KFDM: approximately 4.5 billion years of random chance and you, sir, have a lot of entropy on you. evolution did not (as accepted by most of the scientific community) happen in a day, nor a week, nor a year.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 01:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> KFDM: approximately 4.5 billion years of random chance and you, sir, have a lot of entropy on you. evolution did not (as accepted by most of the scientific community) happen in a day, nor a week, nor a year.
edit2: metalcat, i think i'll stay in kansas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you explain 4.5 billion years of entropy with evolution then?
Well, I see I've stirred the hornets nest. Here's my recommendation. I could easily find some textbooks, links, and otherwise, but how many of you are going to actually read it openly and intelligently. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but I've been in enough "spiritual debates" where one side had no intention on engaging, but instead trying to dissuade the other, that I've grown rather tired of it. the research, resources, and everything else it out there. Trying using that brain that God gave you (or the one that randomly and sporatically came into being) to research yourself. If you are a "Christ"ophobe, then you'll just have to suck it up and realize that God isn't easily pushed out as a farce.
I don't want to simply link to texts/otherwise, because then the credibility of such sources lies in the hands of some "Jesus Freak" on the NS forums, and if you search this yourself, you'll find these people to be well respect scientists in the scientific community, who garner respect by fellow leaders, both spiritual and non.
My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I wonder, is why it is so hard for people to even consider that life is to complex to have happend by just random chance and accident, and why anyone who thinks that way is immediately mocked. Most people know my stand so you can go ahead and commence the mocking and flaming since that's where these threads usually end up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> most people know your standing? yeah we sure remember something you said tons of time ago, what did you expect to get out of that quote? if you want people to leave you alone dont post here
the basis of evolution is those 4.5 billion years, KFDM
also, rad4c. if you're not going to show your sources, why cite them? <a href='http://www.easybib.com/' target='_blank'>you need one of these on most high school level papers</a>
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 10:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I wonder, is why it is so hard for people to even consider that life is to complex to have happend by just random chance and accident, and why anyone who thinks that way is immediately mocked. Most people know my stand so you can go ahead and commence the mocking and flaming since that's where these threads usually end up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I stand with him on this, word by word.
i still don't see why nobody likes the "god created a situation where it would be advantageous for monkeys to stand on their hind legs so that several thousand years later, hind-leg-standing monkeys would have roamed the earth. and then he did the same thing for opposeable thumbs."
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 10:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I wonder, is why it is so hard for people to even consider that life is to complex to have happend by just random chance and accident, and why anyone who thinks that way is immediately mocked. Most people know my stand so you can go ahead and commence the mocking and flaming since that's where these threads usually end up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I stand with him on this, word by word. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> this forum angers me, you cant just say that people know your standpoint, wheres the discussion? wheres the murders? wheres the brutallity?
Entropy 1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. 3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. 4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. 5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
How do you explain 4.5 billion years of entropy with evolution then?
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i still don't see why nobody likes the "god created a situation where it would be advantageous for monkeys to stand on their hind legs so that several thousand years later, hind-leg-standing monkeys would have roamed the earth. and then he did the same thing for opposeable thumbs." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because it dont have any point, why didnt god just us big strong claws so that we could kill predators in a second? balance? would we be too owerpowered and whine to the programmer?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> and why it is not valid in a discussing
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh I though frogs falling from the sky is because of the nearby tornoda/storm which sweeps them away.
The explanation applies to raining fishes, cats and dogs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor.
<!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+Aug 4 2005, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ Aug 4 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh I though frogs falling from the sky is because of the nearby tornoda/storm which sweeps them away.
The explanation applies to raining fishes, cats and dogs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> trhat wasnt what i meant
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and why it is not valid in a discussing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's too strong a statement. People discuss all sorts of things, and there are a lot of legitimate interests that are outside of the scope of science. God is one of those things. I've got no problem with intelligent design being presented in a philosophy class, but it isn't science.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because he dont, and as i said, its the same as saying frogs can rain, no wait because of confusion i will take an example, its the same as saying that the water suddenly turns to acid, and saying that since you cant prove it wrong its right
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and why it is not valid in a discussing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's too strong a statement. People discuss all sorts of things, and there are a lot of legitimate interests that are outside of the scope of science. God is one of those things. I've got no problem with intelligent design being presented in a philosophy class, but it isn't science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> but still, you cant just say that ID is true because of god
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevant to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but still, you cant just say that ID is true because of god <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> (psst, we agree <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevent to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> which is what confuses me, natural selection does not rule out god. nor does it rule out ID NS and ID are compatible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry I still don't see how it could work. But that's probably because I'm a computer science major.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Aug 4 2005, 01:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Aug 4 2005, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but still, you cant just say that ID is true because of god <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (psst, we agree <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> who are we?
Comments
edit2: metalcat, i think i'll stay in kansas.
edit2: metalcat, i think i'll stay in kansas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you explain 4.5 billion years of entropy with evolution then?
I don't want to simply link to texts/otherwise, because then the credibility of such sources lies in the hands of some "Jesus Freak" on the NS forums, and if you search this yourself, you'll find these people to be well respect scientists in the scientific community, who garner respect by fellow leaders, both spiritual and non.
My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason.
most people know your standing? yeah we sure remember something you said tons of time ago, what did you expect to get out of that quote? if you want people to leave you alone dont post here
also, rad4c. if you're not going to show your sources, why cite them?
<a href='http://www.easybib.com/' target='_blank'>you need one of these on most high school level papers</a>
I stand with him on this, word by word.
I stand with him on this, word by word. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
this forum angers me, you cant just say that people know your standpoint, wheres the discussion? wheres the murders? wheres the brutallity?
1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
How do you explain 4.5 billion years of entropy with evolution then?
because it dont have any point, why didnt god just us big strong claws so that we could kill predators in a second? balance? would we be too owerpowered and whine to the programmer?
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science.
"Religion and science are pretty much the same thing, only science has a better excuse when it turns out to be wrong."
Which is why I am agnostic. Hurrah for taking neither side in a heated debate! Go neutrality!
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
and why it is not valid in a discussing
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh I though frogs falling from the sky is because of the nearby tornoda/storm which sweeps them away.
The explanation applies to raining fishes, cats and dogs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor.
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class.
Scientific theories gain credibility only when there are experiments that have the <i>potential</i> to disprove them but don't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh I though frogs falling from the sky is because of the nearby tornoda/storm which sweeps them away.
The explanation applies to raining fishes, cats and dogs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
trhat wasnt what i meant
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist.
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and why it is not valid in a discussing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's too strong a statement. People discuss all sorts of things, and there are a lot of legitimate interests that are outside of the scope of science. God is one of those things. I've got no problem with intelligent design being presented in a philosophy class, but it isn't science.
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
because he dont, and as i said, its the same as saying frogs can rain, no wait because of confusion i will take an example, its the same as saying that the water suddenly turns to acid, and saying that since you cant prove it wrong its right
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is like saying that frogs can rain from the sky, you just dont know it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why frogs raining from the sky isn't a subject of science, and why the mysterious "frogs from the blue" phenomenon has no place in a science class. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and why it is not valid in a discussing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's too strong a statement. People discuss all sorts of things, and there are a lot of legitimate interests that are outside of the scope of science. God is one of those things. I've got no problem with intelligent design being presented in a philosophy class, but it isn't science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
but still, you cant just say that ID is true because of god
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevant to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question.
(psst, we agree <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevent to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
which is what confuses me, natural selection does not rule out god. nor does it rule out ID
NS and ID are compatible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry I still don't see how it could work. But that's probably because I'm a computer science major.
(psst, we agree <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are we?