Reply With Quote
But how old is said rock and look what it has evolved into.
LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse on evolution. You might as well debate a rock.
But how old is said rock and look what it has evolved into.
This isn't even about evolution specifically anymore.
And most people here know it is futile to argue with mouse about anything, since he simply doesn't care about facts.
Faith is faith no matter how much you try to say it is not.
I don't think you know what faith means. Believing in something is not faith.
define faithBut you do have faith, in a sense, that you are correct. No?
mouse has evolved?
I don't see much evidence of it.
I always use this analogy. If I went back to the 17-1800s and said, "There are these waves of light, and we can't see them, but they're there. They're invisible to the naked eye, but believe me, they're there. I don't have any proof, but they're there."
People would say I was wrong, and firmly believe it because, there's no way to prove it exists. The burden of proof falls on me, right?
Well, many, many years later, we come to learn that our eyes cannot see the entire spectrum of light, just a small portion of it. But we developed the knowledge and technology to prove I was right.
How long ago did we actually learn that there are these micro-organisms called bacteria that can kill us if we get the "wrong" ones in our system? But without a microscope, I'd have no way to prove definitively that bacteria exist. It would have taken "faith" to believe what I believed, but eventually we developed the technology to figure out that I was right.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Again, I don't believe god exists, nor doesn't exist. But we know so little about our world, and the universe, that there is plenty of room for growth in knowledge. Maybe god does exist, we just don't have the intellect or technology to comprehend that. Or maybe god doesn't exist, and the moment we know 100% about everything in our world and universe (if it is indeed A universe and not one of many), then we can rule him out.
I'm just saying, it's foolish one way or the other to rule out all possibilities with "definite" knowledge despite the fact that our knowledge is anything but. One should NEVER rule out the chance to learn and grow. To do so based on already "knowing" is just plain faith.
And many, many atheists that I encounter are just as stubborn and righteous as a fundamentalist christians in that their belief is 100% correct and they can't be swayed otherwise.
Sad really, to shut yourself off to the possibility of knowledge like that.
Okay, then the invisible pink unicorn might exist.
We can't detect it with the technology we currently have, but sometime in the future there might be a breakthrough.
The one thing that science has trouble explaining is how different cultures in vastly different parts of the world tend to share stories with the same themes, gods, creation, floods, the wipeout of civilization and rebirth of an advanced civilization following some sort of rules.
I find it interesting how the Myans, Jews/Christians (Old Testament), Hindu, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Far East religions, the aborigines, and many other ancient cultures not only tell the same type of stories, but have very similar accounts of them.
Some are obviously influenced by others (like the Bible/Babylonian which are from the same area), but how can the aborigines have so much in common as the Babylonians and the Central America cultures?
Again, not proof, but food for thought.
This is a neat little chart showing all the different flood stories and similarities between them.
Well, there you go.
I don't think a pink unicorn exists, but if we do find out that one exist in the Congo, then I wouldn't be too shocked. After all, as recently as 1997, there were sites claiming that the Congo still wasn't fully explored. I don't know how true that is now, but the mere fact that we still have lands on this Earth that we don't know about just goes to show how little we know about the universe.
Having said that, how would you have reacted as a non believer in the stories I posted earlier? In the end, I was proven right by science.
Atheist claim to believe in science but many don't even show a desire to let science try and prove them wrong.
I'm not the one who firmly believes one way or the other without 100% knowledge. I don't have a problem with the absence of proof in any regard. I just say keep an open mind.
Atheist sound so butthurt whenever you challenge their faith and zeal in their beliefs.
I'm sorry, how can science--something that is used to explain natural phenomena--ever be able to prove the existence of a supernatural being such as God? You brought up bacteria and waves of light, which are both natural and detectable. The Congo is also natural.
Where does science making the jump from natural to supernatural come in?
If something hasn't met the burden of proof, why? There are an infinite amount of things that could exist. Does that mean that we should take all of them into consideration?
It doesn't take faith and zeal to not believe in something that has no evidence.Atheist sound so butthurt whenever you challenge their faith and zeal in their beliefs.
It may only take the evolution (sorry Mouse) of our brain capacity, or it may be that it's not a supernatural occurrence, only a natural process we fail to understand.
Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.
Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. My issue is not what they believe, but their steadfast belief that they are indisputably right.
Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.
The only absolutes we have are mathematical, and even math has theories.
Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."
Yeah. One should always have a thirst for knowledge. It's the only way our species will grow and evolve (there's that word again) into something better.
No, but it takes faith and zeal to defend it as absolute truth.
yes... your semantic-based rebuttal is chucklesome... zeal is an element of faith...No, it's really not.
I believe you are confusing zeal with faith. It doesn't take hard faith to not believe in something that we can't see. If it is considered faith in this sense, it is a very very loose use of the word.
There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.
No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome.
Logical fallacy explained...??? when? I don't remember someone having obtained scientific evidence from the origin of time and space [or life for that matter]. All naturalists can do is speculate on the probable mechanisms... speculation which is clearly devoid of absolute truth in the context of KNOWING that x, y or ___ [take your pick] theory is the correct one.
Meh, these religious idiots remind me of this meathead I knew in high school who smoked Marlboro's, ate beef, and didn't know who Neutral Milk Hotel was. I need my scarf if I'm going to put down my ukelele and join in this conversation.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks Nirvana is better than Pavement.
Oh, sorry, I was too busy adjusting my sunglasses while sitting inside this dimly lit coffee shop to bother with reading your post.It may only take the evolution (sorry Mouse
Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.
Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. My issue is not what they believe, but their steadfast belief that they are indisputably right.
Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.
The only absolutes we have are mathematical, and even math has theories.
Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."
The supernatural is above what is natural, correct? Do natural rules apply to God?
How is that furthering knowledge? "God did it" is the beginning and the end of it. How God did it is unknowable. Why God did it is unknowable. There is no furthering of knowledge.Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge.
Why are you bringing up absolutes? Yes, there are variables, and they are taken into account.Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.
Again, you keep misinterpreting my position. And again, you have failed to explain how science could possibly deal with the supernatural.Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."
And yet again, how does "God did it" quench anybody's thirst for knowledge?
And yet again, you bring up absolute truth.No, but it takes faith and zeal to defend it as absolute truth.
I see mono viewing this thread. He's probably dying to tell us about the Warren Commission.
I was thinking Communist Manifesto, but the atheist side might take that as a victory.
True, but I know what faith means to me and without believing there cannot be faith. But I hear ya.
Here we go!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
