aberdeen

Science, in a nutshell, is the process of finding out the truth about the Universe we live in. We do this in the only way that works. We observe, we test, we come up with theories about what's going on and then see if they hold up.

Yeah, like ignoring the oveerwhelmingly evidence of design everywhere one looks is going to produce "the truth"... yeah, sure.

Similarly, the "scientific worldview" isn't a religion: it is the sum total of everything currently known to be true beyond reasonable doubt. If you're pretty sure that you know how to get to your local supermarket, then I'll wager that you determined this scientifically: by observation and experiment.

Natural Selectionism is the most blind-assumption religion that has ever existed--religion by definition, is non-empirical based belief. Major tenets of Natural Selection, such as mutations caused by cosmic rays and "self-organizing" proceses can not hand have no hope of ever being observed, thus the concept of empirical and Natural Selection are like oil and water, only worse. Anyone who believes that the Grand Design grandly designed all by itself it truly a religious nut if there ever was one!

Therefore, rejection of science means rejection of the process of finding out the truth: it means embracing ignorance.

I agree, believing in fairytales such as "self-organizing" processes demonstrates a true rejection of science.

aberdeen

I've "used the name Jesus" on countless occasions (for the purposes of entertainment, debate, and mockery), and I have gotten no such proof from any creator. Is there a special way I need to pronounce "Jesus"? And in what form was this proof presented to you?

That is precisely why you haven't gotten any answer. Anyone approaching the Creator must do so from a sincere heart or they wll get nowhere--maybe Darwin and Tony Blair can fool you, but you can't fool the Creator...

aberdeen

Seems like there's a lot of circular circuitry in your brain...
I don't believe you were ever an "athiest" (sic). Atheists do not ask their creators to prove that they exist, because atheists do not have creators.

Honest individuals begin a search for the truth with a question, not a conclusion. The primary question being, "is there a God".
Anyone who just assumes (believes) there is no God without checking it out is truly a fool if there ever was one.

aberdeen

of course, here I pontificate without the reference in front of me . . . however, some scholars [Appeal to Authority, Argument to Ignorance.--Ed.] Hush! some scholars find a different intention behind the often confusing dietary laws.

Some "scholars" assume there is no God--and they think I'm the religious nut! One can find a scholar nowadays to tell them anything the wish--no doubt there are scholars that will claim that the moon is made out of cheese--I suppose since neo-conservative scholars believe George Bush is the right president for us, then they must be correct, regardless of what a complete Moron he actually is.

aberdeen

Science is self-correcting. Religion reinforces its lies (or at least the ones it can't change when no one is looking) with faith, more lies, and fraud.

Yeah, sure. Science is so self-correcting that after several thousand years of science, scientists are still designing nuclear bombs. After 5,000 years of education, many educated people are still committing rape, murder and running airplanes into buildings. Yeah, science is a real example of self-correction.

CaptainOfOuterSpace

So you're saying that I need to believe that the Creator exists in order for the Creator to tell me that he exists. :banghead:

Why can't the Creator simply reveal himself to everyone, even the skeptical and cynical mind? Why do we have to jump through dozens of mental hoops in order to "accept him into our hearts"?

btw -- ever try approaching Natural Selectionism with a sincere heart?
I suppose I can't; so why doesn't he prove to me that he exists?

aberdeen

And how successful has the religion business been in creating Utopia?

I have never claimed to believe in religion. Why do you assume one believes in a religion if one accepts the obvious evidence for a Creator? I agree that religion has never produced a Utopia and neither has science, so by your reasoning, neither one of them must be at all correct, of which I totally agree.

Why do you assume the Creator has something to do with religion? Why don't you try Human Rights? If everyone on our planet treated other people as they wish to be treated, then we would have Utopia--this is not a religion, it is plain common sense. Funny how modern science can't explain why we don't naturally select to automatically treat other people right in the first place. In other words, modern science has no valid explanation for why there is such a thing Human Rights activists or why King, Gandhi and Jesus found it necessary to teach anything to our species in the first place. Why do we teach "ethics" to our college students? Why did Plato come up with such a topic if we naturally select toward survival of our species? If one argues that murder and war are part of our survival process, then by doing so, we agree that our species lies by promoting Human Rights. If we argue Human Rights is correct, then with modern science theory, we have no explanation why we need to be taught Human Rights instead of already practicing it automatically from birth after millions of evolutionary years... What a crock of monkey sh--- I read E.O. White's book about evolutionary behavorial 'science'--what a crock of contradicting baloney that man "believes"--you talk about your religious nuts! Natural Selectionism is the blindest must asumptive thing going.

CaptainOfOuterSpace

We designed nuclear bombs thousands of years ago??

You are an embarrassment to humankind if you're equating Al-Quaeda with science.

You're also forgetting that most rapists and murderers do it because God told 'em to.

Because you believe in the Christian creator, you goose! Religion is the only thing that tells us of a creator.

aberdeen

So you're saying that I need to believe that the Creator exists in order for the Creator to tell me that he exists.

I did not say you have to "believe"--I said you have to be sincere---being sincere means you are truly open to accepting the Creator's existence if you can find evidence, not in "mocking" fashion as you stated from your own quotations... Similar to, maybe the speed of light is the fastest anything can go... and then again, maybe Einstein was wrong and there are greater speeds--- open minded seems to be a rather rare commodity nowadays...

CX

Since we seem pretty far afield from B,C&H I'm moving this thread to GRD