Moderator: Moderators
This is creating modified life from preexisting life. Not creating life from non life.Raghna wrote:Actually...Jazcash wrote:How do you create life from non-life? Life that knows how to breed and how to develop and evolve can't come from nothing, can it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE2CnTh ... re=recentf
This might change your mind.
You're aware this video is atheist propaganda, yes? The arguments presented there are not the arguments almost any but the most fundamentalist Christian will make.Teutooni wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1v ... re=related
Hahah. That one is golden.Yeah amazing isn't it. So let me get this correct, based on science we can create all these wonderful tools like computers and stuff, but it can't prove or disprove Ukko Ylijumala (ancient god worshipped in finland before christianity spread, known as Thor in scandinavia). Ukko Ylijumala clearly said in folklore he created rain and we can certainly see rain happening every now and then, so science must be wrong! Checkmate atheists.It's amazing how science can cure diseases, smash the atom and create nuclear explosions, yet be so wrong about everything that is mentioned in the Holy Bible
It could be very unlikely and still have happened: Oceans are much larger than any test tube, and the experiment had been left running for a billion year. The universe is large enough to host a great number of planets with liquid water. And, even if we'll never know, maybe our universe is not the only one. There's some quasi-theist yet somehow somewhat scientific accepted way of thinking, called anthropic principle, that say that, if the universe had birthed no life, then we wouldn't be there to ponder it, so the universe we're in is necessarly one of the very rare kind that can support life.how likely is it?
Yup, one impossibly unlikely event is not a coincidence... its just what happened.zwzsg wrote:There's some quasi-theist yet somehow somewhat scientific accepted way of thinking, called anthropic principle, that say that, if the universe had birthed no life, then we wouldn't be there to ponder it, so the universe we're in is necessarly one of the very rare kind that can support life.
available 2011, by packt publishingPicassoCT wrote:I whoreship the wholy book of spring, manifested out of the code written by the gods
Now, if i want to make money out of it, by becoming Guru, how do i do any decent advances?KaiserJ wrote:available 2011, by packt publishingPicassoCT wrote:I whoreship the wholy book of spring, manifested out of the code written by the gods
I haven't even read it yet but the title says it all. Just because science is wrong doesn't mean atheism is wrong, science doesn't directly have anything to do with religion. And "science is wrong", lol? Yeah perhaps one paper from one scientist studying one aspect of one sub group of science is wrong, I wouldn't say that proves all science is wrongzwzsg wrote:Science Proves Itself Wrong!!!
c.f. this scientific paper: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
Take that atheist scum!
/endthread
Thus your opinion is void and invalid.I haven't even read it
This statement is correct irrespective of what papers i've read. Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.Sucky_Lord wrote:science doesn't directly have anything to do with religion
Yes it does! This paper was a real eyes-opener to me. I used to believe in Science like you. But now I see clearly through their fabrications.Sucky_Lord wrote:Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
You do realise that the parts of science that are "wrong" are all published by companies setting out to make money, dont you?zwzsg wrote:Yes it does! This paper was a real eyes-opener to me. I used to believe in Science like you. But now I see clearly through their fabrications.Sucky_Lord wrote:Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
I know how you feel, because I was like you, once. I believed blindly in the rigtheousness of Science, and laughed a the christian to whom I felt superior. Sure there were a few things that didn't tick right, but I denied and suppressed them. Until that day, when it all cracked. Follow me, let your mind flow free from the shackles of Science. Yes, you may feel insecure at first, but I'll be here to show you the patht to the real immanent Truth.
It proves, through adequate math, that the findings of science are more likely to be false than true.Im failing to see where this paper proves science wrong.
If you read the article, you'll see it shows the errors are introduced by the very scientific method itself, unbounded to any specific field. It is the way in which science is used to explore the world that is flawed on a fundamental level. No domain is spared.just because one might be wrong doesn't mean the entire subject is rendered incorrect!
You really should read the article, as it addresses those point neatly: Yes, financial bias is one cause of bias. One bias amongst many.You do realise that the parts of science that are "wrong" are all published by companies setting out to make money, dont you?
You want to defend science, but don't even know how it work? Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted. Yes, scientist do compare each other worth solely by counting their number of published articles and number of references to their articles. The content, true or false, don't matter so much.Real scientists wouldn't bother to publish a paper that's incorrect, what would be the gain? It would just be disproved at a later date and the first scientist would lose all pride.
A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.
They would have got banned for "trolling" if they were blogging/posting at forums at that time...knorke wrote:A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.
True, though that is not to say that most trolls have merit behind their posts.TradeMark wrote:They would have got banned for "trolling" if they were blogging/posting at forums at that time...knorke wrote:A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.
also:zwzsg wrote:Science Proves Itself Wrong!!!
