boy, it sure does take a lot of faith to make such a claim, especially with NO hard evidence to substantiate your claim. On a side note, resolve entropy and evolution; how can that be? universal randomness and disarray are ever increasing, but you claim things are becoming more ordered, that just don't jive.
so what you're saying is that you are one who has evolved from being a monkey's ass to being a jack-ass (unless your name is smart, dumb, kiss, etc. etc.)???
Could it be that you are so blinded by the doctrine of evolutionary theory that you fail to see the glarring scientific fundamentals intertwined within Biblical scripture? Could it be you're reality is so finite your mental capacity for anything beyond your limited realm of understanding leaves you with such an altered sense of what reality truly is? Case in point: the fundamental elements of the universal laws are captured within the first sentence in Genesis: In the beginning (Time) God Created (Energy) the Heavens (Space) and Earth (Matter). I think it is overly egotistical to think that God and science can not co-exist when the very first thing He tries to relay to us is the fact that He IS the author of science. Why is it so difficult to "allow" God to play a role in the "evolution" of the universe? What is the big deal? Because if you can't resolve this issue, it is much, much more difficult to resolve human consciousness, free-will, free-thinking, emotion, etc., etc., as anything more than chemical reactions. The human condition becomes one of chemistry, and not moral congruency. However, as you said, "People who reject evolutionary theory are either ignorant of that theory (in which case, they shouldn't comment on it at all) or have a serious issue with reality," my retort is, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS." Your ignorance in the matter that God is the author of science gives you the blissful idea that we are foolish for considering God at all. What's really going to bake your noodle is the fact that the scientific method is a scriptural concept! So it could be said that you yourself are speaking on matters you know little (& maybe nothing) about.
With all do respect, your logic is flawed...while the scientific method is a reasonable methodolgy for solving problems and/or resolving issues dealing within the realm of science and nature, the point you are missing is not necessarily that people don't believe in evolution, but instead could it be that others manipulated the scientifc method to support a flawed idea called evolution. Perhaps those who support evolution's evolution feel so strongly against the concept of a prime mover or intelligent designer, etc. etc, that they chose to slide through the scientific method disregarding the overwhelming gaps preventing evolution from being determined law or fact. To keep things short and simple: "All whales are mammals, but not all mammals are whales." Your comment that by neglecting evolution one neglects the scientific method. This simply is not the case. Afterall, the scientific method only propels the objective to make more observations; and only after the necessary AND sufficient observations can any hypothesis be set as law. Do any of us really think we have the capacity to maximize those observations in a lifetime when considering the overall age of the universe? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
boy, it sure does take a lot of faith to make such a claim, especially with NO hard evidence to substantiate your claim. On a side note, resolve entropy and evolution; how can that be? universal randomness and disarray are ever increasing, but you claim things are becoming more ordered, that just don't jive.
so what you're saying is that you are one who has evolved from being a monkey's ass to being a jack-ass (unless your name is smart, dumb, kiss, etc. etc.)???
Could it be that you are so blinded by the doctrine of evolutionary theory that you fail to see the glarring scientific fundamentals intertwined within Biblical scripture? Could it be you're reality is so finite your mental capacity for anything beyond your limited realm of understanding leaves you with such an altered sense of what reality truly is? Case in point: the fundamental elements of the universal laws are captured within the first sentence in Genesis: In the beginning (Time) God Created (Energy) the Heavens (Space) and Earth (Matter). I think it is overly egotistical to think that God and science can not co-exist when the very first thing He tries to relay to us is the fact that He IS the author of science. Why is it so difficult to "allow" God to play a role in the "evolution" of the universe? What is the big deal? Because if you can't resolve this issue, it is much, much more difficult to resolve human consciousness, free-will, free-thinking, emotion, etc., etc., as anything more than chemical reactions. The human condition becomes one of chemistry, and not moral congruency. However, as you said, "People who reject evolutionary theory are either ignorant of that theory (in which case, they shouldn't comment on it at all) or have a serious issue with reality," my retort is, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS." Your ignorance in the matter that God is the author of science gives you the blissful idea that we are foolish for considering God at all. What's really going to bake your noodle is the fact that the scientific method is a scriptural concept! So it could be said that you yourself are speaking on matters you know little (& maybe nothing) about.
With all do respect, your logic is flawed...while the scientific method is a reasonable methodolgy for solving problems and/or resolving issues dealing within the realm of science and nature, the point you are missing is not necessarily that people don't believe in evolution, but instead could it be that others manipulated the scientifc method to support a flawed idea called evolution. Perhaps those who support evolution's evolution feel so strongly against the concept of a prime mover or intelligent designer, etc. etc, that they chose to slide through the scientific method disregarding the overwhelming gaps preventing evolution from being determined law or fact. To keep things short and simple: "All whales are mammals, but not all mammals are whales." Your comment that by neglecting evolution one neglects the scientific method. This simply is not the case. Afterall, the scientific method only propels the objective to make more observations; and only after the necessary AND sufficient observations can any hypothesis be set as law. Do any of us really think we have the capacity to maximize those observations in a lifetime when considering the overall age of the universe? I think not.