You haven't grasped it at all have you.
It's an example of how science doesn't prove anything, it just looks for the simplest method, not the correct method.
Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
You haven't grasped it at all have you.
It's an example of how science doesn't prove anything, it just looks for the simplest method, not the correct method.
There obviously is something out there, I mean science does proove that god making the earth in 7 days and all that is just one big load of crap but I rekon there maybe some sort of life above out existance or something, like a higher level that is powerfull and people would refer to as god. And its a fact the big bang was the start of the universe, well at least it is at the moment, but what made the big bang happen, apparently there is an answer just human brains are not powerful enough to think of things like that or something, Maybe it was a 'god'?. There is something out there, I dont think god or jesus existed though, and I dont believe in heaven or hell, but the thing is, when we die, something must happen, that cant be the end and its all just black or we just dont live, something has to happen. So there maybe a god of some sort, not as we see it, wont be called a god, might just be a higher life form.
Actually it does nothing of the sort.
Why can't that happen? the electrical signal in your brain cease. It's a perfectly good possibility that that's it.
Last edited:
But it does
, the way the earth, solar system and everything was formed goes against it, maybe it could be wrong, but god making the earth in 7 days cant be true.But it does
why can't it? you think an all powerful satan who's biggest accomplishment was to make people believe he didn't exist,plant red hearings.
)
What I'm talking about is that the Big Bang Theory yes, is a theory, but it at least has data that backs it up. Whereas creationism has no evidence at all. Believing in creationism requires complete and utter 100% blind faith, there is actual evidence to support the theory.
No scientific evidence. That's the problem. Your trying to use science to disprove something that it wasn't designed for.
There's only one logical position which is agnostic. We simply don't know. You are also only looking at two Christian and muslim religions.
I think you're confusing your arguments. That flatlander story is normally used to give weight to arguments of more dimensions than the standard 3. This seems contrary to your other statement that our thought processes and science may not allow us to define a deity.
I think you need to stop trolling now acidhell.
Intelligent design isn't a theory of the universe, it says that humans are too complicated to have evolved by chance. I also think it specifically says science can't explain evolution.
Its not a scientific theory which is why no is interested. If you are going to use that an example then you really have no idea what you are on about.
A better example would be the equivalance of Heisenberg and Schrodinger pictures. thats been worrying me for a while now. As you said different mechanisms but same result.
*goes to work this one.
Intelligent design isn't a theory of the universe, it says that humans are too complicated to have evolved by chance. I also think it specifically says science can't explain evolution.
Its not a scientific theory which is why no is interested. If you are going to use that an example then you really have no idea what you are on about.
A better example would be the equivalance of Heisenberg and Schrodinger pictures. thats been worrying me for a while now. As you said different mechanisms but same result.
*goes to work this one.
Interpretation is different though and it implies a different mechanism too. Operator evolving not the state
Last edited:
Actually, scientists don't have pure faith in this.
It is however, a theory, with a lot of evidence to support it. Which is why people are currently prepared to go along with it. If somebody was to posit a better theory, with evidence, no doubt the consensus would change.
That is the beauty of science, and the weakness of religion.
I see no reason to respect ignorance.
This isn't correct. Science is not interested in ID because the concept isn't testable. Irreducable complexity is not something that you can test scientifically. It isn't really a case of "simplest mechanism" in this case.
It would be somewhat more interested as you could actually build a theory around it, it could then be dimissed using Occams razor. But as it isn't testable at all, then it isn't science. Also, looking at how it came about it is obvious that it is just creationism rebadged.
A lot of theories are based on older stuff. So that doesn't prove anything.
It's not much different from more complicated science theories. they are untestable, but are still theories.
Any theory which is not the simplest isn't testable. unless it comes up with a way to show a result that wouldn't happen in the accepted theory.
That may be true but the newer theories still have to agree with the older ones at the correspondence limit
Sorry, but that's rubbish. The reason science is not interested in the creation mechanism, is because there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.
Whereas the theory of evolution is consistently backed up by the evidence.