A religion? AND before you say that I'm flaming, I don't mean all of science. I mean mostly things about the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's all theoretical right? And theoretical things haven't been proven. Please post thoughts, and remember that I'M NOT FLAMING.
If I can still argue against evolution using the irreducible complexity found in nature, despite the fact that now atheists say that the parts had a different purpose and then made an organ, then how is evolution a fact? It's called the theory of evolution. And that's as far as it will go (metaphorically speaking, I know that there's no hierarchy of "hypothesis, theory, law".
No you can't.
) There will be genetic variation within a population. 2) There is inheritance within a population, in which the offspring inherit traits from their parents. 3) There will be certain traits that benefit survival and reproduction more than other traits. 4) Over time, we can observe traits that benefit survival and reproduction to be more common than other traits, as these traits directly increase the chance that these traits will be passed on to offspring.
As far as theory goes, it was explained best to me this way: A theory is like a jigsaw puzzle. It has a base piece, and scientists keep adding pieces on until it becomes a fact. Please note that theory is not a fact yet, but it's well on its way. The basis of science is testability and repeatability. Science and religion have no relationship what so ever, and shouldn't.
Please note that theory is not a fact yet, but it's well on its way.
That is not correct. The 'theory' is the jigsaw puzzle, facts and laws are the pieces. Once you have enough facts and laws which fit together to form the picture then you have a theory (the full picture). This is why we say that scientific theories are analogous to fact, because all they are is a collection of facts.
*faceplam* No. Just no. Please stop using words you do not understand. To define cynicism let us look at the root, cynical.
â"adjective 1. like or characteristic of a cynic; distrusting or disparaging the motives of others. 2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others. 3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.
Basically every single sentence you make is wrong. But because most atheists here have covered your ignorance, I'm going to address only three points.
but note that NOT ONE scientist has EVER challenged evolution, the Big Bang, or ANY of that?
They do not challenge it, not because they accepted with blind faith, but because it makes sense and is plausible. If you would study biology, you would know why and how it makes sense. And that's how most scientists think. But if you come up with a logical, flawless theory, then I'm pretty sure they would accepted it.
To my knowledge, explosions don't create matter.
Again, that's to YOUR knowledge. If you would of actually know what you where talking about, you would know that the explosion wasn't a simple explosion, but more like an expansion.
Other areas of science are completely exempt from the above hypothesis.
Why? Neuron-science is showing that a human body shows no trace of soul. With modern medicine we can make medicine while taking evolution into account. Geology shows that the earth was created 4,5 billion years ago, and proves that dinos existed. You see? Basically a big chunk off science is against religion. Not only astronomy and biology.
Dinosaurs are in the Bible. Yeah, we believe in dinos.
Lol...I can't recall any passages w/ a dinosaur, the "only" thing that might cover that is in Genesis where it says, "And god created all the animals and plants on the w/e day." Mind giving us a link?
Viruses, bacteria, micro-organisms all evolve at a faster rate than a human. Viruses are particularly nasty when it comes to evolution. They're always changing, that's why we need to get different flu vaccines every couple of years.
What he means is that by studying these things, diseases and such, we can hopefully predict how they'll evolve and create a counter measure before a pandemic occurs.
They're always changing, that's why we need to get different flu vaccines every couple of years.
In fact, they change so much, the Flu vaccine isn't even guranteed to work because there's so many different strains, they just pick the most common one and distribute that vaccine.
Wow, your first one is so vague and ridiculous that it isn't even worth considering. The second link is so blatantly false that I couldn't even finish reading. I was laughing so hard by about half way through it that I had to stop. Seriously jeol, if you believe any of this stuff I seriously recommend you take a trip to DC and visit the Smithsonian. Talk to some archaeologists, talk to some biologists. There are professionals all over who have the facts that would be more than happy to open your eyes to reality and the beauty and wonder that it holds.
Did you know that dinosaur bones that are carbon dated give dates of only a few thousand years old? - Not millions like evolutionists claim.
Obviously someone who has no idea what they are talking about. And yes, it was the quote I was mentioning, that he created all. Which, is so vague, can cover anything, and since there are no references at all to any large animals that god destroyed previously, makes it pretty obvious that they were never intended to be in the Bible.
I have never read anything about dinosaurs being in the bible, but you can't prove one way or the other. We can only speculate and guess. In the early beginnings of the bible, people live to be near 1000 years old, but you can argue this years according to whom? how can you prove it, etc. You can't prove one way or the other
