A
archangel
Guest
this thread has been reduced to one liners...barely sentences...LOL!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
archangel said:this thread has been reduced to one liners...barely sentences...LOL!
Abbey Normal said:Simply because God-based beliefs can't be scientifically proved, is not a valid reason to totally exclude it from curriculum or denigrate it, which is precisely what the advocates of "scienctific theory only" are engaged in.
dilloduck said:Ain't simplicity great?
Abbey Normal said:Simply because God-based beliefs can't be scientifically proved, is not a valid reason to totally exclude it from curriculum or denigrate it, which is precisely what the advocates of "scienctific theory only" are engaged in.
archangel said:when a subject has been played out...zzzzzzzz! :coffee3:
Bullypulpit said:No, it's merely that the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" have exhausted their limited store of intellectual ammunition.
Bullypulpit said:No, it's merely that the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" have exhausted their limited store of intellectual ammunition.
dilloduck said:or science just doesn't know when to quit and admit they don't know.
gop_jeff said:I'm not talking about before the Big Bang. I'm talking about the causation of the existence of matter. Why should science not be concerned with that?
It's not that they refuse to admit they don't know as much as it is they refuse to halt their progress in studying it.dilloduck said:or science just doesn't know when to quit and admit they don't know.
Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.dilloduck said:Science has been wrong quite often over the centuries---but we are to trust it to provide us with the answers for everything?--I'll wait for the finished project and decide then.
The ClayTaurus said:Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.
I think the difference between religion and science is that science is ok with admitting they don't have the answer, and then dedicates itself to the discovery of the answer. Religion seems to take care of the unknown by calling it a matter of faith and being done with it.
Powerman said:I'm not sure that we'll ever know all of the answers. But sometimes it's ok to just say that you don't know. Your default response to "I don't know" shouldn't be that there must be some invisible being that created everything and cares if you are circumsized or not.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...age=ro+2:27&version=csb&context=1&showtools=1
25 For circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law's requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision? 27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart--by the Spirit, not the letter. His praise is not from men but from God.
Max Power said:Einstein would disagree.
And experiments have backed up his theory.
Ahh, I see you are not familiar with quantum physics. Needless to say, you are incorrect.
See Schrodinger's cat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat
Can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? Perhaps.
Powerman said:Your default response to "I don't know" shouldn't be that there must be some invisible being that created everything and cares if you are circumsized or not.
The ClayTaurus said:Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.
I think the difference between religion and science is that science is ok with admitting they don't have the answer, and then dedicates itself to the discovery of the answer. Religion seems to take care of the unknown by calling it a matter of faith and being done with it.
dilloduck said:There is no end to the study people can do in seeking spiritual answers and not all spiritual people claim they have all the answers. They simply contend that the answers lie in the spiritual realm, not the material one.
Science believes ( with no proof ) that the answers all lie in the material realm so that's where there look and refuse to admit that spiritual based answers may have some validity.
Science and religion look to different sources for answers and both are naturally more fond of their own appraoch. I don't think it makes one better than the other.
gop_jeff said:Shouldn't be according to who? You? I would be just as justified telling you that your default response to any discussion about God shouldn't be insulting religious believers out of hand.
Powerman said:I'm saying that there is no merit into simply making up an invisible being to explain things. If science can't tell us what happened before the big bang or how matter was created that is in no way an argument for the existence of a God. You can just as easily ask where this God came from.