Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
It certainly makes the case for design over evolution. Evolution is a nonstarter that even its founder (Darwin) would now be forced to admit is wrong. After 160 years of frantic searching there still are no transition fossils. All the fossils we fin are fully developed distinct species.
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 And I thought I was the daydreamer here :P You guys are a riot with your half-formed and ill-informed statements..
Let's see how much God's going to thank you for all this loyalty!
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Adaydreambeliever You think yours is intelligent?
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 the facts are out there.. just the dipshit nutjob religious nutters can't comprehend it.. Seriously if there's a god you guys need a slap round the chops for your stupidity.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Adaydreambeliever You don't have any facts. You are just spewing hatred for some unknown reason. Care to tell everyone what is the source of your anger/rage/hatred? Inquiring minds want to know.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Adaydreambeliever [quote]the facts are out there.. just the dipshit nutjob religious nutters can't comprehend it.. [/quote]

What facts would those be?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Total ignorant nonsense.

Of course they are different species!
Does it mean that they appeared all at the same time? Archea and Mammals?
Does it mean that the fossil sequence must show incomplete species?
Incomplete regarding which standard?

Total ignorant nonsense
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 The results, systematically meassured and registered of research.
Not only Word based scholastic "racionallity" with no facts behind.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]The results, systematically measured and registered of research.[/quote]

The Word of God has been researched as well and is found to be truthful and reliable.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Systematically corrupted results. Been there seen that one. When there is one assumption (that there is no Super Natural) that takes precedent over any investigation, then all the data is skewed to agree with the primary assumption that there is no Super Natural. Some science that is. That is seeking only data that meets your preconception and eliminating any data that contradicts it.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Ok.
Let´s make the conjecture that you are right about.
And you suggest that there ARE non currupted systmatic research data that, with no kind of previous assumptions, are the basis to infer something alternative.

Good.
Eureka! We are now on solid ground.
So, there is no reason to hide them.
Show us.
Do it.

And, as you´ve said it (and it´s a reasonable expectative for a research) those data are the support of a systematically well formulated theory.

Good and even better!
What I´ve been asking for!!!
Congratulations.
Don´t be shy and bring it!!!!!!!

The clean, extense, systematically meassured and registered specific data with no kind of a priori assumptions.
And the autonomous, alternative, well formulated theory.
Eureka again!
I can´t wait to take a look on that marvel.
Habeas Corpus.
Do it, this time!!!!
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63

Your words: "The Word of God has been researched as well and is found to be truthful and reliable"

My answers:

- "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" - Galileo, with previous antecedents.

- The Scriptures, no matter their truthfullness in other important fields, are not a good descrition of the natural world.

- Even if it WERE a description, the research would be ABOUT what the Bible SAYS about the natural world and not researching that natural world itself.

- That would define that "research", not as Science, but (in the dubious best case) as Epistemology.
Whose object, the one of Epistemology, is not about the world in itself but about what (wrong or right) we say we know about it. And thus, Philosophy and not Science.
Science haves it´s own philosophic frame, Philosophy of Science. But, even if attached to Science, is not by itself Science.

In other words, I studdy the Bible since a kid, but do not take it as a source of any scientific assertion.
In this, I agree with Galileo.
@hippyjoe1955 Actually, all fossils are transitional fossils since evolution has no ultimate goal. Modern humans are a transitional species.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Go do your own research. Lazy people always demanding but never providing.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 "Lazy people always demanding but never providing"
Wise comment from you.
You had never provided about Science.
Your fellows had never, not once.
Your "school of thought" (well...thought…) had never provided a single contribution to Science in millenia of History, not even ONE.
In your view, they are lazy.
The ones who make Science call them ignorants.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Actually I have. You are just too closed minded to recognize it. It doesn't fit your lounge lizard mind you see. Nice try though.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 All what you gave is pseudo science.
Nothing else.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Nope. What you are peddling is pseudo science. You just don't know it. Nice of you to play along though. Don't you have some videos to watch? Or are you too closed minded?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Scientific documented research at YouTube?
At it´s best, someone who talk about them.
And never a reliable source.
Your conception of "science" is a "retail" and "common sense" one. Nothing worth of.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Listen to his lectures. It will save you some eyestrain.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 I will, at least one of them.
May be he is another clown like you, may be he is not.
We´ll see...
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Your choice.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 My choice, certainly.
We are far from the times when religious authorities could decide what each one may read.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Exactly. Although scientism is doing its best to limit the scope of one's readings. One clown thinks 40 year old text books are still relevant.
@hippyjoe1955 Who is telling you what you can and can't read? Stop exaggerating.

At least he's not a clown who thinks a 2000 year old book of mythology is still relevant.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@LeopoldBloom Do you think Darwin originated the theory of evolution? Wrong. It began before Jesus was born. The rest of your post is based on ignorance so I will just ignore it.