Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#13297 11/18/05 06:22 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Interesting how ego seems to creep into discussions which I presume devolve from a search for truth.
"Creationists" and "evolutionists" are merely labels, lets all be truthseekers. At the moment, the natural laws of chemistry and physics are still evolving and we have a lot to discover , in fact, even rewrite.
Till then, lets just focus on the facts, and not label each other with terms that do not necessarily reflect the nuances of an individuals thought. There is a high degree of intelligence that I see on this forum , on both aspects of the debate, and I look forward to propositions with equal interest. I do believe that women have as much to say on this topic and would like to hear all views irrespective of gender.
thank you!

.
#13298 11/21/05 11:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Now, I think I understand why there is a special Forum for subjects dealing with "Origins". It looks very much like a place for anti religion to tout and shout anti religious stuff, both with and without merit or justification.

Based on my life?s work I sometimes feel compelled to defend concepts even though I may not personally believe in them. Comments like someone confronts a creationist with the view ?what was there before creation? is offered as some wall to reason barring response? The creationist should simply provide that it was the same stuff that was there before the Big Bang.

Another sharp cut at creation by a superior being is ?why does man have nipples?? First of all they look nice; secondly they serve to define the human form and more surprisingly have been known to actually nurse babies at time of emergencies as shown by Ripley?s ?believe it or not?.

Let?s hear some really serious argument against creationist other than the degree of their stupidity, their unprovable contentions (we are here are we not?) and ingredients that are not common to both science and creation.

I will concede one thing- the creationist do a poor job in their own defense.
jjw

#13299 12/28/05 08:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
think about this -maybe a rock is self aware. We can't prove it isn't, maybe the mechanism by which it works is so incredibly simple -or complicated that we can't see it. Maybe it takes 440000000 years for a rock to think one thought. We won't ever know. But does it concern us -no, life has too many real problems for us to be thinking whether rocks are alive. Unless we were to say that if we didn't worship this rock and give it all our money, we wouldn't have a good 'afterlife'. Likewise, the existance of an afterlife is just as unprovable as the living rock.

#13300 01/02/06 01:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Kate, do your thing.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5