Why do some religious people ridicule Sciences beliefs on how the Universe came to be

[-Spinal-]

i dont know why most of you guys are wasting time on a boxing forum when you have the knowledge to answer all of mans questions on why and how we are here this is serious **** this doesnt belong in the boxing scene lounge.

Well there are some posters on here that I would like to chat with about things other than NBA, Lakers, Lebron Rate this woman(posters giving pretty females low ratings like they can score something better), etc. I can easily go to another all-science forum but the truth is i'm comfortable talking about this subject in here to read other posters that I chat with on adaily basis, opinions.

[arraamis]

The concept of a designer is entirely superfluous to the pursuit of knowledge if the claim is that their influence is undetectable.

in other words you can't exactly "disprove" a designer but unless there is evidence that points to a designer then the existence or nonexistence of a designer is completely irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge.

And in answer to your anticipated next comment, no. There isn't any evidence that points to a designer.

To deny the possibility of a designer is to leave the whole process to chance. And clearly, there is purpose in the process. This argument can be used against the big-**** theory, because it is a chance incident by nature which many are assigning purpose to.

In other words .... something without purpose caused the **** - then in that process millions of evolutionary en****** came into being with a purpose.

The designer's evidence is in the existence and variety of life. So it can be argued that more evidence exists in favor of a designer than the big-****. Because the designer has a purpose and or a means to a end which precipitated the creation.

[squealpiggy]

The reason why that option {GOD} is still on the table along with the Big-**** theory is because it is a possibility.

I think that centuries of coercion and indoctrination along with wilful denial and continual politicization has more to do with it.

This one issue is separate and very different from other discoveries because
this is the one that ppl have been trying to figure out endless since man arose and became aware of the world around him but unlike inventions our fixation with this question of "where do we come from and how" and its answer has no real power to change out lives for the better.

I disagree. Evolution and natural selection has sparked massive improvements in our understanding of disease and medicine, not to mention a tested means of making improvements to things like aeronautic and computer technology by simply applying a version of natural selection to our research modeling. Studying our molecular origins has led to the mapping of the human (and several other spcies) genome and also pushed the fields of nanotechnology and biochemistry forwards at a rapid pace. Staring at the stars has taught us much about how our world works and this has direct applicability in predicting things like the weather and climate, asteroid collisions and the like. Studying the quantum origins of the universe will broaden our understanding of the nature of reality itself. Right now we possess the power (albeit on a limited scale) to manipulate things on the molecular level. Study the origin of the universe will one day lead us to the power of manipulating energy and matter on the very tiniest level, and could bring almost limitless potential for future technology.

As long as we don't blow each other up in the meantime!

[Mares]

The reason why that option {GOD} is still on the table along with the Big-**** theory is because it is a possibility. Ergo, there isn't sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either concept.

We're just not at a point, where Intellectually\technologically we can without a doubt declare either as false or implausible.

To deny the possibility of a designer is to leave the whole process to chance. And clearly, there is purpose in the process. This argument can be used against the big-**** theory, because it is a chance incident by nature which many are assigning purpose to.

In other words .... something without purpose caused the **** - then in that process millions of evolutionary en****** came into being with a purpose.

The designer's evidence is in the existence and variety of life. So it can be argued that more evidence exists in favor of a designer than the big-****. Because the designer has a purpose and or a means to a end which precipitated the creation.

evoultion is the blind designer

/end thread

[-Spinal-]

Lol man Squealpiggy stole my thread. But I gotta give you props i'm enjoying reading your posts in this thread. Green K for keeping it alive.


I understand a lot of you don't like talking about this but this is what me and my buddies talk about(as well as History, Myths, war etc). But I can't hang out with my friends atm, so I gotta use my e-buddies to replace my real buddies.

[Spartacus Sully]

To deny the possibility of a designer is to leave the whole process to chance. And clearly, there is purpose in the process. This argument can be used against the big-**** theory, because it is a chance incident by nature which many are assigning purpose to.

In other words .... something without purpose caused the **** - then in that process millions of evolutionary en****** came into being with a purpose.

The designer's evidence is in the existence and variety of life. So it can be argued that more evidence exists in favor of a designer than the big-****. Because the designer has a purpose and or a means to a end which precipitated the creation.

how is there a purpose? what is the purpose? you can say ever action has a reaction which very shortly turns into an action causing another reaction. giving everything that happens a reason but not a purpose.

[arraamis]

how is there a purpose? what is the purpose? you can say ever action has a reaction which very shortly turns into an action causing another reaction. giving everything that happens a reason but not a purpose.

I'll get on that later lol!!!!!



Been a blast .......... Gotta retire for all I have to do tomorrow.

Later

[Mares]

hahah religious nuts will never win... i bet 50years from they will all disapear... oh wait jesus will arrive in 2012..

[Spray_resistant]

I think that centuries of coercion and indoctrination along with wilful denial and continual politicization has more to do with it.



I disagree. Evolution and natural selection has sparked massive improvements in our understanding of disease and medicine, not to mention a tested means of making improvements to things like aeronautic and computer technology by simply applying a version of natural selection to our research modeling. Studying our molecular origins has led to the mapping of the human (and several other spcies) genome and also pushed the fields of nanotechnology and biochemistry forwards at a rapid pace. Staring at the stars has taught us much about how our world works and this has direct applicability in predicting things like the weather and climate, asteroid collisions and the like. Studying the quantum origins of the universe will broaden our understanding of the nature of reality itself. Right now we possess the power (albeit on a limited scale) to manipulate things on the molecular level. Study the origin of the universe will one day lead us to the power of manipulating energy and matter on the very tiniest level, and could bring almost limitless potential for future technology.

As long as we don't blow each other up in the meantime!

It may or may not, I agree we have have learned plenty about our human origins and the specials and info I have read on that subject are interesting but then we still do naturally search for the answer to the next question about the origin of the Earth and beyond that which is still really a mystery though some new interesting ideas have arose.

Right now the hypothesis that ppl come up with are just theoretical and we can't learn more until we can really get out there into space for long periods of time in very far places to test some of these ideas and that will not be for some time if at all because of monetary, social, and political issues blocking scientific efforts.

Or if we do blow ourselves up.

[squealpiggy]

And time for one more post before bed:

the thing is ppl have been trying to figure out how it all started since the start and no one is any closer to the truth yet.

You are suggesting that we are no closer to "the truth" now than at any time in the past? You must know how insane a comment that is!

To deny the possibility of a designer is to leave the whole process to chance.

And what exactly is wrong with it being down to chance? Lots of things are left to chance and we have no issue with that. Why should the existence of the universe be something exempt from chance?

And clearly, there is purpose in the process.

It isn't very clear. What is the purpose?

This argument can be used against the big-**** theory, because it is a chance incident by nature which many are assigning purpose to.

It isn't even an argument though. "Ah well by saying that you're leaving it up to chance!" So?

In other words .... something without purpose caused the **** - then in that process millions of evolutionary en****** came into being with a purpose.

What "purpose" are you referring to that "evolutionary en******" apparently possess? Are you falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the evolutionary process?

The designer's evidence is in the existence and variety of life.

The existence and variety of life has been more than adequately explained without resorting to a magical designer, so why would the existence and variety of life be evidence for a designer?

So it can be argued that more evidence exists in favor of a designer than the big-****.

It can be. Unsuccessfully as it happens.

Because the designer has a purpose and or a means to a end which precipitated the creation.

And exactly what is this purpose? What is this end to which the entirety of existence cann be seen to be a means?

I know the answer you're going to give - You don't know. It's a mystery!

Well in that case the purpose cannot be used as evidence. Let's look at it another way:

Professor A: Evolution by natural selection is the means by which we arrived at the diversity and sitribution of life today, and this is borne out by the evidence!

Professor B: Well what is the evidence?

Professor A: Nobody knows!

You can see that this would not be a terribly strong argument, and yet this is precisely the argument you are making when you point to life having a purpose as evidence of a magical creator.

And "magical" is I'm afraid the only word to describe what you are proposing.