07 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3This is a painfully pessimistic point of view.
Everything you have offered in this thread amounts to zero. Science has not offered much too much more.
Science continually offers increasing detail on the wonders in the world around us. Multiple posters in this thread have provided excellent examples in many different fields of study, from the universe down to the atom. The properties of water, for instance. I have a hard time imagining someone who learns about these incredible, enlightening, things and concludes that "it amounts to zero." Why do you think that?
In many God-fearing Christians, these examples can serve to enhance and clarify their understanding of how the world works. Darwin was a remarkably spiritual person, who was very concerned that people would take his theory as a refutation of God. It is clearly the opposite. There's some really cool stuff out there, if you bother to get yourself out of that loathsome box you're in.
The Pope, regarding evolution, trusts in the science and says it's "more than just a theory." He has referred to a naturalistic origin of life, and thinks that evolution should be taught in Catholic schools. You should, too.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28862
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by MarshallPriceI agree, but did you really just create a new account to post that?
I'd like to point out that this entire thread is Chaney flat out denying evidence in favor of a bottle and his idiotic assumptions a well learned schoolchild would be embarrassed of.
07 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI created a new account because I've been off for quite a while and lost my previous login information. Then I happened across this thread and well...here we are now. The two matters are unrelated.
I agree, but did you really just create a new account to post that?
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3You are either incapable of understanding plain English or flat out lying. I 'noted' no such thing. In fact, my post was explicitly saying the exact opposite.
There is a clear intellect involved here, which sonhouse noted only a few posts ago, as did twhitehead.
PS. I am still waiting for that reference.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3I recommend that, if you wish to understand what science can and can not help us learn about the world, you read a bit about the history and philosophy of science. Suffice to say that the computer you are using would not exist if scientists were just "guessing."
Everything you have offered in this thread amounts to zero. Science has not offered much too much more.
Without knowing origin, you are simply applying known science to something ALL of you have admitted to being unknown. You all like to think you sound scientific, but in reality, it is merely guessing. There is a clear intellect involved here, which s ...[text shortened]... ast.
Oh yeah, evolution is being compared to computers now. And not by me.
Nice try Ghost.
07 Feb 17
There are accomplished scientists in this world, who are extremely intelligent, and who also believe in design. They are convinced, through evidence of their work, that design is more likely than 'probability'.
Most on this thread would dismiss any scientist who has this view, and would be more than happy to argue with them at length.
So, I am not phased by all of your insults, mostly by atheists, at my lack of scientific knowledge, because you would do the same to any PHD who holds a personal view of design.
Scientific knowledge is not the problem. Personal views and stubborness are.
Maybe twhitehead would care to explain if his sister is less of a scientist because of her religious view. Is she also less intelligent? Does she need to re-read her high school text books?
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3It has nothing to do with personal views on the side telling you you're full of it, it has everything to do with the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Atheists, at least a good majority of them, form their understanding of the world based on what we understand and observe today. Compare this with your own views, which boil down to you not understanding science and saying that sky daddy did it. There may be accomplished scientists who believe in design, but that doesn't mean that those specific people have any distinct qualifications to discuss the creation of the universe. I wouldn't ask a geologist about abiogenesis, I wouldn't ask a theoretical physicist about evolution, and I wouldn't ask an evolutionary biologist about the origins of the universe. To call your arguments monotonous, repetitive, and intellectually barren would be a gross understatement. The most stubborn person in this thread is you, because you won't even humor that your hypothesis is built on a lack of understanding of cosmology, physics, and probability, and is consequently as sound in foundation as a house of cards on a windy day.
There are accomplished scientists in this world, who are extremely intelligent, and who also believe in design. They are convinced, through evidence of their work, that design is more likely than 'probability'.
Most on this thread would dismiss any scientist who has this view, and would be more than happy to argue with them at length.
So, I am not phas ...[text shortened]... gious view. Is she also less intelligent? Does she need to re-read her high school text books?
08 Feb 17
So many interesting topics get little response on this board, so I guess the design idea pinches some nerves. It is wondrous, what matter and energy does. A lump of clay can become anything; seawater and solar radiation can become anything. Lots of people see purpose here. It is easy to see intention here.
But, it must be said, what made the maker. Seeing design in nature does not address the deeper question. We need more usable information, and for that look to science, especially future science, and not to old-time religious tomes.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by apathistAnd I, for one, have no objection to that.
Lots of people see purpose here. It is easy to see intention here.
I object to:
1. Lying to support the case as cheney has been doing.
2. Claiming that anyone who doesn't see purpose is dishonest - as cheney has been doing.
3. Falsely attributing claims/ beliefs to others - as cheney has been doing.
08 Feb 17
7 edits
Originally posted by chaney3
There are accomplished scientists in this world, who are extremely intelligent, and who also believe in design. They are convinced, through evidence of their work, that design is more likely than 'probability'.
Most on this thread would dismiss any scientist who has this view, and would be more than happy to argue with them at length.
So, I am not phas ...[text shortened]... gious view. Is she also less intelligent? Does she need to re-read her high school text books?
There are accomplished scientists in this world, who are extremely intelligent, and who also believe in design.
And there are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't.
The atheist Neil Bohr and others that discovered quantum physics, without which the transistors in your computer you are using right now wouldn't work, are amongst them.
They are convinced, through evidence of their work, that design is more likely than 'probability'.
Then those few ones are all wrong about that.
If the mainly atheist/non-religious ones were wrong about 'probability', the transistors in your computer wouldn't work and that means your computer wouldn't work. Google quantum mechanics and semiconductors and come back to us.
Most on this thread would dismiss any scientist who has this view,
Actually no. We accept their scientific contributions. We just don't believe in their religion.
For example, we accept the scientific contributions of the theist Christian Charles Darwin, just not his Christian religion.
Do you dismiss the findings of the theist Christian Charles Darwin because those finding contradict your particular brand of creationism?
If so, it is only you here who is dismissing the scientific knowledge on purely religions grounds.
Scientific knowledge is not the problem. Personal views and stubborness are.
Yes; yours.
Originally posted by apathistThen you guess wrong; it isn't design idea that is annoying us but the moronic rhetoric of chaney3.
So many interesting topics get little response on this board, so I guess the design idea pinches some nerves.
And, it isn't so much the topic we are responding to, which is completely idiotic and thus I bet extremely uninteresting to most of us, but rather the moronic chaney3 rhetoric. The only thing I find 'interesting' about it is how can some people believe such a load crap; but that is the subject matter of psychiatry, not 'design'.
If we found the idiotic 'design' thing interesting, we would have brought it up ourselves here.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyYou have basically just said that atheist scientists are far more intelligent than scientists who hold a religious view.There are accomplished scientists in this world, who are extremely intelligent, and who also believe in design.
And there are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't.
The atheist Neil Bohr and others that discovered quantum physics, without which the transistors in your computer you are using right now wouldn't work, are amongst ...[text shortened]... tific knowledge is not the problem. Personal views and stubborness are. [/quote]
Yes; yours.
You have proven my point, you are biased towards atheism, regardless of what a scientist may offer about design.