Moderator: Community Team
Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does
Things with intricate design point to a creator. If you saw a Rolex in the woods, would you think: "It's amazing how this watch just formed itself and evolved." No! You would say: "Cool. Some rich guy lost his watch and now it's mine." You would assume it had been created and manufactured by someone. Things with intricate design point to a creator. The world is intricately designed, it points to a creator.
gavin_sidhu wrote:I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.
Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.
macwin wrote:gavin_sidhu wrote:I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.
Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.
ughhhhhh....i feel ashamed that we both emerged from the same education system.....please tell me you are only seven or something?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics. "Everything is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder." This, A, disproves evolution, because in evolution things are moving from disorder to order. It also means, B, that there must have been a state of order in the beginning. That would be Eden.
happysadfun wrote:More quotes from WSMG!The Second Law of Thermodynamics. "Everything is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder." This, A, disproves evolution, because in evolution things are moving from disorder to order. It also means, B, that there must have been a state of order in the beginning. That would be Eden.
Cause the last one is accurate at least using logic.
jay_a2j wrote:macwin wrote:gavin_sidhu wrote:I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.
Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.
ughhhhhh....i feel ashamed that we both emerged from the same education system.....please tell me you are only seven or something?
For the first two sentences or the last one? Cause the last one is accurate at least using logic.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
mightyal wrote:Where does science say that 'life cannot come from non-life'? It is a highly non-scientific sort of a statement. A mystical statement in fact analagous to the belief that death is impossible - where does the life essence go to.
Science is a collection of theories that have been repeatedly tested and shown to provide a useful explanation of natural phenomena.
These theories are derived from hypotheses that researchers have created and then tested to see if they have useful predictive powers. Your statement is not testable nor does it explain anything. Much like creationism.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
If God exists, I better believe in him or I'll go to hell. But if he doesn't exist, there's no harm in believing him anyway. So the logical answer is to believe in God.
happysadfun wrote:if evolution is true and we all evolved randomly from a bunch of little cells then how come most animals have the basic layout of a head with eyes, mouth, nose, plus legs with few exceptions. and what do you have to say about the first one.
First off, science doesn't dictate that life could not come from not life. It was you that dictated that. The same thing is true about evolution.jay_a2j wrote:First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.
Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.
Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.
Where did it come from?
The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).
There must be a God.
Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).
Nikolai wrote:Jolly Roger, please tell me you're intelligent enough...
Nikolai wrote:to understand that your huge explanation of how the 2nd law can coexist with evolution amounts to diddly squat in scientific terms? It's not even an accepted theory, it's a hypothesis.
Nikolai wrote: Additionally, it has been violently attacked in the scientific community as a deliberate attempt to make the facts fit the preconception, rather than adjust the hypothesis to fit the facts.
Nikolai wrote: C'mon... fourth grade science: step four of the scientific method dictates that the data gathered from the experiment be used to modify the hypothesis, not that more hypotheses be invented to explain how the data really doesn't disprove the hypothesis. If you're going to play at science, you have to play by science's rules.
Nikolai wrote:Sorry, not really my fight, but I hate to see people mangling science to try to create some kind of rhetorical club with which to beat others over the head.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users