I'm not doing your research for you. If you think you have a specific example of where you think science is wrong, then cite your sources and make your point. I'll either agree with you or challenge it with evidence that suggests otherwise. That's how a debate works. Yes, my 4-year-old neighbor does that a lot, too. Are you going to sing the little, "Nyah, nyah" song? :wink:
Evolution and creation deal with different subjects entirely. Creation is matter coming from nothing, evolution deals with how the created matter changed over time.
I never said anything about science being wrong. I said science will never tell us how life began or how the substances that started life came to be and so on. You won't find a plausible scientific explanation on the net that explains where these first substances came from. (The ingredients of the Big Bang if you will.) Does science believe something was always here? If these Big Bang ingredients were always here then that would mean we have an infinite amount of time. If we have an infinite amount of time then how come the Big Bang and life has not occurred over and over and over again? I ask this because science says the big bang and life occurred by chance. That would mean that no matter how unlikely the odds were for the Big Bang to occur in an infinite time frame it would have occurred unlimited times. Or does science believe the ingredients of the Big Bang came from nothing? Which is it? A debate does not work by telling the person you are debating the answers are on the internet. If you want to participate in the debate it's your job to support your answers. I said science will never tell us how the substances that started life came to be. You disagreed and instead of giving me supporting evidence that suggest otherwise you said it's on the net. Saying it's on the net is not supporting evidence. I might. If it will help make my point.
Of course, you cannot know this. Science has revealed many things to us and in time will reveal many more. Never is a word scientists rarely use. Wanna bet? You keep making grand assumptions without any supporting evidence and then informing me what I can't do. You may be surprised what I can prove if I choose to. Who says it hasn't? You haven't provided any source for the assumption that "science" doesn't believe in a cyclic universe. In fact some scientists do. This is exactly what I mean when I say you make undocumented assumptions not in evidence. You say that "science" says something, yet you reference no scientific study that has actually said this. Fine, but you must also support your questions. This ain't going to be a situation where you make unsupported statements and then demand that I prove them to be untrue. If you want to say that science will never do something, then offer some friggin' reasons and supporting evidence so that you have some basis for making such an absurd statement. Simply asking me to prove a negative isn't going to get us anywhere. This ain't a game where you make any wild claim and then I do all the research to disprove it. My time is too valuable unless you participate in the supporting evidence thing.
Science has not made any progress in answering the question that I proposed to you. (How the substances that started life came to be.) Yes science has revealed many things but it's argued that all science is doing is unearthing how God created life. The fact that you choose not to supply a plausible mainstream scientific explanation of where these first substances came from (The ingredients of the Big Bang.) is because you can't. The lack of an explanation from you and science is the evidence. There's many different hypothesis out there. A very small minority believe in a cyclic universe. However, mainstream science does not. The current leading theory for the universe holds that it emerged from a single Big Bang. There's by design and there's by chance. I know science doesn't believe the universe occurred by design. So that leaves us with chance. Is there another mainstream option? I disagree that my statement is absurd. After hundreds of years science is no closer to explaining where the ingredients of life came from. The fact that there's many hypothesis doesn't mean they are making progress. Show me the progress. You can't. I'm not making wild claims. I don't claim that all my statements are facts. Some are and some are just my opinion.
Creationists are correct when they state that science doesn't know for sure where the origins of the universe came from. There are good working models that show an outward expansion of the Universe, which suggest an explosion, but it is indeed still a mystery. As stated before, the Origins of the Universe is a different issue than Evolution. Only creationists try to merge the two areas together under one philosophy. I think that the point being missed by Creationists is that the only reasonable, logical approach is to simply accept that we don't know some things. We don't need to insert gods into things we don't understand. All this does is stifle learning and science, and is detrimental to society as a whole. The gains in knowledge that have been achieved in biological sciences have benefited other sciences and advances, and would not have been possible if we would have tossed Evolutionary Theory because it undermines the bible.
This is ridiculous circular logic. 1. God creates Universe. 2. Science explains Universe. So obviously, Science explains God. Yes, because if science hasn't figured it out by now, it must be a god. Makes sense. I guess before science figured out what caused Bubonic Plague, then that was evidence for gods wrath being poured down on the world for tolerating heresy. Yes, how about WE DON"T KNOW YET? And science doesn't believe anything. Science is not a person. If there was any sort of evidence to suggest design, then science would "believe" it. Since there isn't any, science has to take man made myths out of the equation and observe and hypothesize without bias. We have top men working on it, Dr. Jones. Top men.
Prove it! You keep saying things that are not in evidence. I think Science has made great leaps forward in understanding it. Where is a scientific paper that states science has not made any progress? You can't just state this without giving an example. I'm still waiting for one piece of substantiating evidence of this. You don't know me very well, hoss. I can argue both sides of this issue with ease. You make post after post making unsubstantiated claims and then demand that I prove them false. I've gone through this exercise with LSUCraig, who had a lot of notions and nothing to support them with. I posted fact after fact and link after link, while he did not and he still didn't accept my argument. It was a waste of my time. No, if you cannot support your statements with some examples, then I'm not taking them seriously. You might change my mind on some facet of this with the right evidence of what you are talking about. But if you just say that the sky is red and then demand that I prove it isn't. I won't even bother. How little you understand about what constitutes evidence. I agree. Your earlier statement suggesting that science only believed in a single big band was imprecise. Of course-- a natural process and the consequence of existing conditions. Design and chance are neither mutually exclusive, nor exclusive of other options. I don't suppose you are prepared to give me an actual, provable example of "intelligent design" that I can evaluate? Why do you say that? Give me some reasons, some facts to respond to! Give me an authoritative source that explains this curious notion of yours. Do you actually mean we are "no closer" to understanding the universe than we were hundreds of years ago? Are you serious? Have you forgotten telescopes, radio astronomy, relativity laws, and quantum mechanics, to name just the obvious ones? I just did. Show me your evidence and I'll show you mine. Perhaps not. But if you aren't making wild claims, then who agrees with you? Where are their technical papers? What is the evidence you have to suggest that science has made no progress in hundreds of years? What examples of "design" do you offer to rebut? NOW we are getting somewhere! If you are just offering your opinions on broad topics, then that is fine. I can just say how my opinion is different, we are all entitled to an opinion. But you have made declarative statements that "science" has or hasn't done certain things without giving any concrete examples to illustrate them, yet you demand proof that they are wrong as your only validating factor. I challenge your assumptions and you need to back them up. Then, my friend, I guaranfriggintee you that I can offer evidence in response . . . or perhaps even agree with you if your documentation is sound. I actually understand what you are trying to say, I think you can find some examples if you try, and I'd like to see you make your case.
Getting back to my original point which is that mainstream science cannot explain where the original ingredients of the big bang originated and because of that I don't see why it is so ridiculous teaching that ID is one hypothesis, among others, that have been advocated. That's a ridiculous analogy and I never implied that but teachings should be open to all options since science doesn't know and will never know. Do you honestly believe that science will one day figure it out? That is my point. We don't know and in my opinion will never know. There's no concrete evidence to suggest design. Science does not know either and can't supply any evidence so in that sense it doesn't have an advantage over ID. I look at it this way. You obviously know the PC you are using right now was designed by an intelligent source. (It could have never originated by chance due to it's complex nature.) The universe is trillions upon trillions more complex than a PC. I believe an intelligent being was behind that. That's not evidence to prove ID exist but in my opinion it's using logic. Science can't even give us a logical explanation of where the ingredients of the Big Bang came from. Again, this is just my opinion. Well they need to work harder.
You have not yet said where you get this notion. Intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a religious notion and has no place in a science classroom. I do not know this. Why do you assume this? How do you know it can't? Nope, you are using faith, not logic.
