Natural origin of our universe...

[black02mustang]

Saw this online, any thoughts?
"A mathematical model of the natural origin of our universe is
presented."

A scenario for a natural origin of our universe... (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf)

[BrianC]

"Nature is capable of building complex structures by process of self-organization; simplicity begets complexity."

This statement cannot be backed up, even by his snowflake example. If a supreme being created everything, then all of the physics there-in would be subject to act accordingly to how he set them up to function. Therefore, if when it rains we are able to see a rainbow in an arc shape, then that is exactly what the creator wanted it to do, and otherwise, it would not do that. Hence the reason science can explain why a drop of water can split light into it's basic colors, but cannot explain the arc it creates after a shower passes. That alone is enough to show a devine hand in the way nature's processes take place.

[black02mustang]

I believe a rainbow's arc can be scientifically explained.

About rainbows :) (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/)

[zorro]

I believe a rainbow's arc can be scientifically explained.

About rainbows :) (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/)

I have no problem with science explaining "what" is happening, but even in principle, science can't even begin to address a question like, nature being a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity. This is because the scientist investigating would have to go outside of nature to objectively look at nature to see if his hypothesis is right. If he looks at it from inside nature, he can do no more than beg the question.

Regards,

Z

[black02mustang]

I have no problem with science explaining "what" is happening, but even in principle, science can't even begin to address a question like, nature being a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity. This is because the scientist investigating would have to go outside of nature to objectively look at nature to see if his hypothesis is right. If he looks at it from inside nature, he can do no more than beg the question.

Regards,

Z

On what basis do you claim that the answers to any question must lie outside nature? That is nothing but an assertion.

[black02mustang]

So how do you explain this?

Chaos = Order: WUSTL physicists make baffling discovery (http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6845.html)

[zorro]

On what basis do you claim that the answers to any question must lie outside nature? That is nothing but an assertion.

Not any question, this question. The question of nature being a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is a metaphysical question. Specifically, it is an ontological assertion. As I pointed out in my last post, how could you objectively check the hypothesis? How would a designed creation look vs. a self organized one? There is no way to tell the answer scientifically.

The ontological position that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is part of a worldview called naturalism. Naturalism depends on the cosmological position of naturism being true. Naturalism's ontological position is assumed true, then any evidence for order is assumed to be evidence that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity. It could just as easily be specially and intentionally created. by God Especially since naturalism must also hold to accidentalism.

This is why worldviews must be tested. The scientist we have been discussing holds to a naturalistic worldview and interprets all his scientific evidence through those rose colored glasses.

Z

[zorro]

So how do you explain this?

Chaos = Order: WUSTL physicists make baffling discovery (http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6845.html)

This is fascinating! Atheists have been denying the teleological argument for hunreds of years. Except for now, they want to use it. Why don't the arguments that atheists have used against the teleological argument work against this?

Z

[black02mustang]

Not any question, this question. The question of nature being a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is a metaphysical question. Specifically, it is an ontological assertion. As I pointed out in my last post, how could you objectively check the hypothesis? How would a designed creation look vs. a self organized one? There is no way to tell the answer scientifically.

The ontological position that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is part of a worldview called naturalism. Naturalism depends on the cosmological position of naturism being true. Naturalism's ontological position is assumed true, then any evidence for order is assumed to be evidence that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity. It could just as easily be specially and intentionally created. by God Especially since naturalism must also hold to accidentalism.

This is why worldviews must be tested. The scientist we have been discussing holds to a naturalistic worldview and interprets all his scientific evidence through those rose colored glasses.

Z

From Author:

"We now have many empirical examples of simplicity begetting complexity. So it is not metaphysics, it's empirical science.


It need not have been that way. Suppose we had no examples. Then we would have an objective non-confirmation of the concept.


Physics and its related applied sciences and engineering can be done totally without making any metaphysical assumptions. That's why physicists and engineers are not required to study philosophy in school. They don't need it."

[BrianC]

Not any question, this question. The question of nature being a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is a metaphysical question. Specifically, it is an ontological assertion. As I pointed out in my last post, how could you objectively check the hypothesis? How would a designed creation look vs. a self organized one? There is no way to tell the answer scientifically.

The ontological position that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity, is part of a worldview called naturalism. Naturalism depends on the cosmological position of naturism being true. Naturalism's ontological position is assumed true, then any evidence for order is assumed to be evidence that nature is a process of self-organization; simplicity begetting complexity. It could just as easily be specially and intentionally created. by God Especially since naturalism must also hold to accidentalism.

This is why worldviews must be tested. The scientist we have been discussing holds to a naturalistic worldview and interprets all his scientific evidence through those rose colored glasses.

Z

I agree completely that your worldview completely taints your research. And this is why we cannot get good assessments of scientific studies. For instance, most would say that the Grand Canyon was created by a river over millions of years, because scientists assume this (per their worldview). However, the starting point of the river flowing through the Grand Canyon is lower than its exit point. Meaning that most likely, the river was a bit more than a river with much more weight behind it and cut through the canyon quickly. Then the canyon's starting and exiting levels don't matter.

It's too bad we have such an education system that completely relies on a naturalistic viewpoint.

[BrianC]

This is fascinating! Atheists have been denying the teleological argument for hunreds of years. Except for now, they want to use it. Why don't the arguments that atheists have used against the teleological argument work against this?

Z

This argument can't actually work, because it's a man-made test environment. If they were to attempt to test this in nature, it would never work unless some order found in nature ordered itself as it normally does even during the chaos.

The thing that is the largest roadblock is this...if God created everything to work together in perfect order and to adapt to change properly, and scientists came along and took God and his creation out of nature, you'd get the exact viewpoint our scientists have today: that nature itself has created complexity. When, in fact, the more logical answer is that nature was more complex genetically to begin with, and as time moves on, nature loses genetic data through years of adaptation. Of time, you even get species that cannot mate, because they are so far removed from their original genetic makeup after so much adaptation to their environment.

Darwin's finches usually only get explained to the point where some of the birds were no longer able to mate due to genetic changes brought on by their environment. What you do not hear is that when they reacclimated those birds back into the general population of birds on the islands, eventually, the birds changed back to their original genetic makeup, and they could mate once again. Funny that evolutionists would leave that out. So they retained the genetic data at some level and it spawned itself again in the correct environment.

[black02mustang]

I agree completely that your worldview completely taints your research. And this is why we cannot get good assessments of scientific studies. For instance, most would say that the Grand Canyon was created by a river over millions of years, because scientists assume this (per their worldview). However, the starting point of the river flowing through the Grand Canyon is lower than its exit point. Meaning that most likely, the river was a bit more than a river with much more weight behind it and cut through the canyon quickly. Then the canyon's starting and exiting levels don't matter.

It's too bad we have such an education system that completely relies on a naturalistic viewpoint.

So if something cut these ROCKS so swiftly how do we have the thousand foot columns in the middle of some parts of the canyon? Surely they would of been washed away with ease as well as the other MILLIONS of tons of rock that went with it... :confused:

[BrianC]

So if something cut these ROCKS so swiftly how do we have the thousand foot columns in the middle of some parts of the canyon? Surely they would of been washed away with ease as well as the other MILLIONS of tons of rock that went with it... :confused:

Good point, but you'd have to look at the full picture to understand why those large rocks are still standing. Oh boy...this'll get into a crazy conversation about the flood. I'll start a new thread about the flood here in a minute. I'll attempt the give you a reasonable answer very quickly.

Let's assume most of the water in the original creation was above the mantel, but under the crust of the earth (the earth is built just like a giant nuclear reactor: Core, Mantel, Water, Crust). However, the current configuration has changed from the old configureation. We have Core, Mantle, Crust then water. There is quite a bit of water below the crust, but nothing like before. Most of it's still in the ice caps, 90% of which is in Antartica, which, by the way, has been growing more thick, which goes against global warming...but that's another subject.

Now, let's say the earth was created originally like that nuclear reactor, and it heated itself internally from the core, which heated the mantel, which heated the water, which heated the crust. Genesis says that it did not rain in those days, but water came up from the ground in springs to water the plants. Interesting. If there's no rain, there are no clouds either. So the Sun had yet to evaporate water. On the second day, God created something called the firmament. He said it was created in the middle of the heavens. Upon studying what the "heavens" are, you find that the first heaven is the sky, the second is space, and the third (as Paul describes) is where God presides. If the firmament was in the middle of the heavens, it was between the sky and space.

Now, if this firmament kept the longwave radiation (or was it shortwave? I forget) from the earth and it was very cold, then heat would have to come internally from the earth. Currently, the 7th layer of the atmosphere is unexplained by scientists. It is where the ozone is, and it is cold as hell. Ice crystals are also there, and this is where we get the magenta sunset and the aurora borialis. They call it the heatsink. It's fairly thin, only a few feet thick, I believe. When the sun is showing, on one side, you'd fry, and on the other side, you'd freeze to death.

With this established, let's say that the earth starts to get hot about 4400 years ago (this is when scientists have tracked the wobble of the Earth's axis back to, approximately). And let's assume that at that time the water became so hot that it blasted through the surface at the ocean ridges. Like the mid-atlantic ridge and mid-pacific ridge (in Genesis, the flood started when "the fountains of the deep broke forth...so the water came from underneith...not from the sky). Water gushed out in large quantities and with the temperature creating pressure and the weight of the crust pushing down creating pressure, scientists guess that the water would've gone higher than the 7th later of the atmosphere.

Let's assume it broke that canopy which fell down to the earth and collected at the north and south poles (the colder ice is, the more magnetic it because, and this is why the poles of the earth would attract it heavily as it fell to the earth). If the water from under the earth became frozen on its way down, it also would be more attracted to the poles. We find wooly mammoths in Russia and at the south pole in Antarctica that are frozen standing up and eating green vegitation. That means Antarctica was once fertile and green and warm. Hense the warmth coming from inside the earth. I believe a socalled "cave man" was found there too. He looked perfectly normal like a human, but had a loincloth on... I could be wrong about this one, though...it's been too long since I saw that.

Now, water would cover the earth nearly one mile high. The sheer weight and pressure that one mile high water would create is insane! It would fossilize stuff almost immediately. Why? Because fossilization is all about time and pressure, according to scientists. The more pressure you have, the less time you need. Scientists can produce diamonds from coal now simply by applying pressure. Viola! Man-made diamonds.

Have you ever taken different types of dirt and put them in a jar of water, then shaken it up? You'll notice that dirt seperates into layers according to weight. If the entire earth were covered with water and the moon was causing major ocean currents and cherning and huge tital waves, this would shake the dirt below until it layered out according to its weight. Also, you would get dinosaurs sinking to the bottom of the ocean and being torn apart by the currents of water on their way down. Ever wonder why it's such a big deal to find a fully intact dinosaur skeleton? That's why... We also find sinkholes where hundreds of random dinosaur bones are found. As the water was sinking back down into fault lines, you find that many bones which were not covered by water were pulled near the hole, but not washed down it. As water continued to run into the sinkhole, it covered the bones with sediments and eventually, they also were fossilized...OR, they were fossilized by the sheer initial weight of the water, but he fossiles did not go down the sinkhole.

Now, here comes the bit about the rocks and the Grand Canyon. You have a crust with a larger diameter than the mantel underneith, and it's crashing down onto the mantel as the water shoots up out of the ground. Rocks are jutted upwards while the crust settles down. No one knows exactly how long it took the crust to settle down during and after the flood. The rocks you see jutted up out of the ground are layered like the rest of the crust around the world. And because of this, we know it must've been underwater at one point to receive the layer effect. At some point while the crust was settline down completely, the rocks jutted upward because of inconsistances at the bottom of the crust as it hit the mantel.

When the waters were going back into the ground or settling in the recessed oceans, you get the water runoff cutting down through the recently created, possibly recently dried layered rock. Apparently, a meandering river shows a quick formation of the river and cut of the rocks. I don't know the theory behind this, unfortunately.

Another thing this explains is bent rocks. Rocks are not ductile. You cannot bend rock. It breaks. So, why do we cut into rocks to create highways and see that the rock layers are bending? Well, that's simple. If the rock layers were formed during the flood, they were sediments that were wet at the time, and as they layered, they were already bent...then they hardened like that. We find this consistant all over the globe. We also find ocean life fossiles all around the world on mountain tops.

Now, if the diameter of the crust was much larger than the diameter of the mantel, then you'd have to fit this huge crust diameter onto the mantel as it settled down. This would cause breaking of the crust into plates, which would immediately press upward against each other doing one of two things:

1. Creating an overlapping layer like we see with plate tectonics, or
2. Creat mountains where the edges of the plates jutted upward.

Also, if the crust receded moreso at the mid-ocean ridges due to the water rushing up through those middle sections, you'd have oceans in those areas, which is what we find today. Also, you'd have mountains parallel to the coast lines, just as we find most of our mountains today. Why? Because if a plate sinks down on the ocean side, it's going to jut upward on the opposite side of the plate. For instance, take a two cement blocks and put a board between them. Break the board between those two blocks. What happens? The inside of the board is collapsed downward, and the outsides are jutted upward. Hense oceans and mountains. We find the layers of dirt consistant all around the world...same layers everywhere. Heaviest on bottom and lightest on top. This is a very simple concept, all-in-all, and a much better explanation as to why we find things the way we do nowdays.

Oh, one other thing is that the process of fossilization is when something is buried and the passage of water or moisture through the soil the item is buried in causes the parts of the item to wash away and be replaced by mineral deposites. I have seen pictures of stakes used to built houses that are seven years old dug up and have become completely fossilized. I have seen car keys fossilized, and even a human finger. Bury something for yourself and check it in 7 years or so. Find out for yourself just how long fossilization takes. It does not take a lot of time. The water factor is a huge part of it, though. And if a flood were happening at the time of fossilization, it would accelorate the process heavily. If the earth were covered with water, this would explain skeletons we find as well. Animals would sink to the bottom and plants would be covered, compressed and turned into oil, which is what we find. Animals would be as well, but we'd only find fossilized bones, so that it would appear as a tar pit where they died. Humans, on the other hand, would float to the top. And when the water receded in about a year (yes, the water was over the land about one year), then the bodies would eventually settle on the ground and decompose. We would find no human remains...only animal and plant remains. And if the atmosphere was much better back then, we'd find larger animals and larger plants, which we most certainly do find. These are all things that are never considered in an old earth worldview...however, they make a lot of sense.

Oh, and glaciers would've been huge till they melted into the oceans causing them to pull northward as we find that they did in the past.

Also, on a humorous note...if Noah's Ark was on high ground, and the waters were rising, then the animals would instictively seek high ground and come right to it out of desperation. It'd be easy to get two of each animal.

[black02mustang]

Good point, but you'd have to look at the full picture to understand why those large rocks are still standing. Oh boy...this'll get into a crazy conversation about the flood. Fine....I'll post my belief on the subject right after this post. It might be smarter to put this in a whole new thread. What the heck...I'll put it in a new thread. Look for it and you can reply to it there...

I can't wait :D

[BrianC]

I left out the part about the bible saying the flood started with "the fountains of the deep broke forth", which would mean the water for the flood came from underneith the crust. So I edited that post to add that in, along with a couple of other points at the end.

[zorro]

From Author:

"We now have many empirical examples of simplicity begetting complexity. So it is not metaphysics, it's empirical science.


It need not have been that way. Suppose we had no examples. Then we would have an objective non-confirmation of the concept.


Physics and its related applied sciences and engineering can be done totally without making any metaphysical assumptions. That's why physicists and engineers are not required to study philosophy in school. They don't need it."

So, please tells us how do you decide what is self organizing and what is intendly designed to be that way? I guarantee that your scientist can't tell you. You see science can tell you the material cause and the formal cause, but it can never tell you the efficient cause, but that is what this guy is demanding we believe on just his say so. And if he had taken a philosophy class, he would have known this and the other problems that science has that his worldview can't answer; and yes he does have a worldview.

Z

[zorro]

This argument can't actually work, because it's a man-made test environment. If they were to attempt to test this in nature, it would never work unless some order found in nature ordered itself as it normally does even during the chaos.

The thing that is the largest roadblock is this...if God created everything to work together in perfect order and to adapt to change properly, and scientists came along and took God and his creation out of nature, you'd get the exact viewpoint our scientists have today: that nature itself has created complexity. When, in fact, the more logical answer is that nature was more complex genetically to begin with, and as time moves on, nature loses genetic data through years of adaptation. Of time, you even get species that cannot mate, because they are so far removed from their original genetic makeup after so much adaptation to their environment.

Darwin's finches usually only get explained to the point where some of the birds were no longer able to mate due to genetic changes brought on by their environment. What you do not hear is that when they reacclimated those birds back into the general population of birds on the islands, eventually, the birds changed back to their original genetic makeup, and they could mate once again. Funny that evolutionists would leave that out. So they retained the genetic data at some level and it spawned itself again in the correct environment.

You misunderstand the argument I made. I was showing the special pleading that atheists use based on their worldview. Since the time of Hume, they have been denying that design or order can be shown in nature. Now, they want to claim order when it suits them. If it was impossible to show order before (as they believe), then it should still be impossible now.

Z

[BrianC]

You misunderstand the argument I made. I was showing the special pleading that atheists use based on their worldview. Since the time of Hume, they have been denying that design or order can be shown in nature. Now, they want to claim order when it suits them. If it was impossible to show order before (as they believe), then it should still be impossible now.

Z

Ahhh, I understand now. :)

[black02mustang]

You misunderstand the argument I made. I was showing the special pleading that atheists use based on their worldview. Since the time of Hume, they have been denying that design or order can be shown in nature. Now, they want to claim order when it suits them. If it was impossible to show order before (as they believe), then it should still be impossible now.

Z

Since this was not my paper I would like you to join, the author's "avoid-L. email discussion group". Here you can argue your points directly with him, and hear what he and others have to say. I will admit that I am no match for the arguments that you have posted, and only encourage you to argue with someone more "up to the challenge", and I'm sure you are less likely to be let down by "bad arguments" that ether I or someone else might present. I am not saying that they are the "all powerful and knowing atheists"...just the fact that they will provide a substantially better argument than I can provide.

Avoid - L (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/#avoid-L)

[BrianC]

Since this was not my paper I would like you to join, the author's "avoid-L. email discussion group". Here you can argue your points directly with him, and hear what he and others have to say. I will admit that I am no match for the arguments that you have posted, and only encourage you to argue with someone more "up to the challenge", and I'm sure you are less likely to be let down by "bad arguments" that ether I or someone else might present. I am not saying that they are the "all powerful and knowing atheists"...just the fact that they will provide a substantially better argument than I can provide.

Avoid - L (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/#avoid-L)

I have a simple question for you. If things are so well balanced and so well put together and the human body is so amazingly designed, how reasonable is it to say that it did not have a designer, but rather that it just happened...somehow?

Have you ever watched a video simulating how the human cell works? It looks like a factory, literally. Parts of a DNA chain are constructed inside a cell, then constructed outside of the cell in links...and it is exactly like a factory. It's the weirdest thing to see a computer mockup of it. How can such order come from chaos?

Also, the flagellum is a fairly simple little organism found in the body. Look it up sometime and look for pictures of how it's tail works. There are 73 parts in the makeup of this flagellum's tail that are exactly the same as an outboard motor. Now, an outboard motor can spin at around 10,000 rpms, I think. The flagellum's tail can spin at over 100,000 rpms. That's pretty impressive.

I'd say it takes WAY more faith to believe that we came from nothing and chaos rather than believe there's an all powerful designer, seeing as how perfectly everything is laid out. What's even more impressive is that what we see today is probably the broken down, lesser version of how it was in the beginning, yet it still works perfectly.

[black02mustang]

I have a simple question for you. If things are so well balanced and so well put together and the human body is so amazingly designed, how reasonable is it to say that it did not have a designer, but rather that it just happened...somehow?

Have you ever watched a video simulating how the human cell works? It looks like a factory, literally. Parts of a DNA chain are constructed inside a cell, then constructed outside of the cell in links...and it is exactly like a factory. It's the weirdest thing to see a computer mockup of it. How can such order come from chaos?

Also, the flagellum is a fairly simple little organism found in the body. Look it up sometime and look for pictures of how it's tail works. There are 73 parts in the makeup of this flagellum's tail that are exactly the same as an outboard motor. Now, an outboard motor can spin at around 10,000 rpms, I think. The flagellum's tail can spin at over 100,000 rpms. That's pretty impressive.

I'd say it takes WAY more faith to believe that we came from nothing and chaos rather than believe there's an all powerful designer, seeing as how perfectly everything is laid out. What's even more impressive is that what we see today is probably the broken down, lesser version of how it was in the beginning, yet it still works perfectly.

TO: Brian C
As I've said before...
Since this was not my paper I would like you to join, the author's "avoid-L. email discussion group". Here you can argue your points directly with him, and hear what he and others have to say. You can try to prove him wrong...but good luck given your responses so far.

TO: Zorro
I still encourage you to join, I think it would make an interesting conversation, regardless of the outcome.


Directions on joining (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/#avoid-L)

[BrianC]

TO: Brian C
As I've said before...
Since this was not my paper I would like you to join, the author's "avoid-L. email discussion group". Here you can argue your points directly with him, and hear what he and others have to say. You can try to prove him wrong...but good luck given your responses so far.

TO: Zorro
I still encourage you to join, I think it would make an interesting conversation, regardless of the outcome.


Directions on joining (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/#avoid-L)

I don't do newsgroups. Haven't the slightest clue how to get onto them. I tried a while back, but couldn't seem to get it to work. So, no thank you.

[black02mustang]

the directions are simple...

Subject should look like this:
add avoid-L John@yahoo.com John Doe

Include your full, true name:
occupation:
city location:
short explanation why you are interested in this list:

The E-mail address to send it to is listed.

You can manipulate science and religion to fit what you believe but can't send a simple E-mail?...Interesting

[DarkWolf]

You can manipulate science and religion to fit what you believe but can't send a simple E-mail?...Interesting

:D

[BrianC]

the directions are simple...

Subject should look like this:
add avoid-L John@yahoo.com John Doe

Include your full, true name:
occupation:
city location:
short explanation why you are interested in this list:

The E-mail address to send it to is listed.

You can manipulate science and religion to fit what you believe but can't send a simple E-mail?...Interesting

This is a different type of newgroup than I was trying to get into. Much easier. But, as I said, I have no interest in newsgroups, because I have a life and no extra time to go reading all of this crap and responding. I don't like responding to even this stuff on here...it takes too much time.

[DarkWolf]

This is a different type of newgroup than I was trying to get into. Much easier. But, as I said, I have no interest in newsgroups, because I have a life and no extra time to go reading all of this crap and responding. I don't like responding to even this stuff on here...it takes too much time.

Perhaps if you got to the point, instead of writing major dissertations...

[murphy54]

THE SCIENTIST CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN NOTHINQ.....if you know a little bit of science .....you realise that...for example let us presume we know what atoms are... then what are them made of?....what are those particle made of?...and so on until the human knoledge stops.So all in all we do not know anythinq at all about the smallest of parts that we know to compose our world

[AbecX]

That alone is enough to show a devine hand in the way nature's processes take place.
lmao, a rainbow is enough to prove devine intervention?

[White trash wagon]

THE SCIENTIST CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN NOTHINQ.....if you know a little bit of science .....you realise that...for example let us presume we know what atoms are... then what are them made of?....what are those particle made of?...and so on until the human knoledge stops.So all in all we do not know anythinq at all about the smallest of parts that we know to compose our world


This type of thinking cracks me up, you religious zealots claim science knows nothing and can't prove anything. The very fact that your reading this PROVES science. If science was a bunch of unproven theories, how do you think we got computers, the internet, cars, airplanes, modern medicine, etc. An accident?, Don't say "god" gave us these things, they were invented by man (scientists).

If scientists didn't understand atomic particle mechanics, how did they invent nuclear power plants and weapons (which, by the way, required inventing elements that did not even EXIST in nature, i.e. plutonium). And all that was done WITHOUT computers, just a chalkboard and slide rules.

If it weren't for science you would be sleeping in the grass tonight, after dining on twigs, weeds, and a uncooked rabbit(if you were lucky). Oh, and a toothache or broken bone could have proven fatal then too.

Scott

[zorro]

This type of thinking cracks me up, you religious zealots claim science knows nothing and can't prove anything. The very fact that your reading this PROVES science. If science was a bunch of unproven theories, how do you think we got computers, the internet, cars, airplanes, modern medicine, etc. An accident?, Don't say "god" gave us these things, they were invented by man (scientists).

If scientists didn't understand atomic particle mechanics, how did they invent nuclear power plants and weapons (which, by the way, required inventing elements that did not even EXIST in nature, i.e. plutonium). And all that was done WITHOUT computers, just a chalkboard and slide rules.

If it weren't for science you would be sleeping in the grass tonight, after dining on twigs, weeds, and a uncooked rabbit(if you were lucky). Oh, and a toothache or broken bone could have proven fatal then too.

Scott

Please don't throw all theists into one pot, and I won't through you into the same pot as some uneducated atheists.

I think science is a great thing, and scientific discoveries should be encouraged, and that all of these discoveries point to the existence of God and a finely tuned - specially designed thing we call life.

Z

[White trash wagon]

Please don't throw all theists into one pot, and I won't through you into the same pot as some uneducated atheists.

I think science is a great thing, and scientific discoveries should be encouraged, and that all of these discoveries point to the existence of God and a finely tuned - specially designed thing we call life.

Z

I'm not an athiest, and I am well educated (BS in Business Management).

Scott