Hey, after reading a few posts, I was appalled by how many people on AG shut out science for the mere fact that they don't like it. I'm not talking just about the super-religious people, I've also seen a few people who said no to science just because they could. They didn't listen or pay attention to any evidence or sources brought forward, and they did not use vocabulary correctly. They claimed something wasn't true at all and that it's impossible to figure out what happened, "B cuz i wusn't there lololololololol" They were flaming, flaming, trolling, trolling, knowledge haters. Just flat out haters. I'm tired of these people, you know? Please, share your thoughts on this.
Just because I haven't encountered something doesn't make it false.
No, but you have no reason to assume its true.
And we certainly don't have any evidence that refutes God's existence.
We don't have any evidence to refute thousands of fictitious creations, should we believe in them too?
And God's existence is perfectly plausible, just look at the complexity of your body. Your brain controls all your bodily functions and you don't even have to think of it (pumping blood, digestion, making saliva, etc).
The complexity of the human body does not prove the existence of god any more then it proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
Remember, every conclusion begins with an assumption based on a large amount of evidence. First assumption: everything here is here. How do we know that? We don't. But is appears to be quite possible that we exist in an environment of existing matter. What you just said would be similar to me saying that, since we have no proof of our existence, we do not exist. We have evidence, but that isn't the same as proof.
We know we exist, how? Because we repeatedly observe our own existence.
[/quote]Anyhow, evolution is real and out there...microevolution (otherwise known as "natural selection". That is a "roven theory." On the other hand, macroevolution (what everyone thinks of when "evolution" is mentioned) is an enormous assumption based on microevolution. We have absolutely no evidence for it, only hypotheses.
Macroevolution is no more then the results of microevolution happening multiple times.
How could random chance suddenly make a universe so complex and beautiful as the one we live in?[quote] If you role a die 6 trillion times you are bound to get 6 three times in a row.
HiddenDistance and XVERB, I'm just proving the point that you can't knock off the possibility of God just because there's no evidence of it.
And no, I wasn't using believed as faith. I was simply using it as accepted as true, etc.
If I came out as being impatient, that wasn't my goal. I was showing that as we keep getting new data and information, ideas change. And isn't the whole point of science to answer all the questions of the universe? Or, if you want to rephrase that, understanding the universe? If it can't explain something yet, it's unproven and nobody can give a real answer to it's existence, thus creating a 'hole' in science, this being that fault.
Sense is pretty subjective if you ask me. To me, it makes sense there is a God and to you it doesn't.
throwing out wild claims about the nature of the universe and you're not backing it up with anything, then it's just tom-foolery and doesn't deserve any attention
So does that mean the energy-mass ratio should just be thrown out? Nobody has really proven that it works.
I'll admit, if the theories I've listed are proven and work every time, then I wouldn't really be able to call them off as wrong.
I think it more boils down too 'We just don't know.'
And XVERB, I honestly think that God real. The science ones that have been 'changing and changing' will continue changing. If it hasn't really changed in a very long time, to me that makes me think that it can't really be changed as it's fine as is and can't be added too.
I really do not understand why you have to make it seem like we have to chose science or religion and reject the other. Why can't somebody believe in both?
