Originally posted by sonhouseI'd say you should look around before you start throwing rocks, since
I'd say a working scientist IS a life. What do you do? Your best to destroy over 100 years of evolutionary development. Show me in scientific terms where they are wrong.
You prove my point exactly about religious people being totally egotistical when it comes to god and your self supposed superiority over the other animals on the planet. You set yourself u ...[text shortened]... her fish die off, etc. But that doesn't matter to you because we are on the top of the rung.
the ego of those that think they 'KNOW" all about our distant history
is a bit much too. I cannot disprove your faith, and you have faith,
you dress it up a little differently, yet is it what it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzYep, I mispelled a word. It happens, I'm sure it doesn't ever happen
If you'd made the mistake once or twice, I'd let it go. But you made it post after post, time after time.
The fact that you don't even know how to spell a simple word (which would seem central to your argument) doesn't bode well for anything else.
You, likewise, attack accepted scientific knowledge because it contradicts your own narcissistic b ...[text shortened]... use you refuse to acknowledge that anything else has as much of a right to exist as you do.
to you. You got me, I'm human, I mispelled a word, my life is over
as I know it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. I'm trying to make a point. The point is that you go on and on about something that, in itself, is stupid.
You leaving the discussion about your Disney science to enter into
this discussion?
Kelly
You have in no way invalidated the body of respectable science that I am quoting by your ramblings, which amount to nothing more than "I don't like the explanation".
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou can call it respectable till the cows come home, but hearing
No. I'm trying to make a point. The point is that you go on and on about something that, in itself, is stupid.
You have in no way invalidated the body of respectable science that I am quoting by your ramblings, which amount to nothing more than "I don't like the explanation".
statements about dogs making promises, elephants reactions in
mirrors so that you ‘know’ the level of understanding that elephant
has, if that is a level of respectable to you, fine. It is asinine as far as
I'm concern; it is now no small wonder why you believe in the myths
about how life began and changed over time from the very simple life
form to the very complex.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis just shows how much of a narcissist you really are.
You can call it respectable till the cows come home, but hearing
statements about dogs making promises, elephants reactions in
mirrors so that you ‘know’ the level of understanding that elephant
has, if that is a level of respectable to you, fine. It is asinine as far as
I'm concern; it is now no small wonder why you believe in the myths
about how life began and changed over time from the very simple life
form to the very complex.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I do tire of this song. We've been over what faith is, and
I cannot disprove your faith, and you have faith,
you dress it up a little differently, yet is it what it is.
what differences between 'faith' in God or the Bible means and 'faith'
in science. It isn't 'faith' that leads me to conclude the sun will come
up tomorrow, or that Abraham Lincoln was president of the US, or that
Jesus existed. These are things which have a certain amount of
evidence, the compelling nature of which makes it irrational to conclude
otherwise. 'Faith' that the earth and the universe was created more or
less as it exists today some 10k years ago with all animal 'types'
immediately present requires the suspension of belief in all the
other types of evidence available which allow the rational conclusion that
evolution took place over the course of several billion years.
They are not the same and the repeated equating of them is utterly
disingenuous.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio having the same argument over and over does not mean
Kelly, I do tire of this song. We've been over what faith is, and
what differences between 'faith' in God or the Bible means and 'faith'
in science. It isn't 'faith' that leads me to conclude the sun will come
up tomorrow, or that Abraham Lincoln was president of the US, or that
Jesus existed. These are things which have a certain amount of
not the same and the repeated equating of them is utterly
disingenuous.
Nemesio
that it has been settled even once, Science in and of itself does not
say anything, it isn't a person or a deity, it is people who speak, and
people look at this or that and draw conclusions some times accurately
and some times not. It moves into faith when you start relying upon
things that are assumptions at the very foundation of your beliefs. If
it isn't provable, it isn't provable, and the next data point that comes
along can with change how everything is viewed. I'm completely okay
with stating I have faith in God and scripture, I'm not trying to do any
thing like misrepresent my stand; however, as this conversation has
shown when you have people saying "dogs make promises" or the
elephant reacted this way or that to a mirror so it is obvious now that
we know what it is thinking and know its level of understanding, we
left truth and run off to a Disney universe.
The only reason people even accept that crap is that is lines up nicely
with their foundational views of the universe, so they read into it what
they will to get what they want, to help add to the justification of their
views about how we got here. If they didn’t have a vested interest in
the results, they would reject out of hand the fluff that was spewed out
here as science.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I asked earlier KJ, is it true that the technology we work and live with functions the way we expect it to just a big ol' coincidence??? Do you think that science is just un-justified guesswork? If there has never been any evidence of an invisible cluster of noodly appendages pushing things to the ground, is it still wrong to rule this out when the only other viable alternative to falling objects is gravity?
Nemesio having the same argument over and over does not mean
that it has been settled even once, Science in and of itself does not
say anything, it isn't a person or a deity, it is people who speak, and
people look at this or that and draw conclusions some times accurately
and some times not. It moves into faith when you start relying upon
things that lts, they would reject out of hand the fluff that was spewed out
here as science.
Kelly
Both have faith IMO.
The theist has faith that God exists.
Evolutionists (not all scientists) have faith that the Theory of Evolution "proves" man evolved from dirty water despite a bazillion missing links.
Can't prove God exists.
Can't prove man evolved from a lighting-struck mudpuddle to an Einstine.
Believing either means you have faith IMO
Originally posted by jammerThat is complete and total rubbish. There is no "faith" involved in evolution. It is a simple matter of observing the super-abundance of physical evidence that supports the theory. It's a matter of measuring the data, not of having faith that the data is there. It takes an amazing amount of faith to keep from seeing the evidence in favor of evolution.
Both have faith IMO.
The theist has faith that God exists.
Evolutionists (not all scientists) have faith that the Theory of Evolution "proves" man evolved from dirty water despite a bazillion missing links.
Can't prove God exists.
Can't prove man evolved from a lighting-struck mudpuddle to an Einstine.
Believing either means you have faith IMO
The theist can't prove that god exists, and there is no good reason to assume he does.
Even if the scientist can't "prove" evolution is true, there is an overwhelming amount of physical evidence to indicate that it is.
So quit with this "both require faith" garbage. It simply isn't true.