Science is there to teach us how things work. As is. Can be reproduced. Can be observed. Under these conditions, creationsim has as much back up as evolution. Can you go in a lab, make a bubble out of nuthing, explode it, have it form a seemingly endless number of galaxies with Intelligent life on at least one of the planets in one of the galaxies' solar systems? On any scale? Then reproduce it again with the exact same results? Multiple times without failure? Until then, it's not science. Its hypothesis. Its theory. It's called scientific method...look it up.
46 comments
Perhaps you should look it up. First things first... evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. As far as the rest of your effluence, the big bang is the best theory explaining all known observances. You test a theory against the facts known. You test the facts in a lab. In this case, that would primarily take place in an observatory over years of observation.
Your answer, while attempting to sound like you have a clue, is actually pure fail. I congratulate you on your accomplishment.
"Science is there to teach us how things work. As is. Can be reproduced. Can be observed. Under these conditions, creationsim has as much back up as evolution."
I see. So you can reproduce and observe "creation" can you? Nice. Write up a scientific paper and submit it to the appropriate peer reviewed scientific journal.
"Can you go in a lab, make a bubble out of nuthing, explode it, have it form a seemingly endless number of galaxies with Intelligent life on at least one of the planets in one of the galaxies' solar systems? On any scale? Then reproduce it again with the exact same results? Multiple times without failure?"
No. Then again, that's not quite what happened anyway.
"Until then, it's not science. Its hypothesis. Its theory. It's called scientific method...look it up."
You really shouldn't attempt to school others in the ways of things when you're apparently unfamiliar with even the most basic scientific terminology.
I see.
And before the advent of the kettle, you probably would have said it was not possible for water to boil.
Just because -we- can't do it artificially doesn't mean that isn't what happened naturally (or at least something along those lines).
For an experiment to be reproduceable (i.e. have reliability) you have to be able to get the same data (within a certain tolerance range) from the experiment every time you do it. It means you need to be able to reproduce your observations of the facts, not the facts thems-
Oh, what's the point?
The main problem with your argument, is if they did recreate the big bang, this universe would no longer exist.
Kind of gives a new twist on the "where did everything come from for the big bang" argument though.
And of course evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, they are two completely different areas of science.
Must be easy when you can answer ever question ever asked with 'godidit'.
Please look up the following:
Now if you can prove microevolution wrong, then you might be on to something. However, scientist can and have demonstrated this process many times, so your work is cut out for you.
P.S. Just for fun look up Georges Lemaître.
Until then, it's not science. Its hypothesis. Its theory. It's called scientific method...look it up.
You should look it up yourself: you clearly have no understanding of what the scientific method is.
Big Bang =/= Evolution
How much more simple do you want to get? Oh wait, when one is taught nothing but strawman science, shit like this is BOUND to happen.
Someone, somewhere... seriously get homeschooling fucking regulated and forced to work in accordance with mainstream education.... shit like this has to stop -.-
Ehm, creating a finished and completed universe in a labratory is what YOU need to do in order to prove ID.
Us "Darwinists" only need to blow up a black hole and let it grow...
Big Bang theories have been tested in Particle accelerators by those physicists.
As for biochemist formation of life, there are a variety of theories all being tested. However what people fail to realise is the time scale and areas involved for such testing to replicate life would require us to basically burn all the rest of our fossil fuel, and destroy almost every ecosystem to create a variety of climates to see if life can form in the lab complex that will cover the entire planet to have the space for this experiment.
We are testing it in a bottle the size of a big wok... The world had the surface area of the world when life first began.
First sentence- "Science is a method we use to describe the way the world works" - fixed.
Sentences 2,3, and 4- could it be? Could it be that fundies are FINALLY getting it, that they are starting to understand the scientific method?
And- then the fail begins begins after that...
Damn.
Following your stupid logic, can you make the world in seven days in a lab, create a God or make talking snakes?. No double standards, please.
1) Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution.
Good thing evolution only has to prove things have changed over time, FOSSILS.
Creating a universe is a whole other thing
Well, since we have the universe, and NO proof a GOD created it. All we have to do is prove life on another planet and you completely lose.
s soon as plant life is detected on another planet your religion must conceed.
I'm sure you'll find some verses in that book that said God predicted that though
My opinion is : If it exists it must have , wait for it, happened and I can prove it happened because there it is!
That is my theory which is mine!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
