DeletedUser
Personally, I think the camel looks just as weird. All of the odd features do have a specific purpose though, so it is a semi "intelligent" design - just not very attractive.
- Status
DeletedUser
Daniel, it doesn't matter where they quoted the information from, as it is correct. More to the point, when you made your claim, you didn't know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is and you still don't know what it is. That you are requesting us to educate you on the 2nd law of thermodynamics merely demonstrates you should not have used it in your argument.
Ultimately, you're the one that presented the argument, based on ignorance. And, really, that's been the debate all along. Those who argue against evolution simply do not know what evolution entails. Those who advocate intelligent design, simply do not know what intelligent design entails.
When you become educated on both issues, and I mean truly educated, as in having a detailed comprehension as to the fallacious reasonings behind intelligent design, and the extensive research & data associated with the study of evolution, you can only truly come to one conclusion: Intelligent Design is pseudoscience and evolution is both theory & fact.
So, the question remains: Do you want to become educated, or would you prefer to stay ignorant and simply believe in whatever makes you feel better?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Lazy
Yep, religion is the lazy mans way to explain things. Scientist goes true the hard work to get an answer.
If religious people had their way you still be getting the plaque and die. And the reason for it being that you had been naughty
Yep, religion is the lazy mans way to explain things. Scientist goes true the hard work to get an answer.
If religious people had their way you still be getting the plaque and die. And the reason for it being that you had been naughty
DeletedUser
deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I believe that science can solve most of our problems. As long as scientific research doesn't involve intentionally doing serious harm either physically or mentally to another human being (I don't think stem cells count) it should be given as much suport as possible. However, going back to Pascal's wager, even if god or any higher being doesn't exist there is no harm in believing in them/him/it. Religion gives a meaning to human life that science does not. According to the purely scientific explanation we are just comlex structures of DNA that developed advanced brains over time-no soul, therefore there is no point in our existance. We also have to remember that science hasn't explained everything yet. There is still a lot we don't know about evolution/genetics and the big bang, so religious explanations still have credibility. Both religion and science are beneficial to society-religion gives a sense of community and spiritual guidance while science improves our physical well being and our quality of life.
DeletedUser
Pascal's Wager is a bad bet. I've made a thread on this, here, if you want to discuss it.
Even if that "meaning" is based on falsehoods?
Is it better to believe a lie that makes you feel good than to not know the answer? Is that what you're trying to say?
First, I'd question your assertion that there is "no point to our existence". Second, I question that believing a lie gives a "point to our existence".
No, they don't. They would have credibility if we had reason to believe religious explanations. We don't have reason to believe religious explanations at all. And simply saying that science doesn't have all the answers at this time doesn't give us reason to believe in religious explanations. At best, that would give us reason to believe that...science doesn't have all the answers at this time...not reason to believe in some cooked up story created by a religion...
DeletedUser
You atheists do realize that a relatively large number of scientists are spiritual, don't you?
DeletedUser
You do realize spiritual isn't the same as religious don't you?
DeletedUser
Actually religious explanations gain no credibility at all, just because science can't provide answers to every question.
To gain credibility you not only have to debunk one idea or point out its gaps but also put forth evidence to support another idea. Religion fails to do that.
It doesn't matter whether many scientists are religious or spiritual or whatever. They'll never get a paper published when they explain their observations with gods, spirits, ghosts, lab-was-built-on-an-Indian-cemetary, elves, trolls etc.
DeletedUser
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources around. Practically every article has good sources which back it up, and vandalism is almost always removed within minutes.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they are CrazyChristians.
Just because somebody's religious, it doesn't mean they're going to be a YEC. Practically all religious scientists are normal. And the few who are crazy are generally ignored by everyone else.
------------------------
A relevant song:
Letter from God
Hopefully some YECers will listen to it and change their ways.
DeletedUser
The cell's flagela proves that some structures simply could not have evolved on their own!!!11 that proves intelligent design!!!
DeletedUser
(( topic locked, everyone please review the debate/discussion rules and report any violations instead of participating in an infractable action ))
- Status