eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Actually no, but of course if the cap fits, wear it.
Nice try :] Nothing to say to the subject matter?
Actually no, but of course if the cap fits, wear it.
What?I see, mob-fact?
What you actually mean is that you're ignoring the science in favour of belief.Then surely I´m a heretic in your realm of science where author/status quo rules over everything, no different approaches included.
Really?The fact is your kind looks evidence only from your angle, I have looked from all the angles there is, to the heart of it.
Ideally a "science freak" should work scientifically. You don't appear to.But then again, you seem to even know what kinds can declare themselves to be a science freaks, so, really, why bother.
No, not really...You are in the religious section so you can discuss/claim whatever myth or magic spaghetti monster you wish.Nice try :] Nothing to say to the subject matter?
Didn't I already mention about divine fallacy? .Well, lets say it did, where it came from?
No, not really...You are in the religious section so you can discuss/claim whatever myth or magic spaghetti monster you wish.
Have fun!
What?
Really?
What "other angles" are there with regard to science?
Ideally a "science freak" should work scientifically. You don't appear to.
You also seem to think that mere dismissal is worth something - as opposed to providing evidence for your stance.
Didn't I already mention about divine fallacy? .
I didn't say there was or was not a source. I just haven't applied any facts or analogies on how and why it happened. But simply insisting 'Goddidit' is not part of any scientific method.Yes, the origin of big bang with no source, truly a divine fallacy.
Which is why I initially only inserted it as a nitpick. That gave you the opportunity to clarify.Context, please. I just used monkey as in general mainstream expression, I was challenging the thought process,
the morals and that angle, have you anything to say about that?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Races are a human affectation. Genetically, it holds no water.There is "evolution" but only in races.
It is in my opinion, if you can take it as creator then," intelligent desing" if you will you a fundamental difference while finding out new information versus just studying through evolution perception.I didn't say there was or was not a source. I just haven't applied any facts or analogies on how and why it happened. But simply insisting 'Goddidit' is not part of any scientific method.
The thing about God, as distinct from some other physical cause, is that God is an intelligent entity.My source is God, the one who have created us.
You could have clarified with facts, but you didn't. You clarified with a misinformed talking point of evolution-deniers.
I have not only observed it, I have performed it. So have you.if you really study what is there the solid proof for evolution to be absolute fact, there isnt,
The thing about God, as distinct from some other physical cause, is that God is an intelligent entity.
You have only your belief that the initial cause is an entity that is aware and acts with purpose.
Such as?How about angles in science
Correct. ID is not science.or is intelligent design approach not science?
Sure: show me your "work".Then You can show where I have make mistake in my scientific work?
So what?Keep in mind that believing God and bible isnt mistake while working with science, even Newton believed that there has to be a creator. One doesnt exclude out the other.
This is nonsense: applying a name doesn't mean it's an explanation.The source have to has a name, or else it is just function with out explanation.
Or at least that's what you believe.My source is God
An unsupported belief.the one who have created us
I'm agnostic, and in the short life I have I make myself content with my ignorance. There are many more discoveries out there to be made and I don't see God relevant to the scientific method.Are we agreeing there is God/Creator