Then it's not science. Science has to correspond to a specific method and what you have described is not it. Evolution however is a fact. The Science does correspond and its scientific fact. Which sort of leaves you with two non scientific and wrong ideas. Tough.
You will have noticed by now how certain theists get very agitated at the thought of what I said may be right. btw you'll soon be on TZ's BIG WRITING ignore list along with a hundred others just soon as he realizes you're not gonna fall for his BS either.
Evolution however is a fact. For the sake of argument, say evolution is a fact. Why is there evolution?
You will have noticed by now how certain atheists get very agitated at the thought of what said may be right.
Simple question to stu: Why is there evolution? Answer from stu: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Quote from cashcow: Supersymetry and 11+ dimensions are currently conjecture, however if present they would explain many many problems connected to particle physics and quantum mechanics. I believe you are saying what I said above. Stu is acting like science is basically "facts", which is simplistic and incorrect. They are still wrestling over things like whether time is a dimension, or should be separated from this concept. - I.e., Spacetime, 4the dimension, whatever. Fortunately the LHC should within the next 2 years either prove or disprove the existence of these dimensions. Yes, that's right at very high electron volt energies, the LHC will unequivocally prove whether or not these dimensions exist or not. If they do exist then the conjecture will be turned into a scientific theory (fact), otherwise research will continue until something else becomes proven. There is no guarantee that LHC will prove or even detect these at all. Or that the next technological leap will. They still are searching for a myriad of hypothesized things - from gravitrons to unifying the 4 major forces (gravity, weak nuclear force, etc.) and a million other things they thought would eventually be proven. Again, dark energy and dark matter are still (to different extents, conjecture). It is PROVEN that dark matter exists, although the exact quantity in the universe is not known to a great precision. We learn more about it each day. Actually the quantity of dark matter is believed known to a somewhat precise degree, along with baryonic and dark energy. It is proving that it exists. They keep searching for what might be its makeup, and there are still those in scientific circles who think the whole thing might be explained away at some point in the future. Dark energy may well not exist at all, recent advances in quantum gravity this year have come up with several explanations which may well prove dark energy does not exist. Interestingly these same theories also indicate that the universe did not 'pop' into existence, and instead oscillates infinitely between a compressed state and an expanded state. And therein lies the rub. They had precisely calculated the amount of dark energy recently, and yet it may/may not be the correct explanation... it is still amazing that into the 1970s, science had been blind to perhaps 95-96% of the universe (nonbaryonic stuff). They would have argued loudly if you had told them how little they know in 1968. People, including scientists, do not grasp the term fact, hypothesis, conjecture well. As for multiple universes, we are tantalisingly close to showing that they do exist, at least to the point of showing that each identifiable quantum state learns to a bifurcation which could effectively be called a parallel universe. showing mathematically and showing via direct observation are two different things. For example, atomic orbitals (like p-shell and s-shell have been hypothesis until recently. Then they actually produced actual "pictorial" evidence ( cannot recall the site, perhaps ScienceDaily.com). But as of multiverses, we have observational evidence of one and only one universe at this point. They may well exist, but the concept of an infinite number of universes, each with their own laws of physics/nature or where we each exist, but in an infinite number of universes with slightly different realities seems entirely ludicrous. It may fit the computational models, but it is certainly not proof or even a good hypothesis. Unfortunately if only a baby with a hand grenade could inject some sense into the thick skulls of some of the people here. That works in both directions. People could frame the world in terms of unicorns, fairies and hobgoblins - this does not make it right. Just because an unfortunate large number of people believe some of this nonsense, it does not make it right. Or do you believe the Earth is a few thousand years old? Or maybe the sun hides in a mud pit every night? As I cannot speak for the other religions but JudeoChristianity -->The scripture does not say the Earth was flat or that it is only a few thousand years old. These are interpretations people shove onto the text. Personally, I accept the idea that the earth is 4.567 billion years old as well as being a theistic/YWHWistic evolutionist. And I do NOT credit science, which factors out Deity, because they want a nice, clean foundation without complications they do not accept. Asserting is not proving. I do not support creationists or atheists. Just because something is contrary to your world view, does not make you correct. Religion is continually forced to make the "God of the gaps" even smaller, whereas science continually expands. Based on the fact that God's power (or potential role in the universe) seems to shrink whereas science gets larger it is a truely logical and rational assumption to bet on the side of science and deny the existence of God. In fact, it is just basic statistical reasoning. Science is expanding, but they confuse their current status or grasp of all things. It reminds me when some said almost a 100 years ago, that pretty much everything of substance had been invented. I would say that science is a baby in diapers. They greatly overestimate the our current knowledge base. We cannot solve the energy crisis, we really have not extended max lifespan, we still argue over foundational things such as do antioxidants and other things nutritional help or hurt, we struggle with the concept of men to Mars let alone getting to the next star, and a 1,000 other things. But I will say this, at least you seem to possess some understanding and appreciation for science issues. Most posting here quote things (on both sides of the science vs. religion debate) they themselves hardly understand. I prefer the concept of keeping an open mind. My view is that the current scientific/technological world provides a good framework has a good grasp of the things critical to our survival and need to expand our knowledge But it does little to deal with with the infinite/deistic side of humanity. God has not been proven or disproven. Calling oneself a skeptic does not change the issue
Lies. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are flat-earth books, and the Old Testament pegs the age of the earth at only several thousand years old. It takes the most childish sort of sophistry to treat all those specific claims in the Bible as "just metaphors".
Neither God nor Santa can be proven or disproven, therefore they are not scientific matters. So why if you realize that as you infer above, did you conflate all those paragraphs of scientific "information" with ideas about God.