After a while, they stop squirming… then it’s a cinch.
It’s also important to remember that in science, a theory is our best explanation for observable natural phenomena. As the body of evidence grows and improves, a theory can be tweaked to better fit the evidence. A law is a mathematical formula for quantifying the observable effects of natural phenomena.
For example, Gravitational Theory states that objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other, and that force is proportional to the masses of the objects, and inversely proportional to the distance between the objects.
The Law of Gravity, on the other hand, lets us calculate the gravitational attractive force between 2 objects.
What about beginnings? Where did it all come from? Science, as you define it, cannot provide a factual answer.
By faith, I believe God created the universe and everything in it. Changes, whether it be biological or climate, are in God’s hands. Science used to be the study of God’s Creation. We’ve come so far that scientists think God does not exist. They believe it, but that does not make it so.
By faith, you may believe some god created the universe.
By faith, a hindu believes Brahma created the universe out of himself, Vishnu preserves it, and Shiva will ultimately destroy it.
By faith, the Cherokee believe a water-beetle dove to the bottom of the great ocean, brought back some mud from which the Earth was formed; the Earth is an island floating in this great ocean, suspended by four cords hanging from the sky vault, which is made of solid rock.
Obviously, these 3 stories can’t all be true; AT LEAST 2, and likely all 3 of them are erroneous. Thus, faith is NOT a reliable way to uncover the truth.
You assert science “used to be the study of god’s creation.” Ironically, it is through the study of the natural world that scientists have come to understand the reality of the natural world; there is absolutely no evidence that the universe was “create” by anyone and there is no good evidence that any god or gods exist.
And very few scientists assert that your god does not exist, as there is also no good evidence for the absence of god, other than the illogic of that claim.
For many, if not most scientists, they do not believe a god or gods exist, which is not the same as believing that god does not exist. Any decent scientist remains open to the possibility of a god existing, if any good evidence were ever to be offered. As opposed to a theist, who insists a god exists, despite the absence of any good evidence.
The scientific method uses dispassionate observation and measurement of the available evidence to provide the best explanation for natural phenomena.(FWIW, the ancient Greeks understood that the Earth is round, although it took centuries to accurately calculate its size)The better the data, the better the understanding of the mechanics involved.And don’t discount the amount of interference in the search for truth imposed by superstition and religion, forcing generations of otherwise intelligent people to attempt to shoehorn the data and contort their conclusions to fit within the framework of neolithic folktales.
Atoms don’t “decide” to do anything; atoms act in predictable ways to form molecules, molecules form compounds, and IT IS A FACT that at some point, some compounds and molecules came together in such a way, under such conditions, that life as we know it began. We know this is a fact because life exists. Do we know exactly how life began? No, but the best minds are working on it, and getting closer and closer to an answer all the time.
People thought the Sun orbited the Earth because religion told them so, and for centuries observers tried to make the data fit the false assertions of religion. It’s only when early scientists became brave enough to resist the oppression of religion did we begin to develop theories that fit the observable evidence and reflected reality, rather than cling to observably false dogma.
Showing you don’t understand evolution.
Evolution by natural selection does not seek to explain HOW life on Earth began, it explains the diversity of life on Earth. It lets us understand why some species thrived for a time, then went extinct. It allows us to chart the inter-relatedness of living creatures.
Scientists have literally duplicated evolution by natural selection in the lab.
Using fruit flies (because they reproduce rapidly), scientists took a population and divided it in 2, then created different environmental pressures on each population, and observed as the two independent populations adapted divergently.
Go away, ignorant troll.
Does rewording the comic make you think you’re clever, or funny?