[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?

*yawn* Copernicus came up with a hypothesis that wasn't shown to be accurate until Galileo did furthur testing. The fact of the matter is, you've still failed to show how anything prior to the Geocentric model were 'theories' in science. They weren't, they were simply untested hypothesis'.



It's scholarly sure, but I asked for peer reviewed, which this is not. Wouldn't matter even if it was, as it at no point makes reference to Spontaneous Generation being a scientific theory.

I already know Spontaneous Generation was shown to be incorrect. That's not what's at issue, the issue is you're calling it a 'theory' when it's not.



*yawn* no it wasn't. It was shown to be innacurrate, and not a good enough explanation of all the given data. However, it WAS shown to have some enduring points that have been used, and still are used by chemists to help explain and help experiment with combustion, metabolism, and the configuration of rust.

It wasn't 'proven wrong'. Science doesn't prove things wrong. you fail to see that time and time again when you make postings.



No, they have a long list of theories that haven't been shown to be accurate enough, or explain enough given new data and technological advances.

Again, they're not disproven. A theory is simply discarded as being inadequate, or changed due to new things needing to be explained. None of them were disproved, the list is even called 'superceded theories' not disproven ones.



Yet again I yawn. Neither are peer reviewed sources. That's what I asked for, you still have given me nothing of the sort, except for Roy Spencder, who, by the by, proves none of your points that dispute mine.



And a blah blah blah, Roy doesn't believe humans are a significant cause to global warming, I know this, but he accepts the world is warming completely, global warming is still never referenced as a 'theory' nor defined in the way you've defined it. What are your next ones?

I mean seriously, what exactly are you trying to prove with all of this, which youhave consistently failed to do?

Good job, you didn't even bother reading your own sources. Re read them. While the majority of the theory has been discarded as being inadequate, or innacurate, parts of it are still relavant to modern chemistry, and indeed help modern chemists.



I assume the top part was a typo. Secondly, my reference to your source was that it wasn't a peer reviewed article, and spontaneous generation was NOT considered a scientific theory by anyone, it was simply a hypothesis come up with in the B.C. age that was never adequately scientifically tested, and when it finally was, it was shown to be a bad guess.



It doesn't. You've failed to comprehend this time and again. Science doesn't go about disproving theories. It goes about trying to showw facts about the world that the theories don't adequately explain, or see if the theory CAN explain them. Nobody goes out in science with the intention of "I'm going to disprove this theory." That specifically goes against the entire philosophy.



2 things. 1. I didn't see him say global warming theory, nor define it. Secondly, it wasn't a peer reviewed article anyhow, so it wouldn't matter even if you could quote it directly. A scientist saying something doesn't mean it's right.



It is good to know. And the more you know, the more you can stop talking out of your ass.

What I'm wondering is, what exactly are you trying to say about science with all of this? Are you trying to say science is unreliable because it changes its mind or something? Are you trying to say science is always being proven it's wrong over and over? What is your thesis for all of this?

Go back to science class in high school level and maybe they'll teach you what a scientific theory is. A theory that hasn't been established is a hypothesis; debunking unestablished theories does not make evolution false and your religion correct.

Oxymoronic statements are fun.



I've already explained innumerous times. Evolution IS a fact. Change over time in allelic frequency in biological populations of organisms is an observed FACT.



Yes they do. They just also recognize it's the strongest theory in existence.



Allow me to quote a christian evangelical.

"Even if we disregard every transitional fossil. The DNA evidence alone for evolution is enough to prove beyond any rational doubt that evolution is a fact."

-Francis Collins



If you're being intellectually honest about the bible? Yes, they DO contradict the bible. AsI've said before, the only way people don't see science as contradicting the bible, is if they refuse to believe about all of the bible as literal fact. As another christian evangelical said

"If you stop taking Genesis as a literal fact, where does it stop? Why would you take anything else in the bible as true?"

-Ken Ham (Answersingenesis)



Good job, you typed a LOT of words and said pretty much nothing.

What I'm getting from you is, "IF something's a theory, it's not right or wrong, it's ust an idea."

that's idiotic. IF theories were treated the way you're defining them, then we wouldn't be able to derive any USES from them. Theories are made for the explicit purpose of being able to be used in developing science. Theories aren't like the bible, they're not just ideas that people came up with one day while they were drinking or hallucinating. They're testable, repeatable, and can be verified, repeatedly.

If some people follow science blindly, I don't think they should, but it beats following a religion blindly, as science is always, consistently more reliable than ANY religious book in all of history. If I were to worship ANYTHING, it'd be the scientific method as an epistomological necessity.

Established theories (facts) can be verified over and over again through different experiments. Your arguments consist of attacking the definition of a "theory" and bringing up your religion afterwards. In all honesty, any theory is better than a "magic man" creating the world and sacrificing his son (which he could have prevented by saving us in the first place) to save the souls of human beings and those pitiful souls who happened to be born in a non-christian countries will burn in hell.

"What I am trying to say is that some people threat scientific theories too much as facts. Like how people use evolution against those who believe in creationism with the thought evolution is a fact and not a theory. They never for once stop to think that evolution is a theory."

Evolution is a fact. The evidence is there, sorry.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Man evolving from ape...ever heard of transitional forms and DNA evidence? You would suggest believing in a sky daddy to be a more viable theory than evolution?

Didn't you read this in the link you provided?

"Phlogiston theory permitted chemists to bring clarification of apparently different phenomena into a coherent structure: combustion, metabolism, and configuration of rust. The recognition of the relation between combustion and metabolism was a forerunner of the recognition that the metabolism of living organisms and combustion can be understood in terms of fundamentally related chemical processes."



since you haven't shown global warming is a theory in the FIRST place, and scientists all over the world acknowledge that the world warming is an unavoidable fact of life...no...I don't think so. Also, your objection to peer review isn't an uncommon one among people who don't trust science as much as they claim to. The fact of the matter is, scientists are getting paid to review other scientists' work, and paid even MORE for finding errors in their wk. there is no bias to push some papers through, or keep some papers out in peer review. That's what it was built to get RID of. Do scientists think alike? Yes, because science is a very particular philosophy.



Two points. One: there is no such thing as "Darwin's theory of Evolution". There's just "Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and common descent". Which, by the way, has been confirmed via transitional fossils. The missing link is INDEED an untenable idea, because as soon as transitional ape to man fossils are found, creationists have a consistent denial basis, and not only that, will then create two more gaps, for 2 more missing links, for every transitional we've ever found. Austrolepithicus Afarensis is as transitional as a transitional fossil can get, yet creationists still say, "No, it was just a strange bipedal chimpanzee." while no scientist denies its veracity as a transitional.



If you had bothered to exercise any critical thought at all, you'd be able to discern that the MOST the discovery mentioned in the non peer reviewed news article would say, was that some older species of ape-to-man transitionals were extant during the lifespans of other, later transitionals. This isn't even uncommon. you are aware there is evidence that our most recent ancestors lived up until as recently as 12 thousand years ago, while we(homosapiens) have been around for up to about(as far back as we've been able to date) 200,000 years. Oh yeah, and that Bill Gates quote? It had NOTHING to do with evolution, or any sort of support for any arguments from complexity. That's a quote from his autobiography about how interesting his biology professor made thingsas compared to his computer technology professor. We call quotes like that, that don't support your argument whatsoever, 'quote mines'.

Next thing you'll be telling me is Darwin doubted his own theory because of the complexity of the human eye.



In other words, the only things that go against the bible are things you don't take seriously anyway, in your opinion. Good lord.



In other words, you don't seem to have a single clue as to how a theory could be used. You DO understand that all of modern medicine is thanks to Evolutionary Theory, right? Do you honestly think that there's any use in saying, "This might be the chance, but meh, we don't know' is an acceptable outline to base work and studies on? If you do, your'e deluded, and don't understand the scientific process.



Since that's not what I'm saying, nor is it relevant to the topic, I'm ignoring this.

[/quote] And weren't you the one who told me that there is nothing such as 100% in science? Doesn't this mean a person cannot claim he is correct or better yet 100% correct nor can he claim he is wrong.[/quote]

The reason for this is because ANYTHING, in science, is possible. There is a possibility I wil explode, right now, as I type this to you. However I know for a very large certainty that such will not happen. It is thanks to scientific biological and chemical theories that I'm able to know this. Theories are the framework for knowledge, without them we wouldn't know, ANYTHING.



Wah. The bible is a scientifically innacurate storybook written by goat herders who were for the most part illiterate, and possibly hallucinating.



FYI: Science doesn't deal in proofs. So no, they're not disproven.

You can bet insulting someone hurts your argument. If you can't conduct your debate in a civil manner, then that says loads about your argument, and self.