Science Proves Creation
- Thread starter Dunn11x
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ROTFLMAO!!!!:roflmao:
i clicked on the "the proof" link and guess what?
a label popped up saying "and god said"
look guy, this is the science forum of sciforums.
please post your religious stuff in the appropriate forum, in this case religion.
reported.
click on trailer or read the intro or login to listen to the interview of the scientist.
Ok. I watched the first part of the trailer.
It started rambling on about how if you believe in something then it exists. I suppose it will go on to say that if you believe in God and Creation, then they must exist and be true.
Ho hum.
I wonder how many suckers have shelled out money for this.
There's no science there, let alone a proof.
It started rambling on about how if you believe in something then it exists. I suppose it will go on to say that if you believe in God and Creation, then they must exist and be true.
Ho hum.
I wonder how many suckers have shelled out money for this.
There's no science there, let alone a proof.
Nope.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS' COMMUNITY * * * *
You have been given an infraction for trolling: the posting of unscientific or antiscientific material on the science boards. SciForums is a meeting place for scientists, future scientists, and people who wish to discuss or learn science.
The scientific method is to be respected at all times, or at least not flouted during other discussions or moments of levity. This means, among other things, that all theories must be derived from empirical observation and logical deduction, they must be falsifiable, and they must be peer-reviewed by other scientists. When an assertion is challenged, substantiation must be provided before you may move forward with your argument. If the assertion is extraordinary (such as asserting that Christian mythology can be "proven" by using the scientific canon, which was meticulously built up since the Enlightenment put an end to Chistianity's stranglehold on European culture), the substantiation must also be extraordinary. This rule is not satisfied by urging readers to go back and re-read the original material. We are all intelligent, literate, educated people who don't need to read things twice.
Many young people come here looking for scientific information. Many religionists attempt to mislead them about the nature of science by posting material such as yours. Because of this, we have a zero-tolerance attitude toward religious fundamentalist trolling. As a Moderator, I have given you an infraction and if you do this one more time I will see to it that you are banned from SciForums. I have notified the Moderator of this subforum and presumably he or she will delete this thread.
You may post material of this type in the Religion and Pseudoscience subforums. There are a couple of subforums in which you may engage in a SCHOLARLY debate about the validity of science and the scientific method, but you will need far better debating skills than you have displayed so far. The entire rest of SciForums is off limits to you.
You religionists have the world's other ten zillion websites to spew your fairytales and propaganda. This is our little corner and you are not welcome here.
Your lack of understanding of the basic principles of science is obvious from the title of your post. Scientific theories cannot be "proven." Only mathematical theories can be proven.
You have been given an infraction for trolling: the posting of unscientific or antiscientific material on the science boards. SciForums is a meeting place for scientists, future scientists, and people who wish to discuss or learn science.
The scientific method is to be respected at all times, or at least not flouted during other discussions or moments of levity. This means, among other things, that all theories must be derived from empirical observation and logical deduction, they must be falsifiable, and they must be peer-reviewed by other scientists. When an assertion is challenged, substantiation must be provided before you may move forward with your argument. If the assertion is extraordinary (such as asserting that Christian mythology can be "proven" by using the scientific canon, which was meticulously built up since the Enlightenment put an end to Chistianity's stranglehold on European culture), the substantiation must also be extraordinary. This rule is not satisfied by urging readers to go back and re-read the original material. We are all intelligent, literate, educated people who don't need to read things twice.
Many young people come here looking for scientific information. Many religionists attempt to mislead them about the nature of science by posting material such as yours. Because of this, we have a zero-tolerance attitude toward religious fundamentalist trolling. As a Moderator, I have given you an infraction and if you do this one more time I will see to it that you are banned from SciForums. I have notified the Moderator of this subforum and presumably he or she will delete this thread.
You may post material of this type in the Religion and Pseudoscience subforums. There are a couple of subforums in which you may engage in a SCHOLARLY debate about the validity of science and the scientific method, but you will need far better debating skills than you have displayed so far. The entire rest of SciForums is off limits to you.
You religionists have the world's other ten zillion websites to spew your fairytales and propaganda. This is our little corner and you are not welcome here.
I wanted to say something about someone getting fragged but I'll refrain.
here: science proved big boom, which had to be created, because otherwise it wouldn't have exploded.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you mean the big bang or the baby boom.. ?
And what is this "it" you are talking about ?
:shrug:
the singularity which exploded. it must have been created by god. why else would it be there?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Yorda: science hasn't proven the Big Bang. It is a well-supported theory for the creation of the universe.
Supported by evidence. Like universal background radiation.
What created the singularity? That's a fantastic question! And you have no evidence that it was God.
Supported by evidence. Like universal background radiation.
What created the singularity? That's a fantastic question! And you have no evidence that it was God.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
In response to the OP; science does not deal in faith, so the idea that faith is a core function of the scientific proof of creation means that you don't know what you are talking about, and neither does the creator of that site.
oh, and encoding level on that trailer video means that it is pretty, but won't play smoothly on a core 2 duo laptop w/ a video card that gets >40 fps in Half Life Two. In other words, they need to seriously fix their encoding so that normal people can actually watch the darned thing. Watching the youtube version now.
edit:
ah, yes. Science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COk5dLan6Xo
"There is only one truth..."
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/583/20070115sciencevsfaithrs8.png
oh, and encoding level on that trailer video means that it is pretty, but won't play smoothly on a core 2 duo laptop w/ a video card that gets >40 fps in Half Life Two. In other words, they need to seriously fix their encoding so that normal people can actually watch the darned thing. Watching the youtube version now.
edit:
ah, yes. Science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COk5dLan6Xo
"There is only one truth..."
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/583/20070115sciencevsfaithrs8.png
Last edited:
Evidence: Nothing but God could could have created it because God means creator.
For example: if a law of nature created it, then that law of nature is God; the creator of everything. But a law of nature couldn't have created the universe because it doesn't explain what created the law of nature. And the same goes for everything else, like random quantum fluctuations, black holes, or any other Word.
God is The-Only-One who doesn't need to be created to exist because like atheists say: he is fantasy, imagination; nothing where everything comes from.
Nothing is eternal.
Last edited: