{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/20/2014 8:03:54 PM
19
-
I already told you this. You can't [i]disprove[/i] something if it was never [i]prove[/i]d. Creationism doesn't even have evidence to start with.
-
Like the thousands of scientific theories?
-
The thing is that we accept that they are just theories and that they can be disproved at any moment. I don't like to get into this whole debate, but science doesn't disprove god, and god doesn't disprove many scientific theories. Like everything else our understanding of these two different things, being (Evolution and Intelligent Design) might be wrong, and are incomplete. Perhaps god does exist and he has a hand in evolution. Perhaps he doesn't exist but we were still the creation of something more advanced than we can possibly imagine. I prefer to keep an open mind to all possibilities. Sorry for the rant, just wanted to put my view in.
-
-
If it's a scientific theory then it has substantial evidence, unlike creationism. I don't see your point.
-
A theory can be summarized as a idea baed on collective "evidence". So a theory isn't 100% fact as evidence later on can disprove it Scientific laws on the other hand are facts like gravity
-
So, you're pretty much saying that Intelligent Design is more realistic than Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Oooooooooooooooookay, lol.
-
No one ever said that anything in science, even scientific laws for that matter, are absolute fact. Regardless, you're not helping your argument by shifting away from the main point. But I already know there isn't any evidence for God or Intelligent Design, I'm just seeing how far you'll go to suppress reasoning.
-
Evidence in what sense? Science is only half of understanding who we are as children of God. The other half includes philosophy (like how perfect everything is) and looking towards historical evidence such as Jesus, who actually was a real person, and the Bible. Yes yes, the Bible shouldn't be taken 100% of context as it has been translated throughout many times which results in lost meaning. But a few of it's stories should be looked at a more transparent/metaphorical concept; the story of Sodom and Gomorrah can be seen synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of divine retribution Even science can show a way of understanding God and Christianity. I see the Big Bang and Creationism as two keys to unlock a door of explanation; scientific theories postulate that the known universe did in fact have a beginning with what is called as “The Big Bang”. But It makes no logical sense for anyone to assert that "absolutely nothing" could have produced that initiating bang or anything else: "something existed" and "caused that" -- producing those things that we know of as having a beginning.
-
So when science is inventing you all these cool machines and gadgets, you think they're in a lab with a microscope in one hand and a Bible in the other? No, most scientists are atheist and they've accomplished all these things without religion, so to say that we have to have religion just doesn't hold up.
-
I'm saying to have a more open mind. It shouldn't be about "hur sienc is betr den stopid religen: or "hur sienc is 4 da devel" it should be about looking at both sides and coming up with an explanation that makes sense for both sides. Example if the Big Bang one didn't work so good: Living things change and adapt to their environment, this is called micro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been noted and experienced through Darwin's observations of the Galapagos islands. Adaptation can also be seen during winter when a fox develops it's winter coat in order to survive. However, because God created us all then intelligent design also plays apart. See? It's about developing a hypothesis based on both sides
-
There is no other side needed other than reasoning. But even then, Christianity isn't the only religion, so why we should randomly pick that instead of reincarnation of a flying spaghetti monster (or anything else without any evidence) has yet to be answered. But whether you choose Islamic God or Native American folk tale, the premise stays the same: anything without evidence has no basis when you develop theories. As I already proved with the example of inventions and discoveries, scientists don't need to be religious to make accomplishments. And when you try to mix magic with science you just get the wrong answer. This has been proven time and time again with our old model of the Solar System and the discovery of germs (including plenty of other examples). The reason you're saying that "God did it" is because there are no inventions that have stemmed from knowing how life began, so you're not forced to accept it. You [i]need[/i] evidence in order to formulate a theory. I cannot stress that enough. You don't just get to add anything you want and throw it in to a scientific theory without testing and proving it first. You should read up on how the scientific method works if you're going to continue to argue with me on that.
-
The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.
-
Editado por Le Dustin xddddd: 3/21/2014 5:15:50 PMAre you trying to say that there needed to be a God for anything to have existed? Well sorry bud, but science already has the answer. I'm going to go over this pretty quick, but from the observations science can make, we can tell that there is an equal amount of positive matter and positive energy as there is negative matter and negative energy. What does this mean? It means that if we were to equalize these sums, we would be left with zero. It's as if no matter or energy was ever created; the balance is still the same. Now why we have x amount of positive and negative matter and energy as opposed to zero amount of matter and energy still remains a mystery. The most likely answer is that it's an inevitability that makes space-time stable, but that's mostly just speculation. In actuality, science doesn't know the answer, but there's reason to assume this as what most likely happened. The difference with God is that it's only an ancient fairly tale, much like dragons, trolls, and magic. It just has no scientific evidence to support it.
-
Editado por IchEsseKinder: 3/21/2014 5:32:56 PMYeah, I've known about the whole positive and negative energy/matter stuff. But if the law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created then how did it come into existence? Well, a hypothesis that something above nature, supernatural, had to create it
-
[quote]But if the law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created then how did it come into existence? Well, a hypothesis that something above nature, supernatural, had to create it[/quote]Again that has to be supported. You can't just make things up without evidence.
-
Which is why I stated a hypothesis rather than a theory; I really don't feel like spending like 2 years doing research and conducting experiments
-
[quote]I really don't feel like spending like 2 years doing research and conducting experiments[/quote]Wait, you think it'd be that easy? LOL
-
I don't see where he said it disproved it. Come on though, intelligent design does a good enough job of that itself.
