America is doomed

I realize I'm carrying a card here, so I'll be delicate.

WHY THE ******** AM I SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOD-DAMNED BEAGLE-********ING AUTHORITY FOR ALL SCIENCE? AND EVEN IF I WAS, DINGLEBERRY, I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION - "YOUR STUPID-ASS QUESTION MAKES NO GOD-DAMNED SENSE IN THIS CONTEXT" WAS THE ANSWER! JACKASS

Did you also ask the guy at NASA/JPL who was going to qualify from CONCACAF this year? Jesus wept.

 

I think that Loney is that guy who would have been the next Einstein but was demotivated by our school system and is instead inventing things like the Turbie-Twist.

 

Or maybe writing jokes for Morty Gunty's sons

(The turbie-twist is a towel designed for wrapping around wet hair, for those of you that don't watch Fox News)

 

topcatcole, you can't seriously believe that humans who have faith are therefore devoid of all logic. You've dismissed the intelligence of the entire human race while illogically fooling yourself into believing you're the only rational objective force in the world.

 

Amen, Brother. Preach it.

I'm not sure why both sides are so adamant in their inability to accept the coexistence of science and faith in the human experience. Surely evolution can be accepted without that meaning there is no God? Surely God can be accepted without that meaning there is no science?

 

You'd think it would be possible, but somehow if you put two people of opposing viewpoints on this matter in a room together it degenerates into the two ends of the spectrum. To answer your two questions. Yes, and yes.

 

I think if you read back through my posts you will see that I have NEVER, EVER said that one could not be intelligent and believe in god. I certainly have never said that those who have faith are devoid of all logic. I have done none of what you claim here. I have merely stated that it is inconsistent with science to believe in the supernatural, and that IMO god is a crutch used when people are either unwilling or afraid to take the next step. There are a lot of people who are willing to think about philosophy and science in great detail and in great depth. There comes a point when you have a question that cannot be answered by our current science, and at that point you have the choice of saying to yourself "this is the realm of god (or yahweh or voodoo or Wotan or ...), and no man can enter" or you can ask yourself the hard questions like "where was I wrong in my assumptions" or "what do I not yet know" or "am I looking at this correctly". IMO, taking the former road is a cop-out and is accepting an intellectual crutch.

 

I do accept that they coexist. Evolution can certainly be accepted without an individual having to recant their god. As to the last point, in a practical, day-to-day sense this is probably true. In fact I would say that scientists are open to the possibility of god, without depending on god to explain the universe to them. They are, however, looking for the evidence of god before accepting that god exists. Religious people start with the preconception of god and develop their world view with this as a central theme. Scientists start with observation and proceed to build their world view from these observations.

 

Good point.

 

---
that would be great if science had a theory for where matter came from, but it doesn't.

There. Is. No. Working. Hypothesis.

 

So clearly, the ONLY thing left to do is insert fantastical mythology to explain everything? Thank you, no.

 

---
the theory of evolution has not been scientifically proved, or it would be the Law of Evolution. otherwise well presented point.

 

Try this for a good summary:
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html
For a bigger summary with access to lots of links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Now please return the favor and answer the question yourself.

 

Your misunderstanding of how the words fact, theory and law are used by scientists is well documented in many threads.
Evolution is fact. I understand that you will never believe this because you can't find it in your little book of ancient stories, but your lack of belief does not make it any less true.

 

This is Biblically supported, as early in Genesis God is refered to in the plural.

 

---
but all you science guys go around spouting this stuff about how science has answers to big questions like the origins of life, when in reality the fundamental question of where matter came from has never ever been satisfactorily addressed.

if you would bother to familiarize yourself with Biblical prophesy, you would find that the fulfillments of dozens of prophesies are well documented, which takes the Bible out of the mythology realm, thank you. but since metaphysical phenomena are not cause/effect measurable, many/most academics don't like to admit of the probability that they are behind such things as the creation of the universe or the origins of life.

the single point i am making here, and one that has gone unaddressed, is that the scientific/academic world has not been able to develop a working hypothesis for the origins of matter, per se. and you want to write that off as a small potatoes problem. it simply is the most significant question left unanswered, but you fellows want to maunder on and on about mythologies and the fact that 300 years ago there was an Inquistion or witch burning, as if that had something to do with the existence of matter.

sorry, sir, but your dog won't hunt

 

That's because of the doctrine of the Trinity, not because God evolved from other gods.

 

---
evolution is fact only in a restricted sense, and extrapolating it to include the origins of life is scientifically unsupportable. but you wouldn't believe that because that would require a more complicated explanation.

 

It has everything to do with your statement that

Is the relevance clear now?

Have we ever been able to stop you?

Not my thinking, not my hyperbole.

Whatever that means.

You are good for a laugh, I'll give you that. The difference is a belief in observation, evidence and logic instead of supernatural beings.

While the janitor does an important job, he is probably not to be trusted in matters of cosmology.

Matter came from energy, energy came from the previous matter, ad infinitum. Give me one bit of proof that says your supernatural being makes more sense, while not violating Occam's razor, and I will publicly renouce my views on religion.

 

Given that Jesus doesn't show up until the New Testament, how exactly do you make the Trinity retroactive to the book of Genesis, in the Old Testament?

 

---
no, we simply do not accept that you can say things cannot be proved and let it go at that. you ask me to prove there is a God, and i say it cannot be proved, but my claim that there is a God, based on the intuitive evidence that all things have causes, is dismissed, but your claim that evolution produces life must be accepted, because a certain amount of evidence leads one to believe it.

ultimately, the fact that evidence falls short of proving things means that these postulates or theories are just that. because this is an area of philosophical inquiry, it is subject to discussion and debate, and i don't accept that the issue is settled. apparently you do, but you might be just as wrong as you think i am.

 

Addressed repeatedly, comprehended never.

Like what? Are there any that weren't written about after the fact? Hardly the realm of prophesy, more like history. Good grief, why am I doing this? Royal, keep on dancing and praying to your mythological creatures.

Sheesh!

My dog doesn't have to hunt. He'll be fed by GOD!!!!!!