46 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sy2502 says:
You are treating scientists as you treat preachers: you imagine that they just sit there telling you whatever they want, and you choose to believe or not what they say. WRONG! Science is something you can try out for yourself, if you choose not to believe what scientists tell. Of course, to do so you need to take the time and effort to get educated, work in labs, and undergo scrutiny from the scientific community, which is something many can't be bothered doing.

It is creationism that tells you to believe what you are told, because god cannot be produced in an experiment, and especially because the very concept of god is contrary to any law of physics.

Moreover, on one side you like to say that science proves creationism, and on the other you say that science is rigged against god. On one side you say there are scientists who support creationism, on the other you say scientists should not be trusted. Well, which one is it? Science is just convenient to you when it supports your belief, and it is of the devil when it doesn't suit you?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sy2502 says:
You are wrong, I don't have "faith" in evolution. Faith is a blind and irrational belief based on emotions instead of fact. I believe in evolution because I have studied the subject quite a lot, and I have seen enough proof and enough convincing arguments that I can't help but believe it. The web sites you mention are full of pseudo-science, and misrepresentation of scientific facts. They use things that science can't yet explain as proof that it can never be explained. They contain no reference to reputable scientists and scientific papers, because no reputable scientist believes in creation. For each of these creationist sites there are hundreds more where true scientists prove evolution with scientific facts. Do a web search and you'll find more than enough.

The difference between you and me is that I am perfectly willing to review my believes, if you can give me solid evidence of the contrary, which so far you have NOT done. You on the other hand, wouldn't review your stance if evidence smacked you in the face. Instead of refuting the evolutionary argument with logic and fact, you simply reject is as inspired by the devil. That sounds a lot like closed-minded fanatism to me.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
says:
singinrick:

Thanks for the reply.

While we do share differing points of view in regards to this, I was very interested in your reply and enjoyed reading it.

Believe it or not, it is good to see and understand someone elses opinion or viewpoint, and you clearly explained yours.

Thanks,
McDazz
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sy2502 says:
orinvee you really need to get yourself an education. The second law of thermodynamics says that the total enthropy of a system can only increase. This means that the enthropy in a part of a system can actually decrease if the enthropy in another part of the system increases by a larger amount. There are plenty of examples of this in nature. For example, a snowflake has less enthropy than a drop of water, so according to your argument snowflakes should never form, which we all know is not the case. So we see everyday that simple things do, in fact, organize themselves into more complex entities, just through the laws of nature, with no need for inteligent intervention. Why is it difficult for you to imagine that the same happened to form the basic life forms?
Remember that science progresses in time, so the fact that now we don't understand all the physical processes involved doesn't mean we never will, and is therefore no proof that evolution is wrong. Science never pretends to have all the answers, but it does expect that any answer you provide must be testable and fully proved. None of you bible bashers has given the smallest proof, or any way for me to test your arguments. I would be stupid to believe you just on a "because I say so" basis.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sy2502 says:
singinrick you keep talking about "facts" and stuff that is "plain as day", but you don't provide a shred of proof for it. The fact you, or an old book for that matter, say something doesn't make it a fact. Not that this would bother you, since you say you despise science, and therefore despise its base in logic, repeatable experiments and need of proof. You would rather check reason at the door for good. Good for you! Just understand that some of us still use their brain, and don't believe stuff just because "I just tell you it is so".
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
orinvee says:
Kvaser: "That being said, I would really, really like for any of you fanatics out there to point out a single evidence for the existance of god..."

Why fanatics? Why not ask some mentally elite 'top mind' well schooled in academia...someone like myself?

Brace yourself! Proof, like the word 'evolution', is ALSO non-existent...there is no such thing. NOTHING can be proved, only SURMISED. Scientists, religionists, or any OTHER fanatics have the same one thing to rely on: FAITH!

You believe in TOE; another believes in God. No matter, you both rely on faith.

So, the question is, do you put your faith in MEN, whose ignorance has long been established, OR do you put your faith in a higher life form, ONE who is NOT restrained by time or space?

Try to be logical, please.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
orinvee says:
Kvaser said "There are lots of proof for the evolution..."

Actually, no, evolution is a make-believe word like tooth-fairy. It doesn't exist. It is an attempt to redefine the REAL word, 'change'. Change is dynamically and irrefutably a fact, powered by TIME.

The second LAW of thermodynamics commonly called the LAW of Entropy reveals that the universe in general is in a state of DECAY. IOW, everything is DEVOLVING.

If your THEORY goes against a LAW, it is bogus and the stuff of fairy tales. Thus, the TOE is a big joke.

Kvaser: "If there is a god, and he created me, he created me with a brain capable of logic, so I'm sure he doesnt mind me using it..."

No, He would prefer it if you WOULD start using it.

reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mitdgreenb says:

To the person who characterized me as a "Bible-basher" for my post on G-d planting riddles, you are really quite far from the truth. My post offers a commentary that science and faith are not incompatible... and that Faith fundamentalists like SinginRisk, by making things "faith versus science," may be violating BOTH by doing so.

But Science fundamentalists do the same... by extending Science beyond the boundaries of testable knowledge. Doing so moves Science into the realm of Faith. For instance, Science currently acknowledges that it's unknown why the Laws of Physics are the way they are, or why physical constants have the values they do. Thinking that knowing the laws/constants means that you know the underlying cause is an extension of Science into Faith, at least until you have a testable hypothesis.

And frequently having a testable hypothesis simply leads to more questions that are unknown or unknowable. And that's my point: if you extend Science into the unknowable, you're as bad as SinginRick for extending Faith into the known and testable. What you can know is the limits of Science and Faith... and not extend one into the other.

My Faith is that G-d set the rules in motion, creating a complex universe in which we wonder... in which we have the joy of discovering aspects of that complexity through Science... rather than simply having nothing but survival to think about.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jairod says:
I have one question for Kvasar: If you can't prove the existance of God, can you prove the non-existance of God? Niether can be proven within our little brains. What is clear is the evidence for the many creatures that are now extinct. What is clear, also, is the evidence for the time line given by the scientists. In no part of the Bible does God, or any of His Prophets, wise men, etc., belie the notion that science is not of God. In fact, the oposite is true as evidenced by the miracles of
Christ. His miracles prove the necessety for science. When He gave us the Holy Spririt, He gave it for what reason? To help us along the Way. Our job is to listen to Him, so the different ministries evolved. One for healing (Internal and external), one for bettering the lot of man with our own hands (expulsion from Eden) - that means we have to understand our environment. And, that means the sciences as we have them, and sure to change and improve as time goes on. If you disagree with science, you are infact diasgreeing with God Who gave us science.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
kvaser says:
There are lots of proof for the evolution, the only ones who says there aren't are the religious scientists who believes their faith is more important than their job.

But even if that were not the case, it STILL would be more logical to believe in something that could be reasoned than something that "merely is" . If there is a god, and he created me, he created me with a brain capable of logic, so I'm sure he doesnt mind me using it...

That being said, I would really, really like for any of you fanatics out there to point out a single evidence for the existance of god. There are a lot of people saying evolution has no proof, but what about the opposite?

And no, the bible is not viable... Its written by man, for man, and a thousand years ago to add; by lunatics maybe, no one knows (but it does seem like it if you read it). If thats considered a true source then so is every other religious texts, including for an example the worship of Mithra from which much of christianity was taken...
reply
2/5