Discussion in 'Religion' started by davidelkins, Oct 19, 2016.
Nice try :] Nothing to say to the subject matter?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What you actually mean is that you're ignoring the science in favour of belief.
What "other angles" are there with regard to science?
Ideally a "science freak" should work scientifically. You don't appear to.
You also seem to think that mere dismissal is worth something - as opposed to providing evidence for your stance.
No, not really...You are in the religious section so you can discuss/claim whatever myth or magic spaghetti monster you wish.
Have fun! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lets take it easy, but from the bible, first there were a word, from that we can conclude that God spoketh us to existence, hence one singular point of big bang theory, no one can image what that would look like, so why not like how it is, science is merely watching what happened, not why it happened.
Just a coincidence, universe creates itself from nothing for nothing because of the laws under itself operates,
how that make any sense? It is best we can come up with n science.
Didn't I already mention about divine fallacy? .
So you were throwing mud ;] Always, where you think myths came from?
How about angles in science, or is intelligent design approach not science? How one can discover anything if so?
Then You can show where I have make mistake in my scientific work? Keep in mind that believing God and bible isnt mistake while working with science, even Newton believed that there has to be a creator. One doesnt exclude out the other.
Well, thats was the point of it all, just reflecting the motives of opposite views, as I already stated.
Yes, the origin of big bang with no source, truly a divine fallacy.
I didn't say there was or was not a source. I just haven't applied any facts or analogies on how and why it happened. But simply insisting 'Goddidit' is not part of any scientific method.
Which is why I initially only inserted it as a nitpick. That gave you the opportunity to clarify.
You could have clarified with facts, but you didn't. You clarified with a misinformed talking point of evolution-deniers.
Where is the wonder!?! We take everything fro granted, its just is so.
Even the most simple protein which DNA is made off has astronomical chance to get to together to form itself and have function by chance.
Truly a miracle, what kind, thats what we cant agree. Let alone to build itself to be huge cell, complex as city.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Races are a human affectation. Genetically, it holds no water.
Evolution is observed in real time.
It happens with goldfish, Bettas, dogs, bacteria - and every other species, but these ones are easy.
You are confusing evolution - which is observable fact - with natural selection - which is theory.
This is going to go downhill pretty rapidly.
If you are going to have assertions that you hope to defend, you will first have to avail yourself of the facts involved in that of which you speak.
You have no valid assertion until and unless you first get those facts straight.
It is in my opinion, if you can take it as creator then," intelligent desing" if you will you a fundamental difference while finding out new information versus just studying through evolution perception.
The source have to has a name, or else it is just function with out explanation.
My source is God, the one who have created us.
My conviction that it is the God from the bible is irrelevant in this one. Are we agreeing there is God/Creator ~ Your source, our definations of Him/it just differs?
Ofcourse you could call it Source too :]
The thing about God, as distinct from some other physical cause, is that God is an intelligent entity.
You have only your belief that the initial cause is an entity that is aware and acts with purpose.
There's a strong correlation between
- not educating youself on the facts of biology, and
- having beliefs about it.
Sorry about that, but as I already stated I will go for that in other thread, in more detail, like I said somewhere else, I promise, I just used modus operandi of the opposite "no God" side to achieve balance, if you really study what is there the solid proof for evolution to be absolute fact, there isnt, its very appealing though trough the way but there is many kind of problems also, its kind of puzzle with edges only build.
I have not only observed it, I have performed it. So have you.
When you take antibiotics, you are selecting some bacteria over others - non-antibiotic-resistant bacteria over antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Heck, you do it when you wash your hands with antibacterial soap.
To every fish breeder or dog breeder, evolution is routine - indeed, for some, their livelihood depends on it.
Here, observe some evolution.
Again, avail yourself of facts before forming an opinion.
No, thats not all I have, I have that too. I was just reducing is there a creator or not, God if you will, for sake of argument, to solve is there point to be discussing begin with what God have sayeth in case the other dont include God in discussion.
More meaningful approach to this thread would have been which God, from the Gods what we know by our education, not what we think He is. God from the bible could be called the source of all things. Surely God is intelligent entity and acts with purpose, thats what gives us meaning, that it is what I have come to believe, am I up task, trying hard, not easy by any means. I sin like hell time to time, God fordid me.
Correct. ID is not science.
Sure: show me your "work".
Belief isn't science.
Neither is "god".
Having a favourite colour isn't science or scientific, but it doesn't prevent someone doing science - provided they proceed scientifically.
This is nonsense: applying a name doesn't mean it's an explanation.
Or at least that's what you believe.
An unsupported belief.
I'm agnostic, and in the short life I have I make myself content with my ignorance. There are many more discoveries out there to be made and I don't see God relevant to the scientific method.
Separate names with a comma.