19 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayActually KJ this is where your wrong, its data which says the earth is 4.5 billion years. The only people who don't accept this are people who believe in a young earth. Most of these people have an imaginary friend who supposedly wrote a book which disagrees with this data. Therefore the data cannot be correct.
You know "it is people" not some being called science that says the
earth is 4.5 billion years old, you should get at least that little bit
straight in your head before you move on. People not some being
called science 'believe' the earth is what they say it is, that does not
mean it is, it is only accepted by people that is the way it is. You
attempti ...[text shortened]... for "people say"! Come back to earth and live
here with the rest of us will you!
Kelly
Saying science says isn't saying "people say" its saying the data says.....
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayReading minds? I don't have to, you already said 'god' created the universe and you don't care if it took 8000 years or 8 billion years, you are positive some god did it. And I assume, you think after it made the universe, is somehow manages the movement of every atom from the big bang onwards, forcing them to do its bidding. So tell me I'm wrong.
You are good at mind reading and understand what I am and I am
not interested in doing? You don't have a clue, you simply spend
more time worrying about 'motives' than the questions.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you want to bring up old spiritual board debates I suggest you go
Reading minds? I don't have to, you already said 'god' created the universe and you don't care if it took 8000 years or 8 billion years, you are positive some god did it. And I assume, you think after it made the universe, is somehow manages the movement of every atom from the big bang onwards, forcing them to do its bidding. So tell me I'm wrong.
to the spiritual board to do it. Yes, you here are mind reading, I have
been sticking to what we can see and hear in the here and now. My
views about ID are being discussed, if you wish to bring faith and
religion into a discussion about ID I suggest you start a thread in the
spiritual board.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoYou have heard some guy named "science" speak about how old the
Actually KJ this is where your wrong, its data which says the earth is 4.5 billion years. The only people who don't accept this are people who believe in a young earth. Most of these people have an imaginary friend who supposedly wrote a book which disagrees with this data. Therefore the data cannot be correct.
Saying science says isn't saying "people say" its saying the data says.....
age of the earth or universe is have you? That is the bottom line,
if you want to tell me the "to you" or "to joe blow" the data suggests
X to them, that is not the same thing as saying, X is true. If you
cannot wrap your mind around that and see it for what it is, that is
another important topic altogether.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoThe topic is ID, did you see me say ONE WORD about evolution being
KJ do you truly want to understand evolution?
wrong here, or I cared to take a class for it given by you? Did you see
me question evolution, did you see me say evolution was wrong, and
in error any where in this discussion? You are very selective on what
you respond to.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by MissOleumSo you favor chaos and others favor God. Really that is the dividing line in the two ideologies and yes they are both ideologies and NOT science. If you don't agree then tell me where is the scientific "proof" for either? It would help if science could at least create living organism like a cell in the hopes of proving these things might occur haphazardly.
That has got to be some designer's nightmare .... couldn't believe my eyes! A decent prang would have to improve its looks...
I'm in favour of chaos - I believe it's a synonym for design. Remember the mug which won an international design award - and one or two million mugs later they realised you can't drink out of it without dribbling down both sides of your face! Intelligent design is almost an oxymoron.
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyIf people through science created life that proves what?
So you favor chaos and others favor God. Really that is the dividing line in the two ideologies and yes they are both ideologies and NOT science. If you don't agree then tell me where is the scientific "proof" for either? It would help if science could at least create living organism like a cell in the hopes of proving these things might occur haphazardly.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt would prove that life could be created by mankind or that it is possible to do at all devoid of God initiating it. At least it would give them a scientific leg to stand on. It would at least demonstrate the scientific process of trial and observation.
If people through science created life that proves what?
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyIn other words ID is the route to go?
It would prove that life could be created by mankind or that it is possible to do at all devoid of God initiating it. At least it would give them a scientific leg to stand on. It would at least demonstrate the scientific process of trial and observation.
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyYou've misused my post here - I'm not part of your scientific-religious-intelligentdesign debate - I'm talking to coquette about weird design of cars and mugs by so-called designers. Please don't drag me into your debate just because you've hijacked the original humorous thread.
So you favor chaos and others favor God. Really that is the dividing line in the two ideologies and yes they are both ideologies and NOT science. If you don't agree then tell me where is the scientific "proof" for either? It would help if science could at least create living organism like a cell in the hopes of proving these things might occur haphazardly.
20 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI would say that it is "a" route to go that is just as viable as the "chaos" theory since there is no "proof" for either. However, in my mind if you can't duplicate what you insist happened "naturally" then you have a problem. Of course, its not my problem because I believe we had a designer and creator.
In other words ID is the route to go?
Kelly
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyAnd you feel that way because if it were to be unrelated to a fairy god mother you would feel completely alone but with your invisible friend, you always have a backup for your certainty.
I would say that it is "a" route to go that is just as viable as the "chaos" theory since there is no "proof" for either. However, in my mind if you can't duplicate what you insist happened "naturally" then you have a problem. Of course, its not my problem because I believe we had a designer and creator.
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree there are pig headed people in all walks of life. I can not speak for all atheist scientists, but I can give you my viewpoint. I believe in all the vast and various forms of evidence in favour of evolution, however not in a fundamentalist type of way. If evidence was provided to suggest otherwise then I would not blindly hold onto this belief in a faith based way. I will reject the god hypothesis until evidence is provided in its favour.
You have evidence that no God is required? That is a spiritual form
sort of statement isn't it? I mean I don't know what you could show me
or anyone that says this shows that no God is required. I don't know
you have something that shows us how you get something from
nothing? Personally, I believe that those that reject God can be just
as pig headed wi ...[text shortened]... too, it is more of a human
trait than a 'theist' trait in my opinion, do you agree?
Kelly
In my experience a fundamentalist belief without evidence is a theist trait. However, we are all capable of pig headedness.
Regards