ISVfan

Fine by me.

Mike Elphick

It is not a question of proof, ISVfan, but of evidence. For example, there is very little evidence for people having been raised from the dead, except written accounts in religious books. When we look at present day so-called miracles, like weeping statues, or stigmata and visions, they are mostly very suspect. On the other hand there is mountains of objective evidence for evolution.

You are guilty of a the typical creationist debating technique of inverting a question. Why can't you provide a proof for the miracles? Why do you have to turn the question about face as if it were a problem for evolution? It is your problem if you can't come up with a rational explanation for these miracles, not the fault of evolutionists.

You are an unfortunate victim of a brainwashing machine that corrupts and distorts scientific facts for its own ends, and you are not the first person either. Assuming you are a young earth creationist, I ask you one question. How is it possible for stars, that are proven to be millions of light years away, to be seen on Earth if it, and the stars, were created 10,000 years ago?

Mountain Man

At your local college.That's christian biggotry supported by ignorance backed by arrogance, not scientific, or logical reasoning. :rolling:

Mountain Man

The OP saw that he couldn't get away with something that stupid and he had to move on to now, and more moronic, arguments.

ISVfan

First off we need to realize that neither Creation or Evolution to be Science for something to be a scientific fact it has to be reproduced in a lab. Neither can be. Both evolution and creation are beliefs or in terms of science Hypothesis. And neither will every be more as far as Science is concerned. Unless scientist can through a bunch of stuff in confined space make a big bang and then have a tiny little minor galaxy of order. Or can create a god that can just speak and things appear. Neither is possible thus both are just hypothesis.

Mountain Man

Oh.... oh.... can I answer that?

God made it look that way to fool you. :Cheeky:

Y.B

So you don't know what a scientific fact is, nor do you know what a scientific hypothesis is.

Hint no. 1 = It doesn't need to be reproduced in a lab. How do you reproduce heliocentrism in a lab? Do you need to reproduce Napoelon in a lab to consider him a real historical figure?

Hint no. 2 = The Big Bang has jack all to do with evolution.

ISVfan

Also the 2nd law of Dynamics contradicts evolution because it states "every system left to itself will tend toward a condition of minimum postential energy and maximum entropy" The total amount of energy is the same on the earth 1st law but the second states that everything is wearing down things aren't getting better their heading towards entropy or disorder.

Mountain Man

That is not true. The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

I know that's too much information for you to process, but there's always hope.No, belief is not required, and is actually detrimental, to science. Since the only base for creationism is belief, it cannot be scientific. And since you have absolutely no evidence this creator god exists, you can't claim it created anything until you prove it exists.

Y.B

Regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Hint no. 3 = Read up on it. Keywords: transfer of energy, closed system, open system... (guess which one the Earth is?).