Life has no meaning without God

[MarysGirls]

Name 20 brilliant scientists who don’t accept the theory of evolution and who are not affiliated with a Christian ministry. Good luck with that. Okay, you got me there.

You won’t believe one of the most thoroughly tested and researched theories in existence and one that has an absolute mountain of corroborating evidence behind this theory, yet you will believe, without any evidence, that theory of evolution is not logical. Who said I don’t have evidence? I sure didn’t.
You’ll also believe, without any evidence, and on faith alone, that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that a piece of bread can turn into the flesh of the son of God.
Again, who said I don’t have evidence?
Could you please explain why you believe that Atomic theory is a logical theory and then please explain why germ theory is logical.
I’d have to do alot of research to refresh my memory. At the moment my mind is too tired; I’ll have to get back to you.Lastly, could you please explain why it is necessary for a scientific theory to appear, to your uneducated mind, logical, so that you accept it as fact.

Why should it appear logical? You have to ask that? You obviously don’t believe in God because you don’t believe Christianity to be logical. Why am I suddenly uneducated because I don’t believe everything that comes out of the idiot box?! (deep breaths, deep breaths . . .)

 

[MarysGirls]

Because she’s intelligent and uses her common sense. If things don’t jibe with her knowledge, she is quite right and reasonable in doing what she is doing: questioning and seeking resolution between what she already knows and what she is is presented with. She’s one of the bright kids who won’t accept anything as profligate at certain theories of evolution without proof and understanding them enough. A noble thing in my book.

Thank you, Ready. I needed that.

 

[phantasm]

Because she’s intelligent and uses her common sense. If things don’t jibe with her knowledge, she is quite right and reasonable in doing what she is doing: questioning and seeking resolution between what she already knows and what she is is presented with. She’s one of the bright kids who won’t accept anything as profligate at certain theories of evolution without proof and understanding them enough. A noble thing in my book.

So, I also take it to mean, that if you are marysgirls knew nothing of Calculus or Algebra or Atomic theory, you would not accept it as fact, because you don’t understand it.

You could only assume it is ilogical and then choose not to believe in calculus and algebra and Atomic theory.

Please answer this question, is that correct?

 

[ready]

Please, apply common sense to Quantum Mechanics, astrophysics, the theory of relativity, germ theory and of course, Atomic theory and then tell me how common sense allows you all to accept them as facts.

We all know, Science has to pass the common sense test of average Americans with limited education in order for that science to be proven correct.

Don’t shift the topic away from it’s core: evolution. She’s manifesting her intelligence by refusing just to accept it as factual (like the mainstream does) and by seeking your insight. She asked you to help her see where you are coming from - that’s how open and reasonable she is.

 

[1holycatholic]

I smell a troll and his name is you, so buzz off unless you have something to add other than little emoticons and personal attacks.

Please explain in detail how the universe created itself.
:coffeeread:

 

[phantasm]

Don’t shift the topic away from it’s core: evolution. She’s manifesting her intelligence by refusing just to accept it as factual

I am not shifting off topic.

Why on earth would you accept as factual Atomic theory, or advanced calculus or astrophysics?

Or are you and marysgirls skeptical about everything that you do not personally have an expertise in?

please answer the question

 

[ready]

We all know, Science has to pass the common sense test of average Americans with limited education in order for that science to be proven correct.

Some of us also know that certain theories have come, gone, only to come back again. That says alot!

 

[phantasm]

Please explain in detail how the universe created itself.
:coffeeread:

Know one yet knows conclusively how the universe came to be. There are several theories, but there is as of yet, no answer. There may never be an answer…time will tell.

I never said I knew how the universe began, but simply I find it easier to believe that there is something, instead of nothing and that something came about via natural means, over the existence of an eternal super God that had no beginning and has existed forever.

Basically, you all believe that God had no creator, yet you laugh at the idea that the universe does not need a creator.

Nice to see that your learning to communicate, rather than simply use emoticons and sharp little barbs directed at me.

 

[phantasm]

Some of us also know that certain theories have come, gone, only to come back again. That says alot!

Correct. It says that science is dispassionate and once a theory is proven false, it will be abandoned.

That is wonderful, it means that science is constantly seeking truth, is not afraid to find out it was wrong.

 

[1holycatholic]

Know one yet knows conclusively how the universe came to be. There are several theories, but there is as of yet, no answer. There may never be an answer…time will tell.

I never said I knew how the universe began, but simply I find it easier to believe that there is something, instead of nothing and that something came about via natural means, over the existence of an eternal super God that had no beginning and has existed forever.

Basically, you all believe that God had no creator, yet you laugh at the idea that the universe does not need a creator.

Nice to see that your learning to communicate, rather than simply use emoticons and sharp little barbs directed at me.

Your argument is irrational. If the universe came about by “natural means” then something already existed. That’s a circular argument.

 

[phantasm]

Your argument is irrational. If the universe came about by “natural means” then something already existed. That’s a circular argument.

No, it’s called metaphysics. Do you know much about metaphysics? No? Me neither.

However, I have to trust the experts who are metaphyscists and work in this field.

If you are a person, who is genuinely interested in learning about the science of nothing, then I suggest you at the very least, click this link.

books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=science+nothing+is+unstable&source=bl&ots=_2A9jlypuF&sig=_spHVa5BqF8xDR-rGBc7FKIGS9Y&hl=en&ei=r03MSfH_MqjunQewzdDICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

 

[phantasm]

There are many things in life, in the world, that we, common people, know nothing about. Yet we accept the experts, the engineers, the scientists, the doctors etc, know what they are doing and that they have evidence, observations and peer reviewed consensus in their chosen fields to do what they do on a daily basis.

We don’t know how to build a bridge that spans across the Northumberland straight, connecting Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia, but we accept that the engineering theories, the mathmatical formulas, the physics and the science are true…as we drive safely over the bridge.

Same thing about our health and we visit our Doctors with a health problem.

Same thing when we turn on our lights, yet know very little about the nature of electricity, the generation of electricity or the transfer of electricity.

Same thing as we fly on an airplane.

Same thing as we pour a glass of water from our municipal tap and the water has been treated at a water filtration plant.

Same thing when we travel to Africa and receive inoculations to prevent malaria.

Are you all getting my point?

In all these cases, and likely hundreds, if not thousands of times a day, we partake in society, knowing very little of the science behind the technology we use in the modern lives we lead.

We partake in this technologically wondrous society, with blind acceptance, that things will work as they should and that the scientists and engineers behind the technological marvels are working with theories and truths that work.

Yet, a lot of people around here make one single exception…the theory of evolution.

This is the one theory, that most people around here are not experts, or are not even enthusiasts who have above average educations in relation to modern evolutionary theory, yet you will happily reject this theory, while accepting and partaking in just about every other scientific marvel and scientific theory, that you know just as little about.

It truly is a puzzle, and to me, it simply shows how closed minded people can be if they feel that their faith is being threatened.

 

[ready]

I am not shifting off topic.

Why on earth would you accept as factual Atomic theory, or advanced calculus or astrophysics?

Or are you and marysgirls skeptical about everything that you do not personally have an expertise in?

please answer the question

I am not a cynic nor am I a really skeptical person. But I see good and evil; I love the good and despise the evil. I am highly Catholic, open to the light of reason, and definitely in favor of all good science. I am cautious when it comes to accepting science that is so dangerously artistic as to abort its Divine Creator from the picture of creation. Besides, the fossil interpretations I hear of on PBS and the fossil comparisons presented on the network are to me nothing more than educated guesswork just adding to the whole preconceived picture of evolution the scientific field has already embraced as true, making man the center of creation and the final word on his genesis, which he is not. There exists objective truth in reality that science can only provide glimpses into, in bits and pieces, like photographs, that can only provide us with so much knowledge and information. Science needs philosophy, specifically theology, to account for the genesis of man, as it is not based on a majority agreement of a branch of scientists supporting each other but based on metaphysical truth based on and handed down from God Himself in the person of Christ and His Church. The Church is open to natural selection like I am, I’m sure, but reducing everything to chance? That, my friend, is another story.

 

[phantasm]

the fossil comparisons presented on the network are to me nothing more than educated guesswork just adding to the whole preconceived picture of evolution the scientific field has already embraced as true,

This is what science is all about. There are scientific theories which the scientists have honestly know idea why it is, yet they can consistently test, prove and observe the same consistent results as a result of the working theory.

It is my understanding that many results in quantum mechanics can be predicted perfectly, yet the science still does not know how it is that the results are obtained.

Is this heavy stuff to understand? I hope not. I’d hate to have someone read my post and say something really, really ignorant like ’ bah, that’s a bunch of garbage, you can’t predict a result, unless you understand everything’

That is not science, they can, in quantum mechanics, make absolutely accurate predictions, proving their theories and models correct, yet their still is a lot to learn, such as how the results are actually achieved.

this is science, this is fact, this is truth.

Science marches forward searching for observable, testable and falsifiable theories.

 

[ready]

This is the one theory, that most people around here are not experts, or are not even enthusiasts who have above average educations in relation to modern evolutionary theory, yet you will happily reject this theory, while accepting and partaking in just about every other scientific marvel and scientific theory, that you know just as little about.

It truly is a puzzle, and to me, it simply shows how closed minded people can be if they feel that their faith is being threatened.

I went into the study of Darwinism with an openness to truth. I just wasn’t satisfied at all with what was presented to me as the argument in favor of man descending from apes by Darwin. Natural selection made perfect sense and I easily embraced it, I loved learning about it. But Darwin’s argument of man descending from apes was not provable and went against what I know to be true. It is nothing but crafty science. My faith will never be threatened by good science, as good science always, always, always will support it, as faith and science are perfectly compatible.

 

[ready]

this is science, this is fact, this is truth.

I hope you know that science is not truth and there is not always good science at work. Science only attempts to arrive at truth or the truth. Truth is something already out there that we are attempting to understand through the means of scientific observation, etc… Truth is a person, Christ and the more each of us understands our relationship to Him, the easier it becomes to understand the world as it truly is. Evolutionary theory regarding common ancestry is plain bogus. It even contradics the divine science of theolgy, also called the highest science. I starts off with a landscape we are to believe and provides us with a weave of information in support of maintaining this landscape, despite the fact that Darwin never got man’s genesis right in the first place by his placing man at the center of the world, not the Creator.

 

[phantasm]

I went into the study of Darwinism with an openness to truth. .

I’d wish you’d stop talking about Darwinism, as Darwinism is not an accurate term to describe modern evolutionary theory, which you have demonstrated, know next to nothing about.

**You trust that Atomic theory is correct and allows for the safe use of Nuclear energy.

Yet, you don’t trust that modern evolutionary theory is correct, because you think you know best over the 99.85% of America’s earth and life scientists that know the theory is valid.**

Bizarre.

 

[phantasm]

Truth is a person, Christ

Christ is as much truth, as is Vishnu or Buddha.

 

[chris_molter]

Christ is as much truth, as is Vishnu or Buddha.

Incorrect. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth (called Christ) is a generally accepted historical fact (probably as accepted in the scholarly community about as much as evolution is…). The historical existence of Vishnu or Shiva, well… Hindu’s don’t really claim the same things, so you’re making an apples to oranges comparison here. Maybe if you said Krishna… but even then the historical record isn’t there.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, it’s called metaphysics. Do you know much about metaphysics? No? Me neither.

However, I have to trust the experts who are metaphyscists and work in this field.

If you are a person, who is genuinely interested in learning about the science of nothing, then I suggest you at the very least, click this link.

books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=science+nothing+is+unstable&source=bl&ots=_2A9jlypuF&sig=_spHVa5BqF8xDR-rGBc7FKIGS9Y&hl=en&ei=r03MSfH_MqjunQewzdDICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

Nothing comes from nothing - ex nihilo nihil fit.

You fail. Try again. :coffeeread: