Haha LOVE IT!!!. ThanksNow that I proved that one, What else you got.
Haha LOVE IT!!!. ThanksNow that I proved that one, What else you got.
Actually, I find it would be easier to be a Thiest. All I would need to study would be the Bible and any unknowns in life will be covered by "God works in mysterious ways" or "It is not for us to know". I love the argument that life is too complex to have come about naturally, it must have been created. I will again pose the same question I have before, if life was too complex to be natural and needed a Creator, the Creator is as complex if not more. THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.Believing in atheism requires more faith than believing there is a God. If you were to believe that life occurred from completely natural means, then you would have to completely ignore the complexity of the universe and of life. DNA is more complex than a 747, a toaster oven, even a caomputer. How did a random event not even produce those items or similar items, but it produced the highly, I mean highly complex DNA? A computer laying out in the middle of the desert is a lot more likely event than DNA forming randomy.
But we can also observe the way particles in our environment act. By applying our knowledge of how our universe acts, we can then deduce other things....You can test what you observe. We observe fossils. The only thing known empirically certain is that the fossil came from a living creature, and that creature is now dead. Unless you saw that creature alive, watched it's previous and future generations reproduce, sample their DNA, and so on, it has exited the realm of the observable. I have no problem with making educated guesses, based on unprovable assumptions, as long as they aren't called scientific.
Actually, I find it would be easier to be a Thiest. All I would need to study would be the Bible and any unknowns in life will be covered by "God works in mysterious ways" or "It is not for us to know". I love the argument that life is too complex to have come about naturally, it must have been created. I will again pose the same question I have before, if life was too complex to be natural and needed a Creator, the Creator is as complex if not more. THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.
"[M]ultiple government-backed science museums sought to suppress AFA's constitutional and contractual right to express a pro-intelligent design viewpoint . . . They [Evolutionary Scientists] paint the picture of a culture of intolerance in which scientists and other academics, at least these in the LA area, believe it is normal, appropriate, and even necessary to actively stifle scientific views that dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The evidence in this case makes clear the discrimination that ID proponents face in the academy. After all, if ID proponents can't even rent a theater to host a private event to discuss intelligent design, what hope is there that ID will receive a fair hearing in the academy?"
It does seem like evolutionary scientists are able to take an open debate on their theory and not suppress any opposing view.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/evidence_revealed_in_californi050191.html
But we can also observe the way particles in our environment act. By applying our knowledge of how our universe acts, we can then deduce other things....
If I walk into my hallway, and I step in feces, I can assume an animal defecated in my hallway. Since I only have two dogs, and since my windows and doors are all closed, leaving no entry large enough for any other animal capable of defecating that size in my hallway, I can assume one of my two dogs did it. If I wanted to get scientific, I could have dna tests performed on the stool sample, and then compare the results to dna tests performed on samples collected from both of my dogs. I would not have to see either animal poop in my hallway to conclude that X dog pooped in my hallway, because I can apply logic and reason to observable evidence.
IncendiaryGunner said:In the same way, you can compare dna to show heredity.... this guy does it all the time:
IncendiaryGunner said:By continuing the process, it is plausible that we could provide links between fossils and their ancestors... or even disprove those theories.
IncendiaryGunner said:Believing in a scientific theory is agreeing with an assumption that came about through scientific experiments, and any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law is an implied assumption. Even gravity - although we all accept it - is inherently an implied assumption - because it is based on human means of observation. Calling something scientific is implying that it is an assumption... albeit one that follows strict, methodical applications of a very specific set of rules pertaining to reason and logic.
IncendiaryGunner said:Evolution is considered within the realm of science because it is possible to prove or disprove... empirical evidence can be applied that suggest if the assumption is correct or incorrect. The fact that it is extremely complex, or that we do not understand what experiments must be conducted to prove or disprove it - does not equate to it not being science.
THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.
If we could see inside of a a cell, we would see a “micro-miniaturized factory, containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up all together of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and without parallel in the non-living world - Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
I addressed that. If you assume there is a creator of this universe, for argument's sake, then the laws that govern this universe such as cause and effect need not affect the creator because he is not bounded by our physical laws which he created for us. That's the reason such a creator can not be approached by science, he is outside the observable limits of the creation.
Is your first response to any object you view was that it was spontaneously created or do you ask who created it? Why did we not have a car factory before humans if random events can create extermely complicated things, this would have been been far less complicated than a cell. Or as Bitter Clinger stated, a paper clip (which is extremely simple)?
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Ath/Michael%20Denton.pdf
[H]e proposes "sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems ... It replaces the 'invisible hands' of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. . ." [T]he phrase natural genetic engineering has proven troublesome to many scientists because they believe it supports the Intelligent Design argument. As one Nobel Laureate put it after a seminar, "If there is natural genetic engineering, that means there has to be an engineer." This empirically derived concept seems to many scientists to violate the principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding intelligence outside of nature. - James Shapiro, molecular biologist
Also, I too would like to be pointed to this testable, falsifiable theory of Intelligent Design that we ought to be teaching to our struggling kids. I don't mean the philosophical metaphysics of it, but the actual science of it. Can you point us to that?
"[R]ather due to the guidance of an intelligent omnipotent force which we cannot empirically examine and which exists outside of our perceived reality; and this is the explanation you choose simply because it is the one you choose. Fine for you, but I can't help but wonder if that kind of logic is the reason our kids are getting routinely slaughtered in math and science by the children of a dozen other countries right now.
Actually, quite the opposite, by its very nature. Theories are absolutely NOT taken on faith. They are testable. To stand, they must make solid predictions of something we can then observe. That is how it works. You and I may need to *believe* in the scientist that does the actual work, but the scientist certainly does not *believe* - she tests.The point is that evolution is a religion no better (if not worse) off than ID. I believe by faith -- so do you.