Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:01 pm to beejon
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:01 pm to beejon
quote:
What is the purpose of life other than to survive and reproduce in the atheistic Darwinist view?
The onus is upon theists to do the research necessary to show that a deity should be included in science. Since no scientific theory excludes new input, any research would be subjected to peer reviews that would determine if the research results could be duplicated.
If they could be duplicated, then the results would be added to the theory. If they could not be duplicated, then they would be rejected. This is a self-evident principle of science.
2
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:09 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The onus is upon theists to do the research necessary to show that a deity should be included in science. Since no scientific theory excludes new input, any research would be subjected to peer reviews that would determine if the research results could be duplicated.
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science but not necessarily false’. No one can think of ways in which to test it.”
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:49 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The onus is upon theists to do the research necessary to show that a deity should be included in science. Since no scientific theory excludes new input, any research would be subjected to peer reviews that would determine if the research results could be duplicated.
If they could be duplicated, then the results would be added to the theory. If they could not be duplicated, then they would be rejected. This is a self-evident principle of science.
No, the burden is upon the Darwinist community to prove that by random, meaningless and undirected creation became tremendously complex and varied by those mechanisms. So far, there's no proof or evidence that such mechanisms produced life as we observe it today. There's the usual 'could have been' or 'mabye' or 'possibly' which is the foundation of atheistic Darwinist thought, but that's hardly scientific proof that we are the result of random, meaningless and undirected events.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News