Search results

No it isn’t . Come on Ricter you can do better than dancing around with some silly semantics , or then again perhaps you really can’t.

Well that's the thing isn't it. Religion tells everything but explains nothing. Just kicks the can down the road to the inevitable unexplainable unknowable pseudo-truth put there to dodge it all.. The evidence isn't being defined by science , it's observed whether or not verified evidence...

No, as the only method that ever established exactly how the universe actually works.

For instance the kind of openess and willingness to accept the order that confirms no creator God? I din't think so. And yet if you were able to provide the slightest bit of empirical evidence that there was or there wasn't, science is open and ready to investigate. You've veered so far off...

How come you want to turn everything being said inside out to defend religious belief? My perception of science is irrelevant. It's about what science actually is and what science actually does, and because of that, it is not consistent with religion - period. Science is not complimentary...

In your example you are keeping science and religion separate one from the other, that does not make them compatible. With respect, it is nonsense to say science, or scientific knowledge, is perfectly or otherwise compatible with religion when it patently is not. There is nothing remotely...

Serious!? If you were serious , I don't think you would really make such ridiculous remarks. This is the 21st century in case you hadn't noticed. There is this thing called the internet. Go and educate yourself a little. Look up ribosome and ribosomal DNA which connects in detailed fact...

Those two descriptions are atheist. To be agnostic is generally accepted as the unspecific uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. If you make agnostic specific to religion then agnostic about God becomes hopelessly illogical, almost a joke, which is said to be indeed how the term was...

Everything needs a creator so there must be a first cause creator idea leads only to its own inevitable self-defeating contradiction.

The idea that people without any religious beliefs somehow have religious belief just doesn't work on any level except absurd.

But the complexity of your surroundings didn't evolve by chance alone. It's complexity from simplicity due to favorable circumstances.

My view then. Punishment as in meaning to intentionally impose a penalty? Then Nature does't punish behavior. It merely reacts with remorseless indifference to events that naturally occur, in ways it possibly can. For instance death is not nature's punishment for old age which it would be by...

The Campaign should begin. For those who think Obama is a bad president Vote For see how shit things could really be.

Me too, might as well seeing how it seems to make little difference in the end who the president is.

..... help with the gun then all that's left is a nut.

........"just common sense and integrity"

Oh, same fundamentals as religion then.

Now you're just being silly. Science and scientists have no problem making definitive distinction between living and non-living things. As I've said, biology is the study of living organisms, not the study of non-living ones. Viruses and prions fit directly into that category for good...

....something fact never partners up with.