Science has handcuffed itself with that question, IMHO. Either their scientific law is wrong, or there's another answer out there.
We know dark matter exists. We just haven't figured out how to see it clearly.
I'm pretty sure any kind of matter is considered part of the material universe. And when I say physical world I mean the material universe.
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON
There truly is no way to prove God did it, you just either believe it or not, the closest to proof we have is the bible or any other holy religious book, but if you don't believe in God then I believe you should ask yourself, do you truly believe that random people made up the stories of jesus healing people and walking on water for their entertainment? Obviously Jesus was doing something special or he would not have made millions of people follow him, I don't believe he said he was the son of God and then millions of people believed him and began to follow him, I believe he was preforming acts of miracles and people had no other choice but to believe him, for they had just seen something they thought undoable happen before their eyes, obviously Jesus was preforming acts special enough that the Romans decided to crucify him, and for those people who need scientific proof for everything, we have scientific evidence the Jesus was indeed crucified by the romans, I know I am rambling here but I say there is no scientific proof to how life on Earth was made because there is no scientific proof to find, God created it
Sure, why not? Were the Athenians building temples to their patron goddess Athena for their own entertainment? Were the Aztecs making human sacrifices for their own entertainment? What about the Norsemen? Hindus? Buddhists? Celts? Scientologists? Every other religion that has ever existed on this planet? Why is one particular religion correct over the others? Religions start, grow and sustain for a variety of reasons.
Or it's possible that the things that Jesus did were embellished if not made up in order to help build the following. Not saying they were, just saying it's possible. And again, your argument could be applied to other religions. "Obviously Buddha was doing something special or he would not have made millions of people follow him" or "obviously Muhammad was doing something special or he would not have made millions of people follow him," or "obviously L. Ron Hubbard was doing something special or he would not have made millions of people follow him."
Or the Romans might have viewed him as a revolutionary trying to incite the Jews to revolt against them, which they later did.
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
Strictly speaking, I thought Buddha wasn't said to have done anything miraculous, but rather he was just a very wise person? I thought that metaphysical stuff got tossed onto Buddhism later, and that the core of it was just a philosophy?
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON
there truly is not a fact i can give you to say that jesus or God is real, all i can say is if you don't believe in him, well you better hope he isn't real
Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 05-01-2013 at 03:42 PM.
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
At the end of all questioning EVERYBODY has to accept existence on faith. As was stated there can be no scientific proof of the existence of God for I can always ask, "Well where did that come from?" I can do that too with the Big Bang theory and the "god partical". I can even do that for any other upside down law of nature or parallel universe you can come up with. At the end of all questions the answer remains faith and belief.
My cousin is a Bloomington Bhuddist, she frequently mentions her personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..
First of all, welcome back, Old Blu. I'm glad you've decided to drop the older-guy-who-drives-a-Winnebago gimmick and are joining us as a good old fashioned, gimmick-free troll this time.
Faulty definition of atheism. Atheism is the denial of all Gods. You can give me a list of 1,000 gods, and if I reject 999 of them, yet accept just one, I am not an atheist. So, no, we're not "all atheists." Far from it.
Also, your logic is a bit, shall we say, not smart. That most gods are almost certainly false does not logically entail that all gods are false. If a person believes that a single god is the most parsimonious explanation, then it's expected that he/she would reject all gods but one.
This is similar faulty logic to another run-of-the-mill atheist argument, which I'm sure you'll eventually pull out of your bag of tricks, which goes like this:
(i) Different religions make mutually-exclusive, contradictory claims.
(ii) These mutually-exclusive, contradictory claims can't all be true.
(iii) Therefore, not all religions are true.
(iv) Therefore, no religions are true.
(v) Therefore, God does not exist.
I've seen so many atheists use the above "argument" that I can't help but laugh it off every time I see it. I remember reading a pro-atheism rant from unfunny flash-in-the-pan Ricky Gervais and he resorted to the above silly argument. It reminded me of just how dumb and full of themselves celebrities can be.
The reasoning is perfectly valid up until step iv, where it falls victim to the non sequitur fallacy, before completely falling off the cliff of reason in step v. That most religions are false in no way entails that all religions are false, and furthermore, that most religions (or even all religions) are false in no way entails that God does not exist. Religion and God are not synonymous.
My personal belief is that there's strong evidence for God in the rationality, comprehensibility, discoverability, and design of the cosmos (all of which make science possible), and that cultures/societies throughout history have recognized this and created narratives (religions) around it.
Darwin's theory is ateleological. That's the entire selling point. It attempts to explain the design of life without actual intentional design, or a designer. That's what makes it so attractive to people like Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Eugenie Scott, and Thingfish, and so unattractive to believers. No design. No intent. No goal. No actual purpose. It just is; an accidental byproduct of a cold, unconscious nature. That, more than any other reason, is why it's treated as a sacred cow.
A teleological view of biology is quite literally the exact opposite of Darwin's theory. A teleological view of biology says that the biological word is designed, that there is intent, purpose, and a goal. Personally, I think It's also the total opposite in that it's true, while Darwin's theory has been falsified many times over, something Darwinists try to evade by pleading to a comical number of ad hoc hypotheses.
Here's what we know for certain as of the year 2013...
Biology isn't the cobbled-together, relatively simplistic world the ignoramuses in Darwin's time thought it was.
Biology is high-tech nanomachinery. The foundation for all of life is a literal programming language, the genetic code, and cellular machinery, including the machinery which reads and transcribes the genetic code.
Biology is far more ordered and non-random than anyone realized, not only in Darwin's time, but even just a few short years ago, and the randomness further disappears the more enlightened we become. The trend in biology for decades now has been a constant uncovering of new function, rationality, machinery, and design principles. None of this was predicted, nor expected, based on Darwin's theory. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Darwinian theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how it happens, therefore, it happens randomly." You could replace all of On the Origin with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of the book.
The analogy I like to use is imagining a technologically-primitive society discovering a laptop computer for the first time. At first, they'd view it as a natural object, and contemplate how nature created it. As they continue to study the laptop (read: perform science), they'd eventually discover that different parts of the laptop perform different functions, and eventually realize that these functions were all working in unison as part of a wholly-integrated machine. They'd understand the machine, piece by piece, before comprehending the entire machine.
That's pretty much exactly what has happened in biology. Darwin, his contemporaries, and 20th-century scientists were the technologically-ignorant primitives, and life was the laptop. The past 154 years has been mankind figuring out just how in the hell it works. We're figuring out the machine, piece by piece. The ultimate goal of 21st-century biology will be to put these pieces together to complete the entire puzzle of life. At the rate we've been going, I'd say we'll get there within 40-50 years.
Unfortunately, many scientists become as corrupt as the average politician when their worldview is at stake, so we must continue to pretend that none of the above is true, that it all "just happened" via some comically-outdated scenario (random mutation and natural selection). This is why there remains a so-called "consensus," and why Darwinists are so quick to plead to it as a defense.
Scientists don't up and change their mind about ideas in which they have a lifetime of emotional and/or financial commitment. Richard Dawkins isn't going to look at the evidence and say, "You know what? I was wrong." That's not how things work. It never has been, hence the ugly history of scientific revolutions, which often take place over a matter of decades.
What happens isn't that scientists change their views. What happens is that the old generation of scientists indoctrinated in, and committed to, the old idea die off, and are replaced with a new generation of scientists who are more open-minded. The old idea slowly fades out, while newer, better ideas slowly fade in.
This is why the classroom battle is so crucial, and why Darwinists are trying to stifle academic freedom. Darwinists need to keep the next generation of scientists -- today's students -- as indoctrinated as they are in their silly, outdated ideas, so that these ideas can remain prominent. They do so under the guise of protecting science, yet in reality they're protecting their own views, nothing more. They're goal isn't to teach children good science; running from critical thinking is the exact opposite of good science. They're goal is for students to believe exactly as they believe. It's pathetic.