yea i know how you feel , science doesnt know everything , they are humans , they can be wrong , just because they say something , it doesnt mean that theres not even %5 chance that there wrong , there not allways right
stop being so stupid , what am saying is , there are normal people , there not some super creatures that cant be wrong
If you look at all the wars we've had and look at the cause you'll find that the vast majority of them are started due to religion. Take the current Iraq situation. Yes i know it wasn't started due to religion but the iraqi insurgents swiftly declared JIHAD on the allied troops. JIHAD, religious term. Hmmmm. WW2 started because Hitler wanted everyone to follow his beliefs and his religion, hence the Jew situation. Those are just 2 examples of my point and if you look closely enough at other wars most of them were because of religion.
science says evolution happened. Problem No. 1 There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. Problem No. 2 No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part! Problem No. 3 There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths simply do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. So "science" has some "scientific" problems
What I don't understand is why people "beleive in" science. It is not a religion danmit. Nor is science history. It is scientifiically impossible to prove that I ate a sandwhich 10 years ago while I was running. In order to prove it, you would need to recreate the entire universe EXACTLY as it was and then you would need to play through it to see that I ate a sandwhich. That is simply impossible. Proving that mankind evolved would require the same fete. We as humans are simply limited. Science by definition is study to determine the laws of the world, not how it was created.
Many people devote their lives to science, scientists from across the world work together (who may have never met before) and they'll peacefully try to better the world. Do you think that all scientific discoveries come from singler persons? Look at all the ongoing AIDS research, thousands of scientists are sharing info, ideas and techniques for this cause. Groups of random people will always come together for a cause, ( Katrina Relief is another example), it doesn't just happen for religion. You're ignorance is amazing. Do you neeed to have a religion in order to believe in something? I believe that the Toronto Maple Leaf will win the Stanley Cup in my life time ( i know it's a dream ) but it's still a belief. And you're right it is impossible to prove an EVENT happened millions of years ago. However evolution isn't an EVENT it is a PROCESS. The theory is based around evidence of prehistoric man, for which we have fossils to prove that they did exist. Regarding the formation of organic compounds from inorganic compounds, (cold try looking for something more recent ) Miller & Urey's discoveries In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life. Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
I rather believe in science which is true facts then build my life around imagenary stuff, But there is a limit on the science thing Editing post with more stuff one sec
Miller experiament was a hoax. along with a few vital elements (like glycine and alanine) Miller's experiment produced large numbers of pernicious ones. The presence of just one pernicious amino acid among the polymers of useful ones within any given protein totally disrupts protein function and renders the entire molecule useless. Also, he created tar and a carbolixic acid, both of which are poisionus to life.
Many people devote their lives to science, scientists from across the world work together (who may have never met before) and they'll peacefully try to better the world. Do you think that all scientific discoveries come from singler persons? Look at all the ongoing AIDS research, thousands of scientists are sharing info, ideas and techniques for this cause. Groups of random people will always come together for a cause, ( Katrina Relief is another example), it doesn't just happen for religion. You're ignorance is amazing. Do you neeed to have a religion in order to believe in something? I believe that the Toronto Maple Leaf will win the Stanley Cup in my life time ( i know it's a dream ) but it's still a belief. And you're right it is impossible to prove an EVENT happened millions of years ago. However evolution isn't an EVENT it is a PROCESS. The theory is based around evidence of prehistoric man, for which we have fossils to prove that they did exist. Regarding the formation of organic compounds from inorganic compounds, (cold try looking for something more recent ) Miller & Urey's discoveries In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life. Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments. [/b][/quote] your ignorance is greater. I was refering to beleive as in a beleif system. People refer to beleive in science almost as a theology which is ti by definition, not. Also, you are missusing the term beleive in that sense as the word hope would be more applicable. You contradict your self when you say you know it will not happen. Belief is thinking and knowing for a fact. If you consider somethign improbable, you don't beleive it. as for the Miller experiment, it's great except for a few small facts, namely it is in a closed isolated system, which is not applicable in nature. Secondly they didn't use the proper proportions of gasses as later found out, thirdly, is the fact that all though he did produce organic compounds, none of them were aranged in a manner which would even remotely resembled those found in DNA and RNA and I wouldn't doubt it if they had broken down soon after. The probability of the proper chemical components meating each other without being affected by other elements in such a hypothetical primordial soup is proposterous. you should take highschool chemistry and biology, you learn a lot more than you do in elemtry school and junior high particularly in chemistry(wait, wait... we were told that the miller experiment was innacurate in junior high... if you can't grasp that then simple highschool and college science is beyond you) if you want some help, check google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=Po2&...ccurate&spell=1 http://www.google.com/search?hs=zUN&hl=en&...acy&btnG=Search
yeah science is bull people should just give up trying to find out the meaning of life before life its self is already over.
here is another thing that cannot be proven by science: whether someone or something is considered 'beautiful' its impossible
I seriously hope you don't believe that. Science has brought us medicine (ever take tylenol or advil?), technology (such as the computer that you're using to type on, oh, and the internet you're using to post your message), and has given us a better understanding of our surrounding environment. Not only that, but it helps us learn how to stop hurting our environment (not that we necessarily listen to what science tells us on how to prevent this). Edit: @schlepro: While that's true, science CAN tell us how we make our decision on who or what we think is beautiful, and what part of the brain it stems from.
