Recent content by Shiny Noctowl

The only way to determine whether a scientific theory or law is correct is to observe it. However, the senses can't be proven reliable (just look at an optical illusion), so a theory can never truly be proven. Since you seem to think the senses are so great, give a proof, using only logic...

You assume that the scientific method is valid when you say that the fact that faith doesn't follow the scientific method makes it bad. The scientific method assumes that empirical evidence is reliable, which is not the case because it relies on the senses (whether by humans actually measuring...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Flagellum_base_diagram.svg I said that, in their complexity, they resemble a mechanical device.

Science isn't necessarily valid because it makes two assumptions. No matter how obvious they seem, you can't assume them without proof. The two assumptions are: 1. The senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable. 2. The scientific method is valid. (This assumes that #1 is true.)

Abortion- Against Affirmative Action- Against Biometric National Identification- Against Cloning- Against Death Penalty- Against Euthanasia/Mercy Killings- Against France- For (we wouldn't even be a country if it weren't for France's help) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression- For...

I think smoking should be illegal. If it just hurt the smoker, I might hesitate before saying it should be illegal, but, as it is just as harmful to people around the smoker, it should without a doubt be illegal. Funny how you ignore this when you're trying to prove that evolution occurs...

Your argument is invalid because of two assumptions you make. No matter how obvious they seem, you can't assume them without any form of proof. The two assumptions you made are: 1. The senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable. 2. The scientific method is valid. (This assumes that...

You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance.

According to evolution, mutations occur completely by chance. However, beneficial mutations are rare. Therefore, evolution should take billions of years to form even the simplest organisms. However, in that time, humans have come around. Furthermore, how could things like wings and the...

We aren't arguing for magic.

A problem with the Archaeopteryx example is that evolution claims that the wings would form in small, repeated mutations. However, partially-evolved wings are worthless, so the wings must have evolved all at once, which is such an incredibly small chance that an intelligent agent (God) has to...

First of all, science never explains where the Big Bang came from. Also, pure evolution claims that, while only the organisms with beneficial mutations survive, mutations happen completely at random. However, this would mean that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, meaning that...

It wasn't a star that exploded in the Big Bang. But I agree that everything in the universe's history, including evolution and the Big Bang, couldn't have happened without the intervention of God. It's statistically more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble the various...

All people are created equal in a sense, in that they have differences, but we are all special in our own ways so no one is "better" or "worse" overall than anyone else.

I believe that being attracted solely to someone's looks is shallow. While some things (such as most obesity) are the fault of the person, other things are genetic and not that person's fault at all.