the babe in my sig?
god belief
- Thread starter Nester6
- Start date
the babe in my sig?
I believe in God. Personally, I think evolution is bullshit. For example how the hell did a fruit bearing tree/plant figure "uh hey I need to reproduce so I'll just coat my seeds in delicious food so an ****** can eat it, crap it out and grow another plant!" Evolution just makes no sense. A higher and greater being than us has to have created us, because everything just works so perfectly.
Well until humans were put in the mix anyway
Well Evolution is fact, but none of the things in the bible has been proven...
Evolution is a theory, which btw I agree although I'm a believer...
Well, it's not fact, but I'd like to point out that a "theory" as defined under the scientific method has rather rigorous demands placed on it, and is quite different from how the word is used informally. What people generally call a theory is rather what the scientific method would call a hypothesis.
I'm pointing this out because far more often than I'd like, I see people claim that something is "just a theory" so it's no more valid than their "theory", which is quite frankly a ridiculous claim in the vast majority of cases.
I'm pointing this out because far more often than I'd like, I see people claim that something is "just a theory" so it's no more valid than their "theory", which is quite frankly a ridiculous claim in the vast majority of cases.
Is it just a theory though ?
Unfortunately i'm not a evolutionary biologist - although there's probably one on freeones somewhere - but there is a lot of evidence out there
( certainly i would argue there's more evidence for evolution than for the existence of a supreme being )
Genetic inheritance can be seen - by looking at your ****** or finding that human dna is a closer match to that of a chimpanze or a whale than that of a komodo dragon or a cabbage
but i suppose some people might argue that god created the first spark of life / first single celled organisms and everything evolved from there
:dunno:
Unfortunately i'm not a evolutionary biologist - although there's probably one on freeones somewhere - but there is a lot of evidence out there
( certainly i would argue there's more evidence for evolution than for the existence of a supreme being )
Genetic inheritance can be seen - by looking at your ****** or finding that human dna is a closer match to that of a chimpanze or a whale than that of a komodo dragon or a cabbage
but i suppose some people might argue that god created the first spark of life / first single celled organisms and everything evolved from there
:dunno:
In science, a theory is as good as it gets. It's rather rare that it does, at that.
A theory requires sufficient proof to be called such. For example, I can make a claim such as "if I drop a stone, it will fall to the ground", which would roughly speaking be a hypothesis. In order for it to be a theory, I must also be able to experimentally verify it, by for example dropping the stone and see if it falls. If there's no reason to believe that the stone wouldn't fall or experiments in which it doesn't, the hypothesis may be elevated into a theory. This in itself doesn't mean your hypothesis is correct, you'll also need to predict why the stone fell or else it's somewhat useless and you may require to do far more than just dropping a stone, and there's also a chance that your prediction may seem okay because you didn't check it well enough. Aristotle (I think it was) would've said something along the lines of that the stone falls because the ground is its "natural" place to be, Newton would've said that it falls (or shift) because the mass of the ground and the mass of the stone attract each other, while Einstein would've claimed it was because of how a body of mass curve space. Neither had (or has) the necessary knowledge or instruments to show that the hypothesis was faulty at the time (although I know Newton admitted that his theory wasn't perfect and I think Einstein did as well, which we know by now too).
The problem with "theories" like ID is that the scientific method cannot be applied to it. You have a hypothesis (not a very good one at that), but no evidence. The existance of a being that must operate outside the laws of nature not to be a contradiction is essentially impossible to prove, and proving that this potential being also did what ID claims it did is even worse. There is no direct evidence and no way of producing evidence in sight, yet some still insist on calling it a scientific theory despite that it doesn't follow the scientific method. For example, if you rub something against a surface, it'll produce a sound. Physics today would explain this by saying that the rubbing causes vibrations which causes sound (sound being vibrations in the air). I could claim that the sound is actually the screams of millions of very small creatures being crushed, but that these creatures are so small that they cannot be detected. Sure, it could be true I guess, but I have no reason to believe it is and I have zero experimental verification for it, which is why it's not a scientific theory (and probably never will be). For that reason, it is certainly not as valid as the current explanation. That I believe in these very small creatures is not really a problem in itself, but things are going to get awkward if I demand that my "theory" should be taught in physics as a valid alternative to our current version.
To clarify - i'm not arguing for inteligent design or any other alterantive "theory" - and i'n my previous post i use "theory" in the everyday sense and not as distinct form hypothesis
- as i say, there's a lot more evidence of evolution than for any other alternative explanations for life as we know it
i'm just glad i live in a country where it is ( just about- can never say never)
inconceivable that people would try to get "creationism" taught to **** in a mainstream school as what " has as much chance of being true " as evolution
hail darwin :bowdown:
Didn't think you were, only the first line of my post was specifically directed at you. The rest was just a brief explanation of the concept. Although it should be noted that scientists also use theory in the informal manner, so you'll have to mind the context to avoid confusion. It's when people don't that there's a problem. When someone claims that since evolution is just a theory, ID is also a valid theory (or something similar, replace evolution and ID with whatever), what I hear is along the lines of "X is just a rationally and empirically verified law of nature, so my crack-induced fantasy is a valid alternative".
So You are a Satanist?--Do You worship in a church of satan or just flash around the inverted pentacle to attempt to be cool or create that "badboy" image? I feel more sorry for You than the scientologists.
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
I have absolutely no idea if god does or doesn't exist, and I'm okay with that. It doesn't affect how I live my life one way or another. I use my own moral framework, instead of relying on a specific religion to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
He's not satanist...I don't think? Just doesn't believe in god! So how could he be satanist. If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in the devil either! Don't judge people you don't know!
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
Thanks Roughneck.:thumbsup:
your pity fails to register with me.
honestly, i dont know anymore. there is a part of me that wants to believe in god. not for spirituality or self satisfaction. but i want to know why.
i don't believe in any gods or any of that kinda thing. i was raised a Catholic, but i stopped believing when i was around 14 or so.
I am NOT Judging Him!!!!---I asked a question--Read it again and You will see.--I asked it because He displayed the inverted pentacle with the goat's head in the middle.Your first sentence in the reply--"He's not Satanist...I don't think?"---Are You trying to judge Him?--I was asking.
Similar threads
- Question
