The thread that will never get a real answer

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


ROFLOL
Did you really just claim that the closest to and absolute in science that we have is a theory? lol, good one!
Sorry dude, if it was an absolute it would not be called a theory.
ty, I bow out to that logic.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.


God is so good that I don't have too. God tells me you know he is real but you would rather lie to us and to yourself. So believe what you must, I will believe God.

Everyone knows there is a God. The evidence is all around us.
In fact, the Creator designed the universe so that His many
invisible attributes would be “clearly seen” in the things He made,
so that we are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
PROOF
But seriously, the only proof I feel is that the complexity and sheer existence of the universe is evident of something spectacular going on, and imho there is reason and intelligence behind it all. I am not saying god is an entity necessarily, but something besides randomness is going on. When one considers 'why' all of this is here, surely there is room for considering genuine purpose in our existence.
My .02

spec
edit on 4-12-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Cuervo
[
But why? Why is the default that needs no proof the one of non-intervention evolution? It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of nature which is cyclical and creative. Why isn't the burden of proof on the equally (arguably more) challenging notion that our ghosts in these machines we call bodies are nothing but biological end-results?



Evolution is as close to absolute knowledge as anything we have ever known. Its considered more than fact, its considered a Scientific Theory, which "comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered, and proponents of evolution have indeed met their burden of proof.



Actually, No.

The water tight-- airtight, even! -- would be something like "length X width of a rectangle = its area." Not only can it be observed, but tested to repeat the results and is part of the explanation for why the area of a rectangle times its height (if equal at all points = its volume.

Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment.

DNA sequencing adds evidence to support the theory, but also leaves questions regarding the original concept of the theory and so the theory is continuously adapting to support new evidence. That is scientific, and the marks of a good theory, but it is not, yet, airtight.

Evolution and the heliocentric solar system seem to be following similar cultural paths.

It was science, not religion, which first asserted that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth (and that scientific model predated Christianity). Various cultures (and religions) then adapted their belief systems to be in agreement with the false notion

It was science and not religion which developed a new theory that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun. Again, cultures (including religions) adapted.

Note about the Flat Earth: Culture had a problem with a spherical world, but not so much the world's religions.

Culture (including, but not limited to,religion) find conceptual change threatening, but usually adapt once the surer concept is able to be embraced.

So now we have a major perspective shift. It upsets some (hardly all) Jews, Christians and Muslims, because they had taken part of the Creation story to mean something other than what is intended.

Similarly, some have taken the first "day" of creation's "Let there be light..." to refer to the sun; but perhaps it refers to the release of energy in the Big Bang? But then again, perhaps it refers to the spiritual Reality, and not at all to the material creation.

It is our presumptions which are hard to admit to be in error-- true of science, true of religion, true of culture-- true of all mankind.

For over a thousand years, one culture would enslave another culture, certain that their own culture was superior and the only "true humans" (and, for example, at least one American Indian tribe's name means just that). But before science could show us that we are all related back to about 60,000 years ago, culture had already begun to adapt to the concept that all races are equally human-- equally deserving of respect.

Need I point out that religion, and religious people, had very much to do with bringing about that true cultural concept-shift, before science entered the argument?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.


What proof will suffice for you?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Breathe in!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
You won't get a "real"/legitimate answer because you haven't asked a "real"/legitimate question.
edit on 4-12-2011 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The issue is the complexity and appearance that the physical universe was nudged towards a superfine point of stability where maximum variability of outcome is what we usually perceive.

Why do we have so many chemical elements? The easiest mathematical/chemical solutions usually collapse into a state with a single chemical (if at all).

Why is the temperature scale so variable?

Why are there different types of stars?

Why is there such diversity of life?

The list goes on and on.

When we do it (chemistry/physics), we usually get a single result. When we observe our universe, the most likely outcome (a single result), is almost invisible.

The observed universe is preposterously unlikely.

Yet here it is.

This argues for an intelligence driving the structure of the Universe. I would call that intelligence God.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Or perhaps we take the predominant scientific view:

In the beginning, there was nothing...

... then it exploded.

or

Life arose from simple chains of amino acids...

... which endured with partial and ill adapted physiology (the opposite of survival of the fittest) because some day, billions of years in the future, a perfected physiology was possible.

In short, science does not yet have the answers.
edit on 4/12/2011 by chr0naut because: I luv to edit my mistakes away...



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Since you ask for proof that he is real, you must also ask the question of proof that he isn't real. I'm an Atheist myself, but since you like stirring up trouble I would love for your absolute proof and your supposed findings on your own. Now I don't mean what you read on the internet or a book, I am asking for your very own findings.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Prove the wind is real.
You can see it's effects and feel it even measure it but can you see it?
I know in my heart that air is real!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp
 


God isnt real, and i believe in fairy tales



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dillon123
 


I take it that you think you will enjoy a warmer climate?


If it wasn't for that pesky satan and his trail of deceit i might agree with you.

Because i found the devil here i know this is gods country. DMX



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   


"The thread that will never get a real answer...."


Then why did you post it?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


ROFLOL
Did you really just claim that the closest to and absolute in science that we have is a theory? lol, good one!
Sorry dude, if it was an absolute it would not be called a theory.
ty, I bow out to that logic.


The jokes on you buddy. The term "scientific theory" doesn't mean what you think it would in lay mans terms. Most people use the word theory for a completely different meaning in day to day speech. Words often have multiple meanings. In a scientific context the word "theory" is reserved for hypothesis which have been proven, once it has been proven it becomes a "theory".
edit on 4-12-2011 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


ROFLOL
Did you really just claim that the closest to and absolute in science that we have is a theory? lol, good one!
Sorry dude, if it was an absolute it would not be called a theory.
ty, I bow out to that logic.


The jokes on you buddy. The term "scientific theory" doesn't mean what you think it would in lay mans terms. Most people use the word theory for a completely different meaning in day to day speech. Words often have multiple meanings. In a scientific context the word "theory" is reserved for hypothesis which have been proven, once it has been proven it becomes a "theory".
edit on 4-12-2011 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)

And yet it is not proven, it's a theory.
There are no transition fossils showing a rabbit to a bird, or an ape to a man.
Yes, you have a neandertal, and on the other end you have a man. Then the rest is guesswork and theory.
Big difference between macro and micro.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Trick question.
I prefer 'Can God make a plastic trash bag so strong even He can not poke his finger through it?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 



Originally posted by manna2
And yet it is not proven, it's a theory.


How can you seriously argue against the "theory of evolution" if you don't even know what the word means?
edit on 4-12-2011 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by polarwarrior
 


The theory of evolution should be called the assumption of evolution. The number of non provable assumptions one needs to believe to confirm evolution is ridiculous. We simply can’t prove any of the assumption needed to make the theory of evolution viable. If this was anything other than a way for man to eliminate God it would have been thrown out years ago.

Since I have studied evolution much more than 99% of you who believe it I am not here to debate.
My belief in creation takes not one assumption. God is real; everyone in their hearts knows this to be true. Another point that I don’t need to debate, as it is a promise God made to all.

You have chosen to believe in man, I will choose to believe in God. I don’t know where your choice leads you but mine leads me to my father.
edit on 4-12-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Shoulda called this the thread that will never have a real conversation. But as troll bait you succeeded wonderfully *rolls eyes*.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join