[balch3]

take that Darwinists. Your own scienctific method proves you wrong.

[Alter Kaker]

take that Darwinists. Your own scienctific method proves you wrong.

Lol.

That's a joke... right?

[Junior_G]

take that Darwinists. Your own scienctific method proves you wrong.

LOL...you are joking, right?

[verum ago]

there's nothing terribly scientific about what he did. he assumed the holy spirit to be a magnetic field and God to be electric and when he combined them, wow. Why did he use those postulates in the first place?

The scientific method, when applied properly, cannot prove anything to be true. Instead, it can show a theory to be more accurate than another one/ disprove a theory. But it cannot prove anyhting to be absolutely true. Anyone who says they can use science to prove that evolution is 100% fact is sorely mistaken, just as anyone who says they can use science to to prove traditional Biblical creation is 100% fact is also equally mistaken. A widespread problem today is that people think science=truth. It doesn't. Science is a method of seeking the truth, and it does not gurantee accurate results. The observation that the horizon looks flat could be used to scientifically 'prove' that the Earth is flat. We now have a better theory that says it isn't. In short, scientific conclusions are falsifiable, meaning that they can be only be proven wrong, or assumed correct for lack of a better theory. They can never be proven correct.

As I see it, science can can answer the questions "How?" "What?" "Who?" "When?" "Where?" about something, but whenver it answers "Why?" it is actually providing a "How?" type answer. The "Why?" of any topic can be questioned with another "Why?" question until we reach the ultimate "Why?"s-- why does the univers even exist, etc. These questions can be never be answered that provide definitive evidence- answers in the "Why?" arena are supported solely by faith. That is why there are so many religions-- none can actually prove themselves correct, nor can they disprove the others. All one can do is have faith that they are correct. Everyone is together in their plight to understand the "Why"s of their own existence and the existence of the world. It's one Holy Book versus another; one creation legend versus another.

As I see it, the search for truth is ongoing, with theology attempting to answer "Why?" and science attempting to answer the specifics of time, place, and mechanism. In that regard I see evolution as a theory not contradictory to the existence of God at all, but merely one explaining how he brought life into its current state of existence. I have faith- I am Christian. But I hold no illusions that I can validate beliefs with any sort of concrete evidence- that's why I call my beliefs my faith.


Or at least the above is how this 19 year old views the world.

[Non-Sequitur]

take that Darwinists. Your own scienctific method proves you wrong.

I'm not sure what method requires you to cough up $16.95 (plus S&H no doubt) before being able to examine evidence but I'm pretty sure it isn't the scientific one.

[gondramB]

>>take that Darwinists. Your own scienctific method proves you wrong.<<

Its not really my area (I'm more physics and computers) but my understanding is that Darwin's theory and the various other theories that make up evolutionary theory don't say where the first life on earth came from and certainly don't say anything about where the universe came from. This story is really about bad physics not evolution.

[art_rocks]

When the science student can create a universe (duplicate god's experiment), call me.