11 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe clearly never wants any intelligent debate science here whatsoever, just criticize science wherever it proves his religion wrong. That is the ONLY reason why he goes to this science forum for he has absolutely no real interest in science whatsoever because he just hasn't got the imagination or intellect to have such curiosity for such things as scientific truths or any other kind of truth for that matter for he doesn't want truth, just his own religious poison.
What has that to do with anything? Of course there are human designers to design a computer, a car, a television or anything else man-made. Or did you really think that these objects need a supernatural being to do that?
Science deals with phenomena within nature. Science doesn't deal with supernatural beings, gods, or some fuzzy universal intelligence. ...[text shortened]... thing? Are there rules for you, and some other rules for others? Who do you think you are? God?
being completely oblivious to the basic definition of the word 'science', despite denying the fact, he defines 'bad' or 'false' science as any science that proves his religion wrong and 'good' science that doesn't -that shows the pathetic extent of his stupidly obviously biased delusional unintelligent warped way of thinking.
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyReal science for him is any 'science' agreeing with him that the Earth cannot be more than 6000 years.
He clearly never wants any intelligent debate science here whatsoever, just criticize science wherever it proves his religion wrong. That is the ONLY reason why he goes to this science forum for he has absolutely no real interest in science whatsoever because he just hasn't got the imagination or intellect to have such curiosity for such things as scientific t ...[text shortened]... athetic extent of his stupidly obviously biased delusional unintelligent warped way of thinking.
Bad science for him is any science that doesn't agree with his twisted views.
He is just anti-science. Period.
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyThis tread is for people who don't watch shows like Nova on PBS where this story was aired long ago.
This thread is for people that are interested the in science, not people who have no curiosity nor interest in science and are only here for a religious agenda against science.
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasDesigners exist is science, so the science Forum is the proper place to discuss it. You are the one trying to discuss religion here, not me.
"I don't want to discuss religion here."
Then why do you? Are you crazy?
"something in nature was actually designed by a designer"
And a few lines further you are still discussing religion. (*sigh*)
Of course, scientifically, no designer is needed of what we see in nature. This is the Science Forum so if you really want to object to this, I suggest you move to the Spiritual Forum and discuss it there.
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean like this thread in Science:
Designers exist is science, so the science Forum is the proper place to discuss it. You are the one trying to discuss religion here, not me.
Metamorphosis seems like the ultimate evolutionary magic trick - the amazing transformation of one creature into a totally different being: one life, two bodies. Is this evidence for something like the Cambrian explosion and fast evolution that does not take billions or millions of years of gradual change? The following video is from the evolutionists point of view.
What about the Intelligent Design point of view?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_irreducible_complexity_of052461.html
http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/
Originally posted by sonhouseI pointed out that the first video was from the evolutionist's point of view. Are you now saying that the evolutionist's point of view is not science? If so, I have accomplished my mission.
You mean like this thread in Science:
Metamorphosis seems like the ultimate evolutionary magic trick - the amazing transformation of one creature into a totally different being: one life, two bodies. Is this evidence for something like the Cambrian explosion and fast evolution that does not take billions or millions of years of gradual change? The follow ...[text shortened]... 461.html
http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FdB7pRbUU
It seems only fair to present other points of view in science to be able to compare which makes the most sense.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou want to be a henhouse lawyer. I was referring to the second video.
I pointed out that the first video was from the evolutionist's point of view. Are you now saying that the evolutionist's point of view is not science? If so, I have accomplished my mission.
It seems only fair to present other points of view in science to be able to compare which makes the most sense.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThe second link was to the article "A Mathematician Explains the Irreducible Complexity of Metamorphosis" which I stated was from the intelligent design point of view. However, I saw nothing stated that was spiritual or religious.
You want to be a henhouse lawyer. I was referring to the second video.
The last link was to a video on Metamorphosis of butterfies from caterpillars. It looked like an investiagation in science to me. At what point in that video do you think it became spiritual or religious and what specific statement do you believe in spiritual or religious?
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOh pleeeze, you seriously want us to believe this 'intelligent designer' is not god in your eyes?
The second link was to the article "A Mathematician Explains the Irreducible Complexity of Metamorphosis" which I stated was from the intelligent design point of view. However, I saw nothing stated that was spiritual or religious.
The last link was to a video on Metamorphosis of butterfies from caterpillars. It looked like an investiagation in science t ...[text shortened]... ame spiritual or religious and what specific statement do you believe in spiritual or religious?
12 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't believe aliens were the designers of nature and life on earth, but I could not scientifically rule out the possibility without proof. However, you atheists believe you can rule out the possibility of a supernatural designer without proof.
Sure, but YOU certainly wouldn't.
13 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsLet your designer announce itself then. Till then, I'll take the evidence we already have.
I don't believe aliens were the designers of nature and life on earth, but I could not scientifically rule out the possibility without proof. However, you atheists believe you can rule out the possibility of a supernatural designer without proof.
It's really funny you know, HUMANS telling other humans there is a supreme being. Like they would really know, considering how non-communicative your silly ass god is.
13 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm taking the evidence we already have too. That evidence proves Neanderthals were humans too, as I was pointing out in the beginning. Evidence of design in nature is also evidence of a designer or designers.
Let your designer announce itself then. Till then, I'll take the evidence we already have.
It's really funny you know, HUMANS telling other humans there is a supreme being. Like they would really know, considering how non-communicative your silly ass god is.