Your Vote, Your Reasons

[BacktoBasics]

The partical collider they are working on should shed some light on the big bang and it orgins. I'm pretty sure once that thing is fully functional there isn't a scientist in the building that is expecting God to appear as the particals collide.

[ratm1221]

There is no scientific evidence that the one God of the universe was incarnated into the womb of an adolescent Jewish virgin in the Levant during the height of the Roman Empire: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he miraculously transformed water into wine, healed people of diseases, and fed thousands of people with small amounts of food: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he, having been crucified, was resurrected on the third day and later ascended into heaven: correct.

There is a reason it is called salvation by faith, and not salvation by objective proof.

You put your faith in a book written by man in a time of supers ion, confusion, and ignorance.

[DaDakota]

The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, any other religious book was written by man to control the ignorant masses.

DD

[Phenomanul]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

[Phenomanul]

BTW it's laughable that anyone would actually consider Obama to be the Anti-Christ...

Under the largely accepted interpretation of scripture that role can only be fulfilled by someone with Jewish ancestry. Christians should know of this requirement. Then again, there are many who believe that the Ant-Christ role has already come and gone (with Nero Ceasar, Hitler, "fill in the blank") and others still who believe that the term is a generality that represents an Anti-GOD spirit.

[ratm1221]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on the facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything. They are theories came to by LOGICAL thinking.

There is no logic behind religion.

Our understanding about the way things work increase every day. Some of these things may be understood one day scientifically. If people 1,000 years ago saw a TV, they would have no understanding of how it worked. They would probably believe God made it and sent it down from the heavens.

[BacktoBasics]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on the facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

You say supernatural they call it the unknown. Thousands of times in the last 50 years... decade scientist have uncovered and studied things that we're once deemed "impossible" or "supernatural". The work and theories and actual facts are constantly evolving from unknown to known. The shining difference is that they seek logical truth rather than dismiss it as impossible. Its not faith based but cold hard fact and better yet research based.

[spurster]

No.

Here is what I'm saying.

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

It has been fairly well established that most (if not all) of the New Testament was written in the 1st Century. That makes it evidence though obviously not to your standards, which no do ent from antiquity could pass.

[Phenomanul]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything. They are theory's came to by LOGICAL thinking.

There is no logic behind religion.

Our understanding about the way things work increase every day. Some of these things may be understood one day scientifically. If people 1,000 years ago saw a TV, they would have no understanding of how it worked. They would probably believe God made it and sent it down from the heavens.

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

[JoeChalupa]

My Faith is rock solid. Carry on.

[ratm1221]

This is purely hypothetical. Let's say we put a crazy number to the chances that the Earth was created by a fluke accident. That the chances for everything to be just perfect for it to happen would be a very long shot. Let's say that number is something insane like 1 in a quindecillion, and you insert it in infinity since as far as we know the universe and time are infinite. What are the odds that the accident would occur in infinity?

You guessed it 100 percent.

[DaDakota]

My Faith is rock solid. Carry on.

Is that why you have a picture of the face on Mars....?

ROCK solid.

LOL

DD

[BacktoBasics]

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

I don't see how you say that science cannot account for the supernatural.

Sincerely,

The Giant Squid

[ratm1221]

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

You didn't prove anything. You are saying that because we can't scientifically explain something yet, that it has to be supernatural. That's called giving up and if everyone was that lazy we'd still be sitting in the dark reading by candle light. You are the dumbest smart person I've ever heard, given that you aren't just regurgitating someone else's ideas as your own.

[JoeChalupa]

Is that why you have a picture of the face on Mars....?

ROCK solid.

LOL

DD

Well, I have been known to be hard headed and out of this world.

[TheMadHatter]

There is no scientific evidence that the one God of the universe was incarnated into the womb of an adolescent Jewish virgin in the Levant during the height of the Roman Empire: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he miraculously transformed water into wine, healed people of diseases, and fed thousands of people with small amounts of food: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he, having been crucified, was resurrected on the third day and later ascended into heaven: correct.

There is a reason it is called salvation by faith, and not salvation by objective proof.

Then why does your kind speak as if they know the definitive truth about God? Why pass judgment on non-believers when you even admit you don't know the truth?

Humble yourself.

[DaDakota]

Well, I have been known to be hard headed and out of this world.

That's cool.....if you aren't hard headed, you aren't trying baby !!

DD

[101A]

Then why does your kind speak as if they know the definitive truth about God? Why pass judgment on non-believers when you even admit you don't know the truth?

Humble yourself.

Your lack of reading comprehension is surreal.

[Phenomanul]

You say supernatural they call it the unknown. Thousands of times in the last 50 years... decade scientist have uncovered and studied things that we're once deemed "impossible" or "supernatural". The work and theories and actual facts are constantly evolving from unknown to known. The shining difference is that they seek logical truth rather than dismiss it as impossible. Its not faith based but cold hard fact and better yet research based.

1). Science can't break it's own laws. When it does those laws weren't laws to begin with... were they? Now I certainly won't build a strawman around the formation of DNA. But attempting to create the molecule without the use of any pre-exiting biological process is a formidable task. One that goes against the natural order that Science defined to begin with.

2). Why do you assume the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement? Many prominent discoveries were made by Christians. The propagation of this lie has been pushed by secular agendas rather irresponsibly.

[DaDakota]

At least science is willing to update itself and not take the writings of some uneducated goat herders writing down their mythos as factual.

DD

[JoeChalupa]

At least science is willing to update itself and not take the writings of some uneducated goat herders writing down their mythos as factual.

DD

Many scientists have "theories" as well.

[Phenomanul]

I don't see how you say that science cannot account for the supernatural.

Sincerely,

The Giant Squid

You mean the one we know very little about because we rarely observe the species in its natural environment. The one that rarely surfaces due to it's conditioned baric requirements at extreme ocean depths. The one who broke all our expectations because they were developed with very little factual context... That one?

Way to build yourself an argument.

Hey I've been around for over 400 million of years, unchanged and unscathed by all of earth's era defining cataclysms...

Sincerely,

The Coelacanth

[BacktoBasics]

1). Science can't break it's own laws. When it does those laws weren't laws to begin with... were they? Now I certainly won't build a strawman around the formation of DNA. But attempting to create the molecule without the use of any pre-exiting biological process is a formidable task. One that goes against the natural order that Science defined to begin with.

2). Why do you assume the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement? Many prominent discoveries were made by Christians. The propagation of this lie has been pushed by secular agendas rather irresponsibly.

Absolutely they can and have. Types of kenetic energy...cold fusion and very partical collider I mentioned earlier all have either broken pre-existing laws or are working twords breaking ground on new laws.

Its called advancement. Its the backbone of Science. The earth was flat...its the biggest planet...the sun circles the earth.

[TheMadHatter]

The scientific community is constantly challenging existing theories and putting new ones up to rigorous examination and testing. They never pretend or assume they are correct, in other words faith has no place in science.

Dogmatic religion like Christianity and Islam, OTOH, tend to produce a stagnation of thought more than anything. Why should we research about our weather patterns, the way ocean currents work, etc.? We already know the answer. God made it that way.

[DaDakota]

Many scientists have "theories" as well.

Yep, and they are willing to discuss those theories and amend them as more evidence is brought to the table.

Can you say the same about religion?

I mean the new testement is based upon the editing of the Nicene council which left out books because they did not support the resurrection or the views of how women were treated....the Books of Mary Magdaline, or The Book of Thomas for example were left out.

And, in France the Cathers were crushed for their gnostic beliefs.....which went against Jesus as being resurrected among other things that the Catholic church in power at the time found dangerous.

And the Old testement is based upon mythos at the time, like the Summarians and Gilgemesh, heck the Resurrection myth comes straight from the Egytians and their God Horus.

Then you have the Muslim faith - possibly the biggest mythos of them all, it's lunatic ramblings actually change as Mohammeds life changes.....as he goes from peaceful preacher to warlord, his message changes, like God would actually change his message based upon the life of one man....give me a break !!!

Not to mention the Satanic versus....which uh....Mohammed spoke and then recanted saying....ooops...I was possesed by Satan.

I have no issue of religion as a guideline as most of their rules are well....flat out obvious....

But it is when people start to claim it as factual, that the house of cards all falls down.

DD