LOGIN | REGISTER

View Poll Results: What do you dislike about my posts?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • JESUS

    8 25.00%
  • SCRIPTURE

    3 9.38%
  • EVERYTHING BEING FREE

    4 12.50%
  • Enjoy the posts....keep posting

    17 53.13%
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 159
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by seldom seen View Post
    In my humble opinion, science doesn't rule out Intelligent Design/spiritual aspects of life, just as faith should not overshadow what has been proven as scientific fact(ie/ the Evangelists that say the Earth is 5,000 years old). If anything, our scientific understanding reveals the complexity of the universe to a degree that it's hard for me to not believe there's more going on here than we'll ever realize...

    Not directed at anyone or in response to any post on this thread, just my proverbial .02. And all in all, I'm not sure if our brains are equipped to comprehend the bigger picture here.

    Dudes, check out The Cosmic Serpent, awesome read. I say we listen to the wisdom of the plants.
    Science doesn't rule out a creator of the universe, but the data rules out 90% of what is in the Bible about the creation of earth and man.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by sonfollowerssurf View Post
    THE BIBLE............

    Watch this

    http://youtu.be/CycgRU1VEXI
    Credible non-biased source?

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In a state of flux
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    Credible non-biased source?
    If you read an understand the Bible, Satan actually looks pretty good and God looks like a juvenile douchbag.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Turtle Island
    Posts
    4,663
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    Science doesn't rule out a creator of the universe, but the data rules out 90% of what is in the Bible about the creation of earth and man.
    Absolutely, in full agreement with that statement.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by capecodcdog View Post
    Let's not confuse matters. When discussing evolution, one must realize what is observed in nature (I.e., peppered moths, finch beaks, etc.) is microevolution. Certainly this has been important to the study of genetics been applied to things such as designing pharmaceuticals.

    However, macroevolution, that is transition between species is still found wanting. Even the article you reference says "the transitional path between fin structural elements in fish and limbs in tetrapods remains elusive."

    So, believing evolution developed higher level life forms from lesser forms, or even created one cell organisms requires requires "faith".

    There are still many issues at large. Irreducible Complexity is another problem.

    If you want to "believe" in evolution, that's fine. Just be aware you are requiring as much "faith" as the dude who believes in God as creator/designer.
    That is a commonly used argument by Intelligent Designers, and seems like common sense, except it is simply wrong and shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and how good science works.

    Here's a quick primer:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    ethernet
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by aka pumpmaster View Post
    If you read an understand the Bible, Satan actually looks pretty good and God looks like a juvenile douchbag.
    The God in the bible is a petty jealous monster. That is obviously not the god of love, and was written by man as a method of social control

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    ethernet
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by sailquik View Post
    That is a commonly used argument by Intelligent Designers, and seems like common sense, except it is simply wrong and shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and how good science works.

    Here's a quick primer:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    good stuff
    one a side note, absence of proof is not proof of absence, however the Bible has nothing to offer material science

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by MakeItStop View Post
    The God in the bible is a petty jealous monster. That is obviously not the god of love, and was written by man as a method of social control
    My thoughts exactly. Social control was a serious issue in the days of Jesus. There is a lot of proof that Jesus did live on this Earth, and he was sort of a revolutionary at the time. Unfortunately, a few thousand years and the message has been changed and corrupted by man. Jesus was not the writer of the bible, so it is hard to tell what got lost/changed in all the stories.

  9. #109
    Riddle me this Batman,

    Why did a God who is omnipotent and can make no mistakes need to re-think his position?

    The angry, vengeful Lord of the Old Testament vs. the kind and forgiving Lord of Ver. 2.0 (New Testament).

    I guess that God changed P.R. firms. They pointed out that forgiveness beats tactics like loading a couple people in a boat and drowning all the rest! What?

    Not yellin'...just wonderin'.

    Slide On.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    353
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by sailquik View Post
    ...shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and how good science works..
    I am well aware of the scientific method. I have worked in the scientific/engineering world for over 3 decades. Also (@BE), did I not say evolution was not scientific. All I said was the application to origins or as "the designer" required "faith", because it is still a "theory", and from perspective the rigorous and practical scientific world I work in (where planes must fly, electronic signals can be measured, etc.) it suffers from the difficulty of proof and repeatability.

    Intelligent design has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community, and mostly for what one might view as philosophical reasons. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

    The problem is, that creation or design by a supernatural being opposes the pursuit of totally materialist/natural processes as the exclusive explanation for life. Granted, a supreme being could provincially utilize these processes, but then there are probably some in both camps might object to this for different reasons.
    Last edited by capecodcdog; Jan 23, 2014 at 05:09 PM.