On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Lay the ground work for evolution. His work wasn't really about origin of life if that's what you are inferring.
What is wrong with Japan again? How are their society crumbling? They seems to be pretty peaceful folks... So how is their moral crumbling?
what i mean by beyond the human senses, is that we are talking about something that is super natural. in my eyes if there was a god, he would be something like humans creating a computer. right now, we can make a computer and make it do all of these great things. but a computer will never be able to fully comprehend the nature of a human being. so if people want to try and prove the existence of god, im all for it, and i hope they find something. but IMO as walter would say- we are way out of our element here.
You are confusing evidence with experimentation. There is not any evidence of chemicals forming proteins on there own anywhere, only experiments. If you (ComentsWin) can't synthesize a DNA molecule from raw chemicals it is because you are not intelligent enough to do it. If it takes the most brilliant scientists in the world to run an experiment to get RNA to synthesize into a form of DNA that is not evidence of chance and randomness. You can't exclude intelligence from origins if the only 'evidence' you have IS intelligent experimentation. That defies logic, intelligence and reason. Scientists find complexity and rule out intelligence- that makes a lot of sense If in 5000 yrs scientist have cracked the origin of life they will first have to crack time travel, at least going back in time.
On the contrair...This is exactly what I believe... Via, Veritas, Vita... Spoiler St. John Chapter 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
If scientists can make all the amino acids and complex organic molecules from basic elements and static electricity in just a few days, I am pretty sure that the earth would easily be able to do the same thing in under 500 million years.
Not true, Evolution is not about Origin. To sum it up, it's "change over time." No, you do not just make a decision and go with it. You hold your judgement until sufficient proof has been discovered. BTW, the mass majority of scientists disagree with you. Who created God?
Ahh ok, let me rephrase. Your religious claims are superstitious. Satisfied? This is where I have problems with some of you, you clearly know what I was talking about, yet you come back with different wordings regarding to the same issue. That, sums up the mentality of some of you theists. A bad answer is a bad answer, it's invalid. What's more ridiculous is that it discourages people to discover what's real since you've given them an answer. It's asinine. Of course, there are so many things probably will never be proven from a scientific standpoint, and they won't be taught as truth, unlike religion.
Glad to see that a State Farm commercial has had a lasting impact on your life... "C'est la vie" Keep waiting in your ocean of confusion for something to pull you out of it, as a raft, helicopter and a ship pass you by. Hopefully you'll just reason you way out of it... And seriously...enough with the bashing of the historical authenticity of the Bible...just makes you appear foolish...i wish i can get into a nice discussion about it...but ill let you fight to the death trying to rip it to shreds...
Didn't you know some random Japanese folks just popped into their schools and killed bunch of people? Oh wait...
Sounds like a mafia boss to me. It's no difference than someone telling me he's got 10 balls. Yea right.
Experiments are evidence. Chance and randomness are real. We can test randomness and chance, experiment with it, and observe it. Intelligent design? No. Intelligent design is just something that has evolved from the god myth. We can't explain it so it must be god. It's so complex, it must be god. Humans have relied on the god of their choice to explain the complex for thousands of years. Every time science finds the answer to that complexity believers dont doubt god all of a sudden, they just move on to the next complexity. It's a pattern that surely you all must recognize. They could solve origin tomorrow at the Hadron with some experiment and it just wouldn't matter to you guys and that's fine.
Oh, boohoo, a liar ignored me and dissed my post Whereas the majority of people are talking about their personal experience, you are distorting the truth, appealing to made-up authorities and attacking straw men. It is YOU who should be put on everyone's ignore list because there is little reason to argue with dishonest people. This is wrong. And it has nothing to do with how many people believe in it. Are the odds of Dwight making his next three-pointer 50% (he will either make it or miss it)? The best way to evaluate this is by looking at how he has done in the past. His career 3pt% is 5%. In the absence of any other evidence, this should be your expectation. This answer would change if you would learn that, say, Dwight is working on his 3pt shot this summer. Would it then be 50/50? Only if you are very optimistic. That is why no one in the GARM is proposing for Dwight to be our "stretch-PF" - the chances of him being an adequate range shooter are far below 50%. But closer to your examples, suppose I dream up an animal. It has the head of a platypus, the body of an elephant and it flies using huge wings. Not quite Dumbo, but close. I then write a children's book about this animal. Are you saying that the probability of this thing existing is 50/50 despite everyone (including me) dismissing it? You are reducing all probability theory to 50/50, making the enterprise worthless. Or can you give me an example of a probability that is not 50/50? In a state of vacuum (of knowledge) your initial guess can be 50/50 but it should change to reflect whatever additional information you learn, e.g., fairies are the stuff of legends, no observation of a fairy has ever been recorded, nothing currently mysterious and poorly understood is explained by postulating fairies as an explanation, etc. All of this should take your initial stance of "I have no idea" to "The existence of fairies is very very improbable".
