Is my pastor smarter then EVERY major scientiest in America concerning science? He says he is. He says they don't know what they're talking about and that God has tricked them into thinking that.
Who should I believe? And expert on Science, or a guy trying to get me to donate my 5 bucks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
2006-10-09 13:19:01 · 19 answers · asked by GobleyGook 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Believe the scientists. They deal with facts.
2006-10-09 15:21:04 · answer #1 · answered by hopelessly_hopeful 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The information of polonium "halo's" in earth's oldest rocks that exhibits they have been formed very practically rapidly have been revealed and peer-reviewed however the information is rejected...why? because of the fact the entire premise of recent technological know-how is in keeping with naturalism...that each and all and sundry issues would properly be defined by utilising in basic terms organic motives....that's the objective. present day technological know-how is proscribed to the supposedly observable and testable which excludes any supernatural clarification or smart fashion designer. even though it in keeping with a wrong premise even though it does furnish very lots in explaining mysteries that have been as quickly as fantasy's and superstitions. every person is naive to think of that technological know-how would ever settle for a suggestion for something different than the same old paradigms...it would fall apart the pillars of evolution and different sciences to think of there's a achievable supernatural clarification of phenomena whose existence won't be in a position to be confirmed or examined via clinical potential....however the actual information of course exhibits a non-organic reason. How did existence get up from non-dwelling components and not utilising a writer? it somewhat is on no account been shown to ensue certainly. yet in a magazine, who does the assessment, and is there an independent technique the place a author who advances introduction or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s confrontation? extra advantageous technological know-how journals have a superb historic previous of hostility in direction of creationists, so evolutionists are the two decide and jury. Who would have the choose to make his case in a courtroom run by utilising an opponent? Why would that opponent placed up your case?
2016-12-16 04:59:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, very few scientists believe that ID is a viable, alternative theory to evolution. Anyone who told you otherwise is lying to you. Take it from an actual scientist - 99.99% of scientists aren't buying that crap.
Edit: Scientists didn't 'realize' Pluto wasn't a planet. Under the old loose definition of planet, Pluto qualified. Under the new, stricter definition, it isn't. And who defines a planet? Scientists.
2006-10-09 13:25:54 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Don't believe either one of them.
Consider a random-looking sequence of one million digits from 1 to 6. This sequence could have been generated using a computer, which generates a pseudo random sequence according to a predetermined mathematical formula. This sequence is not really random, but it appears random. This exact same sequence could have been generated by actually tossing a die one million times. There is no way to know the difference.
Similarly, one cannot determine whether life was a result of intelligent design or chance. They all just want your money.
My advice to you is to keep your money, and party hearty!
2006-10-09 13:39:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unless you change your attitude, it is up to you what you do. If scientists were to come out with a change of mind about creation, then everything they have been spouting for years would be in question, and they are not about to do that. I would rather have your pastor beside me in troubled times than all the learned scientists in the world. As for your five bucks, give it to the scientists so they can find out why it took them so long to realize Pluto is not a planet.
2006-10-09 13:24:39 · answer #5 · answered by stullerrl 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The thing about your scientist is that their theory keeps changing.When I went to school they taught me that Pluto was a planet ,now they say it's not a planet.And you want me to believe these people when they tell us there was this big bang and out came some monkeys and they evolved into humans today.They can't even figure out if Pluto is a planet.Your not only deceived but insane as well.Now go find you some bananas and be quite for awhile.
2006-10-09 13:34:20 · answer #6 · answered by don_steele54 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Don't over simplify a big subject. It will take more than a sound bite to get the best answer. But if you are willing to read a book try the following to challenge to your thinking.
Michael Behe in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' shows that there are numerous molecular motors within the cell that are intricately assembled. He demonstrates that they have irreducible complexity.
2006-10-09 13:37:57 · answer #7 · answered by rapturefuture 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It really doesn't change the fact that we are still here trying to evolve beyond hypocrisy. It is why we are still illogical and spinning our wheels over who said what. What would be a true democracy?
2006-10-09 13:41:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm willing to bet that your pastor probably isn't smarter than these scientists. But that's just me.
2006-10-09 13:23:27 · answer #9 · answered by Tommy 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You and your pastor must be retarded.
You might be able to "save" yourself by...joining the team and commin' in for the big win.
Logic and science beats faith and religion every time.
good luck!
2006-10-09 13:24:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋