Closed Is it true that Dinosaur is exist before God?!

[fabbriche]

Of course this is purely rhetoric.

Fairy tales are some of NeoDarwinists claims.

As if you were the one advocating the principles of science and the other competing theories were.not.

I don't deny evolution per se. Unguided evolution like dinosaur turning into birds or whale/sea creatures turnning into land walking hominid bipeds is more of fairy tale which tries to delude the unthinking masses.

Gods aren't real. The supernatural doesn't exist. Magic doesn't happen. Philosophers have investigated about these things for thousands of years but not an ounce of empirical evidence has come to light. WTF else could possibly guide evolution?

All the maths, physics and logic point to evolution being unguided because it exhibits no plan or goal apart from survival of select species. Nature doesn't have a purpose. It is just a collection of physical processes, possessing no intelligence, no conscience, and no moral compass. It is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Nature does not mourn the passing of a single creature or the extinction of entire species, nor does it care about anyone's existence. In fact, the universe is a dangerous place, and nature is hostile to the weak and only favorable to the strong.

9 billion years after the Big Bang event for the first life to emerge on a tiny rock floating in an inconceivable vastness of space hosting gazillion number of star systems, that's pure random chance. The universe already possesses the right ingredients for life. Celestial bodies just need to be in the right distance from their stars for the right substances and compounds to exist in life-giving forms. An infinite number (the number of planets in the entire universe) would always yield a positive outcome (life forming on one or a few these planets) no matter how vanishingly small the chances are. Furthermore, 4 billion years for the single-celled organisms to get to all myriad of species there are today that had to continuously go through unthinkable suffering in the process—that's pure unguided evolution in action.

As long as there is water life will form inevitably out of it. And natural selection is the mechanism that will determine the forms of life or variations of species that will emerge from that life which is based on the specific conditions of the environment. This process is wholly random and unguided. A "guided" evolution by an "intelligent designer" will produce a completely different universe with less diseases, abnormalities, and deformities, and with no constant series of natural mass extinctions.

 

[bandwagon]

Gods aren't real. The supernatural doesn't exist. Magic doesn't happen. Philosophers have investigated about these things for thousands of years but not an ounce of empirical evidence has come to light. WTF else could possibly guide evolution?

All the maths, physics and logic point to evolution being unguided because it exhibits no plan or goal apart from survival of select species. Nature doesn't have a purpose. It is just a collection of physical processes, possessing no intelligence, no conscience, and no moral compass. It is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Nature does not mourn the passing of a single creature or the extinction of entire species, nor does it care about anyone's existence. In fact, the universe is a dangerous place, and nature is hostile to the weak and only favorable to the strong.

9 billion years after the Big Bang event for the first life to emerge on a tiny rock floating in an inconceivable vastness of space hosting gazillion number of star systems, that's pure random chance. The universe already possesses the right ingredients for life. Celestial bodies just need to be in the right distance from their stars for the right substances and compounds to exist in life-giving forms. An infinite number (the number of planets in the entire universe) would always yield a positive outcome (life forming on one or a few these planets) no matter how vanishingly small the chances are. Furthermore, 4 billion years for the single-celled organisms to get to all myriad of species there are today that had to continuously go through unthinkable suffering in the process—that's pure unguided evolution in action.

As long as there is water life will form inevitably out of it. And natural selection is the mechanism that will determine the forms of life or variations of species that will emerge from that life which is based on the specific conditions of the environment. This process is wholly random and unguided. A "guided" evolution by an "intelligent designer" will produce a completely different universe with less diseases, abnormalities, and deformities, and with no constant series of natural mass extinctions.

Of course this is purely rhetorics.

First, do you have the evidence? I mean transitory fossils that proves that pre-historic animals like sea creatures evolved by themselves into land walking animals or dinosaurs evolving into birds?

How is it even scientific to conclude that very few fossils lead to your claim? Where are these missing links or billions of bones that connects in necessary fashion one by one all the evolving animals into their present state?

How do you address the Cambrian explosion where new animals "suddenly" came into being? Many of these Cambrian biological beings were.even vertebrates whereas in the Pre-Cambrian period as per scientific investigation few backboned animals were present? How can you explain this explosion of animals?

Let us even take a look at the dinosaur? What is then NeoDarwinist says? From simplest organism to complex organims. Were the dinosaurs' precursors more complex than the dinosaurs.themselves? Were the Pre-Cambrian Trilobites less complex than of the some sea creatures today?

How about your doctrine of natural selection? You are always taking for granted this terminology. How does.natural selection work as the mechanism behind all these show? How does.natural selection explain the genetic male up of every living biological being? How does natural selection decide to split biological like into male and female or animals and plants? How does natural selection decided to create animal phyla? How does natural selection decide to create symmetry? Is mutation.beneficial or harmful in the long run?

This is.not a question on the existence of God. We are not here to prove God exists or.not. Your NeoDarwinist belief is just quesonable. You push always but your articles here were.merely rhetorics. You didn't even investigate deeply if Intelligent Design is possible or not. I dont care if you dismiss ID.but dismissing it without sufficient counter argument/evidence is biased.

This is.not even.about Creation. You are mistakingly conflate Creation and.Evolution as if they can.be mutually exclusive. Even if we play semantics here, Evolution is a mode of Creation. These.animals and eventually humans possibly created by guided evolution(by a transcendent super intellect or super advance alien being). Guided evolution or ID or Creative Evolution cant just be simply put down. I am not here to preach you about the Christian God, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Amaterasu or Allah. This planet is possibly seeded with life starting from simple organisms although these organisms were engineered to evolve as they were coded by this Gods or Aliens.

 

[fabbriche]

Of course this is purely rhetorics.

First, do you have the evidence? I mean transitory fossils that proves that pre-historic animals like sea creatures evolved by themselves into land walking animals or dinosaurs evolving into birds?

How is it even scientific to conclude that very few fossils lead to your claim? Where are these missing links or billions of bones that connects in necessary fashion one by one all the evolving animals into their present state?

How do you address the Cambrian explosion where new animals "suddenly" came into being? Many of these Cambrian biological beings were.even vertebrates whereas in the Pre-Cambrian period as per scientific investigation few backboned animals were present? How can you explain this explosion of animals?

Let us even take a look at the dinosaur? What is then NeoDarwinist says? From simplest organism to complex organims. Were the dinosaurs' precursors more complex than the dinosaurs.themselves? Were the Pre-Cambrian Trilobites less complex than of the some sea creatures today?

How about your doctrine of natural selection? You are always taking for granted this terminology. How does.natural selection work as the mechanism behind all these show? How does.natural selection explain the genetic male up of every living biological being? How does natural selection decide to split biological like into male and female or animals and plants? How does natural selection decided to create animal phyla? How does natural selection decide to create symmetry? Is mutation.beneficial or harmful in the long run?

This is.not a question on the existence of God. We are not here to prove God exists or.not. Your NeoDarwinist belief is just quesonable. You push always but your articles here were.merely rhetorics. You didn't even investigate deeply if Intelligent Design is possible or not. I dont care if you dismiss ID.but dismissing it without sufficient counter argument/evidence is biased.

This is.not even.about Creation. You are mistakingly conflate Creation and.Evolution as if they can.be mutually exclusive. Even if we play semantics here, Evolution is a mode of Creation. These.animals and eventually humans possibly created by guided evolution(by a transcendent super intellect or super advance alien being). Guided evolution or ID or Creative Evolution cant just be simply put down. I am not here to preach you about the Christian God, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Amaterasu or Allah. This planet is possibly seeded with life starting from simple organisms although these organisms were engineered to evolve as they were coded by this Gods or Aliens.

No. It's you who needs to provide evidence 1.) that evolution is a guided process 2.)and that an intelligent mind is behind it otherwise you're just arguing from scientific ignorance by needlessly injecting imaginary gods into parts of science you don't quite understand. You know the age-old "god of the gaps" fallacy that has never once been proven to be correct?

Science is based on skepticism, that is it requires you to adopt the null hypothesis (atheism/unguided evolution) until evidence for the contrary is found. The onus of claim here lies on those making the positive claim. The positive claim is evolution being directed by a god or an intelligent designer.

As I said, there's no evidence that a god or any other intelligent supernatural being exists so why even assume that evolution would be guided in the first place? You can't just make up an unfounded assumption on top of another unfounded assumption in science like the two points above hence why intelligent design/theistic evolution is outright dismissed as a pseudoscience.

As for your questions, I'll just answer them wholesale in general.

Animals do not evolve by themselves. Their environments push them to do it. If they don't evolve, they'll die because the environment is constantly changing and only organisms best adapted to their respective harsh environments and can overcome constant competition from other species may survive. This is called "survival of the fittest," the driving mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is merely a natural response of life to the changes in its environment and other external factors.

Some species like the goblin shark and the platypus actually endured to the present day by changing very little or not evolving during the course of millions of years because they have been confined to the same unchanged environment and exposed to less severe competition. This and the fact that many historic species have gone extinct naturally as a result of rapid environmental changes before these species could adapt to them massively undermines ID/theistic evolution. All these species are not designed and their evolution not guided by an intelligent mind otherwise they would all be thriving up to this day. Rather, it is nature completely not discriminating both on which species it will wipe out and which species it will allow to survive and propagate. All species went through a lot of design failures along the way and some, complete dead ends.

Some animals evolved from aquatic to land-dwelling, and some from land-dwelling to airborne creatures because of being driven by opportunity and competition. Life was already abound in water and there were empty niches everywhere awaiting to be filled.

You claim to not be anti-evolution but why do you seem to echo the creationists' anti-evolution views by questioning the veracity of evolution in your insistence to clamor for transitional fossils and missing links of animals? I thought you were just arguing between unguided and guided evolution.

Paleontologists have literally uncovered thousands and thousands of fossils that fit the criteria of missing links. They have been filling link after link after link for decades. Some of them are listed here.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[bandwagon]

No. It's you who needs to provide evidence 1.) that evolution is a guided process 2.)and that an intelligent mind is behind it otherwise you're just arguing from scientific ignorance by needlessly injecting imaginary gods into parts of science you don't quite understand. You know the age-old "god of the gaps" fallacy that has never once been proven to be correct?

Science is based on skepticism, that is it requires you to adopt the null hypothesis (atheism/unguided evolution) until evidence for the contrary is found. The onus of claim here lies on those making the positive claim. The positive claim is evolution being directed by a god or an intelligent designer.

As I said, there's no evidence that a god or any other intelligent supernatural being exists so why even assume that evolution would be guided in the first place? You can't just make up an unfounded assumption on top of another unfounded assumption in science like the two points above hence why intelligent design/theistic evolution is outright dismissed as a pseudoscience.

As for your questions, I'll just answer them wholesale in general.

Animals do not evolve by themselves. Their environments push them to do it. If they don't evolve, they'll die because the environment is constantly changing and only organisms best adapted to their respective harsh environments and can overcome constant competition from other species may survive. This is called "survival of the fittest," the driving mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is merely a natural response of life to the changes in its environment and other external factors.

Some species like the goblin shark and the platypus actually endured to the present day by changing very little or not evolving during the course of millions of years because they have been confined to the same unchanged environment and exposed to less severe competition. This and the fact that many historic species have gone extinct naturally as a result of rapid environmental changes before these species could adapt to them massively undermines ID/theistic evolution. All these species are not designed and their evolution not guided by an intelligent mind otherwise they would all be thriving up to this day. Rather, it is nature completely not discriminating both on which species it will wipe out and which species it will allow to survive and propagate. All species went through a lot of design failures along the way and some, complete dead ends.

Some animals evolved from aquatic to land-dwelling, and some from land-dwelling to airborne creatures because of being driven by opportunity and competition. Life was already abound in water and there were empty niches everywhere awaiting to be filled.

You claim to not be anti-evolution but why do you seem to echo the creationists' anti-evolution views by questioning the veracity of evolution in your insistence to clamor for transitional fossils and missing links of animals? I thought you were just arguing between unguided and guided evolution.

Paleontologists have literally uncovered thousands and thousands of fossils that fit the criteria of missing links. They have been filling link after link after link for decades. Some of them are listed here.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You are known to mis read some of my posts here.

Again, your articles above is nothing but rhetorics. You can't show data to prove your claim or support Darwinism on some of its questionable fundamental tenets.

Did you address my questions that requires scientific argumentation or are you just coming to me and accuse me that I am echoing the Creationist's point of view?

Do you believe in the saying "inference to the best explanation"? Do you think Darwinism follows this rule or if it's even not anecesary rule, at least a logical statement. Is it even scientific not to question evolution itself, or to be precise, Darwinism? This sounds ironic or hypocritical. A truly scientific mind always critically questions everything not even Darwinism is spared. Darwinism recently is exposed as having major problems in its core principles like natural selection and
/or spontaneous generation. No one has the monopoly on scientific truths. We hold on to principled methods to arrive to our conclusions. Darwinism is full of fairy tales. Full of unfounded assumptions. Here I just demand you to show me the data (missing.links or fossils) where the simplest of single celled organisms eventually evolved into great backbobed reptiles, great sea creatures, great flying creatures, and finally humankind. All you can show be here is unfounded assumptions. Words like " over time", "according to", " it is known that", "it is assumed that", " could be", "possibly", " maybe" etc etc. We want hard facts. A truly scientific approach is to present hard evidence and doesnt tell fairy tales.

Your reading of Intelligent Design theory is superficial or you are just indoctrinated by others from secondary source. You are even redirecting me to weblinks.like Wikipedia.org which by some regard it as highly biased against ID. Even myself, knew that since I am exploring their articles regarding ID and it confirms.me that it is very biased. You are to believe what these so called wiki scholars on ID are the truth sayers on science and to be specific on the origin and evolution of life. We don't even delve deeper here on the biochemical structures of life or the molecular activities of biological life like a true scientist would dare ask and undertake.."what is.happening inside these genetic/molecular structures". You havent shown me here about this. All I see is entirely rhetoric and so dismissive of a theory that is shaking Darwinism.

So much that you are always putting words into my mouth as if I am thinking Creation(Christian/Theistic) is same as ID. Whereas, ID is a scientific movement where it postulates that origin and evolution of life on Earth isn't accidental/random and evolved spontaneously and the variety was caused by.natural selection. I am not.even an ID proponent. It is just when everytime I see a like of you here so committed to a questionable belief(Darwinism) I am excited to argue. You show me weblinks which you thought speak of the truths. Can you digest the hard fact that somewhere in the web, your Darwinism is syatematically dismantled?

 

[Tiga]

You are known to mis read some of my posts here.

Again, your articles above is nothing but rhetorics. You can't show data to prove your claim or support Darwinism on some of its questionable fundamental tenets.

Did you address my questions that requires scientific argumentation or are you just coming to me and accuse me that I am echoing the Creationist's point of view?

Do you believe in the saying "inference to the best explanation"? Do you think Darwinism follows this rule or if it's even not anecesary rule, at least a logical statement. Is it even scientific not to question evolution itself, or to be precise, Darwinism? This sounds ironic or hypocritical. A truly scientific mind always critically questions everything not even Darwinism is spared. Darwinism recently is exposed as having major problems in its core principles like natural selection and
/or spontaneous generation. No one has the monopoly on scientific truths. We hold on to principled methods to arrive to our conclusions. Darwinism is full of fairy tales. Full of unfounded assumptions. Here I just demand you to show me the data (missing.links or fossils) where the simplest of single celled organisms eventually evolved into great backbobed reptiles, great sea creatures, great flying creatures, and finally humankind. All you can show be here is unfounded assumptions. Words like " over time", "according to", " it is known that", "it is assumed that", " could be", "possibly", " maybe" etc etc. We want hard facts. A truly scientific approach is to present hard evidence and doesnt tell fairy tales.

Your reading of Intelligent Design theory is superficial or you are just indoctrinated by others from secondary source. You are even redirecting me to weblinks.like Wikipedia.org which by some regard it as highly biased against ID. Even myself, knew that since I am exploring their articles regarding ID and it confirms.me that it is very biased. You are to believe what these so called wiki scholars on ID are the truth sayers on science and to be specific on the origin and evolution of life. We don't even delve deeper here on the biochemical structures of life or the molecular activities of biological life like a true scientist would dare ask and undertake.."what is.happening inside these genetic/molecular structures". You havent shown me here about this. All I see is entirely rhetoric and so dismissive of a theory that is shaking Darwinism.

So much that you are always putting words into my mouth as if I am thinking Creation(Christian/Theistic) is same as ID. Whereas, ID is a scientific movement where it postulates that origin and evolution of life on Earth isn't accidental/random and evolved spontaneously and the variety was caused by.natural selection. I am not.even an ID proponent. It is just when everytime I see a like of you here so committed to a questionable belief(Darwinism) I am excited to argue. You show me weblinks which you thought speak of the truths. Can you digest the hard fact that somewhere in the web, your Darwinism is syatematically dismantled?

San galing itong article o ikaw talaga gumawa niyan?

May base ka kasi kaya nasasabi mo yan about Darwinism. Pero salamat din dito kasi na-she-share mo yung scientific research sa amin

 

[bandwagon]

San galing itong article o ikaw talaga gumawa niyan?

May base ka kasi kaya nasasabi mo yan about Darwinism. Pero salamat din dito kasi na-she-share mo yung scientific research sa amin

I'm an avid reader of science. I am not questioning science itself. What I can say is that, don't believe everything what Fabbriche says here. It is an intellectual tactic to delude. I dont say he does this with malice. Personally he maybe nice but a doctrine like Darwinism isnt completely told here. On Creation/God, perfection, religion is an a other debate. If you postulate that after all life didnt arouse blindly and evolved spontaneously, it isnt unscientific. Your postulate must.be backed up with hard.evidence. Fabbrich demand evidence, and yet it is his Darwinism that lacks hard evidence. As per ID, the molecular/genetic structures of bio life is an evidence or at leas inference to the best explanation of a competent theory. The origin of life cant even be explained by Darwinism, the complexity of prehistoric life even disprovea Darwinism.

 

[fabbriche]

You are known to mis read some of my posts here.

Again, your articles above is nothing but rhetorics. You can't show data to prove your claim or support Darwinism on some of its questionable fundamental tenets.

Did you address my questions that requires scientific argumentation or are you just coming to me and accuse me that I am echoing the Creationist's point of view?

Do you believe in the saying "inference to the best explanation"? Do you think Darwinism follows this rule or if it's even not anecesary rule, at least a logical statement. Is it even scientific not to question evolution itself, or to be precise, Darwinism? This sounds ironic or hypocritical. A truly scientific mind always critically questions everything not even Darwinism is spared. Darwinism recently is exposed as having major problems in its core principles like natural selection and
/or spontaneous generation. No one has the monopoly on scientific truths. We hold on to principled methods to arrive to our conclusions. Darwinism is full of fairy tales. Full of unfounded assumptions. Here I just demand you to show me the data (missing.links or fossils) where the simplest of single celled organisms eventually evolved into great backbobed reptiles, great sea creatures, great flying creatures, and finally humankind. All you can show be here is unfounded assumptions. Words like " over time", "according to", " it is known that", "it is assumed that", " could be", "possibly", " maybe" etc etc. We want hard facts. A truly scientific approach is to present hard evidence and doesnt tell fairy tales.

Your reading of Intelligent Design theory is superficial or you are just indoctrinated by others from secondary source. You are even redirecting me to weblinks.like Wikipedia.org which by some regard it as highly biased against ID. Even myself, knew that since I am exploring their articles regarding ID and it confirms.me that it is very biased. You are to believe what these so called wiki scholars on ID are the truth sayers on science and to be specific on the origin and evolution of life. We don't even delve deeper here on the biochemical structures of life or the molecular activities of biological life like a true scientist would dare ask and undertake.."what is.happening inside these genetic/molecular structures". You havent shown me here about this. All I see is entirely rhetoric and so dismissive of a theory that is shaking Darwinism.

So much that you are always putting words into my mouth as if I am thinking Creation(Christian/Theistic) is same as ID. Whereas, ID is a scientific movement where it postulates that origin and evolution of life on Earth isn't accidental/random and evolved spontaneously and the variety was caused by.natural selection. I am not.even an ID proponent. It is just when everytime I see a like of you here so committed to a questionable belief(Darwinism) I am excited to argue. You show me weblinks which you thought speak of the truths. Can you digest the hard fact that somewhere in the web, your Darwinism is syatematically dismantled?

I'm not going to play into your debate trap because debates and arguments belong only in open-ended philosophical discussions. Evolution and natural selection are not up for debate. There is no debate in science except for untested hypotheses.

Your lack of proper scientific education is notably showing because you constantly misapprehend what the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" actually refer to.

Evolution = one species becoming another species over time, e.g. dinosaurs to birds, land-dwelling to marine mammals

Natural Selection = actual process that causes evolution, i.e. survival of the fittest

It absolutely doesn't make sense to accept evolution but reject natural selection on the basis of your objection to speciation when evolution itself is all about speciation. That's why I said you seem to be echoing creationists' outdated beliefs because you might, in fact, be a confused creationist yourself (FYI, Intelligent Design is a type of creationism) contrary to your claim that you're atheist and not anti-evolution.

Evolution is inherently atheistic and incompatible with theistic religions. There is no such thing as "theistic evolution" or "guided" evolution nor is there evidence for that.

Evolution is science verified by huge mountain of evidence, and natural selection is the only correct and substantiated mechanism of evolution which accounts for why and how living organisms evolve at all. The only plausible scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution is Lamarckism and even that doesn't invoke a need for an intelligent designer and has long been discredited.

Darwin's theory of evolution or his book, "On The Origin of Species" is not the modern Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Darwin's original theory has already been modified and improved tenfold since it was formulated 150 years ago by further discoveries. And you will need verifiable evidence to alter or disprove this well-established and universally accepted scientific theory, and I guarantee you, you'll earn a Nobel Prize if you can prove it wrong.

 

[fabbriche]

I'm an avid reader of science. I am not questioning science itself. What I can say is that, don't believe everything what Fabbriche says here. It is an intellectual tactic to delude. I dont say he does this with malice. Personally he maybe nice but a doctrine like Darwinism isnt completely told here. On Creation/God, perfection, religion is an a other debate. If you postulate that after all life didnt arouse blindly and evolved spontaneously, it isnt unscientific. Your postulate must.be backed up with hard.evidence. Fabbrich demand evidence, and yet it is his Darwinism that lacks hard evidence. As per ID, the molecular/genetic structures of bio life is an evidence or at leas inference to the best explanation of a competent theory. The origin of life cant even be explained by Darwinism, the complexity of prehistoric life even disprovea Darwinism.

If you're not familiar with the evidence for Darwinian evolution, you can learn about it on the link provided below. This article is exhaustive. These lines of evidence are best explained by Darwinian evolution, not by young earth creationism, ID/old earth creationism, or any other form of creationism or theistic evolution.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Again, you're confused. Darwinism does not address the origin of life. That's abiogenesis which is not part of evolution. It astounds me how creationists purposefully conflate these. Evolution merely describes the process of natural selection causing speciation over time, and has nothing to say about how the first life emerged on earth.

 

[bandwagon]

If you're not familiar with the evidence for Darwinian evolution, you can learn about it on the link provided below. This article is exhaustive. These lines of evidence are best explained by Darwinian evolution, not by young earth creationism, ID/old earth creationism, or any other form of creationism or theistic evolution.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Again, you're confused. Darwinism does not address the origin of life. That's abiogenesis which is not part of evolution. It astounds me how creationists purposefully conflate these. Evolution merely describes the process of natural selection causing speciation over time, and has nothing to say about how the first life emerged on earth.

You are a comedian...full of non sequitur, red herring and strawman fallacies that I will address later.

 

[fabbriche]

You are a comedian...full of non sequitur, red herring and strawman fallacies that I will address later.

Don't even bother as I'm not going to continue with this discussion. I've said everything I need to say. It's pointless and stupid engaging in debates on evolution with creationists. Debating this issue 150 years ago or even 50 years ago would have made some sense. But not today that the evidence in favor of it is so huge that it's like debating about other scientific truths such as whether the sun or earth is the center of the solar system, if water is H20, or if kidneys filter blood or not.

Like I said, scientific truths are not up for debate.

 

[Tiga]

Don't even bother as I'm not going to continue with this discussion. I've said everything I need to say. It's pointless and stupid engaging in debates on evolution with creationists. Debating this issue 150 years ago or even 50 years ago would have made some sense. But not today that the evidence in favor of it is so huge that it's like debating about other scientific truths such as whether the sun or earth is the center of the solar system, if water is H20, or if kidneys filter blood or not.

Like I said, scientific truths are not up for debate.

YES!
I think it is for debates.. Scientific truths is for more speculations because we are not God's who knows ALL.
We are giving information or details on what we see then what to believe.

So, this tread will be more and more giving on your respective thoughts.

 

[mturaji]

Regarding sa nauna ay yung sinabi ng bible sa genesis?

Creating the dinosour? Sori po..i dont uave bible.Muslim po ako. Narinig ko lang po yung ibang verse ng bible kung ang mean mo sa nauna ay yung verse sa genesis. Contradict talaga ang mga science at philosophy sa mga naniniwala sa God. Meron mga tao na mahilig magbasa ng mga books...searching for the truth o may ibang dahilan lang.sori po.

 

[mturaji]

Marami na pong mga taga ibang religion ang yumakap sa Islam..yung iba nga mga scientist pa.

 

[Tiga]

Marami na pong mga taga ibang religion ang yumakap sa Islam..yung iba nga mga scientist pa.

Pano if may isang Muslim na gustong lumipat sa Christian?

Anong gagawin sa tao na iyon?

 

[Deleted member 1523148]

I enjoy reading some comments here...
Ung iba alam mong alam nila sinasabi nila...
Ung iba alam mong mema lang...

 

[Tiga]

Malalalim ba yung mga leads nila?ahehe

Well.. may ibat-ibang ideas ang naiisip o kathang-isip lang siguro tayo pero ang point dito ay kung ano ang totoo.
Ang Panginoon lang ang nakakaalam ng lahat

 

[fabbriche]

Sinong hindi alam ang pinagsasabi nya? Evolution by natural selection ang consensus sa science. Rejected ng mga scientists ang Intelligent Design na isang pseudoscience.

"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. proponents."

"
the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.considers You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., a You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.offshoot, to be unscientific,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. or You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.The You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., do not generate any predictions, and propose no new You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. of their own.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In September 2005, 38 You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

In 1986, an You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., to reject a You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education".You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[bandwagon]

Don't even bother as I'm not going to continue with this discussion. I've said everything I need to say. It's pointless and stupid engaging in debates on evolution with creationists. Debating this issue 150 years ago or even 50 years ago would have made some sense. But not today that the evidence in favor of it is so huge that it's like debating about other scientific truths such as whether the sun or earth is the center of the solar system, if water is H20, or if kidneys filter blood or not.

Like I said, scientific truths are not up for debate.

So be it.

Some things I just want to clarify or reiterate.

First, so what if I am not a scientist or that my expertise isnt biology, biochemistry or molecular.biology? Would that refrain me into speaking about evolution? Now, if even your field of expertise is Darwinism or biochemistrt, it does not follow that you are correct about your Darwinist worldview(non sequitur). There are other scientiata out there who delve deeply into this issues. This issue isnt about our field of expertise. It is how we hold ourselves as we present or echo other ideas here. If were the case that your wish is to be followed, then you should be speaking or talking about evolution here since the fact is that you bombard or invoke ideas from Wikipedia which I already pointed out as highly biased on Intelligent Design Theory. Furthermore, if this the case then, I would also not rather speak and instead, bombard or redirect you with articles from weblinks arguing against the articles you invoke from other weblinks....or, you just paraphrase other thoughts or in other words, recyle ideas...and finally, since, according to your character assasination tactic of it were to be true, then being mute is the best thing to dl..since the experts are actually in other places..you are not an expert on the subject either the way I discern your arguments here. Alas, Dawkins then would be debating using philosohy since philosophy isnt hos major, or Dr M Ruse should not had the right to debate Dr Fuz Raza on Darwinism and bio chemistry in particular according to your logic.

Second, how many times will I tell you that Intelligent Design Theory isn't Creationism if we were to be more philosophically technical?
Now, if you keep on mindlessly asserting that ID is substantially same with Creationism, the problem is you. You highly regard philosophy...so am I too! In philosophy, we distinguish the particulars from universals, or start from particulars to universals or that we set ontological nature of things either these things are physically existent or pure abstract/concepts. My point here is that ID is a scientifoc movement that hypothesize an Intelligent Agency operating in the evolution of things. This is.not a post hoc argument. It is not first assumed that there os an Intelligent Agency and then deduce from the particular instances of phenomena. This is not the case. ID proponents also undertake principled methods to arrive at their scientific.conclusions. If you say otherwise, pr by your masters like Wikipedia, it is either due to bias or superficial underatanding of ID.
ID is.independent of religion eventhough by its findings has a deep impact to the believers since it supports their theistic claim. ID doesnt argue that this Intelligent Agency.hypothesis is the Christiam God or a personal all benevolent God. This is a subject on theodicy. ID doesnt purport to answer such questions like perfection, justice, goodness or evil. You are just ranting.and ranting against ID without even knowing what its fundamental meaning. Keep on invoking the power of wikipedia and so what. You may fool other people, but not of some discerning minds here can see the.subtleties albeit, deceitful articles as told by your all-knowing Wikipedia anti-ID scholars.

Actually, I have many many things to say or rebut but so busy again and be in hiatus. As for now, this is my final message in this particular thread.

 

[Pjhaysszz]

According to a famous archeologist and many researchers billion years ago our planet made by any kinds of elements through million changes there are more organisms are created before dinosaurs era..but specifically it's according to a cycle in the period of time then comes a new origin of living things organism humans,animals and any kinds of habitat that we've been seen today

 

[Pjhaysszz]

Ayos ba imbento ko Lang Yan hehe