 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
Often read such things - but isn't the entire point of a religious belief that you don't need proof to believe something? Therefore one can hardly argue about it..... |
Yes, but for some reason his religious belief does not include God as the creator of the physical world because there is no scientific evidence of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
What is so outlandish about God remaining dormant? |
I just wonder if god overslept a little and hurried down to fix the soulthing those 2ky ago, or if the first sentients made angry calls to him demanding their souls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Sorry, I missed your post.
I guess when it comes to the physical world, I rely on scientific evidence. But what science is there that can apply to the spiritual realm?
If you can think of what science studies the spiritual realm, let me know. |
That's fair enough, but science hasn't proven that evolution occured without God's help, so why would you jump to this conclusion? By definition, God is all-powerful, so it doesn't make sense to me that you believe he created souls yet had nothing to do with the physical bodies that contain those souls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Belief in a diety is illogical to begin with. Why demand that it comform to logic? |
Has to disagree. When you are sitting in a cave an see lightning split trees etc. then it is natural to explain that by some kind of divinity, but since the discoveries that explains these happenings, then you are right - belief in thundergods, jesus etc. doesn't make sense any more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
scientific advances which proved previous creationist dogma was false (the young earth "theory", the six day creation "theory", etc...).
|
there were no scientific advances that proved those things false
there is just a lot of experimental and observational evidences, and well-made built up theories which are not in agreement with 'young earth' and 'six day' theory
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I have been taught evolution at school in the Evil Atheist country™, and I've never heard such a thing. I cannot imagine that Yankistani science teachers use evolution as "proof" that God doesn't exist. |
generally it is about the same time that they are being taught evolution that they start to become less christian
in the US
which leads some to beleive causation
I look at the ages, and all the things involved, and think it is more likely just people beginning to think for themselves and rebeling against what they were taught when they were young
there is proobably a little bit properly associated though, because it takes a deeper thinker to accept scientific theories and the Bible than to accept one or the other (and most aren't)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
there were no scientific advances that proved those things false
there is just a lot of experimental and observational evidences, and well-made built up theories which are not in agreement with 'young earth' and 'six day' theory
Jon Miller |
Has to disagree a little. There are very little, saying none. evidence that in any way supports 'young earth' and 'six day' theory. Quite contrary, there are masssive evidences that contradicts that 'young earth' and 'six day' theory should bee taken seriously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You could start with why the Standard Model fails to explain the mass of fundamental particles, for one.
Or a specific reason certain quantities are conserved.
Whether conservation applies (and for which quantities) in a singularity
The lifetime of the proton.
I'm sure with only a little digging, there are a few thousand more one could identify. |
actually, we know that the standard model is flat out wrong, and doesn't coincide with experiment and other theories (GR)
it does a very good job at explaining things at certain energies though
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Has to disagree a little. There are very little, saying none. evidence that in any way supports 'young earth' and 'six day' theory. Quite contrary, there are masssive evidences that contradicts that 'young earth' and 'six day' theory should bee taken seriously. |
huh?
do you understand what I said?
Jon Mill
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mercator
How about neuroscience? There is no spiritual realm. It's all just a bunch of neurons firing. |
You haven't explained how this prevent a god to influence the spirit of mankind as it is evidenced in several books.
* BC ducks and run since this isn't his turf *.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
If biology classes in Dover, PA have to offer criticism of evolution and mention other possibilities, would they be permitted to offer criticism of the "other possibilities?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
wrong
it means that the evidence is in favor of different theories
you can't disprove something, in particular with observations
for example.. perhaps things have changed in the last 6k years including decay rates..
YEC is heavily unfavored, but it is not disproved
of course, science does not teach about all the unfavored theories.. only about the favored ones
technology has increased a lot by following this methodology
Jon Miller
(not arguing that is the case.. just saying why, partifcularly for observational science, it isn't proved/disproved)
(you can't prove or disprove anything, really, in science)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2005 22:27
) 
|