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

Yeah, organs are pretty easily to explain and not that complex compared to other stuff out there. They are nothing more than a bunch of cells who perform an specific function. The problem with creationism is that they believe the human body is perfect, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Yeah, I don't get why people believe evolution was a theory developed by Darwin. Hell, humans have been theorizing about it for thousands of year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Scientific theory is based on empirical evidence.

Firstly, the Old Testament was written by, as historians have deduced, at least 5 different authors, of 5 different centuries. And all of them were written many centuries prior to the New Testament. None of them, by the way, are surmised to be Moses. This can easily be found in the books "Who Wrote the Old Testament?" And "Who Wrote The Bible?"

Secondly, if you don't even know that the books of the new testament were voted on to see which ones would be put in, and which ones wouldn't you are extremely ignorant to the facts. The fact was, there were a LOT of books written by people who had their own legends and stories about Jesus. So when the time came to put a book together to form christian dogma, the higher ups in the church asked what was being focused on about Jesus' life. The main point was the resurrection. So the books that focused on his birth, and the crucifixion were put in, and most of the other books were kicked out, aside from Revelations.



I don't believe you, or anyone else in your family has ever seen a ghost, nor seen into the future. I'm skeptical of these cllaims. If you honestly can do that, take the James Randi Educational Foundation challenge, and you might win a million dollars.

you should really go here in the Philippines so you can eat what your saying if you really want to see ghost here I'll tour you. about the fortune telling it's really like a game and of course you just need to know how to read the cards and how you do it. I only read about Love and Riches (fame, business,etc) for fun.I don't open about health and people. this how it works it's really hard to explain it in English but ill try. first you let's the person pick a card the picked card represents the state of the person. here are 4 blocks of fortune telling first is people (your future with people) love,money and health. now spades always represents bad omen, diamonds for riches,hearts for love and clover for luck. about the characters in the card is so long that we might take forever to say every character represents plus it really depends on how you will read it but the basic reading of this card is like these: the diamond king represents male person who is wealthy or famed, the spade king represents a person who has bad intentions to you (remember that spade is always a bad omen)

basic reading:

Ace- something special or unpredictable
two- no changes will follow
three- death (spade)
four- what you are thinking
five- what a person is thinking
six- caution or enemies
seven- luck (mostly about money)
eight- good life or health depend on color
nine- good things depends on color
ten- represents a stranger or a family member depends on the color
jack- it's about fighting or defending
king- represents a male person depends on the color
queen- represents a female person depends on the color

so about reading it it's like these:

always remember that there will be a unfliped card that you picked which represents you like a token or payment because you read someones fortune you will flip it when you finished reading the persons future example is when the heart seven goes up when you flip it good for you.

so it will be like these:

unfliped card/ heart king / spade four/ diamond five / clover six / heart seven/ spade eight / - so if you read this is love. it will say.

for a guy these says - a guy is in love with the same person you like that it will cause you to fight. these guy will lure your person you like with money it will happen in a time of 8 or date or something.

for a girl these says - you think the guy you like is cheating on you which really he think of finding money a be careful about money matters these will happen in a time of 8 or date or something.

so even bother doing these but wth.

Things adapt and change to in order to survive. Whether its natural changes in the body or through man-made changes due to intelligence. For example anti-bodies vs medicine: Both could be an example for evolution. I see intelligence as a step of evolution.

Although Global warming isn't entirely humanities fault that doesn't mean we don't have a part to play in the problem. You can't say humanity has no impact on the earth. If you cut down a forest does in not impact nature?

Also theories can be wrong and you can't prove theories with facts nor can facts be proven with theories. For example in the past people proved with facts that the earth was flat. Humans understanding of the universe and how it acts is constantly changing and possibly improving.

Just because someone is wrong in your eyes doesn't mean you have to make them convert to what you think. People are mules and will stick to their beliefs no matter how wrong they are.

Then again that is human nature. I myself feel that the very title of this thread is idiotic in every aspect of the word. In fact the very reason why I don't tend to post in serious discussion is because of how mind numb inducing the titles are.

OT: In my opinion I think OP is a faggot.

Well there are always people who will be either/ or and won't allow people to be in the grey area.



I'm just saying that whether or not something is proven that doesn't mean it will always hold true.



Can't think one. I just know that it should change or people will either ignore this thread or flame it.



Its a basic Fakku thing

How Should Science and Religion Mix Together? is a much better title for this topic.

http://toarumajutsunoindex.wikia.com/wiki/Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index_Wiki

That's more of Science and Religious communities mixing together than Science and Religion actually mixing in someone's life.

Though it does have a great idea for solving problems. Just make a harem.

...Wow. Ok, here's the thing, you're ALMOST there. They're not assumptions backed up by facts, they're EXPLANATIONS that stem FROM the facts. People don't come up with Theories, and then try and find evidence to back them up, people come up with Theories to explain the evidence that's already there, and to predict FURTHUR evidence that will be found. "If I'm right, we will find transitional fossils."



Give me one.



Nope. It's called a Theory because it's the best explnation of the facts surrounding evolution. change over time inn allellic frequency is a regularly observed FACT, and that's what Evolution is. The Thoery, by the same name, explains that fact. Deny it al day, but you're simply and utterly wrong on this very basic point.




When your original point is that theories are not factually correct? Yes, you are wrong.

About global warming:



No they don't. SIn fact, NO credible scientist has EVER said this. The 'myth' you're spouting, is completely made up.



Global warming is a fact, and there's no such thing as the 'theory of global warming'. The videos explain that both the idea that 'it's a myth' is wrong, and the idea that 'we're all gonna die and it's all our faults!' is wrong. The reality is, there was never any scientific idea that humans are the sole cause of global warming, scientists have known for decades that not only is global warming occurring, and will continue to occur for some time, but that greenhouse gases ARE in part to blame, and we DO put them in. Humans put CO2 in the air, this is a fact. ANY CO2 we put in the air assists in the warming of the earth.

Those are the facts.

Whereas YOUR video was perfectly content to say, "Global warming is completely disproven by NASA!" Which was completely wrong, as was explained in the "The anatomy of a myth" video.

Nothing Al Gore said was wrong, he simply caused people to take things too seriously. Yes, humans pump out CO2, and yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps in causing global warming.

You do know there is no such thing as an absolute fact and that theories, ALL theories are just the best explanation given the best current facts.

Facts and situations are constantly changing and we are not capable of making absolute facts and statements.

Rejecting the possibility that something isn't fact is rejecting falsifiability which is absolutely necessary for it to be actual science.

Anything without that is just pseudoscience.

Granted, there are things that are better explanations given current facts than others.

I thought we already went of the whole theory thing? I've seen the same thing being written over and over again?

Anyway I agree with what Takerial said. Since to me it just looks like a summery of what I wrote earlier.

...what is absolute fact? When did I ever assert the existence of absolute facts?

In science, a fact is anything that can be verified, over and over again. I'm not sure what an 'absolute fact' is.

You say facts and situations are constantly changing, which means we're not capable of making 'absolute facts and statements'. Alright, if you're saying we're not capable of saying something is the absolute truth of the matter, you're right, but that's just basic philosophy of science. But the thing is, facts and situations always change in one direction - More Accurate. It's not like what we know today is always turned completely on its head the next day. No, we just gain better understandings, and are able to explain things better, hence theories are made, or modified, according to new information.

What I'm arguing is the peurile statement that scientific theories are simply assumptions, or guesses, or aren't factually correct.

The Unknown not only has misdefined what a scientific theory is, but continuously makes baseless assertions that I have no interest in simply letting pass without a challenge.

Which would be nice.

If you weren't presenting things in a way that says "You can't refute this."

More accurate? There is no such direction with science and facts.

You cannot become more accurate if you are unsure if something is actually right.

You can assume something is right and that you become more accurate, but that is the wrong way to look at things.

It is less chance of being inaccurate. Which is only possible because things are constantly being revised after being proven to be inaccurate.

I have 3 points.

1. Any statement of "you can't refute this" you're getting from my posts is coming completely from YOUR interpretation of what I'm saying, I've never claimed any such thing, you simply assume that's my attitude for you own personal reasons.
2. You don't think there's such a thing as getting 'more accurate' in science? So when we first accepted the earth's age as...thousands of years old, and then moved up to millions, then to billions, that wasn't getting more accurate? So when we learned the world indeed WASN'T flat, that wasn't getting more accurate? So when we learned that the world actually orbits the sun, that wasn't getting more accurate? I think that's a rediculous statement to make.
3. Just because we aren't 100% sure of things in science, doesn't mean we can't be 'pretty sure' of things. The more evidence a given position has, the more liekly, the more probable it is that it's right. which, while that coincideds with your idea of "See? We've got less of a chance of being wrong!' Well, that's simply another way of saying "We have more of a chance of being right!" which is the same thing as "we're more accurate!"

In essence, even if you were to look at things as being "We're less innacurate" that, by proxy, inevitably means "We're more accurate."


Wow, really? "I believe my explanation is right, as the facts support it."

Firstly, isn't that...duh? I mean, if facts support the validity something, it's factually correct.

Secondly, Theories are not assumptions made based on facts, they are explanations that are made to explain why facts are the way they are, and are verifiably correct if they can make accurate predictions.





You really seem to hate it when I ask you to back up your claims.



Wow, really? Do you have some sort of fucking mental block? I've already EXPLAINED toyou that there are LAws, there are Facts, and there are Theories. The FACT of evolution is that organisms change over time in allellic frequency. that's a regularly observed fact. IF you don't agree it's a fact that species change over time, I'm going to have to ask you to stop responding, as you've clearly not bothered to educate yourself on the matter one single bit.

The THEORY is the EXPLANATION of the FACT. Do you get it yet? The fact, and the theory, are two seperate things, but they are necessary for eachother to exist.




...YOU'RE AN IDIOT! HOLY SHIT. I will say this once, and only once.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% SURE IN SCIENCE. YOU MADE THAT UP.




There's no such thing as the Theory of Global Warming. You made that up. And if you didn't, please provide a single peer reviewede scientific paper that refers to global warming as a "theory". AND, if you somehow manage to find that, please point out where a single scientist has EVER defined t as "the theory thathumans are the sole cause of the earth;'s warming." I know you can't find that, because no credible paper would let such a piece of shit idea through peer review.



No it's not.



There's no such thing as "The theory of global warming" And climate scientists have been in consensus for decades that the world is warming, and greenhouse gases play a role in it, AND, people pump out greenhouse gases.

these are the facts.

Lundi the one who seems to be trying really hard to prove his argument and continually say the same thing is you.

Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?

And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.