if Science creates life...

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

chickweed wrote:

and eventually we could very well come full circle and become asexual again

I wish a few people I knew were asexual... so they could go fuck themselves!

cajunkiwi wrote:

"You have to believe what's in this book if you want to be happy after you die."

Religion is so, so, so much more than being happy after you die that those who think that way are missing the point entirely.

know1 wrote:

That is a myth. Science only tests its hypotheses against what it already knows to be true. Any true scientist would admit that new information can be learned tomorrow that will make today's hypotheses false. Hence, the faith involved.

This is so wrong in so many levels, is not even worthy to discuss it :roll:

satansbed wrote:

know1 wrote:

Personally, I think you have to have as much, if not more faith to believe in science as you do to believe in religion.

At one point, SCIENCE thought the world was flat.

the whole point of science is that there is no faith required, science is infact the opposite of faith

faith is belief that is not based on proof

while science is: A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

I have my own thoughts on why science requires a certain amount of faith, and maybe this is what know1 is referring to: Simply put, how much scientific study and experimentation has the average person actually done or have been directly exposed to? How many of us have had access to tens of millions of dollars of instrumentation, and can understand complex mathematics formulas used to design these instruments that are so intense, that they really are communicable between a few dozen handfuls of people? For the most part, our answers to those questions are, "those people are really really smart, dedicated, well-intentioned, and I believe them." That to me, is a huge leap of faith, especially considering how much modern science seems to contradict old science, and even tends to disprove other areas of modern science. I know I've never looked through an electron microscope before, and even if I have, how would I know to trust it if I couldn't understand how it actually works? Yet, I do believe that atomic theory is the best available explanation of what everything is made of-- and it has overwritten older science which had the same goals of discovering the makeup of our world. At some point, you do have to wonder does "science" actually approach a level of absolute bullshit and babble since the only people who understand what they are doing are unable to explain what they are doing? For instance, that "super collider" in Scandanavia supposedly has the potential to create black holes, new universes, and even potentially cause this world to suck itself into some sort of inescapable vortex. Really? If this was possible, why risk it? It just sounds unbelievable to me, especially considering the thing broke down the second it started, and needed a few months worth of repairs, and to the best of my knowledge I haven't heard too much other news about it since. Maybe it was just a huge waste of money, and these guys are attempting to save face or simply financially benefit from the whole experiment. After all, scientists are people too. Just like priests and other "holy" figures, sometimes scientists might be given too much of our faith and belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

Parachute wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

pandora wrote:

I have always thought we are evolving to be non sexual beings
in the image of our maker ... a combination of man and woman.

Gay people further along in the evolution process.

Religion doesn't figure into my thoughts,
perhaps they are unconventional thoughts.

This is Intresting, not sure i agree, but it's a point of veiw i never considered before, gona bounce this once off my wife and freinds this weekend.

There's a problem w that though: Homosexuality in counter-reproductive; It flies in the face of the evolution theory. In nature and in human life, if homosexuality was a normal process of evolution , then eventually we would stop reproducing, and life would die out. Granted, a million years from now, but... I'm just sayin.

Of course, homosexuality is not about not-reproducing. But if it were, wouldn't that be an excellent way for nature/evolution to control our species massive overpopulation? Homosexuality being counter-reproductive sounds like a good solution to that problem. But this is all academic-- homosexuality is not about reproduction one way or the other. It is a natural inclination for some mebers of our species and others as well. It's too bad some people have a problem with that.