I would say that mammalian sexual reproduction is exactly that. The chaos of millions of sperm shotgunned at an ovum where one among those millions MIGHT create a new life/lives. What is that if not chaos which later becomes order?
I was speaking of something more external.... you know, like another planet that is habitable after being contructed by a few impacts or what have you and can at least, harbor human life.
Sure, we have other planets, but that doesn't mean that chaos creates life and jump-starts the evolutionary process like scientists believe happened here.
So what would be your reaction to alien life? Or do you simply not consider that as we've found little evidence to support its existence?
This question is very easy.
Yes.
You can't really prove a negative under those conditions. For example the statement "God doesn't exist" isn't really testable under those standards.
A lot of atheists from what I have seen however do put a lot of stock in the Theory of Evolution.
That theory gets tested every time there is a new fossil discovery and to a lesser extent every time an archaeologist digs up a fossil.
You're correct...however, the whole "Does science disprove God/religion" debate is quite frankly, pointless.
It seems some more famous Atheists (Dawkins/Harris) are more concerned with drawing followers after themselves because no matter what arguments they put forth...even with all the religious mocking/critisizing... that doesn't render God disproved or false. I am sure they are aware of this. Science is simply currently unequipped to test God, so it doesn't concern itself with it.
I think, and I hope this isn't a shot at Atheists because this isn't my intenet, they need a way to explain and make sense of their lack of belief if/when it is challenged. Its one thing to say I don't think God created the world, and its a completely different thing to have to explain why if questioned.
You seem to enjoy repeating yourself. You can't prove a super magic sky creature didn't do something because you cannot prove a negative and there isn't any evidence of such a thing to begin with!
The only "explanation" needed to explain why someone doesn't think a magic man created the universe is that there isn't a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that such a magic man exists!
You're right -- I can't prove a "super magic sky creature" exists because I never said a "super magic sky creature" even exists...
It would help if you learned to read.... just a little..
Do not cast pearls before swine.
You're right -- I can't prove a "super magic sky creature" exists because I never said a "super magic sky creature" even exists...
It would help if you learned to read.... just a little..
Here is an interesting video from Nova about where the bible came from, who wrote it and other stuff.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/181082#i0,p20,d0
Pulled this from the other thread. I had to download it elsewhere since I'm overseas, and I haven't finished watching it, but it's interesting so far.
The fact that "god" as you have come to know it is the basis of one or more religions followed by millions of people grants it no more scientific credence than a single man's belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Both are equally impossible to prove, and have no scientific basis to even warrant study. That is the beauty of science, in that is is all evidence based. Religion, because of it's popularity and many cultural sensitivities that formed around it, receives a level of deference from almost everyone, even non-believers. It would seem some religious people wish the scientific community to grant religion, and it's claims, a similar type of deference and/or respect, which is just not going to happen. Without any kind of observable truths to support religion, religious belief is likely to continue to erode with each successive generation that becomes educated.
Well, I didn't say that since more people follow religion and believe in God it deserves more scientifc credence -- I was making the comparison invalid, which it is. If no one believes in the FSM, but millions believe in God... then how can you compare the two?
Secondly, to address this "evidence", my belief is only based on evidence. Like I mentioned earlier, creations as we see them -- computers, cars, etc -- have known creators...even if we didn't witness the creators creating them.
Is it irrational to assume a creation has a creator? No, it isn't. The evidence of God is clearly observable.... you're simply choosing to reject it.
Science isn't always evidence based. There is clearly no evidence this universe came from nothing... yet, they throw math at it to try an prove this. Math has never created anything. The assertion that this comes from absolutely nothing is cleary faith-based. There is no way that anyone can know this.
It is irrational to assume there is a "Creation". Especially when all the Evidence suggests otherwise.
If no one believes in the FSM, but millions believe in God... then how can you compare the two?
Secondly, to address this "evidence", my belief is only based on evidence. Like I mentioned earlier, creations as we see them -- computers, cars, etc -- have known creators...even if we didn't witness the creators creating them.
Is it irrational to assume a creation has a creator? No, it isn't. The evidence of God is clearly observable.... you're simply choosing to reject it.
Science isn't always evidence based. There is clearly no evidence this universe came from nothing... yet, they throw math at it to try an prove this. Math has never created anything. The assertion that this comes from absolutely nothing is cleary faith-based. There is no way that anyone can know this.
This thread is going in circles. Rob, you're making the same flat claims that people already responded to multiple times.
If no new ground is covered soon, I'm closing it.
Oh.. I didn't know the things in this world aren't creations... my bad.
Some things definitely are. This Universe and this Existence is what is in question though.
Close it. Majority wins, huh?
I see what happens to those who don't share the same world view...
How about the fact that you actually PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT THE BIBLE, or your own 'beliefs,' or some christian apologist...then maybe we can continue this discussion. As Charles has stated you've repeated the same claim over and over again, shown willful ignorance in the face of solid claims(and facts) from other posters. Moreover, I'm amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance you've displayed.
If you are going to make an extraordinary claims without evidence, I can just as easily dismiss that extraordinary claim without evidence of my own.