Liberals claim we had to come from apes due to the dna .

Werbung:
Scientists do not believe in evolution in the way that chuckleheads like Mark believe.

Science is not like the Bible, it is not a book of crap people worship or believe. Science is a PROCESS.

And scientists simply conclude that evolution in its present state is the best explanation for the existence of life on this planet. Scientists are always prepared to accept a better explanation when a better explanation comes along.
 
Gabriel_Bell said:
Scientists do not believe in evolution in the way that chuckleheads like Mark believe.

Science is not like the Bible, it is not a book of crap people worship or believe. Science is a PROCESS.

And scientists simply conclude that evolution in its present state is the best explanation for the existence of life on this planet. Scientists are always prepared to accept a better explanation when a better explanation comes along.
Click to expand...
Millions of misguided rubes have total faith in evolution mythology.
 
Scientists do not deal with faith in events, they put their faith in REASON.
Mark does not even know what science is.

He thinks the way to prove the Original Sin and the existence of talking snakes capable of doing the Macarena is to insult Darwin.
 
pjmret said:
Faith? Lol
We are talking science not religion, science moooron

And evolution isn't falsely called scientific, science moooron
Click to expand...
Anyone who believes scientific speculations and theories that are not verified by the scientific method are believing what they believe by faith and not by evidence.
 
mark francis said:
Anyone who believes scientific speculations and theories that are not verified by the scientific method are believing what they believe by faith and not by evidence.
Click to expand...
define "verified". lol.

evolution is the currently accepted theory because it hasn't been disproven and the evidence fits it best of all theories.
that's how science works, science moooron.

so yes...it is about evidence. duh.

god you are stupid lol
 
Gabriel_Bell said:
Scientists do not believe in evolution in the way that chuckleheads like Mark believe.

Science is not like the Bible, it is not a book of crap people worship or believe. Science is a PROCESS.

And scientists simply conclude that evolution in its present state is the best explanation for the existence of life on this planet. Scientists are always prepared to accept a better explanation when a better explanation comes along.
Click to expand...
Science is at best a stumbling stone that is often wrong and in some cases theory's are just that not ironclad.
How life started NO one knows was it a experiment natural alien or a god or what we called gods out of ignorance and lack of science .
 
pjmret said:
define "verified". lol.
Click to expand...
The dilemma facing evolution theories is that they can neither be verified nor falsified.


Being Scientific: Falsifiability, Verifiability, Empirical Tests, and Reproducibility​

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Dan Gezelter
If you ask a scientist what makes a good experiment, you’ll get very specific answers about reproducibility and controls and methods of teasing out causal relationships between variables and observables. If human observations are involved, you may get detailed descriptions of blind and double-blind experimental designs. In contrast, if you ask the very same scientists what makes a theory or explanation scientific, you’ll often get a vague statement about falsifiability. Scientists are usually very good at designing experiments to test theories. We invent theoretical entities and explanations all the time, but very rarely are they stated in ways that are falsifiable. It is also quite rare for anything in science to be stated in the form of a deductive argument. Experiments often aren’t done to falsify theories, but to provide the weight of repeated and varied observations in support of those same theories. Sometimes we’ll even use the words verify or confirm when talking about the results of an experiment. What’s going on? Is falsifiability the standard? Or something else?

The difference between falsifiability and verifiability in science deserves a bit of elaboration. It is not always obvious (even to scientists) what principles they are using to evaluate scientific theories, 1 so we’ll start a discussion of this difference by thinking about Popper’s asymmetry. 2 Consider a scientific theory (T) that predicts an observation (O). There are two ways we could approach adding the weight of experiment to a particular theory. We could attempt to falsify or verify the observation.
 
mark francis said:
The dilemma facing evolution theories is that they can neither be verified nor falsified.


Being Scientific: Falsifiability, Verifiability, Empirical Tests, and Reproducibility​

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Dan Gezelter
If you ask a scientist what makes a good experiment, you’ll get very specific answers about reproducibility and controls and methods of teasing out causal relationships between variables and observables. If human observations are involved, you may get detailed descriptions of blind and double-blind experimental designs. In contrast, if you ask the very same scientists what makes a theory or explanation scientific, you’ll often get a vague statement about falsifiability. Scientists are usually very good at designing experiments to test theories. We invent theoretical entities and explanations all the time, but very rarely are they stated in ways that are falsifiable. It is also quite rare for anything in science to be stated in the form of a deductive argument. Experiments often aren’t done to falsify theories, but to provide the weight of repeated and varied observations in support of those same theories. Sometimes we’ll even use the words verify or confirm when talking about the results of an experiment. What’s going on? Is falsifiability the standard? Or something else?

The difference between falsifiability and verifiability in science deserves a bit of elaboration. It is not always obvious (even to scientists) what principles they are using to evaluate scientific theories, 1 so we’ll start a discussion of this difference by thinking about Popper’s asymmetry. 2 Consider a scientific theory (T) that predicts an observation (O). There are two ways we could approach adding the weight of experiment to a particular theory. We could attempt to falsify or verify the observation.
Click to expand...
yes, science is never actually 100% proven. something that scientists think is correct today could be proven wrong tomorrow.

are you just figuring out how science works? hahahahahahahha
 
pjmret said:
yes, science is never actually 100% proven. something that scientists think is correct today could be proven wrong tomorrow.

are you just figuring out how science works? hahahahahahahha
Click to expand...
Global warming speculations and evolution assumptions are examples of unproven and unprovable theories tied to scientific postulations.
 
Werbung:
Why doesn't Mark prove to us that once there existed evil talking snakes with legs?
Why doesn't Mark demonstrate the process for creating a woman out of a man's rib?
 

Similar threads

Bunz
Sarah & I Agree, Wolves Can Be Bad.
Replies
2
Views
2K
dahermit
D
Sihouette
    • Like
  • Locked
California Proposition 8
70 71 72
Replies
1K
Views
116K
Bunz
Bunz
I
How we are held as slaves!
Replies
7
Views
2K
bododie
B
Stiffy
OATH Keepers Militia: Unsustainable Globalists’ Agenda for World Domination
Replies
0
Views
980
Stiffy
Stiffy
Little-Acorn
Liberal crackup
Replies
2
Views
961
Revere
Revere
Back
Top