lol. it’s kind of true in a few ways. modern man still hasn’t been able to comprehend a different ages’ terms of science. we are still discovering facts we are ignorant to, that pre-existing colonies have already writ in stone.
this doesn’t appear to be the artist’s intention, but perhaps a higher power is using them =P.
I think a real scientist rejects nothing, creation nor evolution. they are both names for a process. Evolution’s “god” is clearly unknown, as Creationism’s “god” is an overly pretentious assertion of “fact”.
We are all in the dark. Seeking light in the ways we know how. It’s amazing.
I agree on all, but on your fourth paragraph. If a real scientist rejects nothing, can we say that he puts probabilities to the processes? Based on the facts, the creationist’s view has 0.0000000….1% chance to be correct. On the same basis, evolution has 0.0000000…1% chance to be false.
As a scientist, you need to draw a line sometimes, for sake of clarity.
Apparently you have not looked closely at the true biological and geological evidence. Where does your 0.0000000000………1% come from? That’s just the basic assumption that comes when people start with the premise of rejecting something before looking at the evidence. Even a hardcore naturalistic scientist would not put out a number like that.
lol. it’s kind of true in a few ways. modern man still hasn’t been able to comprehend a different ages’ terms of science. we are still discovering facts we are ignorant to, that pre-existing colonies have already writ in stone.
this doesn’t appear to be the artist’s intention, but perhaps a higher power is using them =P.
I think a real scientist rejects nothing, creation nor evolution. they are both names for a process. Evolution’s “god” is clearly unknown, as Creationism’s “god” is an overly pretentious assertion of “fact”.
We are all in the dark. Seeking light in the ways we know how. It’s amazing.
So true.
Kinda tacky for this site.. if you ask me.
I agree on all, but on your fourth paragraph. If a real scientist rejects nothing, can we say that he puts probabilities to the processes? Based on the facts, the creationist’s view has 0.0000000….1% chance to be correct. On the same basis, evolution has 0.0000000…1% chance to be false.
As a scientist, you need to draw a line sometimes, for sake of clarity.
Apparently you have not looked closely at the true biological and geological evidence. Where does your 0.0000000000………1% come from? That’s just the basic assumption that comes when people start with the premise of rejecting something before looking at the evidence. Even a hardcore naturalistic scientist would not put out a number like that.
I love Joachim’s ability to pull “scientific” numbers out of his ass.
I want to be that kind of scientist!