(March 10, 2018 at 9:01 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Banned Wrote: A theory can be anything.
But once you make a theory the truth...then ! ?

A theory in the scientific meaning cannot be "anything".

Scientific theory definition

A [b]scientific[/b] [b]theory[/b] is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the [b]scientific[/b] method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established [b]scientific[/b] [b]theories[/b] have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of [b]scientific[/b] knowledge.

Are you saying that the scientific method has nothing to do with the perceptions of people?

Rigorous scrutiny, comprehensive form, explanations, repeated tests, predefined protocol, observations and experiements are ALL the observations and opinions and perceptions of the same mob.
They are making their own mind set the criteria for observing and drawing conclusions.
It is called intellectual codependency.

It's basically saying what we think - is what is, because we have a method using our own thinking which confirms our thinking.

What a joke.

---

(March 10, 2018 at 11:49 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So what aspect of evolution has been repeatedly tested?

There aren't any.

(March 10, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 9:01 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: A theory in the scientific meaning cannot be "anything".

Scientific theory definition

A [b]scientific[/b] [b]theory[/b] is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the [b]scientific[/b] method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established [b]scientific[/b] [b]theories[/b] have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of [b]scientific[/b] knowledge.

Are you saying that the scientific method has nothing to do with the perceptions of people?

Rigorous scrutiny, comprehensive form, explanations, repeated tests, predefined protocol, observations and experiements are ALL the observations and opinions and perceptions of the same mob.
They are making their own mind set the criteria for observing and drawing conclusions.
It is called intellectual codependency.

It's basically saying what we think - is what is, because we have a method using our own thinking which confirms our thinking.

What a joke.

---

(March 10, 2018 at 11:49 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So what aspect of evolution has been repeatedly tested?

There aren't any.

Exactly, They make it up as they go. Additionally, science can't be trusted as we both know, Can you think of one thing science ever gave us? I can't

Fun fact: No fossils actually exist, they are all plastic stand-ins to fool the masses.

RAmen brother.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:23 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 6:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You don't have evidence for shit, and the only way your babblings make any sense is if we charitably give you additional things you can't demonstrate.  Well fuck that.  Demonstrate God, karma, and reincarnation.  You're going backwards, not forwards, piling on additional bullshit that you can't demonstrate.

I never finish to wonder how stupid can you be yog.

Atheists are there all the time to glorify physical science but physical science say that for every action there got to be and equal and opposite reaction.

You're referring to Newton's first law of motion, which, not surprisingly, applies only to motion of physical bodies. Since it only applies to efficient, material causes, it is definitely not karma. You're making the claim that because physical bodies can be described in this way that moral bodies can be described this way. That's a claim, not an argument. You need to show that Newton's first law of motion applies to moral properties, not simply claim it. Otherwise you're just equivocating upon the meaning of the law. So no, Newton's first law of motion doesn't demonstrate karma; karma is totally unrelated to the laws governing motion of physical bodies.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:23 am)Little Rik Wrote: This is karma in action.

No, it's not. It's a description of efficient, material causes. It has fuckall to do with karma. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:23 am)Little Rik Wrote: Karma goes hand in hand with this science that of course contradict atheists 100% and if there is karma obviously there is someone who run this karma.

Bullshit. You can't simply extend laws of motion to imperceptible properties and hope it still holds. Your claim that Newton's laws of motion demonstrate karma is false.

So, you still haven't provided any actual evidence of karma.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:23 am)Little Rik Wrote: Fail once again yog.

Someone once said, "First of all you only present one point among those who I already knock down in the previous post." Likewise, you have utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of reincarnation which was the task that was set before you. So in addition to being wrong about Newton's laws of motion, you've completely failed to address the actual topic. Remember evolution? It's in the title of the thread. You have to demonstrate karma and reincarnation for your views on evolution to be valid.

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of reincarnation and karma or GTFO. If you're going to invoke god, then you need to demonstrate him as well.

Try again, asswipe. Your last post didn't accomplish shit.

(March 10, 2018 at 1:17 pm)He lives Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 6:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: Self-organisation.

Wouldn't that be intelligent design?

No. Unless you are suggesting that every snowflake in a snowstorm has been intelligently designed, in which case there's probably no helping you.

(March 10, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 6:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: Self-organisation.

No such thing.

You sure about that?

(March 10, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Exactly, They make it up as they go. Additionally, science can't be trusted as we both know, Can you think of one thing science ever gave us? I can't

Fun fact: No fossils actually exist, they are all plastic stand-ins to fool the masses.

RAmen brother.

Science has given us a lot, and it's methods are reasonable when it comes to practical applications, but when it comes to theory, that's just what it is, until proven.

And fossils? Do they support evolution?
Whole creatures trapped in mud?

Think very carefully on this one.

Fossil layers - are supposed to represent time periods of millions of years. Remember whole bodies fossilized in often upright positions in the layers, and sharing layers as well.

Let's say that one foot of a layer represents 1 million years of gradual desposition. How on earth does a fossil remain in tact partially buried for nearly a million years before it is finally covered?

(March 10, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 6:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: Self-organisation.

No such thing.

Do you know what a magnet is? A magnet self-organizes into north and south poles. According to you, magnets don't exist. You're a fucking moron.

Quote:No such thing.

Ignorance alert

---

Quote:Science has given us a lot, and it's methods are reasonable when it comes to practical applications, but when it comes to theory, that's just what it is, until proven.

And fossils? Do they support evolution? 
Whole creatures trapped in mud?

Think very carefully on this one.

Fossil layers - are supposed to represent time periods of millions of years. Remember whole bodies fossilized in often upright positions in the layers, and sharing layers as well.

Let's say that one foot of a layer represents 1 million years of gradual desposition. How on earth does a fossil remain in tact partially buried for nearly a million years before it is finally covered?

Yet more ignorance

(March 10, 2018 at 2:39 pm)Banned Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Exactly, They make it up as they go. Additionally, science can't be trusted as we both know, Can you think of one thing science ever gave us? I can't

Fun fact: No fossils actually exist, they are all plastic stand-ins to fool the masses.

RAmen brother.

Science has given us a lot, and it's methods are reasonable when it comes to practical applications, but when it comes to theory, that's just what it is, until proven.

And fossils? Do they support evolution?
Whole creatures trapped in mud?

Think very carefully on this one.

Fossil layers - are supposed to represent time periods of millions of years. Remember whole bodies fossilized in often upright positions in the layers, and sharing layers as well.

Let's say that one foot of a layer represents 1 million years of gradual desposition. How on earth does a fossil remain in tact partially buried for nearly a million years before it is finally covered?

You are awesomely ignorant.

Quote:Wouldn't that be intelligent design?

No 

Anyone living in the 21st century that does not accept evolution as an explanation of life's diversity is an ignorant fool in the least. Some are just stupid.