because ti's stuck in scientific theory stage
the big bang THEORY itself is disproven by the LAW of thermodynamics, and the LAW of conservation of mass
The theory of evolution. Fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Complexion
- Start date
because ti's stuck in scientific theory stage
the big bang THEORY itself is disproven by the LAW of thermodynamics, and the LAW of conservation of mass
yup
the thing about some kinds of science that confuse the average person is that you have "descriptive science" where people want to categorize and label things and then investigative science where they want to address a relationship between two or more phenomena
people think they are doing the community a solid by defending and lumping science into this big bucket when in truth they are doing exactly what they say they are against with "religious" folks and thats playing politics out of emotion
real science stands on its own feet it doesnt need defense cause the experiments and findings are self explanatory and are open to criticism
this is the response of someone who does not know science, nor is/was a stem major
you dont understand the scientific definition of "theory" lol...
what college did you graduate from?
scientists have already observed evolution first hand...
who observed the big bang?
many pro evolutionist will try to pass off genetic variation as evolution
the big bang isnt evolution...
who observed the big bang?
yooo... what city did you grow up in? I'm gonna look up the school systems ranking
@Th3Birdman im not done with your dumbass, come read this and digest it please.thank you, the irony is they sound worse than the Jahovah witness that knock on your door
It's hilarious because they dont know science, yet MAKE UP their own belief system based on the science they DONT KNOW
makes me sick cause you can tell folks already have agendas in mind and think they are on some high platform by defending science at large when they really just imitating their favorite news correspondent. These folks are BEWITCHED and do not even know it.
the big bang isnt evolution...
yooo... what city did you grow up in? I'm gonna look up the school systems ranking
I'm not even using "religion" to refute you people.
You are not presenting any scientific arguments. I am.
What SCIENTIFIC LAWS prove evolution?
I've posted TWO that disprove the genesis of evolution.
you all defend this theory way harder than Darwin himself. That alone is suspect.
why does where he went to school matter? do you think his words lose credibility cause he went to XYZ school?
debate his words
this a prime example of playing politics. Dont attack his position attack his credibility instead when you are weak.
Box Factory
hater
It's the response of someone being quoted by a legitimately mentally ill person.this is the response of someone who does not know science, nor is/was a stem major
This isn't in relation to this thread, it's the entirety of your existence on the coli. Look at who is on your side. Rapists, trolls and other mentally ill ppl
Richard Dawkins bless the ppl who have the strength deal with you lunatics
you look bad with every post. YOu have not presented ONE scientific law or fact that proves evolution.
attacking my character does not prove evolution
its abundantly clear people are confusing POLITICAL science which is like theatre with actual science which requires simple questioning
even if someone finds a case where it invalidates your position it doesn't mean you have to abandon your position. It just means your position has a weakness and you are able to say "i believe XYZ because of ABC" when someone else says "Well DEF invalidates XYZ" it's up to the person believing XYZ to either provide a reason why either the other persons claim isn't true or find solid evidence to strengthen ABC in light of DEF. Or a reason to rule out DEF
like radiometric dating. Radiometric dating ASSUMES constant creation of radioactive species either in the air or from celestial sources (inside stars) and benchmarks the ages of these sources as assumptions
a simple attack says: prove the source and control variable?
if ionized particles are creating radioactive species how can you control for the quantity created on earth that is presumably 6000+ km in radius and has a surface area in excess of 510 million km²
so what experiment could possibly PROVE the rate of ionization in the atmosphere such that you KNOW that the radioactive argon (or whatever) is constant?
