.

Let's say the "evidence" is denoted by 0 = false, and 1 = true, and existence is represented by that CAUSE = God and EFFECT = nature

CAUSE | EFFECT | AND (T or F)
--------------------------------------------
0 | 0 | 0
1 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 0
1 | 1 | 1​

We have evidences for NATURE (eg universe, sun, tree, human) existing, but no evidences for God existing. In the table above, this is like the 3rd row.

Scientific theory about origin of life is not fact, it's guess.

This video explain exactly your situation and your way of thinking.

 

[Skwim]

Your experience is essentially meaningless, if you cannot grasp basic biology and basic methodology on how theory is refuted or verified...and they can only be verified or refuted through observation; observation as in tests/experiments, or in evidences. The test-evidence require it to be measurable or quantifiable.



You clearly don't know what a "scientific theory", because otherwise you would say something so ignorant.

A scientific theory is supposed to explain any natural or even man-made phenomena, explaining the facts.

A scientific theory is the accepted explanation, because they have been well-tested and well-substantiated, through successful repeated testings or through empirical evidences.

Without the evidences or test results, then evolution would have been false a long time ago. Instead, the theory of evolution is even more substantiated than the theory of gravity, because there are more evidences to support that it is true.

Creationism is not a fact and not a scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

In fact, creationism even fail to be hypothesis, because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. Creationism is based on blind faith alone, because it require believing allegedly all-powerful "invisible" god. "God did it" is not explanation, it is just a matter of belief and faith alone.

The same thing is true about ID. The Designer which they have no way of testing for this Designer's existence. Hence, the ID is another pseudoscience, just like creationism.

The cause-and-effect don't work with creationism and ID; the reason being that there are no empirical evidences to support either a Creator or a Designer.

In science, you can't have evidences for one (EFFECT), without (evidences for) the other (CAUSE). Both CAUSE and EFFECT required evidences in both instances.

Do you know the Boolean Truth tables?

Scientific theory work pretty much like the AND boolean. Both have to be true, in order for the final outcome to be true.

Let's say the "evidence" is denoted by 0 = false, and 1 = true, and existence is represented by that CAUSE = God and EFFECT = nature

CAUSE | EFFECT | AND (T or F)
--------------------------------------------
0 | 0 | 0
1 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 0
1 | 1 | 1​

We have evidences for NATURE (eg universe, sun, tree, human) existing, but no evidences for God existing. In the table above, this is like the 3rd row.

FYI Godobeyer doesn't give one wit what you say, You may as well be farting into the wind. He's committed to holding onto his belief and misrepresenting science no matter what.


.

 

[gnostic]

Scientific theory about origin of life is not fact, it's guess.

Any idiot can make propaganda YouTube videos.

If you truly want to learn science, then pick up textbooks on the fields you are interested, and then read and understand what it saying.

It is clear that you don't understand science...and you are only misunderstanding biology and evolution in particular, but science in general.

You are refusing to understand what "scientific theory" as it is used science. Instead, you resort to usin dictionary, which don't apply science definition to theory.

As othershave already explain to you, a "scientific theory" explain the observed fact, and repeatedly and rigorously test the explanation (or find evidences), to see if the test results or evidences demonstrate the explanation is true, false or inconclusive.

The test results and evidences are the only to objectively and impartially decide what is true or false; explanations are never truly decided by logic alone.

Second, if you are talking about evolution, then evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of (first) life.

As I have already explain to you in the past, the field involved in the "origin of life" is "abiogenesis", NOT "evolution"!

The study of evolution is explaining how life change or adapt in any given environment, which would require passing specific genes from one generation to the next, and to next, and to next, and so on, to detect life "evolving".

The theory of evolution is factual because of the number of evidences that are available for any biologist to examine, review and test.

When there are evidences, you are no longer in "belief" and "faith" territory.

Faith is tied to religious belief, especially in theism, or in layman's term, "the existence of god".

For instance, you have not seen god yourself, you cannot test for his existence. You are only basing his existence to be true, in your belief in the Qur'an. That's is called FAITH, not fact, because you have no evidences.

• Muslims believe that god create the world, including life, in 6 days - is scientifically wrong.
• Muslims believe that the first man is made out of clay and water - that's based on much older myths (from Sumer in 3rd millennium BCE and from Babylonia in 2nd and 1st millennia BCE), plus it it is completely wrong, biologically.
• Muslims believe that jinns, including iblis or Satan, to be shapechangers made out fire-less smoke - is nothing more than primitive superstition, there have been no evidences to support the existence of any jinn.
• Likewise, there have been no scientific evidences for the existence of angels, including that of Gabriel.
• And the story of Solomon being able to talk to ants, are nothing more than another superstition and myth; no evidences to support this abilities are real, except from more myths.

The Qur'an is not a science textbook; it is only a book filled with superstitions, myths and deceptions. The Qur'an has no authority to tell what is science and what isn't science.

Anyway, if you truly want to discuss the topic of origin of life, then this thread should be "abiogenesis vs creationism", not "evolution vs creationism".

 

[gnostic]

FYI Godobeyer doesn't give one wit what you say, You may as well be farting into the wind. He's committed to holding onto his belief and misrepresenting science no matter what.


.

That's all true...but it is our duties to dispel any misinformation to science that godobeyer spits out, especially when 3rd-party read his ignorant and nonsensical rubbish.

The benefits of explaining what is science and (godobeyer's view) what isn't science, is as much for everyone's benefits than for godobeyer alone.

I already know that he is too stubborn to learn what's true (and what isn't), and I already know that he would never he is wrong, which make him look more foolish, considering his lack of education in science in general.

 

[Skwim]

That's all true...but it is our duties to dispel any misinformation to science that godobeyer spits out, especially when 3rd-party read his ignorant and nonsensical rubbish.

The benefits of explaining what is science and (godobeyer's view) what isn't science, is as much for everyone's benefits than for godobeyer alone.

I already know that he is too stubborn to learn what's true (and what isn't), and I already know that he would never he is wrong, which make him look more foolish, considering his lack of education in science in general.

Carry on.


.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello everybody

I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

well, it is to discuss how the diversity of life exists, not how the first life began. A thread on abiogenesis could also be started, and probably has been numerous times.

 

[Godobeyer]

Any idiot can make propaganda YouTube videos.

Why you call someone disagree with you "idiot", that's just impolite !

I do believe you did not reach his points, and everyone an opinion to tell.

I do believe,he is right in every word he said. about scientific theories in past,how they become useless,because science in update....etc

In recent past theory of Darwin was considered an excellent scientific theory,now it's known that it's content fatal errors,and much non-sense.

 

[Godobeyer]

That's all true...but it is our duties to dispel any misinformation to science that godobeyer spits out, especially when 3rd-party read his ignorant and nonsensical rubbish.

The benefits of explaining what is science and (godobeyer's view) what isn't science, is as much for everyone's benefits than for godobeyer alone.

I already know that he is too stubborn to learn what's true (and what isn't), and I already know that he would never he is wrong, which make him look more foolish, considering his lack of education in science in general.

The fact that science that can't prove that creation is wrong, but you said creationism is not fact,

For exemple :
We see that sperm is created,and egg created, they both combined to creat a baby, this is nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Godobeyer]

For instance, you have not seen god yourself, you cannot test for his existence. You are only basing his existence to be true, in your belief in the Qur'an. That's is called FAITH, not fact, because you have no evidences.

• Muslims believe that god create the world, including life, in 6 days - is scientifically wrong.
• Muslims believe that the first man is made out of clay and water - that's based on much older myths (from Sumer in 3rd millennium BCE and from Babylonia in 2nd and 1st millennia BCE), plus it it is completely wrong, biologically.
• Muslims believe that jinns, including iblis or Satan, to be shapechangers made out fire-less smoke - is nothing more than primitive superstition, there have been no evidences to support the existence of any jinn.
• Likewise, there have been no scientific evidences for the existence of angels, including that of Gabriel.
• And the story of Solomon being able to talk to ants, are nothing more than another superstition and myth; no evidences to support this abilities are real, except from more myths.

Back to this .
You made many points and prejudging wrong about Islam, which proved your igronant about Islam.

The Qur'an is not a science textbook; it is only a book filled with superstitions, myths and deceptions. The Qur'an has no authority to tell what is science and what isn't science.

Who said Quran is scientific book?
Quran mentionned about events told by science, such expansion of universe. and big bang if proved.

Anyway, if you truly want to discuss the topic of origin of life, then this thread should be "abiogenesis vs creationism", not "evolution vs creationism".

My thread is discuss the lable of this section (sub-Dir)

So do you agree that this section changed to "abiobenesis VS creationism" instread of "evolution vs creationism" ?

 

[gnostic]

Who said Quran is scientific book?
Quran mentionned about events told by science, such expansion of universe. and big bang if proved.

The Qur'an never mentioned the "universe". And it never mentioned expansion of the universe or the Big Bang.

You and other Muslims are dishonestly twisting the passages of the Qur'an.

You don't even understand the theory of the Big Bang. Actually, I have not known a single Muslim in this forum ever understanding the Big Bang, but each one of them that have made the interpretations for the Qur'an are not known for their honesty.

 

[Godobeyer]

The Qur'an never mentioned the "universe". And it never mentioned expansion of the universe or the Big Bang.

You and other Muslims are dishonestly twisting the passages of the Qur'an.

You don't even understand the theory of the Big Bang. Actually, I have not known a single Muslim in this forum ever understanding the Big Bang, but each one of them that have made the interpretations for the Qur'an are not known for their honesty.

So
Enjoy your ignorance and arrogance.

Signs from the Creator - The Expanding Universe

Big Bang ┇ Quran and Modern Science ┇