You are completely wrong. Ancant greeks r in ur argument, messing it up.
Hmm it’s almost like methodical study finds truth. Although they got luck with the round thing because true science is unbiased.
Alchemy was at best a proto-science and usually a lot of nonscience woo. However the Scientific Method applied lead to alchemy lead to chemistry and physics. That’s the power of science. Due scientific discoveries we really can turn lead into gold. It just isn’t very economical.
What about it? People for unscientific reasons thought it was a good idea, then medical science showed they were wrong.
I don’t get science hate on the internet of all places. It’s very short sighted to use a device designed and built using scientific knowledge of chemistry, physics, and quantum-mechanics to complain scientist don’t know what they’re talking about.
It’s about like driving a SUV to a Critical Mass really.
Did that TV use the electromagnetic spectrum? Did it have any transistors, vacuum tubes, and ICs?
Futurism is a good song by Muse, but isn’t not good science, by definition. It presumes values for vairables that can fluctuate wildly or not exist.
After further posts from the OP, I too, kind of feel like this is a spoof, although there are sincere people who maybe haven’t had much discussion about evolution who would ask a question like that, particular in America. That’s how pathetic our schools have become. I don’t much recall any discussion on it myself in my conservative school district, and had to get my books elsewhere to learn more about it. I’m still learning.
In conservative areas in America, fundamentalist Christians get elected to their school districts, for mainly the sole purpose of deciding what schools texts will be allowed. Publishers are under tremendous pressure to conform to their wishes, or just don’t get near as many of their scientific texts sold. They particularly seek out biology texts that spend a bit of time on evolution. Larger school districts either have to edit, or often put disclaimers in their books, saying evolution is only a theory, or put some other disclaimer in. They don’t bother to explain or are they interested in knowing there is a huge difference between using theory in the vernacular and using it in a scientific setting. Some scientific theories are better than others, and the theory of evolution is definitely one of the better ones that has many, many facts going for it. It also has predicitive power, and falsifiability built into it, like any good scientific theory would. Notice how they don’t get all bent out of shape for the theory of an atom, though?
Meanwhile, in their own private schools, much time is spent on Creationism. Imagine what kind of careers they are going to have with credentials and educational backgrounds coming from fundamentalist Christians schools?
This OP reminds me of the question, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? They can’t even get the question right, and as most know we didn’t evolve from monkeys, but did share a common ancestor some 5-8 million years ago or so.
Even this Creation site no longer wants Christians using this argument.
Guys, let’s not treat this guy seriously until he comes into the thread and tells us his alternative hypothesis for how complex life on earth arose. If he’s just another creationists, then lets see it.
Assuming no joke thread; Bacteria are among the most successful organisms on Earth. They’re everywhere, from your face to boiling volcanic vents on the sea bed. The only criteria of organisms being here today is that they have been able to adapt and survive to their environments, through natural selection among other things - 99% of species haven’t managed this. It’s not a straight line of simple to complex, it has no will or conciousness behind it. You appear to have not even a basic understanding of what evolution actually is - TalkOrigins is a good place to start regarding your misconceptions, provides the evidence and clarifies the definition.
This is definitely a joke thread. Here’s another scamartistry OP in which he boggles at the scientific illiteracy of well known creationist and professional Richie Cunningham lookalike Kent Hovind. Also, phrases like "Being somewhat of a critical thinker " and “Big shot scientists” kinda give the game away. If I were a betting man, I’d wager that scamartistry is attempting (albeit somewhat clumsily IMO) to make a larger point about the prevalence of scientific illiteracy and the conceit of lay “skeptics” who think they know better than those high falutin’ scientists with their fancy degrees and lifelong experience. Either that or he’s bored and/or a little drunk
I’m thinking someone else is using his account. He was an atheist until today, when he posted some anti-evolution stuff here and in the Describe God thread.
You beat me to it, and was just fixin’ to post that former thread from him as well. That thread wasn’t that long ago. So unless he’s had some major paradigm shift about evolution during this short time, there is no need for anyone to debate the points with him.
I think the existence of bacteria and viruses and the diseases they cause is the strongest argument for God. Only a benevolent God would have invented polio.
scamartistry, nothing in your posting history indicates that you are posting honestly, here. If you had wanted a “devil’s advocate” argument, you should have been up front about it. If you just wanted to post drunk, you should have gone to another board.
I am closing this nonsense and considering a Warning for trolling.
