|
|
|
|
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:43:21 AM | I don't have a problem with there existing a higher power, the evidence is everywhere, [to me!]
so, no, I don't believe in magic at all, ever!
its beyond our puney brains, but not magic.
evolution is, us and all the rest coming from "nothing", AND with no guidance, thats magic.
don't know whats so magic about a higher power, we are here, aren't we?
whats so impossible about a higher power being around?
I don't see it
bye | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 12:06:53 PM | more unsolicited 2¢
even with a creator god .... life was created ... like someone created hockey
now that creator no longer does anything with the game
that is left to the board of governors of the NHL and Olympic to decide on any rule changes
why would life be any different
the creator is now out of the picture
this allows for the belief in a creator and science's evolution | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 12:29:38 PM | creator now out of the picture, now we are getting somewhere.
WHY is he out of the picture, for now?.......................this all being hypothetical, of course!
watching creation [man] screwing up, he obviously IS out of the picture at this moment in time.
and, what the heck do you want him to do?
one thing?
and if he did that one one thing, would he then get ANY credit for it?......I doubt it.
he's staying out of our lives for now, isn't that what we want?
us humans can do it all on our own, right?
he can't be a dumb azz, or he wouldn't have been able to do the whole creation thing in the first place.
my 2 cents
science's evolution? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:00:32 PM | RE Msg: 55 by jesser83:
Ironically, the nature of research and derivation of the sciences are directly modeled from the theological scholarship that came before modern academia. To think that they are somehow orthagonal disciplines is just ignorant. If you remove the conclusions and subject matter, what is left... is the same stuff. I noticed that too. I went to a theological seminary for 4.5 years, and then went to university, and discovered that the academics much the same approach as those in the theological seminaries, except that theologians have now been forced by society to temper their views, and accept that they do not have absolute knowledge.
What's even more freaky, I once compared the status of monasteries, monks, churches, and priests, in the medieval times, to the status of universities, academic scholars, schools, and teachers in our time, and their roles, social standing, sources of power, sources of financial funding, and use by powerful individuals and groups are almost identical to their comparative roles and sources in medieval times. It's almost like society has replaced religion with science, and theologians with academics, but left everything else the same. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:18:32 PM | Thiest: One who has faith in a God.
Athiest: One who has faith there is no God.
Agnostic: Weed smoking hippy that needs to grow a pair and pick a side.
Agnosticism may be the "correct" route for all of us, but at the same time I want to smack them around until they form an actual opinion.
Maybe I'm just jealous that even recognizing it's the "correct" route, I don't have it in me to take it. Or maybe they're all just a bunch of waffling pussies. Draw your own conclusions.
Oh, and just for giggles:
New Earth Christian: Dumb head.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm an athiest that totally believes aliens exist. I don't believe they've ever contacted us, I don't believe we'll ever contact them, but I believe they exist and I'd be delighted to be disproven on either of my first two opinions. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:32:47 PM | What circumstantial evidence can you offer? What logical reasoning can you offer? What reasoning can you offer?
And don't make the mistake of assuming that "God" must be the Christian God, or any other specific religion's idea of what God might be. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 5:00:38 PM | A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, although I could easily point to the Universe itself and say, "this came from -somewhere-", and call that my evidence. Sure, you could dispute my claim, and in my own personal opinion, you'd be right to.
But what, other than blind faith, do you have to back up your opposition?
Your own premise should tell you something...after tens of thousands of pages regarding this topic have been offered by philosophers for hundreds of years yet still the question burns...not just for us piddly forum folk, but for -every- demographic, from trailer trash straight on up to those who have spent their lives studying the Universe. I wonder how many authors of the books and papers you've read would call themselves "spiritual". Certainly they're not likely to say they believe in the Christian "God" with a beard hanging out in the clouds passing judgment on people, but that's got nothing to do with some much less specific higher power that set the gears in motion. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 5:09:27 PM | I disagree. I believe creativity is the source, and you KNOW what Einstein says about creativity in relation to intelligence. ;)
Anyway, have I made my point, or should I still wait for you to offer up some evidence refuting the idea of God? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 5:27:04 PM |
But if god was real, would we need creativity to realise him? Or is it a coincidence that the god we came up with "creatively" just happens to be real?
Man, there's so much wrong here, let me count the ways.
1. Don't try and give Creativity a bad wrap, do you know how much worse off the scientific community would be if humanity never had the ability to create new ideas and potential solutions to problems?
2. The fantastic thing about the concept of "God" is that it's EXTREMELY nonspecific. That's why I keep reminding you that the concept of God may not have anything at all to do with the very specific incarnations in various religions. There's no coincidence there because the concept of "God" is an answer to a question which may (or may not) be correct.
3. Okay, maybe there were only 2 things wrong with your argument.
4. Nevermind, I lied. Ho ho ho. Yes, we'd need to use creativity to realize it, the same way we need creativity to answer all sorts of questions. Okay, I guess I already addressed this. Oh well, 4 numbers looks way more convincing than 2. It's, like, twice as convincing!
straw man argument, as we both know thats not what i'm attempting to do. You resort to this kind of thing alot when your real logic has run out.
You're...not attempting to offer up evidence refuting the idea of God?
That's cool, earlier you said, and I quote:
Being agnostic means ingoring the physical evidence.
So, y'know, I was kinda hoping you'd share the physical evidence. No? Drat. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:16:15 PM | RE Msg: 63 by RocketMan_Len:
Why is it considered foolish when someone proposes that people were made by aliens, but the proposal that we were made by God is acceptable I don't knoat that it is. I've watched enough Sci-Fi about the possibilities of humans being made by aliens, and know of enough books that go into the possibility very deeply, that I hardly think it's any less worthy of consideration than G-d is. But many people aren't "Perceiving" in the MBTI types first developed by Jung, and many are "Judging" types. "Judging" types tend to be those who like making decisions, but don't like thinking about the possibilities all that much. Some Js decide that man was made by G-d. Some decide that man was made by aliens. Some decide that man was made by evolution.
Ps tend to like to think about the possibilities. So although Ps might make a personal choice, they still like to consider the other possibilities, and are not closed to other possibilities.
In case you haven't figured out by now, I'm a P. I still think the world needs Js, because someone has to make decisions, and follow orders. But the world needs open-minded thinkers as well, and I think that's what Ps are for. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:14:06 PM | | hi... oh pls, if I hear one more time that creationists are ~plain uneducated folk~ .. it is old, tired and just plain ridiculous ... tons and tons of educated people are creationists, yes even rocket scientists so lets keep that on the table so evolutionists will stop trying to suggest that intelligence keeps people from believing in God... creationists believe in science too just not the kind that contradicts Gods Wisdom... many intelligent creationists are not interested in the sciences that deny God, that has nothing to do with lacking logical thinking skills.... believing in God could have started with faith yet True Christians have experienced God in tangible, measurable ways, yet evolutionists choose to ignore that.... people who start a sentence with ~if there was a God~ should never go on to define God... how can you define God if you do not think that He exists... why speak as an authority on something that you do not believe in?? it is silly at best...... God has not left mankind yet but the bible says that God will remove His Presence when the USA passes a law forcing man to worship on sunday instead of Gods Holy 7th Day... when God leaves the earth evil will have free reign, only those who have been Sealed with Gods Mark will overcome... look for that, it is measurable... so are bible predictions, bible history and archelogical finds that confirm bible accuracy... if you can not see the proof that others see it is because you have hardened yourself against it.. inspite of all the ways that mankind has been divided in the end it comes down to 2 teams.. 2 platforms.. 2 faiths.. 2 religions.. 2 families.. 2 schools of thought.. 2 beliefs.. those who love God and those who do not..... blessings | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:24:48 PM |
but the bible says that God will remove His Presence when the USA passes a law forcing man to worship on sunday instead of Gods Holy 7th Day
I'm quite certain the USA is not mentioned ONCE in the text of the Bible.
Don't think I really need to go any further, since that pretty much summarizes the entire argument. Unsupported fantasy. Fact or fantasy...fact or fantasy...hm, decisions, decisions... | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:25:18 PM | | (The number of "spiritual" scientists == the number of atheist/agnostic scientists) > the number of "organized religion" scientists > the number of christian scientists > the number of times I will ever agree with Isdime > the number of "new earth" creationist scientists. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 1:55:10 AM | Isdime ,
Actually , in spite of how counter-intuitive it seems , she's right. There are plenty of highly intelligent , well-educated , and yes , even scientifically adept creationists out there. They just somehow manage to forget everything they ever learned in grade school and college/university the minute this topic comes up. I've never been able to figure out how they do it ...that's some serious mental juggling but then again , they try to avoid the topic too. Those creationists don't try and ram their nonsense into a science or history classroom either. It's the other ones (who also happen to constitute the vast majority unfortunately) who have no idea what science is or how it works that insist on lining it up side by side with creationism. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:50:49 AM | part of it all is ...the circumstantial aspect of all evolutionary evidence
until we actually observe a new species family beginning ... the creationists will be able to hold to their beliefs on that level.[just watching viruses and bacteria adapt to change is not good enough ... we need to see a whole new family happen ... like bactirus]
Now on the big bang level ... they will always be able to hold their beliefs
also ... until we actually take those building blocks of life and create new life that doesn't just die and reproduces and flourishes ... then they will also be able to hold to that aspect of their belief.
Its very simple in metaphoric terms .... show me the money.
Oh ... and that is also how agnostics are able to maintain their belief that neither side has good enough proof. Life is not all logic and never will be, though you can try to use logic to explain its lack of logic though it would only be a futile exercise.
Much like this thread. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:30:32 AM | | Not even that would be sufficient. Cross breeding, and anything to do with microorganisms has well established creationist counterpoint. You would need new, aboslutely beneficial characteristics showing up in animalia to convince a creationist that evolution is getting even a foothold. Microorganisms are not in the orthodoxed creationist food pyramid, and would be considered abiotic complex chemical reactions. Unfortunately, or 'conveniently' for evolutionists, that sort of thing takes more time, in both a creationist, and evolutionist timeline, than we have even been capable of having the argument. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 11:19:11 AM | Well here we are taking about faith in the sense that we believe in something with no evidence, that’s what seems to be the general consensus.
An explanations for our existence come in many forms, some people like to say ‘God did it’, some people like to say we don’t know but it happened, some have other explanations.
When you talk about ‘creation’ most, if not all, refer to how we got here and if you believe what some religions claim…In the beginning [at some point indeterminate] God [or insert relevant] created the land [all matter] and the sky [all space]…They call this a creation event.
Science prefers to explain it as ‘the big bang’ and everything that came from it, which seems to be the most popular opinion.
However, what cause this event? We have no evidence of a mechanism, so what was it? What did it?
Sciences likes the explanation of the multiverse, which says that another universe caused the existence of this one, that doesn’t so much explain our existence as dodge the whole issue. Again there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and their physical laws.
For example, a ‘God’s-eye’ view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of laws (bylaws). In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for us. We have selected it by our very existence.
So our universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the bylaws of our universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.
You maybe familiar with the expression…if God created the universe, who created God…conversely...If a universe created this universe, what created the multiverse…
We can all agree however, that something ‘outside’ our universe ‘did it’.
So what do we really understand by faith — namely, a belief in the existence of something outside this universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws. Our universes physical laws should have an explanation from within this universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of this physical existence.
Therefore, until science can come up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 11:28:04 AM |
characteristics showing up in animalia to convince a creationist that evolution is getting even a foothold.
Would LPR5 work? There is a mutation which increases the effectiveness of LPR5 which greatly increases bone density to equal that of Bruce Willis in Unbreakable. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 5:14:28 PM | ^^^^probably not ^^^^
we most likely would need to see a mass mutation in some animal's dna creating a totally new species with more genes ... like all the evolutionary changes claim.
Then we would need to figure out why it occured ... virus ... radiation ... or god.
refer to old 70's movie .... Phase 4 | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
