Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Where am I calling people names?? You're just nitpicking words when I was nicely discussing synthetic life with you. Where did I claim to be an expert? I didn't. Check yourself before you throw out the asshole card (for no good reason as I was totally cordial with you). What's your problem?
You can "understand" the skepticism? How very big of you. But you don't seem to share this skepticism, do you, since you have yet to say word one against the veracity of these quaint "bible stories" whereas you have all manner of (misguided) criticisms against evolution? Where, then, is all this fairness and balance and open-mindedness that you ostensibly espouse?
"None at all" is an exaggeration? So then there is evidence supporting these bible stories? Very well, then. What is the objective evidence supporting your various supernatural bible stories?
I didn't claim to be fair and balanced, only open minded.
For the umpteenth time I'm NOT trying to convince anyone of either side. Ever watch The Naked Archeologist ? It's not one of my favorites but I'll watch segments of it from time to time. I also like to watch the International History Channel.
Did you know they found what are believed to be the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah some years ago? And they have SCIENTIFIC explanations for their demise.
Did you know they have plausible SCIENTIFIC explanations for the plagues of Egypt and the parting the "Red Sea"? Which was originally misinterpreted, it's really the Reed sea which is essentially a marsh.
They have reason to believe they've found the location of the Garden of Eden, an area now under water.
Now I DO NOT mean to suggest that some seemingly confirmed bible stories necesarily confirms the whole bible and ergo God/creation. But I'm of the opinion there is sufficient reason not to write the whole Bible off out of hand just because I'm desperate for there to be no God. (Which I'm not anyway.)
The above mentioned examples didn't come from blind faith, but from modern science and archeology.
I'm sure you're familiar with archeology, where they dig up fragments from history and piece them and their story together.
Not unlike paleontology really, only these bits of history are only a few thousand years old instead of hundreds of millions.
And for the record the only stuff I'm questioning that you so dutifully believe without question is the stuff that has not been observed and/or is at least as fantastical as some the bible stories are, at least on their surface. The something from nothing theory for example.
And one more thing. I've said before, for my sake I actually hope you, stu and Co. are right. That way I don't have to roast in Hell for eternity. BUT I'm not going to embrace "science" that's not proven or observed just because it's convenient for me and my future.
I do not see that arguing for current scientific understand is pro anything other than accurate info.
The truth is science might find a pathway for abiogensis, or it might find a "natural" explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. The only fact that would really shut the door on God would be if science could figure out what happened before the big bang. (if before makes sense)
I have these discussions because I grow weary of pseudo intellectuals arguing that people who believe in a Creator are believing in things contrary to scientific understanding.
The problem with that is, with science, true science, you have to support assertions with hard empiric evidence. Just saying they have 'plausible SCIENTIFIC explanations' isn't necessarily science.
There is no real scientific evidence to support any of the things you've mentioned. If you merely re-interpret the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the "Red Sea" into some adaptations of natural events, at best you simply have inaccurate diary notes, not a Bible.
There is no such evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah , parting of the Red Sea or the Garden of Eden. They are tales in a story book.
On that level you do realize the story of Goldilocks could be shown to have 'plausible SCIENTIFIC explanations'. ? Just find three porridge bowls from around the time of the tale in an archeological dig and, hey presto.
If you understand science at all, you understand not to dutifully believe anything.
If you choose to accept evidence that isn't there and deny evidence that is there , you dutifully believe in fantasy.
The thing with something from nothing theory , it is based on science itself, not on a fantastical story, and more compellingly in view of its suggestion, doesn't contravene the laws of physics.
There is no dutiful belief required. Science based knowledge and understanding will verify, or something from nothing will remain evidentially possible but scientifically inconclusive.
Whereas things like God just donât get to be scientific at all.
People who believe in a Creator ARE believing in things contrary to scientific understanding. There is NO science in any propositions for a Creator. Constantly trying to suggest otherwise is just farcical.
All you ever do is invent your own versions of what you consider is current scientific understanding, to infer possibilities for a God.
Why can't you just be content to rely on blind belief to support your religion , instead of constantly misrepresenting scientific understanding, which you obviously don't understand .
ET theists start threads like this one, to say science is wrong so therefore God. That's what the OP does.
To point out the shear folly and factual incorrectness of that statement, is immediately and unjustifiably turned into any number of groundless accusations, including one of having a 'dutiful belief' in science.
The anti-science theist argument goes; if religion is daft, make a daft comment about science, now science is as daft as religion, so religion is no dafter than science.
The only understanding a religious protagonist like yourself appears to ever want is one that proposes any absurd religious statement is as valid as any refutation of it.
All the ridiculous posts you've made to belie science, are all some version of the above.