Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: Onthelowdown

I put a cat in a box, waited a month, and when I opened it... well damn, schroedinger was right. FACT! I have created multiple realities to conclude that I am always right. Now that is brilliant, or atleast narcissistic

There seem to be a lot of paradoxes in quantum mechanics, another crazy reality...

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

Imagine at what lengths creationists have to go to argue about their beliefs. Nothing is real,everything is subjective, there are no facts, and so on. Denialism of everything.

I was being facetious, dumbass.

You'd think someone so steeped in scientism would also understand philosophy and emojis, being that you're so much smarter than all of us religious zealots.

Creationism isn't philosophy but an outdated and debunked view of the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design (ID) has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court

The only reason the Court would rule it as unconstitutional is due to the current environment of atheists and secular humanists pushing the idea of separation of church and state, not because it is untrue or unscientific. I think that under those circumstances, they should also rule climate Change theory also as unconstitutional, because climate change theory is also based on the religion of the worship of GAIA, which is also most assuredly unscientific. I would point out that a supposed “consensus” does not necessarily make diverging true, just that many people believe it. And that is the goal of the Delphi technique… to manufacture consensus.
As for the rest of your postings on creationism… there is old rest and young earth camps in the creationist groups
www.scienceandfaith.org...

While YECs believe a “plain reading” of the English translation of Genesis 1 necessitates belief that God created the world in six 24-hour days some six to ten thousand years ago, OECs believe that textual and grammatical nuances of the original Hebrew suggest six long epochs of time. Indeed, OECs contend a literal reading of the Biblical creation accounts in Hebrew provides certain exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation “days.”4

d ending. For instance, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, “These are not ordinary days bounded by minutes and hours, but days of God…The beginning of each act of creation is called morning, and the close of that specific divine act is called evening.”11 Noted Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer concurs: “Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day…there were definite and distinct stages in God’s creational procedure…it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the biblical author.”12 Other Hebrew language scholars (C. John Collins, Bruce Waltke, and Rodney Whitefield) agree the evening/morning phrase does not necessitate a 24-hour day

This makes old earth theory more consistent with the Hindu Vedas, which correlates “one day in the life of Brahma” as equal to 4,300,000,000 years.
www.harekrsna.com...#:~:text=The%20duration%20of%20one%20day,1%2C000%20years%2C%20or%204%2C300%2C000%2C0 00%20years.

The duration of one day in the life of Brahma is calculated in solar years as being 4,300,000 x 1,000 years, or 4,300,000,000 years.

Now then, here’s another part of the creation of the universe www.harekrsna.com...#:~:text=The%20duration%20of%20one%20day,1%2C000%20years%2C%20or%204%2C300%2C000%2C0 00%20years.

This is the calculation for one universe, and there are innumerable universes. All these Manus come and go simply by the breathing process of Maha-Visnu. Since there are innumerable universes, no one can imagine the totality of the manvantara incarnations. Because all the universes are produced simultaneously by the exhalation of the Maha-Visnu, no one can begin to calculate how many Manus are manifest at one time. Each Manu, however, is called by a different name. After the end of Brahma's night, the cycle of creation begins again in the daytime of Brahma, and they continue to exist through the life durations of fourteen consecutive Manus. At the end of each Manu there is devastation of the earthly planets, and the vast water is fearful even to Brahma. And, at the end of the life of each Manu there are shorter dissolutions.

I happen to be in the camp of the Hindu Vedas timelines.
I also happen to not accept human life as having evolved from monkeys, lemurs, or apes, as I am in the camp of “male and female crested he them”
redemptivehistorytheology.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Onthelowdown

There seem to be a lot of paradoxes in quantum mechanics, another crazy reality...

Synonyms for "paradox" the way they used to be listed on thesaurus.com (they changed their format, so I haven't checked how they do it now, they used the use different color schemes to indicate how similar certain synonyms were, starting with the most similar synonyms, I'm not sure which colors were used anymore, but I do know all of the ones below were listed as synonyms):

contradiction
error
mistake
nonsense

So when a particular component of the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics" leads to a paradox/contradiction, consider if that automatically means (by definition of the word paradox), that that component, or part of the interpretation, is in "error", a "mistake", nonsense. Hence, not science. Therefore, when it is still presented as "science" even though it leads to a contradiction/paradox, the correct terminology is "pseudoscience". This is why Dr. Schrödinger brought up his paradox concerning that cat in the box, not to say that you can actually have a cat that can be both dead and alive at the same time, but that that part of the Copenhagen interpretation must be wrong, in error, a mistake, nonsensical.

Of course, it is called an "interpretation" after all, so it should not surprise anyone, that even the smartest people on the planet, can still be wrong about something once they start delving into 'interpreting' things. Rather than drawing conclusions by induction as Isaac Newton encouraged them to do, leaving interpretations to the philosophers instead. So it becomes easier to tell fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience and unverified philosophy.

But it's a bit too off-topic for this thread I recon (apart from the importance of being able to tell what is actual science/knowledge, i.e. factual, and what is not, but merely presented as science/knowledge, i.e. factual, or under the marketinglabel "Science", as evolutionary philosophies and myths/false stories are).

Keep in mind regarding the Bible text quoted below, that "science" comes from the Latin scientia meaning "knowledge", which is also a synonym for "science" (the reason why I'm using a / above, they mean the same thing). So that's why the KJV renders the Greek word for "knowledge" at 1 Tim 6:20, as "science" (since it's more based on Latin translations of the Bible, it's not directly translating the Greek, also, at the time the KJV was made, it was more popular to say "science" instead of "knowledge", sounds more sophisticated and smart).

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“..., always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 3:7)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (i.e. pseudoscience; 1Ti 6:20)

Quite a few pages back I used some videos with a more obvious example of a contradiction falsely presented as science/knowledge, concerning those promoting the philosophy and contradiction that "nothing" is "something" (Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins). It is probably this comment that also touches on the topic of quantum mechanics (or quantum physics) by means of a link to a video from Freeman Dyson, who has more or less solved the paradox. With that I mean that his explanation for quantum mechanics does not lead to a paradox. It was my response to Phantom42338 (page 23).

originally posted by: whereislogic

So when a particular component of the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics" leads to a paradox/contradiction, consider if that automatically means (by definition of the word paradox), that that component, or part of the interpretation, is in "error", a "mistake", nonsense. Hence, not science. Therefore, when it is still presented as "science" even though it leads to a contradiction/paradox, the correct terminology is "pseudoscience". This is why Dr. Schrödinger brought up his paradox concerning that cat in the box, not to say that you can actually have a cat that can be both dead and alive at the same time, but that that part of the Copenhagen interpretation must be wrong, in error, a mistake, nonsensical.

When I use the word paradox I'm suggesting it is a paradox in Newton's physics that we live in. The cat in the box I believe was to illustrate how the uncertainty principle would look like in our reality. but in quantum mechanics, it makes perfect sense.

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane

The only reason the Court would rule it as unconstitutional is due to the current environment of atheists and secular humanists pushing the idea of separation of church and state, not because it is untrue or unscientific. I think that under those circumstances, they should also rule climate Change theory also as unconstitutional, because climate change theory is also based on the religion of the worship of GAIA, which is also most assuredly unscientific. I would point out that a supposed “consensus” does not necessarily make diverging true, just that many people believe it. And that is the goal of the Delphi technique… to manufacture consensus.

I'm not sure where the whole unconstitutional would even play into it all. In public schools, it was just determined not to be a science and so not taught as one... In private schools, they can teach whatever they see as correct. If taught in public schools then it would be along the lines of religious studies.

I'm not sure why people have a hard time understanding that part.

As to the separation of church and state, people get that ass backwards. It is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep the government out of religion i.e. a state church. We need to remember that our forefathers came from England where they had an official Government sanctioned religion, and in America, all religions are equal with the government not sanctioning any.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

When I use the word paradox I'm suggesting it is a paradox in Newton's physics that we live in. The cat in the box I believe was to illustrate how the uncertainty principle would look like in our reality. but in quantum mechanics, it makes perfect sense.

Is that your way of saying that you won't "consider" it? ("it" referring to what I described after using the verb "consider")

Freeman Dyson spells it out, "they show [referring to the experiments he explains in more detail later], ... , that Bohr is right." (which automatically means the following people are wrong about this subject: Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, David Bohm, John Wheeler, quantum cosmologists, those who agreed at the time and ever since then, that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, should be presented as "science", which still means "knowledge" even when the marketinglabel "science" is preferred, that the interpretation has merit or that it is right/correct; most, if not all, quantum physicists, since the Copenhagen interpretation was first promoted as a useful interpretation). It also means that Schrödinger was right, although perhaps he could have been a little clearer about why he brought up his 'cat in the box' paradox, and what it meant for the Copenhagen interpretation, especially that part or component in it, that leads to the paradox he was talking about (he was clear that he had a problem with that part of the interpretation, but I don't think he spelled out that it automatically means that that component or part, is therefore, pseudoscience, for the reason that it's still presented under the marketinglabel "Science", people are given the impression that because it's scientists talking about it, that it's therefore "science"/knowledge; John Lennox explains that behaviour associated with the religion of scientism when he responds to Stephen Hawking's nonsense and pseudoscience). I was quoting Freeman Dyson from below, shortly after 5:36 (everything before that is more important than the details that come after 6:02, I've also given the timeframe before when Freeman Dyson gets to the conclusions one can draw from these experiments, somewhere after 21 minutes, that stuff is "science/knowledge" as opposed to the pseudoscience of someone like Bryce DeWitt, who he quotes after 3:35):

And here's John Lennox explaining a thing or 2 about impressions, attitudes and behaviours associated with the religion of scientism (without mentioning scientism), the context is very important and it's only a bit more than 6 minutes, but the key point is made towards the ending (after 5:35, 2 points, 2nd point starts at 5:44):

Since this subject relates to the topic of so-called "wave-particle duality" and how light distributes itself* (and in light of Richard Feynman's statement regarding his collegues in quantum physics: "nobody understands quantum mechanics"; *: 'is it a wave? is it a particle? You know what, let's just go with both cause we can't figure it out very well, we just don't understand.' Often the underlying thinking behind the invention and/or adoption of the term "wave-particle duality"), one of the questions Jehovah raised to Job is still as pertinent today as it was back then (after saying to Job the following), Job 38:1-4 (I'll get to the other question later, under the subject of "light"):

Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:

2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel

And speaking without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;

I will question you, and you inform me.

4 Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you think you understand.

Light (Insight on the Scriptures)

It is generally believed that light consists of energy particles that have wave properties. To this day, however, man still cannot give a complete answer to the question propounded over three millenniums ago by the Creator of light: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”​—Job 38:24.

Compared to Jehovah, our understanding, our knowledge and our wisdom, is rather limited.

...
How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Source: Philosophy (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane

The only reason the Court would rule it as unconstitutional is due to the current environment of atheists and secular humanists pushing the idea of separation of church and state, not because it is untrue or unscientific. I think that under those circumstances, they should also rule climate Change theory also as unconstitutional, because climate change theory is also based on the religion of the worship of GAIA, which is also most assuredly unscientific. I would point out that a supposed “consensus” does not necessarily make diverging true, just that many people believe it. And that is the goal of the Delphi technique… to manufacture consensus.

I'm not sure where the whole unconstitutional would even play into it all. In public schools, it was just determined not to be a science and so not taught as one... In private schools, they can teach whatever they see as correct. If taught in public schools then it would be along the lines of religious studies.

I'm not sure why people have a hard time understanding that part.

As to the separation of church and state, people get that ass backwards. It is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep the government out of religion i.e. a state church. We need to remember that our forefathers came from England where they had an official Government sanctioned religion, and in America, all religions are equal with the government not sanctioning any.

Yes, I’m aware of what the intent of our Founding Fathers was, to not create a State Religion. It was not intended to keep religion out of education. It was to stop government from dictating what religion we can and cannot practice. I see the educationists since Obama was in the White House have no qualms about teaching kids in the public schools to pray on prayer rugs, or to teach the Agenda 21 State Religion of Climate Change worship of Gaia, you know from James Lovelock.
Also, secular humanists declared The Humanist Manifesto and their beliefs to be a religion, until it was challenged in a court of law. But they capitulated to keep secular humanism running education in the public schools. So, in truth, what is really constitutional and what is not?
The educationists today not only hate the Christian religion, but hate the nuclear family, and hate our Constitution. They always talk about “democracy”, but even the Marxists running the teachers unions are not democratic, they are proponents of a Marxist totalitarian “banana republic,” which in that context means something like communist Cuba. I’ve been sound the alarm
About it for years, and guess what, after people here ridiculed me, I can say “ I told you so!”

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

Long post so let me quote the parts I want to respond

I also happen to not accept human life as having evolved from monkeys, lemurs, or apes, as I am in the camp of “male and female crested he them”

There is a common misconception that we have come from monkeys but that's not true. Other posters argue that if have come from monkeys then why don't monkeys evolve to become humans and so on. These are fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution is and how it works.

We have not descended from monkeys and monkeys are a different species which will never evolve to become a human.

Humans are apes too and we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. This common ancestor lived from around 8 to 6 million years ago and it is now extinct. All apes share a common ape ancestor that lived around 25 million years ago.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Is that your way of saying that you won't "consider" it? ("it" referring to what I described after using the verb "consider")

The whole subject dwells in an area that stops being incomprehensible to us since what we know and live in is Newton's world. Kind of what is outside of our universe as in it could be so different we would have a hard time truly grasping it and just accept it for what it is. You have done this by calling it God, and it works to describe the unimaginable. How many layers are there to this onion?

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane

The educationists today not only hate the Christian religion, but hate the nuclear family, and hate our Constitution. They always talk about “democracy”, but even the Marxists running the teachers unions are not democratic, they are proponents of a Marxist totalitarian “banana republic,” which in that context means something like communist Cuba. I’ve been sound the alarm
About it for years, and guess what, after people here ridiculed me, I can say “ I told you so!”

I do agree with you that Christianity seems to be attacked more than other religions which is interesting since terrorism is Muslim-based about 90% of the time. I think it has to do with Christianity in many situations is seen as more of a White religion whereas Islam is more of a Brown religion and in today's world of Whitey is evil I can how that all plays out.

But dealing with Religion in schools or religious views I don't think we want to open that Pandora's box and there just isn't enough time to do justice to ALL religions including Satanism. As I said, best to leave that to Sunday Bible school.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Degradation33

I have my doubts about Jupiter. Has anyone ever sent a craft to its surface to see that most of the planet is made of gases? For all we know, the surface is normal.

Based on?
Your creationist and religious views?
Do you consider start reading science even at the basic level?

Planets and their makeup aren't mentioned in religion, you wanna try again? Where's the proof of the makeup of Jupiter, a satellite picture?

Is this a genuine question or you are trying to troll the entire universe?

So you are denying further some basic science? This is basic information children learn at school.

Asking for proof for established facts when you offer religious faith in exchange. Do you see the irony?

Oh I see irony alright....

Show me some pictures of Jupiter's surface, hot shot.

Why don't you ask Harvard or Princeton.
Is this a new low? ---Show me pictures of Jupiter's surface.

Why don't you ask NASA or easier to visit their website.

How does this support your view of creationism?

NASA has shots of Jupiter's atmosphere from orbit, nothing on the surface and therefore no idea what it's made of. Do better.

The only person here who has been obsessed with creationism and talking about it over and over is you. I don't have to prove it, I'm not 25 pages deep calling you uneducated for not believing in it, nor do I care if you believe in it. You're 25 pages deep still trying to pass off a theory as an absolute because some peer reviewed article said so. Do I think science and education has failed you? Absolutely, and made you think you're smarter than everyone else, I just don't care enough to try to push it in your face.

So you keep claiming NASA has no idea of what Jupiter's surface is made of. I think NASA and the rest of the scientific world will disagree with you.

Do you think we need to go near the sun to find out what it is made of. Don't you think there are other ways we can deduce soms information?

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

Yes, science is your religion.

I also couldn't care less if NASA and scientists don't agree with me. They have photos, of a planet, and claim to know what the surface of that planet is made of. In reality, they have an idea of what they believe the surface of Jupiter is made of. With where we're at with technology today, there's no reason an unmanned craft can't be set on a pathway to each planet out there to get actual samples and photos of planet surfaces.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Obviously what we were taught in school was right back then, but now it's not. Scientists changed that and suddenly they're right this time, again. And some people are gonna argue until they're blue in the face because how could a theory ever be wrong (this time)?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lumenari

It's a theory, not a theory. DUH

(I know, I've been SMH the whole time too)

Evolution is a scientific theory hence it's factual. If you are a creationist you try to hold onto something by using this false argument as if nobody has ever attended school or university and everyone is oblivious to the facts and terminology.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

No.

Theory means it's widely accepted within the scientific community to be the explanation for something.

That doesn't mean it is fact. Unless you accept fact to be something widely accepted to be an explanation for something...

Fact by consensus, in other words.

Which means God is fact.

Since more than 2/3 of the world population believes in God.

That means you think you're smarter than ~5-6 billion people.

Not at all.

Science is not done by consensus. Scientists don't get to decide in which way they will go and which path they will follow as they are guided by evidence. Science is not democratic at all and is not the majority that rules - evidence is what rules and guides everyone. Anything else and you get bad science.

The majority rules in religion (no doubt) where we observe herd mentality and group thinking which are based on religious dogma and blind faith.

Whatever consensus in science is based on evidence but it's false to state facts by consensus. The difference again is evidence and lack of evidence. Religion lacks evidence and that's why is based on blind faith.

And no, a scientific theory is not a scientific hypothesis or a speculation, this has been explained so many times. A scientific theory is factual as its based on facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

Science isn't done by consensus?

Riiiiiiiiight.

That's the stupidest thing you've said in however many pages this thread is.

There's an actual term, called "Scientific Consensus."

Of which, evolution is.

The scientific consensus is a result of the evidence and so science isn't done by consensus. The scientists don't get to decide what is true and what is not true but are guided by the evidence.

Science isn't based on consensus or what the majority thinks but on evidence. I assume you didn't learn this in school either.

I call BS. You keep telling me what the makeup of Jupiter is, yet the only evidence science has is based on photos. You're literally being told what to believe and you won't even ask a single question about it.

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

You shouldn't be surprised. That guy believes, without the shadow of a doubt, the same scientific community who tells you that a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy. And schools have no issue pushing that lie either.

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

With reference to your comment

The only reason the Court would rule it as unconstitutional is due to the current environment of atheists and secular humanists pushing the idea of separation of church and state, not because it is untrue or unscientific

This is there relevant pet of my post

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction.

The Supreme Court has decided that creationism cannot be taught as science in public schools not because of the separation of the church and state (as you said) but because there is nothing scientific about an outdated and debunked ideology having its roots in the bronze age.

Creationism has already been debunked by the progress of science (I said many times but good to repeat). But there was never any evidence to support the claims made where God has created humans and the universe. Literally zero evidence.

SCOTUS and most secular states regard creationism as fiction devoid of any science.

a reply to: LSU2018

Lots of theories have been proven wrong.

It's called progress and the expansion of human knowledge.

Unlike some, science isn't stuck in the past.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Degradation33

I have my doubts about Jupiter. Has anyone ever sent a craft to its surface to see that most of the planet is made of gases? For all we know, the surface is normal.

Based on?
Your creationist and religious views?
Do you consider start reading science even at the basic level?

Planets and their makeup aren't mentioned in religion, you wanna try again? Where's the proof of the makeup of Jupiter, a satellite picture?

Is this a genuine question or you are trying to troll the entire universe?

So you are denying further some basic science? This is basic information children learn at school.

Asking for proof for established facts when you offer religious faith in exchange. Do you see the irony?

Oh I see irony alright....

Show me some pictures of Jupiter's surface, hot shot.

Why don't you ask Harvard or Princeton.
Is this a new low? ---Show me pictures of Jupiter's surface.

Why don't you ask NASA or easier to visit their website.

How does this support your view of creationism?

NASA has shots of Jupiter's atmosphere from orbit, nothing on the surface and therefore no idea what it's made of. Do better.

The only person here who has been obsessed with creationism and talking about it over and over is you. I don't have to prove it, I'm not 25 pages deep calling you uneducated for not believing in it, nor do I care if you believe in it. You're 25 pages deep still trying to pass off a theory as an absolute because some peer reviewed article said so. Do I think science and education has failed you? Absolutely, and made you think you're smarter than everyone else, I just don't care enough to try to push it in your face.

So you keep claiming NASA has no idea of what Jupiter's surface is made of. I think NASA and the rest of the scientific world will disagree with you.

Do you think we need to go near the sun to find out what it is made of. Don't you think there are other ways we can deduce soms information?

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

Yes, science is your religion.

I also couldn't care less if NASA and scientists don't agree with me. They have photos, of a planet, and claim to know what the surface of that planet is made of. In reality, they have an idea of what they believe the surface of Jupiter is made of. With where we're at with technology today, there's no reason an unmanned craft can't be set on a pathway to each planet out there to get actual samples and photos of planet surfaces.

Science is based on evidence and facts and not on faith.

You shouldn't be using the word belief or faith when it comes to science and evidence based research.

You said again that you don't care what NASA and its scientists say about the chemical composition of the surface of the planets. It's better if you don't make these statements at all because you damage your already damaged credibility.

In return, I don't think NASA and the various scientists care about the unsubstantiated views of online creationists/conspiracy theorists.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lumenari

It's a theory, not a theory. DUH

(I know, I've been SMH the whole time too)

Evolution is a scientific theory hence it's factual. If you are a creationist you try to hold onto something by using this false argument as if nobody has ever attended school or university and everyone is oblivious to the facts and terminology.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

No.

Theory means it's widely accepted within the scientific community to be the explanation for something.

That doesn't mean it is fact. Unless you accept fact to be something widely accepted to be an explanation for something...

Fact by consensus, in other words.

Which means God is fact.

Since more than 2/3 of the world population believes in God.

That means you think you're smarter than ~5-6 billion people.

Not at all.

Science is not done by consensus. Scientists don't get to decide in which way they will go and which path they will follow as they are guided by evidence. Science is not democratic at all and is not the majority that rules - evidence is what rules and guides everyone. Anything else and you get bad science.

The majority rules in religion (no doubt) where we observe herd mentality and group thinking which are based on religious dogma and blind faith.

Whatever consensus in science is based on evidence but it's false to state facts by consensus. The difference again is evidence and lack of evidence. Religion lacks evidence and that's why is based on blind faith.

And no, a scientific theory is not a scientific hypothesis or a speculation, this has been explained so many times. A scientific theory is factual as its based on facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

Science isn't done by consensus?

Riiiiiiiiight.

That's the stupidest thing you've said in however many pages this thread is.

There's an actual term, called "Scientific Consensus."

Of which, evolution is.

The scientific consensus is a result of the evidence and so science isn't done by consensus. The scientists don't get to decide what is true and what is not true but are guided by the evidence.

Science isn't based on consensus or what the majority thinks but on evidence. I assume you didn't learn this in school either.

I call BS. You keep telling me what the makeup of Jupiter is, yet the only evidence science has is based on photos. You're literally being told what to believe and you won't even ask a single question about it.

Your arguments are devoid of science and like I said in my last post it's better if you don't make these statements.

The problem is you are lacking basic knowledge of science when at the same time you try to challenge NASA by arguing they don't know what they are talking about. It's surreal.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

Lots of theories have been proven wrong.

It's called progress and the expansion of human knowledge.

Unlike some, science isn't stuck in the past.

To the OP's point, the science he's referring to has been proven and is all based on facts.

a reply to: LSU2018

When and what facts?