@sonhousesaid For instance, the first real proof of GR, the star check done by Eddington in 1919 showing during a total eclipse of the sun, the stars close to the sun were not where they would have been under Newtonian gravity.
So that was the first shot over the bow about that issue.
Then the experiment, the measurements were done on subsequent scientists and all showed the same displa ...[text shortened]... and another in NYC, and published in journals, THEN you can say more definitively RATS CAUSE CANCER.
Is there an answer to, "What is done independently mean to you?" somewhere in there, because I don't see it?
@sonhousesaid @KellyJay Let's see you test your religious based 'design'.
That’s the difference between us I don’t worry about someone’s bias truth, if a thing is true the bias doesn’t add or take away from truth. Unlike you who spent time doing opposition research on who presents to see if you can agree or disagree.
@kellyjaysaid That’s the difference between us I don’t worry about someone’s bias truth, if a thing is true the bias doesn’t add or take away from truth. Unlike you who spent time doing opposition research on who presents to see if you can agree or disagree.
The big part is the use of that word "IF'. You just take it as already proven in your own mind therefore science is wrong and will NEVER be able to figure it out because humans are just way to stupid compared to your infinite god and that you can never get around, you thought that 20 years ago, you think that now and you will think that in 20 years so no matter WHAT science learns in the meantime you can NEVER change your stance otherwise you lose your religion and THAT you cannot EVER abide so therefore you are stuck like a phonograph record jumping its track.
I doubt you would ever believe the results of the scientific approach if they ever did prove life came out of a mud pit full of minerals and lightning or whatever, if it was proven, you would just go back to NEVER GONNA HAPPEN and all you scientists are just blowing snot into the wind.
@kellyjaysaid Yes we can.
What do you think we see when we look at a wall and there are words on it we can read?
Design or natural processes?
We see words on a wall.
How does that test anything?
Again, I'll reiterate that I think you're trying to use a hammer to change a tire. Science is not the right the right tool for achieving spiritual enlightenment.
Again, I'll reiterate that I think you're trying to use a hammer to change a tire. Science is not the right the right tool for achieving spiritual enlightenment.
You cannot tell by looking at something if it was made or not, you require a test? Lets see, what test would anyone require to read your posts and conclude ID was used after they looked at what you wrote? What test would you use to conclude you are looking at a bird's nest or just a bunch of sticks and what not forming something?
@sonhousesaid The big part is the use of that word "IF'. You just take it as already proven in your own mind therefore science is wrong and will NEVER be able to figure it out because humans are just way to stupid compared to your infinite god and that you can never get around, you thought that 20 years ago, you think that now and you will think that in 20 years so no matter WHAT science ...[text shortened]... would just go back to NEVER GONNA HAPPEN and all you scientists are just blowing snot into the wind.
I'm not worried about what might happen, the tests today with the knowledge we have gleaned today is enough to show me that what people believe about the distant past cannot be true, not because of the gaps in knowledge but the knowledge we have acquired. The only ones really dealing with the gaps of knowledge now are those that cannot produce even a likely cause for things they cannot explain. There are many of the founders of science who believed in God, they show it isn't science verses faith that is something you promote, not me.
I agree. Science can't test design. To claim it can be tested, or that it is somehow a "blind spot", is a false premise.
Consider an old car sitting in a garage, with about 3/4 tank of gas and 56,000 miles on the odometer. Conceivably, that car simply appeared there out of nowhere. fully constructed. It is possible, but not testable. Frankly, it seems like a silly possibility in the first place. When a car enthusiast finds it and does some research on it and writes up a "history" of the car, would it be a fair criticism to say "Why didn't you consider the possibility that the car simply appeared there, out of nowhere, fully constructed?"?
@wildgrasssaid I agree. Science can't test design. To claim it can be tested, or that it is somehow a "blind spot", is a false premise.
Consider an old car sitting in a garage, with about 3/4 tank of gas and 56,000 miles on the odometer. Conceivably, that car simply appeared there out of nowhere. fully constructed. It is possible, but not testable. Frankly, it seems like a silly possi ...[text shortened]... ou consider the possibility that the car simply appeared there, out of nowhere, fully constructed?"?
I can claim that what we see here and now, the most logical source would be something we find in our daily existence. A common source for informational data is a mind, we see words we think a mind, we see functional complexity doing amazing things like airplanes we think design. Yet you see these things in ways that go far beyond anything we can do or dream up you think random chance.
@kellyjaysaid I can claim that what we see here and now, the most logical source would be something we find in our daily existence. A common source for informational data is a mind, we see words we think a mind, we see functional complexity doing amazing things like airplanes we think design. Yet you see these things in ways that go far beyond anything we can do or dream up you think random chance.
Like I said, no matter what science susses out in the coming decades and centuries, no matter how long you live, like suppose medical science magically turns up a way for you to live 200 years and all of those 200 years will be met with the same story, no matter whether science actually figures it all out in that time, your stance can NEVER change since you are totally into your religion. Science can and does change. You can NEVER change, otherwise you lose your religion and that is something you can never lose or you think you will be among the damned.
@sonhousesaid Like I said, no matter what science susses out in the coming decades and centuries, no matter how long you live, like suppose medical science magically turns up a way for you to live 200 years and all of those 200 years will be met with the same story, no matter whether science actually figures it all out in that time, your stance can NEVER change since you are totally into ...[text shortened]... se your religion and that is something you can never lose or you think you will be among the damned.
I'm not the one in denial over what I see now that is you. What may turn up in 200 years isn't evidence that is blind faith, faith on a hope of something you don't have a clue about, so with respect to science and faith you are the one that is living blind faith not me, you are the one filling in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking.
21 Jun '19 21:15
A Bio Genesis
Back to Top