|
|
#861
09-22-2014, 02:59 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Interestingly enough this is something the current pope had suggested roughly a year ago, when he said that science and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive. Though it's worth noting that the current pope has several masters degrees including but not limited to, biological sciences. | ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#862
09-22-2014, 03:50 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena. You are free to believe in evolution, and god. Unfortunately there are extremely right wing Christians that dont believe that is possible. They are drawing the line, where most scientists would agree, that you are free to believe in religion as much as you like, so long as you don't let it interfere with your scientific endeavors. It doesn't got that way with creationists. Creationism isn't a science and it doesn't belong in schools not devoted to teaching the specifics of christian theology. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#863
09-22-2014, 04:10 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
There are plenty of people who have put together evidence of a creator. Some super intelligent being that was able to put together the sandbox in which we currently live. Could I label it as the THEORY of creationism? Sure, there are some gaps. But just look past those, because with enough time we'll find what we need to fill in those gaps. In the meantime, just trust me - I'm really smart, and I'm a scientist. "Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena. " Who said anything about that? Look at my past posts, I'm admitted that I'm not solid on my faith in being a Christian. And teaching Christianity isn't what I would ask for in science class. How certain are you that there wasn't some super intelligent thing/it that put all of this together? Is that really harder for you to believe than the random chance that all these observable laws in our sandbox just 'happen' to be? If you want to talk miraculous, that would be it -- just by chance, all of these laws work together to sustain this environment/life? That's the biggest coincidence I've ever been asked to swallow. Little closer to the sun, little further away, little different climate...oops, no life and no Earth. We're just super lucky that it happened this way? We can observe gravity and many other natural laws. We take it for fact because time and time again we can test them and they behave the same way. Have you ever stopped to ask WHY they work this way? How fucking lucky for us! Pure coincidence. Maybe God is a bunch of aliens who are laughing their asses off watching us try to figure it out. Maybe The Matrix (movie) is right, maybe we're all just a computer program and none of this is real. But to honestly reflect on all of the perfection around us and say that it's impossible that some super intelligent thing created this setting -- I can't really believe that you're being honest with yourself if you can dismiss it that easily. In fact, I find that more probable than mere coincidence. Many of my anti-God friends explain away so much by the term coincidence, but just how far can you go to think that this is all mere chance/luck?
__________________
[60 Shaman] Gwat
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#865
09-22-2014, 04:25 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
That along with what I see as overwhelming evidence for there being some greater being that put all of this together in perfect harmony leads me to believe in a creator. If I'm intellectually honest, I find that less of a stretch than some of the explanations currently found in science textbooks for the origin of life.
__________________
[60 Shaman] Gwat
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#866
09-22-2014, 06:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
I know you were responding to someone else however I feel like he will give a stereotypical Athiesm+ angry SJW response with a lot of profanity to your rational (at the very least in comparison to the rest of the anti-evolution arguments in this thread) points/arguments. Therefore I wish to jump the gun and address the points rather than attack your character like Iruinedyourday has been throughout the thread. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Quote:
Quote:
I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". Quote:
I'll say it another way. No reputable scientist will ever try to tell you that they know how life on earth began, no reputable scientist will tell you that evolution is 100% fact. If they do they are either a. full of it, or b. sick of saying "the most plausible explanation based upon tangible evidence available at this time" every time just to avoid some creationist going 'aha!'. Quote:
The universe has a series of laws, gravity, thermodynamics, physics, etc.. There is no evidence that the universe has ever had a different set of laws or that the laws can be or ever have been bent (in 15.6 billion years if you want to get technical). Science does not try to explain why those laws are there, science only asks 'how do they work?'. With 15.6 billion years to have gravity, thermodynamics, energy, matter, and all forms of physics doing whatever they have been doing, coupled with the vastness of space, Trillions of galaxies each containing trillions of stars, you cannot tell me that it took a miracle for a planet of the earth's size/compisition to orbit 1AU away from an orange/yellow star. Even in our own solar system there is speculation that several frozen moons might contain subsurface oceans containing life. You don't even need a planet our size orbiting the 'habitable zone' of a star, a large moon orbiting a gas giant could have the right ingredients for life. Recently, just here on earth we found a type of bacteria that uses arsenic to build it's DNA/RNA unlike every other known lifeform on the planet. All of those possibilities with our limited knowledge. You seem to be implying that the more we learn the less likely life will be found somewhere else when in fact the exact opposite is true. I will thank you for not using the word 'random' though. Too many people misuse the word when they talk about the universe forming. The laws have been there for as long as the universe has existed, there is no such thing as random in astro-physics. Quote:
Even more malformed is your begging "How fucking lucky for us". The earth is here, that's why we are here. Before you were born you didn't exist, you weren't some spirit in limbo thinking to yourself "oh boy, I hope I luck out and get born". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, your friends are wrong. Intelligence isn't a qualification to being an atheist, it's simply preferred. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Quote:
I'd also like to point out that your assertion that we believe we will one day know everything is completely baseless. We will probably never know 'everything'. There are tons of concepts that are too complex to even begin to understand or so far away that we'll never reach them to be able to study them. Quote:
The issue that arises is when you take a rational argument: "I find intelligent design of some sort to be more plausible than abiogenesis and I'm going to hold my breath on speciation until I see a bit more evidence than what's already on the table" and turn it into: "Your theory isn't perfect so I know that evolution is bunk and that it was in fact Yehovah who did it. I also know that the afterlife is real and we will be punished if we don't follow Jesus's son's teachings". If you can't see the problem with that, I honestly don't know what to tell you at that point. | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
#867
09-22-2014, 07:59 AM
|
|||
|
Fuck, after all the work I did last night bringing the impetus back on the ones making a claim and case for god, you cockwaffles drag science back into the conversation.
I'm starting to think everyone on the interwebs is part of a mass botting program that repeats the same arguments and rebuttals on every god dam forum. If you, Toofliss, say "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain" then it would have been difficult to argue with you because, ultimately, in our current understanding of how the universe works we don't know everything. However. Your statements have been "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain, so I choose to believe anyway and I'm right." Why do you believe? What proof is there to believe? You claimed I was making spooky and mysterious comments, but have yet to put forth anything more than "Well, people have been wrong so that proves I'm right" which is close to an autistic line of thinking. Every piece of scientific evidence proving evolution could be wrong, but that doesn't mean you or your belief is right. I also want to point out that religious folk abhor you. You are the lukewarm water to be spat out by god. "I believe in a creator until there's evidence to the contrary" is the antithesis of a faith based believer. Basically, you're an atheist who wants an excuse just in case the big guy upstairs is real and you have to face him. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#868
09-22-2014, 09:01 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quite the opposite of yourself. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#869
09-22-2014, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
you guys need help and im talkin about some sun therapy
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#870
09-22-2014, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote
The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world | ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
