I want some answers

[dilloduck]

Why not just say. "I don't know"
Why does there have to be this invisible supernatural being?
Certainly he would have had to come from something as well.

I think the "I don't know" answer is quite spiritual myself. It gives the creator more credit. The highest we can attain is awe, in my opinion.

 

[Gunny]

Why not just say. "I don't know"
Why does there have to be this invisible supernatural being?
Certainly he would have had to come from something as well.

Why should I say "I don't know," when it is YOU who doesn't know? I'm secure in my faith/beliefs.

However, it is quite obvious you are not from your continuing/repeated threads all saying the same thing. I accept the fact you do not believe in ID. That is YOUR problem. I have not posted thread after thread discrediting scientific theories of origin in order to bolster my own beliefs within myself and convince others I'm smarter than they are.

Think about it.

 

[manu1959]

Well there certainly isn't anything LESS scientific than religious theory now is there?

your intellect

 

[manu1959]

That's what I was trying to say also. That said, I believe the evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence for creationism.

is it just me or must something actual "be" before it can evolve?

evolution can not be the cause for spontaneous life....evloution is what happens after life comes into being....


y'all are arguing apples and oranges

 

[MissileMan]

Until you do, a Supreme Being is far more logical to me than out of nothing came something.

Except your supreme being had to whip up the same something from the same nothing.

 

[Nienna]

Well there certainly isn't anything LESS scientific than religious theory now is there?

Why is there this assumed dichotomy between religion and science? If there was a Creator (and MOST people believe in a god of some kind), science is merely the study of His creation. Therefore, science necessarily involves religion. The modern sciences were born from the womb of Christianized Europe, where people lost their fear of nature to the understanding that it was created to house them. Religion can foster science. But so-called scientists have imposed a priori restrictions on the types of explanations that will be considered acceptable.

 

[Nienna]

Except your supreme being had to whip up the same something from the same nothing.

He IS the "something."

 

[Gunny]

Except your supreme being had to whip up the same something from the same nothing.

Depends on where you think He came from, now doesn't? That in and of itself is a separate topic, and just as much conjecture as this one is.

 

[MissileMan]

is it just me or must something actual "be" befor it can evolve?

evolution can not be the cause for spontaneous life....evloution is what happens after life comes into being....


y'all are arguing apples and oranges

If you go back far enough along the evolutionary chain, then you would necessarily come to the first living organism. Evolution does not attempt to explain how this organism came to be, but does attempt to link all life back to it. I haven't seen any proponents of ID or creationism alleging that this designer dropped a single cell on the planet and let all life spring forward from it, rather that whole complex beings were whipped up from nothing.

 

[manu1959]

If you go back far enough along the evolutionary chain, then you would necessarily come to the first living organism. Evolution does not attempt to explain how this organism came to be, but does attempt to link all life back to it. I haven't seen any proponents of ID or creationism alleging that this designer dropped a single cell on the planet and let all life spring forward from it, rather that whole complex beings were whipped up from nothing.

i agree, but either way the first "thingy" was either a random accident whipped up from nothing or whipped up on purpose....from there evolution either with a push or random....no way to prove or disprove either

 

[MissileMan]

i agree, but either way the first "thingy" was either a random accident whipped up from nothing or whipped up on purpose....from there evolution either with a push or random....no way to prove or disprove either

 

[manu1959]

group hug-------->

 

[Gunny]

Well there certainly isn't anything LESS scientific than religious theory now is there?

Howso? Scientific theories of origin are every bit as unsubstantiated by evidence as religious theories of origin.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well if you believe god is allpowerful and can do anything, then it's nothing for him to create humanity, plus a fossil record which appears to support evolution to lure the nonbelievers away from god.

Again, it's a matter of faith as to whether any god exists or not. There is no objective evidence of the existance of such an entity. Nice try at dodging the question though.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Science is not the only way to determine truth. Logic and philosophy are equally valid ways to determine whether or not something is true. As ID/creationism can be shown to be true using logical arguments.

Logical methods can, and do lead to formally valid conclusions. The problem with deductive, or <i>a priori</i>, reasoning however is that the specific conclusions that may be drawn from a general premise can be either true or false, regardless of whether they correspond to the reality or not. Their truth or falsehood relies entirely on the quality of facts used to support the argument and how they are manipulated.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Howso? Scientific theories of origin are every bit as unsubstantiated by evidence as religious theories of origin.

You show an appalling lack of understanding of the sientific method. In order to rectify this deficit in your education let me refer you here:

<center><a href=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html>Introduction to the Scientific Method</a></center>

The scientific method is the application of inductive, or <i>a posteriori</i>, reasoning. It allows us, through the observation of specific events over time, to infer general principles from those specific events. It is also self correcting as new information is incoporated and the hypotheses are either expanded or revised. This processs is simply not applicable to religious experience, nor is the concept of independent verification through the use of established experiemental procedure.

 

[Gunny]

You show an appalling lack of understanding of the sientific method. In order to rectify this deficit in your education let me refer you here:

<center><a href=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html>Introduction to the Scientific Method</a></center>

The scientific method is the application of inductive, or <i>a posteriori</i>, reasoning. It allows us, through the observation of specific events over time, to infer general principles from those specific events. It is also self correcting as new information is incoporated and the hypotheses are either expanded or revised. This processs is simply not applicable to religious experience, nor is the concept of independent verification through the use of established experiemental procedure.

Sorry jackass, you show that no matter how you dress it up, it is STILL guesswork without the presence of evidence. You I have noticed show an appalling lack of manners. Goes to show that all that education didn't net you one ounce of class.

I posted my statement. Refute it or STFU. You want to start trying to piss down my back and I'm more than willing to roll in the mud with you, pig.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sorry jackass, you show that no matter how you dress it up, it is STILL guesswork without the presence of evidence. You I have noticed show an appalling lack of manners. Goes to show that all that education didn't net you one ounce of class.

I posted my statement. Refute it or STFU. You want to start trying to piss down my back and I'm more than willing to roll in the mud with you, pig.

Your opinion, and there's nothing to refute but your opinion. The scientific method has done more to advance the cause of humanity than prayerful and pious adherence to religious dogma. History bears this out. Dismissed.

 

[dilloduck]

Your opinion, and there's nothing to refute but your opinion. The scientific method has done more to advance the cause of humanity than prayerful and pious adherence to religious dogma. History bears this out. Dismissed.

And just what IS the cause for humanity, bully?

 

[manu1959]

Your opinion, and there's nothing to refute but your opinion. The scientific method has done more to advance the cause of humanity than prayerful and pious adherence to religious dogma. History bears this out. Dismissed.

if not for several cultures of religious dogma you would not be a pompous ass