The Competing Plans to Destroy America

[pjmret]

Science can speculate about past events but it cannot scientifically observe past events. Creationists also 'theorize' about past events science cannot prove by observation and so also do Secular Humanists speculate about past events science cannot observe.

creationists invoke a diety which isn't science. duh.

 

[pjmret]

Science cannot prove what it cannot observe. That includes all theories of the origins of the universe and life on earth as well as the early creation and development of life on earth.

science actually never proves anything, it accepts theories which fit the evidence best, whether "observed" or not.
you are a science moron.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Secular Humanists lie when they claim their unproven origin theories are scientific and Creationist theories are not.

Creationism does not reach the status of a theory. It is a belief. It is not even a hypothesis.
It is pretty clear that more complicated creatures evolved from less complicated ones. Evolution is more than a hypothesis, it is a THEORY, ie, the most logical current explanation.

 

[pjmret]

Secular Humanist religious theories about the origin and development of early life on earth are like Creationist religious theories in that neither have been proven by scientific observation.

they are like creationism in being theories.
creationism isn't science so it isn't taught by science. duh.
you are a science moron.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

science actually never proves anything, it accepts theories which fit the evidence best, whether "observed" or not.
you are a science moron.

This is accurate: science says that when the evidence is overwhelming, such as gravity, then it is called a Law. As Boyle's Gas Laws and the Law of Gravity.

Of course, gravity is related to space and time when dealing with very fast velocities and such.

 

[mark francis]

creationists invoke a diety which isn't science. duh.

Of course matters that cannot be observed and measured by humans are not science, they are speculations, theories, assumptions, guesses, and so forth.

 

[mark francis]

science actually never proves anything, it accepts theories which fit the evidence best, whether "observed" or not.
you are a science moron.

Science that accepts atheistic theories about the origin of the universe and origin of life on earth but systematically rejects theories involving the supernatural is bent and biased science, not true science.

 

[mark francis]

Creationism does not reach the status of a theory. It is a belief. It is not even a hypothesis.
It is pretty clear that more complicated creatures evolved from less complicated ones. Evolution is more than a hypothesis, it is a THEORY, ie, the most logical current explanation.

Evolution is a theory based upon assumptions, speculations, biased interpretations of data, guesses, and so forth, not based on actual observable scientific facts. We know life forms differ. As far as true science goes, that diversity could just have easily been the result of chance as Humanists believe or the result of God's intervention as Christian believe.

 

[mark francis]

they are like creationism in being theories.
creationism isn't science so it isn't taught by science. duh.
you are a science moron.

Both naturalism and creationism are theories with equal weight as far as true science goes, with both lacking empirical evidence to elevate the theories to the level of reasonably proven scientific facts.

 

[pjmret]

Of course matters that cannot be observed and measured by humans are not science, they are speculations, theories, assumptions, guesses, and so forth.

sure, good thing science can observe and measure a lot of things.
but not dieties, they aren't part of science

 

[pjmret]

Both naturalism and creationism are theories with equal weight as far as true science goes, with both lacking empirical evidence to elevate the theories to the level of reasonably proven scientific facts.

sure, neither are scientific theories. good thing we do have actual scientific theories.
thanks for making a point which is..pointless. lol

 

[pjmret]

Evolution is a theory based upon assumptions, speculations, biased interpretations of data, guesses, and so forth, not based on actual observable scientific facts. We know life forms differ. As far as true science goes, that diversity could just have easily been the result of chance as Humanists believe or the result of God's intervention as Christian believe.

what a stupid post.
of course evolution is based on actual data and evidence.
god you are a science moron. lol

 

[pjmret]

Science that accepts atheistic theories about the origin of the universe and origin of life on earth but systematically rejects theories involving the supernatural is bent and biased science, not true science.

god you are a science moron.
science isn't religion, dieties aren't part of the scientific process, so religious theories are by definition rejected by science.

let me know when you can show how science can prove god's existence and scientific properties. lol

 

[mark francis]

sure, good thing science can observe and measure a lot of things.
but not dieties, they aren't part of science

Science cannot measure the mythological 'big bang.'

 

[mark francis]

sure, neither are scientific theories. good thing we do have actual scientific theories.
thanks for making a point which is..pointless. lol

God is not a scientific theory although God's hand in the creation of all things is a theory just as evolution and the godless big bang are theories.