l l l V This.... <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/luS_orKSqcY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/luS_orKSqcY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6KLCWpCj4FI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6KLCWpCj4FI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
You don't understand science at all. I suspect you believe a scientific theory is just an educated guess too?
To an advanced intelligence, we might be considered nothing more than ants, but give us another billion years of evolution and we could become an irritant. So much safer to just snuff us out now, instead of dealing with us later.
Most in our society trust in science, but when science jumps into the way of religion, many will throw science out to defend faith. Religion, is something that is created in the right side of the human brain, to fight the anxiety and fear of death and the ENDING of life. Thats my guess.
The scientist who discovered DNA agrees; he didn't become a theist, but proposes "alien intrusion" as an explanation.
Even "natural selection" implies design and the "time" factor is ultimately irrelevant. There is no end to this discussion. Ultimately, the personal investment in one perspective over another is so powerful, so all encompassing as to eliminate the possibility of agreement. What is obvious to some is incomprehensible to others.
If you just look at the complexity of the Earth and everything in it, how can you not believe it was created by God? There are so many things that point to an intelligent creator.. Earth's perfect tilt and spin, Earth's protective shields, Earth's magnetic field, Earth's atmosphere, etc. All of these things are designed in such a way that keeps us here alive. In fact, engineers and scientists have been studying the plants and animals to learn from them. They even model some designs after them.
Even if we were nothing more than accident, we are a living miracle each and every one of us. No one knows what happens when you die, no one knows our true origins. Death: Many people have had experiences in which they are considered dead but end up coming back in some days and later say they were standing in front of their body and give detailed descriptions of the whole scene, this while they were considered dead. The soul is real. Origin: Many argue against the bible. Many say we come from aliens ourselves. Many say we just developed over the years. Whatever you believe is your opinion, I believe we are connected, and we all belong to the universe.
Francis Crick discovered DNa while he was tripping on Acid. Here's a cool link. http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html
How is that proof of God? Say that there is a .00000001% chance that the course of events that led to what Earth is today would happen to any random planet in the universe. With how many planets there are in the known universe, there could be a multitude planets that have Earth-like qualities.
Natural selection does not imply intelligent design, and I don't see how time on the scale of a billion years can be an irrelevant factor when you are arguing that DNA came into being "spontaneously".
oh god, here we go again with people who don't really understand science trying to make OTHERS look like they don't understand science with the old "you think a theory is an educated guess don't you?" schtick. "Evolution" is the most misused term of modern times, and it saddens me how many people lack the basic understanding of what it's about. You're right, a scientific "theory" is a very well supported thought, almost a reality. like "Gravitational theory". We're can't definitively say that gravity exists, but it pretty damn much exists and we know it. MICRO evolutionary theory (natural selection) is like gravitational theory, it has been observed in real time and documented one million times. There is no debate in whether the process of natural selection exists or doesn't exist because, well, scientists saw it with their own eyes in bacteria and fossil records etc... show that it is definitely valid. NOW, MACRO evolution is a whole different story. It's not a theory in the scientific sense, it is literally, like you said mockingly, an "educated guess". People took the proof they have for natural selection, and they extrapolated that if this process takes places over a billion gazillion of years, then there is no doubt that men and bacteria shared a "common ancestor", and thus all the living things simply evolved from 1 little tiny piece of whatever, which we have no explanation how this little piece was created. This extrapolation is faulty, in my opinion, and has very little merit. The proof cited by advocates of macro evolution is very weak and incomplete. It's just simply too far fetched to extend this scientific phenomenon and explain all the living things by it. There is no doubt in my mind that the process of natural selection is the driving force behind variation within various species. It is very logical and makes perfect sense. But to go and say that a bacteria had a genetic mutation, then another, then another, then a bazillion years later it became the complex, ridiculously wired beings known as humans, all while this bacteria still exists? That's absurd And it's an insult to science that people try to pass it off as an obvious truth and an accepted "scientific theory". In fact, there is nothing more detrimental to the scientific process itself than militant atheist idiots like Dawkins and the likes who piss on everything that doesn't agree with their belief. Science is all about being open and trying to debunk criticism and come up with a better theory/explanation, not about being militant about a "theory" that has many holes and utilizes faulty reasoning.
well, I'm not saying that incident didn't bother me, just that this kinda put doubts into my faith in the reality of their existence. yes I'm easily influenced. I was brought up believing that we are created by God and we did not happen by chance. however I'm willing to rationalize it this way, Hawking is stating he doesn't believe in God based on scientific empiricism something doesn't exist until one proves that it does. It is just a different philosophical starting point I guess.
You've said nothing. If you want to discuss something, then state it. What do you disagree with? If you want to go to remedial science class and talk "hypothesis = educated guess", we can do that, too.
This is apparently a common misunderstanding of how evolution works. Its similar to the argument another poster put forward in a thread some time back, "If humans evolved from fish, why are there still fish?" I trust you can see the problem with that question. Evolution does not say that every species of bacteria will evolve into intelligent life over the course of billions of years. Considering that many species of bacteria play an important role in our ecosystem, that would actually run counter to evolutionary theory.
Dawkins has the right idea im my opinion, and I would not say he is militant at all. Unless comparing Zues to Jesus is militant, which I for one don't think it is. I think it's absolutely right...
