Mr.Bolt-on said:Calm down.
The blue post was calm, silly. The red one wasn't though.
.
Mr.Bolt-on said:Calm down.
Justa600 said:Or...what good old Darwin's daddy and James Smithson the founder of the Smithsonian have in common.
If you dislike a particular scientific theory and want to disprove it, you need only do one thing: take a specific prediction made by the theory and demonstrate via experiment that the prediction does not agree with observation.
Scientists make such attempts day in and day out as they conduct their research.
Isn't it amazing then that big bang has survived 60+ years of rigorous scientific scrutiny on the part of thousands, if not millions, of collaborating scientists all eager to make a name for themselves (disproving a well-established theory is a fast track to notoriety)?
Evolution has survived 150+ years of this.
.
Mr.Bolt-on said:Krauss didn't.
I'm not aware of a scientific theory established by Lawrence Krauss.
Are you?
.
That's the point.:coolman:
Mr.Bolt-on said:That's the point.
I believe because I love The Lord.
I challenge you to fully and clearly state your point because I know you don't have one. And anything you whip out of your ass won't specifically relate to or challenge anything I've posted in this thread.
.
If your point is that a scientific theory failed and is no longer considered valid, and that by association all scientific theories are invalid, then your point is invalid.
Theories get disproven. Some get strengthened. That's how the scientific method works: if you're right, it gains strength based on observation and empirical gathering of evidence. If your theory is wrong, and you discover it first, you are bound to release those findings yourself. If it is proven false by others, you, as a scientist, are bound to look at the opposing work and say, "Yep, I was wrong."
Just saying "Hey, your theory is wrong because it isn't supported by this book I adhere to!" is not sufficient proof.
No, Krauss actually doesn't have a theory, or at least not what I was talking about. Krauss's Idea that Dark Energy started the Universe is not yet a theory. Of course that doesn't stop overly excited atheist from claiming that Dark Energy is nothing. They want people to change their view of nothing, so that we can accept that nothing started the Universe.
That's not how theories or science work.
Completely agree.
That is totally not my point.
Got a link to this?
You say, "They want people to change their view of nothing, so that we can accept that nothing started the Universe."
Why would "they" want that?
What possible purpose would it serve?
The existence or absence of dark matter/dark energy is not a religious debate, it's purely an exploration underway in a particular branch of astrophysics. The theorists working on it aren't even asking themselves where religion would come in to this, and religion is not even encompassed in the scope of the theory.
Let me clarify. My statement was a common one and too broad. I understand that not all people who go to church are bad. There are quite a few though, I can tell you that much. I understand that PART of the point of going to church is for community involvement or family. However, the primary point IS to praise god. Otherwise, what is the point really? Past that point it becomes a glorified(pun intended) community activities center. But yet, attending church is a requirment of your faith is it not?
Only reason I mention this is because of your statement prior. You generalize any nonbelievers into a single mindset that we are all mindless sinning people, only looking out for our own evil intentions. The door swings both ways. Plus what about others that don't believe in YOUR god? Are they to be categorized the same, or do they get a pass because they believed in something? Even if it was wrong.
:lol:
Do you really think character attacks against Darwin can alter the fact that all organisms on earth are genetically unified?
.