Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

You know, you jokers come here full of contempt for everyone here, before anyone has posted a single response. You're "blessed" with "revealed truth," and you don't come here to debate, to learn or to teach--you come here to confirm the propaganda which has been fed you about "evolutionists." You can't see that religion and science are apples and oranges, and not at all comparable.

I have read lots of words that state that it is so, but no direct physical evidence to support it.

If we assume that unstable isotopes were first formed in roughlt equal amounts (and there is no reason to assume otherwise)

the "proof" is that the isotopic ratio for U238 to U235 is 140 to i, "the world around. OK, Ill be open to any other conjecture. How did two isotopes with differing half lives come to have such varying occurences, if not by decay? Are you saying that 235 and 238 were at differing ratios originally? How do you then convince me of the final ratios of the final decay products like Pb 210, 207 and all the elements at At wts greater than about 40 are all in a simple ratio of abundance. Do you even understand the questions youve asked?

em, According to your profile, you're a nobody. LOL

Quote:

I have read lots of words that state that it is so, but no direct physical evidence to support it.

I know, that physical evidence crap is in tables and maps and full of statistics. Its all crap, we know it

gospel, If you're looking for proof to support evolution like the proof you have for "creation," then please refer to this link. It's a beginning, but there are many more out there in search-land. You have only one book that supports "creationism," but thousands upon thousands of scientific research papers that supports evolution.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

I have read lots of words that state that it is so, but no direct physical evidence to support it.

I know, that physical evidence crap is in tables and maps and full of statistics. Its all crap, we know it

I have no problem with physical evidence, I just have a problem with the conclusions formed and the way evidence has been manipulated to bring the desired and prechosen conclusion.
As my ol' Daddy used to say... Figures don't lie but liars do figure.
Where is the proof? If there is no proof then creation is as valid as evolution as a conjectural argument.
To prove the law of gravity, I don't need tables or charts or reams of esoteric babble by people who are self proclaimed experts. I need only throw a ball up in the air to see if it comes down. Boyle's law of gasses is equally easy to prove. If evolution is as solid as gravity or Boyle's law, then the proof should be as clear and simple. Otherwise it could just be smoke and mirrors.

cicerone imposter wrote:

gospel, If you're looking for proof to support evolution like the proof you have for "creation," then please refer to this link. It's a beginning, but there are many more out there in search-land. You have only one book that supports "creationism," but thousands upon thousands of scientific research papers that supports evolution.

There could be billions of papers to support the notion that the moon is really a paper cutout but that would not make it so.
There was a time when science believed the earth was flat. There was a time when science believed that malaria was caued by night vapors. There was a time when science believed that you could tell all about someone by the bumps on their head. There were a large number of papers to support all these things at the time and they were accepted as valid. That still did not make any of it true.