Search results

Let me point out what is going on here. Yes, people like Marke claim to have a coherent story about origins, but a little thinking - just a little - shows they are in the same boat as everyone else. To say that "God did it" is a coherent explanation of origins is vulnerable to the obvious...

False, of course. There is plenty of evidence to support the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe.

I see this cloistered den of loons is still at it. The Gateway Pundit? To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

From Scientific American: One-time astronomical events like the big bang, however, are of great value since they allow reproducible scientific studies of their consequences. For example, conditions in the early universe resulted in the brightness patterns of the cosmic microwave background that...

This is one of the many corners of the internet where people come to advance crackpot ideas, sheltered from the sunlight that is the overwhelming consensus of appropriately qualified experts. Hence the wacky theories about vaccines and pedophilloic presidents, just for starters. The Big Bang...

Nice try. Let's recap lest anyone be duped: - Someone erroneously attributed belief a connection between the lives of stars and the theory of evolution to Lawrence Krauss. - I explained the error of such an attribution - No you move the goalposts by merely denying - with no supporting argument...

Re your first point: Hardly an argument that helps your position - you have cited a definition that few experts would agree with and yet expect us to believe it is a legitimate characterization of what science is?=. Re your second point: Obvious moving the goalposts - I never claimed that truth...

Again: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with stars. Nothing Krauss says here connects the content of the theory of evolution to stellar processes. The fact that we come from star stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection

Nonsense. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about stars

I do not think most experts would agree with this "high- schooly" definition. The big Bang is considered to be a "scientific" theory even if it cannot be repeated - it makes falsifiable predictions that are supported by observations. Even though we are "observing" the past.

1. Because we respect the truth, even if it challenge what we wish were the case 2. Because metaphor can be used to communicate important truths.

Please answer the question. Who, specifically, made such a claim?

:LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL:

Source?

Indeed. And we both know that the creationists here are seizing on an overly simplistic definition of "science" and abusing that definition to try to exclude certain categories of evidence a priori. More specifically, if they can get away with tricking readers into believing you need direct...

Mere claims, with no supporting evidence. Why would any reasonable third party believe your unsupported claim against the claims of tens of thousands highly trained experts?

This kind of argument is frequently used by creationists - "it cannot be directly observed, therefore it is not science" argument. It is a clever, if deceptive strategy - you are trying to squeeze way too much out of definitions. Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the "definition"...

Misleading. Yes some aspects of evolution entail inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with...

I doubt this very much - can you substantiate the claim that rogue waves, in fact, defy the know laws of physics?

Not bad, not bad.