We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Science Haters
| 161 | 17238 |
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.
- 161 Replies
Whatever you believe with feeling becomes your reality.
Brian Tracy
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.
the most recent science theories are kinda most likely to be true because people keep getting smarter and smarter. A long time ago people thought that Zuse and all those greek gods were real but they don't now. we think its crazy that the thought it was real now. cause we are smarter. i think that the thought that god created the earth will some time stop too. sorry
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?I have no clue...I believe in both, but sometimes, science isn't done properly (Aristotle saying matter "wants" to be at rest)
-takes out an AK47 and blasts hidden's head off-
Charming.
I'm just proving the point that you can't knock off the possibility of God just because there's no evidence of it.
I'm well aware of that - you can't prove a negative like that; it's just about impossible. What I'm saying is that I don't have to, because scientifically, the default stance is that if there isn't evidence for something, it doesn't exist - so we don't have to disprove things like God, magic, Cthulhu, fairies or unicorns.
thus creating a 'hole' in science, this being that fault.
But science isn't the knowledge itself - it's the process by which we acquire more knowledge. Therefore, it's not a 'hole' in science, it's a hole in our collective knowledge.
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?
Have I really come off as rejecting science? I believe the first point I made was I believe science and religion go hand in. I guess I just don't want one side to be completely dominant in a debate. D:
the most recent science theories are kinda most likely to be true because people keep getting smarter and smarter. A long time ago people thought that Zuse and all those greek gods were real but they don't now. we think its crazy that the thought it was real now. cause we are smarter.
And supposedly we're gonna keep getting smarter and realize most of our theories and stuff are wrong.
Hidden, I believe it's the scientific method that is how we acquire knowledge. Science is our set of facts that have been proven to be true, no matter what. So the whole is in fact in science, as well as our collective knowledge.
Hidden, I believe it's the scientific method that is how we acquire knowledge. Science is our set of facts that have been proven to be true, no matter what. So the whole is in fact in science, as well as our collective knowledge.
Meh, they both fit different dictionary definitions of the word, so we're both correct, depending on which definition you want to use.
Have I really come off as rejecting science?
That was my take.
I believe science and religion go hand in.
I feel they're mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can stick with science for almost everything of what happens in our universe and then defer to something for which there's no science for existential truths.
I feel they're mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can stick with science for almost everything of what happens in our universe and then defer to something for which there's no science for existential truths.
Nah, many seem to be of the same opinion, which often leads to the worst of flame wars and arguments.
It usually depends on how seriously the Bible is taken (the highly religious are those who scream the loudest about science being the art of the devil).
Otherwise I am not sure whether I should quit one or another > >
I feel they're mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can stick with science for almost everything of what happens in our universe and then defer to something for which there's no science for existential truths.
I suppose the only way to make you understand my beliefs is too just tell people. Alright, here I go:
I believe that God created the first matter. Who knows what he did with it, but I think that he messed up or got tired of it or something, and compressed it all down and then proceeded to explode it (AKA Big Bang), making an effective 'reset' button. While doing stuff with his new universe, he got to the point where the undeveloped Earth is. Then it pretty much follows Genesis. He could've very well used evolution as a means for life, but I'm don't really want to say that was definitely he used. Currently, I'm meditating on the bible and stuff, seeing as how they aren't my firsthand accounts. I'm also not entirely sure of God's current interaction with our planet (something like a deist approach). Right now, my beliefs are still changing and stuff, as I'm getting older and considering new things and such.
So anyways, for me religion is the beginning of the universe, and science is the understanding of the universe.
I don't see how you can stick with science for almost everything of what happens in our universe and then defer to something for which there's no science for existential truths.
Okay, so because we don't know of it, that mean's it doesn't exist? If you told an 19th century scientist that we would have planes that can be flown remotly using electricity and referencing it's location via multiple man-made sattalites, im sure he would have thought you were insane. Science evolves though, and scientists know that, and eventually when it's proven, they accept it. If you could prove that religion was real, then they would believe it. Unfortunately, all religion has is, "I was spoken to by god" from thousands of years ago. I'd credit that as true with as much credence i'd give someone who claimed that their pet turtle was able to sing, dance, write, and direct a movie.
But if you role a die with several septillion sides 6 trillion times, what are the chances of getting 1 three times in a row then?
Low, but still plausible.
What if your role a die with several septillion sides 60 centillion times?
Macroevolution involves adding DNA while microevolution is just a slight change in traits.
You have to add/remove dna to get a slight change.
You have to add/remove dna to get a slight change.
While it can certainly happen that way, adaptation (microevolution) can also happen through certain alleles being expressed due to triggers in the environment. Most organisms hold several alleles for each trait, just not all of them are expressed. So most of the time the DNA is already there, and doesn't need to be added, just activated.
jaza do you believe in technology?
Lmao sought of just owned myself there....
But you get the point, I don't like believe in the science like, big bang and what not.Things that change what the bible says/intended.
I was just scanning the forum
Good Lord when will people learn the difference between forums and threads. A forum is a collection of threads. A thread is a collection of posts. A post is a collection of sentences. A sentence is a collection of words. A word is a collection of letters. A letter is a visual representation of a sound.
If you role a die 6 trillion times you are bound to get 6 three times in a row.
Not true. While it may be very likely there is still a chance it will not happen. Otherwis odds and probabilities would be meaningless.
As for people that take scientific theory that is basically a fairy tale and merge it with the Holy Word of Jehovah... get some real faith.
A bible-thumper calling science a fairy tale.
That's rich.
Still waiting on your proof that magic exists.
Thread is locked!