Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Page 47

[jbennet]

i think narue would have to do that?

[ndeniche]

hey!! since when are you a mod? congrats!!!

[jbennet]

since like a week ago. im on probabtion so have to be on best behavior :)

[joshSCH]

would some moderator just close this thread? maybe that way somebody else doesn't come and restarts the war in here... :D

Close the thread?! You must be crazy! It's healthy for new peps to come around and revive this thread every once in a while.. to get some new perspective on things ;-) I think Narue should change the title to "God v. Atheism".

since like a week ago. im on probabtion so have to be on best behavior :)

Probation! Already?! Damn man, what did ya do? :P

[vegaseat]

hey!! since when are you a mod? congrats!!!

Hey JB, I want to congratulate you too!

[ndeniche]

Close the thread?! You must be crazy! It's healthy for new peps to come around and revive this thread every once in a while..

well, you know how good are newbies to revive long dead threads...

[Ancient Dragon]

would some moderator just close this thread? maybe that way somebody else doesn't come and restarts the war in here... :D

It doesn't violate any DaniWeb rules so there is not reason to close it.

[happygeek]

Anyway, isn't reviving long dead things kind of in keeping with the subject matter? <runs away>

[Ancient Dragon]

Question: where do threads go when they die? Is there a thread heaven ?

[Narue]

I figure that dead and forgotten is a form of hell.

[Serunson]

Maybe.....
But congrats Bennet, i don't really see how Dani can trust you of all people as Mod :D , but there ya go. It's not my decision :P

[joshSCH]

hahaa.. that a'way to have faith in your friend, man!

[Serunson]

I know Bennet better than you all do :P I see him everyday, and all he talks about now is being Mod :D

[Lardmeister]

Hello JB,
maybe the well deserved mod position will finally get you a GF.

In matters of the heart, mixing a little brain and humour will get you there. Also, do send a Valentine to the victim of your desires. Dang, why should a goofy thirteen year old give you advice?

[ndeniche]

Question: where do threads go when they die? Is there a thread heaven ?

this thread is an example they don't die... apparently they stay in a state of limbo or something...

[Serunson]

This thread has hibernating through the winter months :D

[hollystyles]

Jb a mod ?

Well that's finally proof, there is no God....

Krackow!!!! poof..... (rolling thunder)

Seriously though congrats! :)

[Serunson]

Has this turned into the "lets congrat bennet thread" :D

[WolfPack]

who is bennet?

[ndeniche]

heh

[Serunson]

lol
The newest addition to the Mod team WolfPack.
JBennet = Bennet

[WolfPack]

I see....
Well then congratulations Bennet .. whoever you are.

[jzuzphreek]

Webster defines the scientific method (the basis for the study of everything studied) as;

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Now tell me this...who can accurately test "evolution"? I'm not sure of any scientist who has observed evolution taking place.

A theory is just that...Theory. It must remain theory until it can be proven as a law. There is no Theory of gravity...there is a law of gravity. Likewise, there is no LAW of evolution because scientists and researchers cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves as to which proccesses are accurate. Why not? Because it is unobservable!

If any of you are truely in a search for truth, I encourage you to read a book called Darwin's Black Box. It is NOT a "christian book." The author does not even reveal his "religious" beliefs. It is simply a book by a scientist, in which he reveals the myths and holes within the THEORY of evolution.

It is indeed, a great read for seekers of knowledge...who consider themselves to be openminded (and not just to their viewpoint).

[Narue]

>Now tell me this...who can accurately test "evolution"?
I don't want to read all of this thread again to figure out who you're replying to, or if you're just jumping in with an argument against evolution. As such, I'm not sure how to respond, so I'll respond in the only reasonable manner: What's your point?

[jzuzphreek]

sorry...the reply was to an earlier post. I've since read a lot more of the topic, and realize that its gone from issue to issue.

So, now I guess that my point is...read the book. But only read it if you're not afraid to have your beliefs challenged. I consider myself a "creationist," and it challenged what I believe.

I can see your quandry as related to the appropriate response though. This post sure does move in a hurry.

[Narue]

>So, now I guess that my point is...read the book.
I'll admit: I haven't read that book and probably won't. But a web search[1] brought up this rebuttal, which seems to suggest that the author was either intentionally misleading readers or lacked sufficient research to properly argue his case. Clearly the author disagrees, but both sides make a good point. Somehow I doubt this book will challenge my beliefs, just like two people arguing the merits of two equally valid solutions to a programming problem won't challenge my beliefs about programming.

[1] I was searching "darwin's black box", and this was the first hit.

[jbennet]

why do prodestants believe in the bible so strongly when it was a) written hundreds of years afrer it all supposedly happened b) isnt the whole story as books which contradicted eachoteher were not included

[joshSCH]

Webster defines the scientific method (the basis for the study of everything studied) as;

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Now tell me this...who can accurately test "evolution"? I'm not sure of any scientist who has observed evolution taking place.

Evolution can be tested, actually. Ever heard of micro evolution? On a microscopic level, scientists can watch as species take on new traits to adapt to their environment.. Thus, adaptation and 'survival of the fittest' are key. True, we have never actually seen some species transform into a completely new species.. but so what? We have enough archaeological evidence to assume it to be true. It's inductive reasoning.. if you're incapable of such things then please don't post.

A theory is just that...Theory. It must remain theory until it can be proven as a law. There is no Theory of gravity...there is a law of gravity. Likewise, there is no LAW of evolution because scientists and researchers cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves as to which proccesses are accurate. Why not? Because it is unobservable!

Wow, another dumbass pretending to understand science. What is a theory? What makes a theory a law? You clearly don't understand. First of all, a theory is a scientific hypothesis which has been PROVEN TRUE, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. There is no evidence that has ever been uncovered to refute the hypothesis. A scientific law is simply a theory which has withstood the test of time, and still has no evidence refuting the hypothesis. This aspect of science is inductive, and seeing something happen in the exact same way, continuously without fail thus constitutes a law.

If any of you are truely in a search for truth, I encourage you to read a book called Darwin's Black Box. It is NOT a "christian book." The author does not even reveal his "religious" beliefs. It is simply a book by a scientist, in which he reveals the myths and holes within the THEORY of evolution.

Hahaa. yeah, it is.. a stupid christian trying to pretend to be a scientist. Here's an idea.. why don't you open your mind to the possibility that science is REAL and that there is no god.

So, now I guess that my point is...read the book. But only read it if you're not afraid to have your beliefs challenged. I consider myself a "creationist," and it challenged what I believe.

Creationism is illogical. How can it be that all things were 'created'. It is simply taking the easy way out.. there is no positive scientific explanation for how the universe began, thus stupid people claim that the only possibility is that it was created by 'god'.

[jasimp]

Some people are just to ignorant to understand that joshSCH.

[jbennet]

who is bennet?

'tis me