"I just want to bring up how hypocritical science can be .....To prove a god or a miracle, there must be un deniable imperical proof and evidence....yet these same doctors many times have proclaimed people dead or doomed and when they become well or live despite "undeniable illness" ...they just shrug and say we don't know......" So your saying all science is hypocritical because sometimes doctors make mistakes? That doesnt make any sense. Or are you saying that since they dont know EVERYTHING they shouldn't be believed at all? That wouldn't make any sense either. "Scientists scoff at the thought of a creator....but will blindly accept the idea of a "big bang" that just happened to put everything in the perfect spot ..." Big difference. religious people claim that god absolutely exists with no hard evidence. Scientists accept the big bang as a theory (a hypothesis with some evidence), not as FACT. ""They laugh at the thought of a creator of man....but then readily accept the idea that we evolved from apes, which in light of the fact that there are still apes in the jungle, on would think there would be continued evolution..."" Certain forms of evolution ARE fact and have been observed and are repeatable. Did we evolve from apes? There is overwhelming evidence of this. Maybe you should read up on the subject. Are you implying that since apes still exist in the jungle that this somehow disproves evolution? I once again suggest you do some studying on evolution. " what is more realistic in terms or percentages: The idea that ALL living creatures on earth came from a few hydrogen and oxygen cells that were hit by lightning and caused the start of all life over the course of 5 billion years....Or God created man and all the creatures? statistically and scientifically, its impossible that all living things on earth started from some dust particles and some water that got hi by lightning...." A VERY VERY empty assertion. As far as percentages, you are completely guessing. It also begs the question, where did GOD come from? Lots of holes here. "in addition....Science has never been able to figure out where the animal cells came from..." This seems to be your common theme. Are you attempting to discredit all science because it cannot explain 100% of everything? "they know plant cells were the first ( or at least that's what they claim to know)...they just cannot figure out how plants made the jump to animal cells....what i would like to know is how come plants aren;t turning into animals today????" What does this have to do with anything? "Science is no different then religion....it's a giant leap of faith when they cant fill in the gaps...." Another empty assertion. When science cant prove something completely, it's called a hypotheses or THEORY if there is at least SOME evidence for the claim. Religion is wildly different because they claim with absolute certainty that they are RIGHT without providing any hard evidence. Religion and science are polar opposites. You can try to lump them together and claim that science is based on faith, but you would be wrong and would have the burden of proof on you to backup such an incredible claim. "but statistically speaking what would be the chances of all living cells on all living things, bird, trees, bugs, fish , mammals, lions, grass, amoeba's, worms, fungus, cancer, virus',ect,,,,,,,,,all came from a single dark planet energized by the sun and some water and a few cells that began reproducing??????....BTW Science also doesn't know how or why these so called cells started reproducing and splitting which again is a giant gap." Once again... so what??? You can't discredit everything science has done for us just because science can't explain everything in the universe today. What can religion explain? NADA. Big fat zero. In fact... I would wager that science will NEVER be able to explain EVERYTHING, even in the future. Does that mean I should ignore it? Does that mean I should choose mythology over it? Don't think so. peace axeman
axeman, I don't disagree with much of what you say (in these latest rounds of this thread), but at least you could admit that many people (laymen) have learnt to simply uncritically accept the scientific verdict on any and all issues as final and unchallengable; in other words, on faith. Of course, it is usually the case that the learned can demonstrate why they are scientifically correct, so the commoners' faith in science is at least based on some kind of a track record. Still, I think that holding the scientific method in such preeminence, especially in exlusion to any other method, has certain consequances for people; not all of which are beneficial. Unfortunately, I don't really have time to go into it much now but I'd be happy to pick it up some other time.
axe: Jesus Christ walked this earth and preformed miracles that man kind had never witnessed..that is proof.....btu since it wasn't;t video taped....you want a "do -over"....my point regarding science was how there are so many empty holes that they cover up wiht theory, yet when it comes to creation or miracles they are very skeptical...The plant to animal cell theory hasn't been solved....it says a lot if you really think long about it....it also stops evolution in its tracks....do i believe that some species have evolved to fit in their particular habitat? Of course...do i believe we came from apes???? No.....there should be continued evolution...there should be some species caught in the cycle...for instance, most snakes still ave very tiny legs attached to their body indicating they we once more lizard like......Seals are very closely related to te Canine and it appears they are descendents going through this transformation for their habitat......Look at man and then look at the gorilla......where did it stop and why??? and who is caught in the middle? ( My guess would be patrick ewing ) Science demands the highest proof in certain areas...but then throws a 'theory ' in their every now and then to gap huge discrepancies.
I believe that since we cannot all agree.....the only solution is to fight it out like men in the street....survival of the fittest.... how big are you axe???
LOL.... i'm not a big guy, but I have a lot more fight training than the average man ;-) But i'm getting my ass kicked by this trade im managing right now...doh :eek: peace axeman
Here, i'll help you out.....seeing a lot of action in ADRX lately...know absolutely nothing about them...but seeing it on the radar since 16
Scientists are hard to work with on a committee, an academic friend once told me, because they often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This percentage, it turns out, is exactly the same as it was in 1916, when an identical poll was taken. Strikingly, as the nation's intelligentsia has turned toward atheism, many in the scientific community have stuck to theism. They apparently haven't changed their minds about whether God exists. Even as the "soul" has made a comeback, computer science has helped us imagine how it might be an immaterial and, indeed, immortal thing, separable from the body the way software is separable from the hardware that runs it. And quantum theory, which overthrew Newtonian physics in the first half of this century, has revealed that matter itself has a ghostly, almost magical character. The universe turns out to be more like a thought than like a machine. Which raises a question for atheists: Whose thought? "The more I study science the more I believe in God," Albert Einstein once remarked. Einstein's Supreme Being, it should be noted, was a remote and disinterested one, more or less identifiable with the final laws of physics--a far cry from the God of Kierkegaard and Mother Teresa, the God incarnated under the reign of Augustus as a Galilean craftsman and crucified during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate in an act of redemption. Contemporary science, no matter how unsettling it may be to the vulgar atheism of many of today's intellectuals, could never by itself hint at such a deity. Still less could it resolve the perplexity of Evelyn Waugh--who, on his conversion to Catholicism, said, "I believe it all. But what I cannot understand is why God made the world in the first place." Jim Holt, WSJ ____________________________________ I didn't realize someone else had the same take a I do on computer software. There is far from a lock on concenus in the scientific community. I love the "vulgar atheism of today's intellectuals".
Let's get back to darwinism....you, me and axe have a brawl for supremacy....although, i am more of a lover then a fighter