God and Science

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Dec 5, 2009.

  1. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    I find it funny that some theists denigrate science until it seems to "confirm" their Creator theory. There's nothing evidential about the anthropic principle. It has no more substance than the theory about parallel universes.

    "The anthropic principle is based on the implicit assumption that life must operate on similar chemistry to our own, which has been criticized for being overly restrictive (sometimes called carbon chauvinism). If the weakest precondition for generic life is simply a sufficiently complex environment to allow reproduction and evolution, then any universe which could provide such complexity (in one form or another) could bring forth life.

    "The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued to be a misnomer. While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the coincidences require human life or demand that carbon-based life develop intelligence."
     
    #51     Dec 10, 2009
  2. Wait a minute . . . wait a minute . . . Browns about to beat the Steelers !!!! MAYBE there is a God !?!?!?
     
    #52     Dec 10, 2009
  3. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    What kind of buffoon thinks that supports his claim that "Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong when scientific consensus is that they have it all figured out"?

    Oh yeah: YOU. Circular777

    LMAO!

    Find one quote saying "we scientists have everything figured out."

    You are stupid squared. Too funny. XD
     
    #53     Dec 11, 2009
  4. "And 'Yes': as a child I did ask why, why, why"

    ...and you were qualified to understand the answers?

    So what would make you think you are now qualified to understand the answers of a creator of the Universe?

    Don't you think there might just be as much if not more of a gap of understanding between you and a creator of the Universe as there was when you were a child and you asked questions of adults?

     
    #54     Dec 11, 2009
  5. stu

    stu

    Those who do not differentiate between real people and imaginary friends which created the universe , might well be short of a few qualifications.

     
    #55     Dec 11, 2009
  6. Common sense.
     
    #56     Dec 11, 2009
  7. Those who do not understand the differentiation between actual and hypothetical questions are more than short of a few qualifications...

     
    #57     Dec 11, 2009
  8. holy sh^t, we got three god threads going on simultaneously.

    please, someone start a another! LOL :p
     
    #58     Dec 11, 2009
  9. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    Yep, and the same thumper started two of them, in knee-jerk reaction to the first one. LOL
     
    #59     Dec 11, 2009
  10. fhl

    fhl



    You have an imaginary theory of how the universe was created. Never seen it, but it seems to have become a real friendly theory to you.

    And then there's that imaginary theory of how inorganic matter came to life all by itself. Again, never seen it, but you folks seem to have made a real friend of it, too.

    How about your imaginary evolutionary tree? No fossil records to back it up, but you wouldn't let that come between you and your friends, would you?

    And just like the climate scientists, the evolution proponents make sure that only <b>very carefully chosen proponents</b> of the evolution theory, the kind of scientists who <i>aren't very skeptical</i>, lol, get to publish.

    We could just replace the climate gate scandal with evolution and there really wouldn't be any difference....me thinks.
     
    #60     Dec 11, 2009