Evolution? How?

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:

My comments are in red
The big bang ties in with the same Godless existence that evolution tries to prove.

Nothing in science is trying to prove a godless existence. I don't know of a single theory that ends with "and therefor, god doesn't exist".

Just because the world that science reveals doesn't match with your expectations of what your god would do, doesn't mean that science is out to get you, it only means that you have to have a little more confidence in your fantasies.

RexRed wrote:
It is all scientists deliberately trying to cut God out of their equations so they can rule the world corporations through ignorance of God.

Oh brother. Now you're becoming paranoid on top of everything else. Scientists are just people following the scientific process to reverse-engineer nature. Science is a process which can not, and does not, address the issue of God: Ever.

Science makes blanket statements that stand in contrast to divine realities. If science was not so void of God they would make more uniform statements that do not contradict the spiritual disciplines and terminology.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Science makes blanket statements that stand in contrast to divine realities. If science was not so void of God they would make more uniform statements that do not contradict the spiritual disciplines and terminology.

Rex, science is limited by its own definition. I realize that your view of things is so fluid that virtually nothing has any solid meaning, but science doesn't work that way. It's a rules based system, and one of the rules is that no theory can invoke the supernatural. Not surprisingly, no scientific theory does. It's not an insult or a conspiracy, it's just a result of science following its own rules.

Just because those theories don't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about what you think is divine reality, doesn't change anything.

Personally, I don't care what you want to believe. But your attempts to wedge your views into science are simply a waste of time.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Science makes blanket statements that stand in contrast to divine realities. If science was not so void of God they would make more uniform statements that do not contradict the spiritual disciplines and terminology.

Rex, science is limited by its own definition. I realize that your view of things is so fluid that virtually nothing has any solid meaning, but science doesn't work that way. It's a rules based system, and one of the rules is that no theory can invoke the supernatural. Not surprisingly, no scientific theory does. It's not an insult or a conspiracy, it's just a result of science following its own rules.

Just because those theories don't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about what you think is divine reality, doesn't change anything.

Personally, I don't care what you want to believe. But your attempts to wedge your views into science are simply a waste of time.

Science is "limited" only by pig headed, self worshiping, unthankful and closed minded idiots.

Science make laws against the supernatural then wonders why it sits in continuous query.

Science uses words without any regard to their meaning. This scientist "formed" a new molecule in a lab. This scientist "created" a new enzyme. This scientist "made" a new life form... Did they make it or create it or form it? Science does not know the difference between words like form, make and create. They use them interchangeably. Yet every other word science uses precisely? This reveals volumes that science is missing knowledge.

What is up with these three words? Do they mean the same thing? WELL SCIENCE SAYS FLAT OUT, YES! Create means make and make means form and form means create and THIS IS SCIENCE?

How will we ever learn what was formed, made or created when science REFUSES to even acknowledge that the very words mean different things?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Science is "limited" only by pig headed self worshiping unthankful closed minded idiots.

Are you having a bad day Rex?

RexRed wrote:

Science make laws against the supernatural then wonders why it sits in continuous query.

You're confusing yourself. Stop it. Get a grip Rex, snap out of it, slap slap slap. There, now take a deep breath, do you feel better?

Science is very accurate, and careful, unlike you. Science has been very succesful over the years with its base in naturalism. Naturalism is the very thing which makes science so successful. Without it, we would all be just as confused as you are. Without science you wouldn't have any paintbrushes to paint with, and you would still be using red berries and charcoal for red and black paint (if you could figure out how to light a fire).

Science exists to explore the natural world. It's a very functional methodology for satisfying our curiosity about the natural world.

RexRed wrote:

Science uses words without any regard to their meaning. This scientist "formed" a new molecule in a lab. This scientist "created" a new enzyme. This scientist "made" a new life form... Did they make it or create it or form it? Science does not know the difference between words like form make and create. They use them interchangeably. Yet every other word science uses precisely? This reveals volumes that science is missing knowledge.

Ah, I see. You're getting science confused with "the media". You really need to stop getting your science from Fox News. If you look back at the source material you will find it very detailed. Not that I think there's any chance of you reading any source material or anything...

0 Replies

My comments are in red

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Science is "limited" only by pig headed self worshiping unthankful closed minded idiots.

Are you having a bad day Rex?

Sorry if that was a bit over the top.

RexRed wrote:
Science make laws against the supernatural then wonders why it sits in continuous query.

You're confusing yourself. Stop it. Get a grip Rex, snap out of it, slap slap slap. There, now take a deep breath, do you feel better?

Science is very accurate, and careful, unlike you. (I am accurate and careful too.) Science has been very successful over the years with its base in naturalism. Naturalism is the very thing which makes science so successful. Without it, we would all be just as confused as you are. Without science you wouldn't have any paintbrushes to paint with, and you would still be using red berries and charcoal for red and black paint (if you could figure out how to light a fire).

Science exists to explore the natural world. It's a very functional methodology for satisfying our curiosity about the natural world.

I will give science it's due because it has rid the world of much superstition that has improved life for people. Yet, science is now in danger of ridding science of God who is not proven to be superstition. We are in danger of allowing technology to make us dependant on science for cleaning up the mess made by science.

RexRed wrote:
Science uses words without any regard to their meaning. This scientist "formed" a new molecule in a lab. This scientist "created" a new enzyme. This scientist "made" a new life form... Did they make it or create it or form it? Science does not know the difference between words like form make and create. They use them interchangeably. Yet every other word science uses precisely? This reveals volumes that science is missing knowledge.

Ah, I see. You're getting science confused with "the media". You really need to stop getting your science from Fox News. If you look back at the source material you will find it very detailed. Not that I think there's any chance of you reading any source material or anything...

You may have a point there but I would like to see scientific definitions and rules concerning the etiquette and usages of the words "formed made and created" in detailed scientific reports. I bet you will not find any known etiquette.

NO spirituality or any of the Bible stories can be understood whatsoever without FIRST knowing the difference between formed, made and created. Yet there is not probably a single scientist on the entire east coast of the US that could accurately define those three words or would not relate them as synonymous... How often do they slip unknowingly off of their tongues?

I would say forming is the same as mutation or manipulating. But making and creating? I don't believe science can do either of those things. "Make" and Model...

0 Replies

Crash and burn another thread . Too bad. Sad

0 Replies

Creating is only in the realm of the creator. Making is not quite creating. Forming is not quite making.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Crash and burn another thread . Too bad.

Shut up if you can't say anything nice.

0 Replies

FM

YOU are the one crashing this thread... by trying to stifle ideas. If this thread is burned to you, LEAVE THEN. If you want to talk about something toss it out and if no one remarks then no one wants to. But out of spite you have to make subtle attacks as if you are SUPERIOR. I will not put up with a bully. Get a better attitude or I will complain about you to the moderators. You are disturbing the free discourse of ideas with SPAM.

0 Replies

Like rosborne said, you must be having a bad day, rexred.

0 Replies

rl apparently is unaware it is common lab practice, across all sortsa labs, industrial, academic, and governmental, routinely to submit random samples of material at examination to other, unaffilliated labs, and to compare the results, in order to determine accuracy, rule out bias, and disclose error in testing methodology.

0 Replies

Bad day in the asylum? They didn't serve him what he wanted for lunch.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Like rosborne said, you must be having a bad day, rexred.

I am just trying to put an end to these untoward remarks. This is a religion thread have some respect please. I was actually having a good conversation with Ros until FM came and interrupted. Not with a single point but pure distain, if he can dish out distain I can dish it out too. See how he likes it. It is the same distain he treats other Christians on this forum with.

Try conversing with me instead of at me...

0 Replies

Rex, I submit that were you to present an idea, an actual, thought-out, coherently phrased, logically assembled idea, as opposed to the mustical drivel so characteristic of the bulk of your posts in this discussion, notice would be taken.

You, as a person, are entitled to have others respect your right to your beliefs, and to respect your right to state and discuss those beliefs, but no one is required to respect those beliefs, nor the manner in which you present and discuss those beliefs.

Respect for any given proposition, you see, as distinct from respect for the rights of a person forwarding the proposition, is not inherent, but rather is granted directly as it is earned. Do something to earn some respect for your proposition, and it'll get some.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Bad day in the asylum? They didn't serve him what he wanted for lunch.

Well hi to you too

Maybe I am just realizing I have grown beyond this group of minds.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, I submit that were you to present an idea, an actual, thought-out, coherently phrased, logically assembled idea, as opposed to the mustical drivel so characteristic of the bulk of your posts in this discussion, notice would be taken.

You, as a person, are entitled to have others respect your right to your beliefs, and to respect your right to state and discuss those beliefs, but no one is required to respect those beliefs, nor the manner in which you present and discuss those beliefs.

Respect for any given proposition, you see, as distinct from respect for the rights of a person forwarding the proposition, is not inherent, but rather is granted directly as it is earned. Do something to earn some respect for your proposition, and it'll get some.

I am not looking for respect for my position I am looking for honest debate or be silent. I don't mind silence or just talk about whatever you want. But, don't badger me or you LOSE (disqualified), fair enough?

0 Replies

I represent an alternative view regardless of if anyone likes it or not.

0 Replies

You mean your therapists?

0 Replies

rexred said

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
Crash and burn another thread . Too bad. [Sad]

Shut up if you can't say anything nice.
_________________

Quote:

FM

YOU are the one crashing this thread... by trying to stifle ideas. If this thread is burned to you, LEAVE THEN. If you want to talk about something toss it out and if no one remarks then no one wants to. But out of spite you have to make subtle attacks as if you are SUPERIOR. I will not put up with a bully. Get a better attitude or I will complain about you to the moderators. You are disturbing the free discourse of ideas with SPAM.

You certainly have that right rex.If I were you I would complain about me. Im too caught up with evidence and I have a nasty side that disapproves mightily of gobbledeegook and much of what you try to p[ass off as sense. Ive tried to be patient with you, but have failed. So whatever floats your boat.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I am not looking for respect for my position

I'd say that's self evident.

Quote:

I am looking for honest debate

Then you're qoing about looking for it oddly - present, develop, expand, and defend a debateworthy proposition. Give it a shot - the results might surprise you.

Quote:

or be silent.

One right no one here has is the right to dictate what anyone else may contribute to a thread - so long as what is contributed is not in violation of the Terms.

Quote:

I don't mind silence

Wonderful. Your call - don't let me stop you.

Quote:

or just talk about whatever you want.

Yup, that's the whole point of this forum - talk about whatever you want.

Quote:

But, don't badger me or you LOSE (disqualified), fair enough?

How is calling on you to explain, support, and defend your proposition, to present evidence, and pointing out that you persistently fail to do so, "Badgering" you? That's fair, that's accepted practice, that's debate. If you wish your proposition to carry, you should take steps to see to it that it carries. In the event your proposition is met with scorn, ridicule, dismissal, and derision, examine both the proposition and your presentation of it.

Actually, the clearest admission of forfeit - of failed argument - of concession of defeat - is a temper tantrum.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know