Science is a method. It describes how one is to investigate a phenomenon and analyze it.

If we had any actual observations about god, Science would study god. Observe (god has said he wants sacrifice), form theories (a sacrifice of a young bull is more pleasing to god than a sacrifice of an old cow), test the theory (sacrifice each and observe which was more pleasing) and so on.

The only problem is that there is no evidence of god. All we have are old pre-scientific accounts and unverifiable personal claims. As they are better explained by mundane means (sociology and psychology come into light here), they don't actually very strongly indicate the existence of a god.

So, in short:science is a neutral method of observation. However, the findings of the scientific method are "atheistic" as they have not found any evidence of god. This does not make science atheistic.

Originally Posted by SeriousSister08

I have been watching debates like this go on for a while now and still have not seen anyone who believes that science is not atheistic give a logical sound reason for why it is not. So I'm challenging anyone who believes science is not atheistic to a debate. I would like to be able to have my say in the matter, because I believe that not only has science proven to be atheistic through the years, but it has also proven be to more harmful then good in a number of ways. Let me list a few...

1. Morals

2. Medicine

3. Concience

If anyone would like to debate me on this, then please feel free to challenge me.

Hi Sister, As a committed conservative bible believing christian I think to make a sweeping generalization that ALL science is atheistic is unfair and inaccurate. By this I mean that most all legitimate science that investigates, defines and explains the natural world for us in understandable and workable ways never deals with or denies Gods existence in any way.

It is only the so called sciences like evolution and its offshoot sciences which attempt to explain our origins as a species apart from God which cross over into the philosophical as they attempt to mask their beliefs with pseudo science which are motivated by a preconceived and atheistic outcome that fit into your category of an atheist based science.

Originally Posted by Iuris

Science is a method. It describes how one is to investigate a phenomenon and analyze it.

If we had any actual observations about god, Science would study god. Observe (god has said he wants sacrifice), form theories (a sacrifice of a young bull is more pleasing to god than a sacrifice of an old cow), test the theory (sacrifice each and observe which was more pleasing) and so on.

The only problem is that there is no evidence of god. All we have are old pre-scientific accounts and unverifiable personal claims. As they are better explained by mundane means (sociology and psychology come into light here), they don't actually very strongly indicate the existence of a god.

So, in short:science is a neutral method of observation. However, the findings of the scientific method are "atheistic" as they have not found any evidence of god. This does not make science atheistic.

This explanation confirms in very clear terms the incredible philosophical handicap the atheist/atheistic world view suffers from when one can state so firmly that there is no evidence of God.

When I look at the symbiotic chain of life, how one level of life serves the one above it and does it cooperatively as they coexist in perfect harmony until one consumes the other, all I can see is Gods hand in that symbiotic creation.

And then when I look at what His bible says about Mans place in creation, that Man has dominion over all life on earth, the modern atheist will first claim that the bible was written by stone age level men with no real understanding of the world around them, yet you will completely ignore the FACT that from then until now we human beings have dominated all life on earth just as the bible says it would be.

The biggest advantage the atheist has with their world view is that they are able to pick and choose which truths and realities they will decide to embrace. That many of these considerations conflict with each other and with reality means nothing at all to the deluded atheist.

Also, just to give one more glaring and simple evidence of Gods existence from His bible I give you a single OT chapter, "Isaiah 53" which every religious and scriptural authority on Earth agrees was written between 700 and 750 years before Christ yet is an undeniable and accurate description of the Messiah who was to come in Christ Jesus our Lord.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...O2mNN5oKU3XORQ

This is just one of many hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Old and New Testaments which atheists refuse to consider or study for confirmation to their own peril. Now is the time to seek the truth, to place your human understanding against our Creators is foolishness and proves how truly blind the atheist is where a lasting truth about life is concerned.

The lack of evidence for the object of their faith obviously irks the backsliders. If their faith were sufficiently strong, it would overcome such a minor detail.

Science is indifferent to the existence or otherwise of gods.

Originally Posted by SeriousSister08

I have been watching debates like this go on for a while now and still have not seen anyone who believes that science is not atheistic give a logical sound reason for why it is not. So I'm challenging anyone who believes science is not atheistic to a debate. I would like to be able to have my say in the matter, because I believe that not only has science proven to be atheistic through the years, but it has also proven be to more harmful then good in a number of ways. Let me list a few...

1. Morals

2. Medicine

3. Concience

If anyone would like to debate me on this, then please feel free to challenge me.

many scientists are atheistic, i know that most students in the science departments in universities (mine at least) are atheistic, but that doesnt mean that in itself science is atheistic. there are theistic scientists. is science an atheistic practice? possibly, considering the motives of scientists are not to turn to a deity at any problem that arises. but possibly not because scientists dont think of a deity, or lack thereof, at all in doing their work, so i think the question isnt really that relevant.

you say that science has done more harm than good, yet you just mentioned medicine which is very obviously science in practice and has saved countless people's lives. take genetic engineering of plants for example. few people know that genetic engineering of plants has saved billions of people's lives; BILLIONS!! by making plants growable in places where they would usually not be able to survive.

you also cannot claim that you can get morals from the bible:
first of all, that is not the point of science at all,
and secondly, the bible is chalk full of contradictions like you will hear of someone preaching to abolish slavery and in another part, someone will promote slavery, so religious people pick and choose the good portions of the bible and call those 'morals' while ignoring the bits that no longer fit into the morals of our society that we already have, not as a result of religion. so society couldnt have gotten its morals from religion because as society became developed, religious people have simply cut out portions of the bible to make the bible fit with the morals that were in society to begin with. i think that our society got its morals from secular causes.

and science has a very good idea where we got our conscience from (you spelled it wrong, ps), and it partially has to do with culture. scientists say that we can get our conscience from something called altruism, and also from what our parents have taught us - tradition.

if i were to make a counter attack, it would be that theism has done more bad than good.
theism brought the twin towers down.
theism kills tons of people in the middle east.
theism is responsible for the events in Northern Ireland.
theism is responsible for blocking the supply of condoms to AIDS ridden Africa.
theism separates children from the rest of society via faith schools.
theism contributes to sexism.
theism contributes to racism.
theism is responsible for hatred in Palestine and other parts of the world.
theism is responsible almost entirely for the discrimination of homosexuals.
theism contributes to child molestation.
and yet for some reason, theists get treated as if they are saints.

atheism, on the other hand is not responsible for any social disruptions or wrong-doings.

Originally Posted by Zorba

Hi Sister, As a committed conservative bible believing christian I think to make a sweeping generalization that ALL science is atheistic is unfair and inaccurate. By this I mean that most all legitimate science that investigates, defines and explains the natural world for us in understandable and workable ways never deals with or denies Gods existence in any way.

thats exactly it.

It is only the so called sciences like evolution and its offshoot sciences which attempt to explain our origins as a species apart from God which cross over into the philosophical as they attempt to mask their beliefs with pseudo science which are motivated by a preconceived and atheistic outcome that fit into your category of an atheist based science.

oh dear. nevermind.

This explanation confirms in very clear terms the incredible philosophical handicap the atheist/atheistic world view suffers from when one can state so firmly that there is no evidence of God.

When I look at the symbiotic chain of life, how one level of life serves the one above it and does it cooperatively as they coexist in perfect harmony until one consumes the other, all I can see is Gods hand in that symbiotic creation.

And then when I look at what His bible says about Mans place in creation, that Man has dominion over all life on earth, the modern atheist will first claim that the bible was written by stone age level men with no real understanding of the world around them, yet you will completely ignore the FACT that from then until now we human beings have dominated all life on earth just as the bible says it would be.

The biggest advantage the atheist has with their world view is that they are able to pick and choose which truths and realities they will decide to embrace. That many of these considerations conflict with each other and with reality means nothing at all to the deluded atheist.

the symbiotic chain of life that you describe with cooperation that exists in perfect harmony is what i mentioned earlier; altruism and nature has a way of harmonizing life, which is called natural selection.

i notice that people who do not understand biology usually have a great disrespect for organisms other than humans. ie it is an insult to be called an ape, as if apes are disgusting creatures that are less valuable than human life. as a zoology student, i find this really offensive. we do not have dominion over animals, although most people like to act as though we do. we do not dominate all life on earth, bacteria and other micro-organisms have survived billions of years, the majority of life on this planet is bacteria, and micro-organisms can be found in almost every square inch of the world. if anything, bacteria dominates all life on earth, so does that mean the bible is incorrect in this respect?

i am one of the atheists you say are deluded, and i choose my morals from what i think is acceptable in society and acceptable to the people i meet. i see nothing wrong with this, if i say something that is mean to someone, i will apologize and remember to consider other people's perspectives. this will almost always lead to me changing what i think is acceptable, but whats the problem with that? i can adapt my views to accomodate for other people's emotions in order to be kind to more people that i meet.

reality means nothing to me? no. reality means everything to me. to turn the tables, im not going to wait until i die to enjoy my life, im going to enjoy it now. i dont consider life on earth to be suffering, and it will all be much better after i die, my life - and all life - is great! to pray to a God and ask him to forgive my sins so i can one day be sent to heaven to continue my life in a much better fashion than the crapbox he put me on, is so distantly less satisfying than enjoying every aspect of the world around me every second, and even be a part of it! sadly, it will come to an end one day, ill accept that i will die and not have an afterlife, but im more curious above other things.

Originally Posted by Zorba

This explanation confirms in very clear terms the incredible philosophical handicap the atheist/atheistic world view suffers from when one can state so firmly that there is no evidence of God.

When I look at the symbiotic chain of life, how one level of life serves the one above it and does it cooperatively as they coexist in perfect harmony until one consumes the other, all I can see is Gods hand in that symbiotic creation.

And then when I look at what His bible says about Mans place in creation, that Man has dominion over all life on earth, the modern atheist will first claim that the bible was written by stone age level men with no real understanding of the world around them, yet you will completely ignore the FACT that from then until now we human beings have dominated all life on earth just as the bible says it would be.

The biggest advantage the atheist has with their world view is that they are able to pick and choose which truths and realities they will decide to embrace. That many of these considerations conflict with each other and with reality means nothing at all to the deluded atheist.

Also, just to give one more glaring and simple evidence of Gods existence from His bible I give you a single OT chapter, "Isaiah 53" which every religious and scriptural authority on Earth agrees was written between 700 and 750 years before Christ yet is an undeniable and accurate description of the Messiah who was to come in Christ Jesus our Lord.

lifeofchrist.com/life/prophecy/]Messianic Prophecies Concerning the Crucifixion - An examination of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

This is just one of many hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Old and New Testaments which atheists refuse to consider or study for confirmation to their own peril. Now is the time to seek the truth, to place your human understanding against our Creators is foolishness and proves how truly blind the atheist is where a lasting truth about life is concerned.

The real argument boils down to what you consider evidence as opposed to what science considers evidence. Your idea of evidence is what is written in a book, what is taught to you in your religion, and what you induce from your understanding of how reality is. In science, evidence is what is observed in reality; just the facts.

So how can God be observed? Well first, we'd need to define God, so that we could identify him or his effect if we happened to come across it. If you have a concise definition of God that would make him identifiable, then it would be great if you could share it, please. Once we have a definition, then identifying God, or the effect God has on reality, becomes possible.

In science, we can only study what can be observed and investigated. We can also come up with testable explanations of observable phenomenon. The reality is, science has yet to find a single phenomenon that can be attributed to God. Science doesn't exclude God or discriminates against God. There simply isn't any evidence.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

the symbiotic chain of life that you describe with cooperation that exists in perfect harmony is what i mentioned earlier; altruism and nature has a way of harmonizing life, which is called natural selection.

Actually, no, you are dead wrong in your claim that natural selection is a symbiotic process which leads all life to as you say, harmonize with all other life. The very definition of biological evolution is the principle that life strives to improve and survive at the expense of all other life around it.

If two organisms exist in the same place, the competition for one to out survive the other invariably exists from the outset. And the winner never worries about the loser. In the same way when two animals occupy the same ecosystem, according to your religion of natural selection one animal will evolve the needed changes to survive without ever worrying about or caring about the animal which shared its ecosystem but failed to evolve the needed traits to survive the environmental pressures they both faced.

There is nothing at all harmonious or symbiotic about what evolution describes as the process that occurs in reality in the animal kingdom. And neither does it realistically deal with the changes we do observe in the natural world. What I mean by that is this, just look at how many millions of years your bogus science says it takes for true and real changes to take place in species, yet look at how drastically the worlds weather and complete environment has changed over just the past 10,000 years.

When it suits your debate your side will refer to the Great Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago, but you never stop to consider the animals that never would have survived the onset of that Ice Age according to the incredibly slow process of natural selection under real world conditions.

i notice that people who do not understand biology usually have a great disrespect for organisms other than humans. ie it is an insult to be called an ape, as if apes are disgusting creatures that are less valuable than human life. as a zoology student, i find this really offensive. we do not have dominion over animals, although most people like to act as though we do. we do not dominate all life on earth, bacteria and other micro-organisms have survived billions of years, the majority of life on this planet is bacteria, and micro-organisms can be found in almost every square inch of the world. if anything, bacteria dominates all life on earth, so does that mean the bible is incorrect in this respect?

Based on what you have said so far, you are one of those people who don't understand biology. And you are typically arrogant to assume that just because one doesn't accept the philosophy of biological evolution that I don't understand it.

i am one of the atheists you say are deluded, and i choose my morals from what i think is acceptable in society and acceptable to the people i meet. i see nothing wrong with this, if i say something that is mean to someone, i will apologize and remember to consider other people's perspectives.

You have just shown that you have no absolute moral center at all and what's more, you are clueless as to the existence of absolute truth. You actually believe that you are qualified to be an honest and objective arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil in life. This is your first and most serious self delusion because it sets you up for a lifetime of thinking you are qualified to be your own god. That is not only delusional, it is blasphemous and puts you at odds with your Creator who made you in love for fellowship.

this will almost always lead to me changing what i think is acceptable, but whats the problem with that? i can adapt my views to accomodate for other people's emotions in order to be kind to more people that i meet.

Sure you adjust your thinking based on feelings and emotions and what feels right at the time. But you have no firm understanding of what is actually right and wrong according to a perfect and holy judge, in life.

reality means nothing to me? no. reality means everything to me. to turn the tables, im not going to wait until i die to enjoy my life, im going to enjoy it now. i dont consider life on earth to be suffering, and it will all be much better after i die, my life - and all life - is great!

Again with the arrogance as you attempt to define what my outlook on life is as a believer, and you insult me with your perspective no less. What makes you think believers don't enjoy our lives here and now? And why do you think I consider life here to be one of suffering? Is it beyond you to appreciate that we finally know who we are and why we exist? We fellowship with our Creator whom we now know created us specifically for fellowship. How you can see that knowledge in us as a scary thing or something that causes us not to enjoy and embrace our lives just reveals how ignorant you are of the spiritual realities we have been blessed enough to learn.

to pray to a God and ask him to forgive my sins so i can one day be sent to heaven to continue my life in a much better fashion than the crapbox he put me on, is so distantly less satisfying than enjoying every aspect of the world around me every second, and even be a part of it! sadly, it will come to an end one day, ill accept that i will die and not have an afterlife, but im more curious above other things.

This paragraph makes me so sad for you and it drives home the point that it is you who is living a miserable existence and a truly scary one also since you have absolutely no idea who you are and no idea what follows this life. My advice to you is to seek the absolute and eternal truth NOW while in this life. And place no limitations on where that journey takes you; just insist within yourself that you seek absolute love and truth according to the maker of all that is if He/She in fact exists at all.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

The real argument boils down to what you consider evidence as opposed to what science considers evidence. Your idea of evidence is what is written in a book, what is taught to you in your religion, and what you induce from your understanding of how reality is. In science, evidence is what is observed in reality; just the facts.

More uninformed arrogance from someone who makes huge assumptions based on only knowing I'm a conservative christian. So obviously you just assume I must be ignorant and brainwashed. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world." I agree with this definition.

The only difference between you and I is that I require these same standards from all branches of studies that dare to call themselves science where as you accept facts NOT in evidence from pseudo sciences like evolution which exist to prove a preconceived conclusion with imaginary outcomes.

So how can God be observed? Well first, we'd need to define God, so that we could identify him or his effect if we happened to come across it.

No, God defines Himself, how utterly arrogant for you to believe you are the least bit capable of defining Him. Define the expanse of the Alpha and the Omega if you can. Imagine the completeness of the God who told Moses to tell Pharaoh that "I AM" sent you. Imagine being able to define yourself simply as "I AM". Can you even conceive of the concept if you are being honest with yourself? I can't, so how do you how to define an eternal God with no beginning or no end?

If you have a concise definition of God that would make him identifiable, then it would be great if you could share it, please. Once we have a definition, then identifying God, or the effect God has on reality, becomes possible.

Your question is irrelevant and a red herring as it brings us no closer to actually knowing an undefinable God who encompasses all that is with His presence and character. Sadly you are so ignorant of who God is and your place in His eternity that you fail to appreciate that unless He breathed the breath of life into all creation it would cease to exist. His very energy is what sustains our complete and total existence.

All the evidence of Gods existence is obvious and directly observable in the world around you if you weren't brainwashed to accept and believe an atheistic man made fairy tale called evolution. It blows my mind that I deal with people who consider themselves intelligent yet they rely on the bones of long dead creatures that men with agendas tell them are our human ancestors.

In science, we can only study what can be observed and investigated. We can also come up with testable explanations of observable phenomenon. The reality is, science has yet to find a single phenomenon that can be attributed to God. Science doesn't exclude God or discriminates against God. There simply isn't any evidence.

By all means, show me the testable and repeatable experiments that prove that any of the fossils evolutionists claim are human ancestors, are actually human ancestors. Go ahead, produce actual testable evidence that biological evolution up to and including a change in alleles ever produced a new and better species from a preceding one ever occurred. And something above the organic level would be nice for once. Go on, impress me.

Originally Posted by Zorba

Actually, no, you are dead wrong in your claim that natural selection is a symbiotic process which leads all life to as you say, harmonize with all other life. The very definition of biological evolution is the principle that life strives to improve and survive at the expense of all other life around it.

If two organisms exist in the same place, the competition for one to out survive the other invariably exists from the outset. And the winner never worries about the loser. In the same way when two animals occupy the same ecosystem, according to your religion of natural selection one animal will evolve the needed changes to survive without ever worrying about or caring about the animal which shared its ecosystem but failed to evolve the needed traits to survive the environmental pressures they both faced.

There is nothing at all harmonious or symbiotic about what evolution describes as the process that occurs in reality in the animal kingdom. And neither does it realistically deal with the changes we do observe in the natural world. What I mean by that is this, just look at how many millions of years your bogus science says it takes for true and real changes to take place in species, yet look at how drastically the worlds weather and complete environment has changed over just the past 10,000 years.

When it suits your debate your side will refer to the Great Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago, but you never stop to consider the animals that never would have survived the onset of that Ice Age according to the incredibly slow process of natural selection under real world conditions.

Based on what you have said so far, you are one of those people who don't understand biology. And you are typically arrogant to assume that just because one doesn't accept the philosophy of biological evolution that I don't understand it.

You have just shown that you have no absolute moral center at all and what's more, you are clueless as to the existence of absolute truth. You actually believe that you are qualified to be an honest and objective arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil in life. This is your first and most serious self delusion because it sets you up for a lifetime of thinking you are qualified to be your own god. That is not only delusional, it is blasphemous and puts you at odds with your Creator who made you in love for fellowship.

Sure you adjust your thinking based on feelings and emotions and what feels right at the time. But you have no firm understanding of what is actually right and wrong according to a perfect and holy judge, in life.

Again with the arrogance as you attempt to define what my outlook on life is as a believer, and you insult me with your perspective no less. What makes you think believers don't enjoy our lives here and now? And why do you think I consider life here to be one of suffering? Is it beyond you to appreciate that we finally know who we are and why we exist? We fellowship with our Creator whom we now know created us specifically for fellowship. How you can see that knowledge in us as a scary thing or something that causes us not to enjoy and embrace our lives just reveals how ignorant you are of the spiritual realities we have been blessed enough to learn.

This paragraph makes me so sad for you and it drives home the point that it is you who is living a miserable existence and a truly scary one also since you have absolutely no idea who you are and no idea what follows this life. My advice to you is to seek the absolute and eternal truth NOW while in this life. And place no limitations on where that journey takes you; just insist within yourself that you seek absolute love and truth according to the maker of all that is if He/She in fact exists at all.

woah.......last time someone had personally attacked me that much was when i got beat up in primary school. welp, God bless you anyways i guess, if you believe in that sort of thing.

first of all, 'harmonize life' in saying that there is an equalization of species in a given region that takes place as an effect of natural selection, not necessarily personal relationships between one animal and another. theres a reason why there is a diversity in plants in a given area, and that reason is selection. and im sorry, but your definition of biological evolution is...wrong. i study evolution in university and what youve described is natural selection ('survival of the fittest') which is one process of selection that takes place in the process of evolution. take positive selection, where an organism will evolve a feature in order to avoid predators - no killing involved, in fact theres less killing involved. mutual relationships can encourage certain types of selection as well. i never said that natural selection is a symbiotic process, but it does play a part in evolution. i said natural selection is responsible for harmonizing life.

didnt someone in the bible say something along the lines of 'do not judge thy neighbor'? why would you respond in such a hostile manner to me when i was decently respectful and you dont even know me at all? isnt the christian dogma supposed to tell people to be more 'Christ-like'? then why be so aggressive?

if i dont understand biology and you apparently do, what kind of biological training do you have, if you dont mind me asking?

i said that you have a disrespect for organisms that are not humans because you mentioned that we have a dominion over all other life. that is showing a disrespect for other forms of life. i say again, is the bible wrong in saying that humans dominate all life on earth, based on the absolute truth that micro-organisms clearly are the dominant forms of life?

you think that i dont have a moral core? sorry, but i dont need a book to tell me whats right or wrong, its common sense, my parents taught me, i learned the hard way, also known as the proper way. i heard a radio interview with Alan Colmes i think it was, where a religious person called in and said 'if it werent for religion, i would kill my neighbor'. and his response was 'is religion really your only excuse for not doing these terrible things?' and the caller said 'yes.' so it makes you think, who has the stronger moral foundation? atheists or theists?

i never said that you dont enjoy your life, the point i was trying to make is that im not expecting more. i was trying to say that i am content with what ive got and im going to try and use every minute wisely, without hope for an afterlife. i never implied that YOU did or thought anything.

again, you label me as a person with a miserable existence which ive already explained that i am not. i also do know who i am, and i am not a PRODUCT of some creator. i aint no gucci handbag. you are right, however in saying that i have no idea what follows this life. no one does. to claim that you DO know what follows this life is a bit of a pompus thing to say. i will not seek religion to know 'absolute truth', again slightly pompus, i will seek science to discover what humanity acknowledges to be true.

modesty is a virtue, no?

Originally Posted by Zorba

More uninformed arrogance from someone who makes huge assumptions based on only knowing I'm a conservative christian. So obviously you just assume I must be ignorant and brainwashed. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world." I agree with this definition.

The only difference between you and I is that I require these same standards from all branches of studies that dare to call themselves science where as you accept facts NOT in evidence from pseudo sciences like evolution which exist to prove a preconceived conclusion with imaginary outcomes.

Its interesting that you call evolution a psuedo-science. Evolution itself is widely misunderstood and I'd have to find out what exactly you define evolution as before I even comment. Otherwise we could go around in circles misunderstnding each other.

No, God defines Himself, how utterly arrogant for you to believe you are the least bit capable of defining Him. Define the expanse of the Alpha and the Omega if you can. Imagine the completeness of the God who told Moses to tell Pharaoh that "I AM" sent you. Imagine being able to define yourself simply as "I AM". Can you even conceive of the concept if you are being honest with yourself? I can't, so how do you how to define an eternal God with no beginning or no end?

Your question is irrelevant and a red herring as it brings us no closer to actually knowing an undefinable God who encompasses all that is with His presence and character. Sadly you are so ignorant of who God is and your place in His eternity that you fail to appreciate that unless He breathed the breath of life into all creation it would cease to exist. His very energy is what sustains our complete and total existence.

You call me ignorant of who God is and yet when asked you cannot say in the least a single characteristic of God that would make him identifiable if he happened to show and present himself. Yet you, no doubt, would claim that you have a personal relationship with this God.

This is a typical response. I expected exactly that. A definition of God doesn't exist, or if it does I have yet to hear it. So how do you substantiate your belief in him? You don't, there's no need to. All you need is blind faith and unquestioning obedience. Your job is to not ask questions about God and to resign to the idea that God's ways are higher than ours and that mere humans cannot comprehend his nature. Whatever that means.

And with all of that you have the nerve to call people who rely on science for knowledge as ignorant.

All the evidence of Gods existence is obvious and directly observable in the world around you if you weren't brainwashed to accept and believe an atheistic man made fairy tale called evolution. It blows my mind that I deal with people who consider themselves intelligent yet they rely on the bones of long dead creatures that men with agendas tell them are our human ancestors.

By all means, show me the testable and repeatable experiments that prove that any of the fossils evolutionists claim are human ancestors, are actually human ancestors. Go ahead, produce actual testable evidence that biological evolution up to and including a change in alleles ever produced a new and better species from a preceding one ever occurred. And something above the organic level would be nice for once. Go on, impress me.

Before we go into a discussion on evolution, tell me what evolution means to you. How do you define it?

Originally Posted by Zorba

Hi Sister, As a committed conservative bible believing christian I think to make a sweeping generalization that ALL science is atheistic is unfair and inaccurate. By this I mean that most all legitimate science that investigates, defines and explains the natural world for us in understandable and workable ways never deals with or denies Gods existence in any way.

It is only the so called sciences like evolution and its offshoot sciences which attempt to explain our origins as a species apart from God which cross over into the philosophical as they attempt to mask their beliefs with pseudo science which are motivated by a preconceived and atheistic outcome that fit into your category of an atheist based science.

I did not say ALL science, but to a certain extent they All do resmeble charateristics of being atheistic. Now, the pseudo science really do seem atheistic 100 perecnt.

The thing that I disagree on with your debates, is that you like to hit people over the head with the bible, bringing it into a debate only to be attacked. I think that the bible is too good to be brought into a debate, and put into the spotlight to be attacked. expecially when you don't make much of a good argument. If you want to argue your standpoint, then it is best to argue with solid facts, from your standpoint, and not drag the bible into a debate to be picked apart. If you ask me that is gross disrespect.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

many scientists are atheistic, i know that most students in the science departments in universities (mine at least) are atheistic, but that doesnt mean that in itself science is atheistic. there are theistic scientists. is science an atheistic practice? possibly, considering the motives of scientists are not to turn to a deity at any problem that arises. but possibly not because scientists dont think of a deity, or lack thereof, at all in doing their work, so i think the question isnt really that relevant.

Science in itself can be an atheistic practice. Over the years, scientists have done their best to be little gods, by trying to clone, and make new speices of animals, as if they in themselves can create life.

Then there are those who refuse to believe that things are created, they just like to believe that things just happened to exsist, and have tried so many times to back the claim up. Failing horribly because all you have to do is look at the earth itself and see the intricate details of the atmosphere to see that it did not happen by chance.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you say that science has done more harm than good, yet you just mentioned medicine which is very obviously science in practice and has saved countless people's lives. take genetic engineering of plants for example. few people know that genetic engineering of plants has saved billions of people's lives; BILLIONS!! by making plants growable in places where they would usually not be able to survive.

The plants may have been a good outcome. But that has nothing to do with medicine. Yes medicine may have saved countless lives, but that is only one aspect of a much bigger picture. Countless people every year either die, or have long lasting disabilities due to the side effects of medicine. I have yet to see science eradicate the bad side effects that alot of medicines have on the people that take them.

Not to mention the many recalls that they have to do because of a miscalculation in the formula of a certain medicine, that caused people more harm then good. Medicine may be good for the short term, but then you find yourself having to deal with long term bad effects. The flu shot is a good example, people have found themselves getting sicker with the flu shot, as opposed to if they never took it. And the list just goes on and on.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you also cannot claim that you can get morals from the bible:
first of all, that is not the point of science at all,
and secondly, the bible is chalk full of contradictions like you will hear of someone preaching to abolish slavery and in another part, someone will promote slavery, so religious people pick and choose the good portions of the bible and call those 'morals' while ignoring the bits that no longer fit into the morals of our society that we already have, not as a result of religion. so society couldnt have gotten its morals from religion because as society became developed, religious people have simply cut out portions of the bible to make the bible fit with the morals that were in society to begin with. i think that our society got its morals from secular causes.

It may not be the point of science, but I have noticed that once people start to become more and more involved with science, their morals start to take a turn for the worse. In respects to the fact that they no longer think on moral terms, but instead start to believe in empty philosophies which for the most part have no basis in reality. Their own sense of what is moral becomes more and more obscured, and they seem to lose the very sense of their own morality.

By the way, I don't agree with those who pick and choose what they want from the bible to listen to either, but I refuse to debate religion so I won't be expounding on that comment.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

and science has a very good idea where we got our conscience from (you spelled it wrong, ps), and it partially has to do with culture. scientists say that we can get our conscience from something called altruism, and also from what our parents have taught us - tradition.

So I left out the "s" in conscience, big deal! Anyway your statement is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You said science had a good idea where we got our conscience?! So you not longer are thinking for yourself, but letting science do the work for you huh?! Take a look at the definition of Altruism below....


*Altruism (pronounced /ˈæltruːɪzəm/) is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others, even though the concept of 'others' towards whom concern should be directed can vary in different religions and does not necessarily mean 'everybody else'. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.*

This is more then being based in culture, but it is derived from religion. And is the basis of alot of religions. So while trying to point out that you don't get your conscience from religion, you leaned on that very thing when you point to Altruism. So it seems as if science and the people who choose to believe in it are contradicting themselves.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

if i were to make a counter attack, it would be that theism has done more bad than good.
theism brought the twin towers down.
theism kills tons of people in the middle east.
theism is responsible for the events in Northern Ireland.
theism is responsible for blocking the supply of condoms to AIDS ridden Africa.
theism separates children from the rest of society via faith schools.
theism contributes to sexism.
theism contributes to racism.
theism is responsible for hatred in Palestine and other parts of the world.
theism is responsible almost entirely for the discrimination of homosexuals.
theism contributes to child molestation.
and yet for some reason, theists get treated as if they are saints.

atheism, on the other hand is not responsible for any social disruptions or wrong-doings.

You are a very confused person. You make these statements, but then point to Altruism. Ha!

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i notice that people who do not understand biology usually have a great disrespect for organisms other than humans. ie it is an insult to be called an ape, as if apes are disgusting creatures that are less valuable than human life. as a zoology student, i find this really offensive. we do not have dominion over animals, although most people like to act as though we do. we do not dominate all life on earth, bacteria and other micro-organisms have survived billions of years, the majority of life on this planet is bacteria, and micro-organisms can be found in almost every square inch of the world. if anything, bacteria dominates all life on earth, so does that mean the bible is incorrect in this respect?

Now this is just crazy!! So you mean to tell me that an organism that cannot think, and cannot reason, and has no sense of knowledge is more surperior then you?! So I guess, the Ecoli bacteria is better then you because it was around longer?! I find your reasoning to be very twisted, unstable, and very obscured.

Originally Posted by SeriousSister08

Science in itself can be an atheistic practice. Over the years, scientists have done their best to be little gods, by trying to clone, and make new speices of animals, as if they in themselves can create life.

Then there are those who refuse to believe that things are created, they just like to believe that things just happened to exsist, and have tried so many times to back the claim up. Failing horribly because all you have to do is look at the earth itself and see the intricate details of the atmosphere to see that it did not happen by chance.

The plants may have been a good outcome. But that has nothing to do with medicine. Yes medicine may have saved countless lives, but that is only one aspect of a much bigger picture. Countless people every year either die, or have long lasting disabilities due to the side effects of medicine. I have yet to see science eradicate the bad side effects that alot of medicines have on the people that take them.

Not to mention the many recalls that they have to do because of a miscalculation in the formula of a certain medicine, that caused people more harm then good. Medicine may be good for the short term, but then you find yourself having to deal with long term bad effects. The flu shot is a good example, people have found themselves getting sicker with the flu shot, as opposed to if they never took it. And the list just goes on and on.

It may not be the point of science, but I have noticed that once people start to become more and more involved with science, their morals start to take a turn for the worse. In respects to the fact that they no longer think on moral terms, but instead start to believe in empty philosophies which for the most part have no basis in reality. Their own sense of what is moral becomes more and more obscured, and they seem to lose the very sense of their own morality.

By the way, I don't agree with those who pick and choose what they want from the bible to listen to either, but I refuse to debate religion so I won't be expounding on that comment.

So I left out the "s" in conscience, big deal! Anyway your statement is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You said science had a good idea where we got our conscience?! So you not longer are thinking for yourself, but letting science do the work for you huh?! Take a look at the definition of Altruism below....

*Altruism (pronounced /ˈæltruːɪzəm/) is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others, even though the concept of 'others' towards whom concern should be directed can vary in different religions and does not necessarily mean 'everybody else'. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.*

This is more then being based in culture, but it is derived from religion. And is the basis of alot of religions. So while trying to point out that you don't get your conscience from religion, you leaned on that very thing when you point to Altruism. So it seems as if science and the people who choose to believe in it are contradicting themselves.

You are a very confused person. You make these statements, but then point to Altruism. Ha!

Now this is just crazy!! So you mean to tell me that an organism that cannot think, and cannot reason, and has no sense of knowledge is more surperior then you?! So I guess, the Ecoli bacteria is better then you because it was around longer?! I find your reasoning to be very twisted, unstable, and very obscured.

fair enough, scientists 'play god' in a way by creating the first spark of life (just recently actually), but this is very unintentional. this is also assuming there is a God, which is something that is not out of the question for scientists. scientists are just curious as to how life could have started in the first place, and they came up with the possibility of abiogenesis. its been proven to be possible and you would be ignoring this new found fact if you did not agree.

'chance' in the development of our world is negligible. a slight change in the chemical makeup of our atmosphere and the sky could be purple or red or orange. again, scientists were curious as to why the sky was blue, so they looked into it and discovered the cause. if you look at the theories and explanations for certain phenomenon, scientists have very rational explanations for things and it would be silly to count them as impossibilities. yes, its a crazy circumstance that things worked out, but you have to remember that it is possible. and to my mind, its more possible than a God making all of it.

side effects of medicine are few and far between. that cheerleader girl who got the swine flu shot and had some serious disabilities as a side effect is a very rare case, and not to be blamed on scientists. the formula worked, but its unreasonable to tailor make everybody a formula. i heard one video blogging guy say that there is a side effect of NOT getting the swine flu shot...getting swine flu! and he is so right. youre picking out the small handful of people who got side effects and ignoring the...probably millions of people the swine flu shot saved. science is responsible for the extinction of small pox - and who knows how many other deadly diseases. if it werent for medical science, you or i might not be here. maybe nobody would be here. if anything, medical scientists are to be thanked a thousand times by all of us.

in about grade 7 i stopped getting the flu shot and did so until about grade 11. i later looked at my report cards for absenses and the results were very surprising. for the years i got the flu shot, i missed maybe one, two, sometimes zero days of school, while when i did not get the flu shot, i was missing school in double digits. again, some people dont react well, but on the whole almost everyone benefits from the shot.

genetic engineering of plants is another example of how scientists are saving a huge portion of people's lives. they should be endlessly thanked instead of blamed for the odd mishap.

people who value science still do think on moral terms. just because they are interested in something that is not based on morals does not mean they drop what theyve learned their whole lives. when was the last time you heard a scientist flying planes into a building? or strapping bombs to children and sending them out to a busy public area?

altruism is a word that has a double meaning. humans have applied altruism to religion, but it was in nature long before. its an ethological term that means certain animals will act cooperatively and sometimes risk their own lives for other members of their species. this seems to go against Darwinian principles, but its for the benefit of the species as a whole.

we can relate this to our conscience because it explains why we do good things for people of our species that we have never even met. they may not even be in danger, and our species may not be threatened but we do it anyways because its in our genes. thats not as romantic as the religious explanation, but it makes perfectly logical sense.

i know you dont want to discuss religion, and i respect that but it is hard when you made earlier attacks on atheism. i made those claims about religion because they are all true - and more. theism can result in really horrible things whereas atheism cannot. the people who do some of the really bad immoral things can be motivated by religion, but no one has ever been motivated to do bad things in the name of atheism. if anything, people have been motivated to do good things in the name of atheism, because of their moral foundation. i dont need to be told what is right or wrong and to follow those rules for the reason of 'well, just because' or 'God will forgive your sins', i learned right and wrong on my own and thus, i think ive learned them really well. i treat all people with dignity for reasons i have learned.

i never said to treat a bacteria as if it were superior to humans, i said to respect other forms of life. i gave the example of being insulted at being called an ape. im not saying apes are better than us, just have respect for other organisms like a chimpanzee. an Ecoli virus is dangerous, so it could be argued that we treat them the same way they treat us, with hostility. but to say we have dominion over ecoli, worms, chickens, chimps and every other form of life on this planet is insulting to me. respect is a huge issue that people face when looking at the plant and animal kingdoms. bacteria dominates all life on earth because (and ive explained this already) they have survived far longer than any other form of life, they occupy nearly everywhere on this earth, and as a ratio between other animals, bacteria outweighs any other organism by a long shot. so bacteria do dominate this planet. they arent better than us, im just stating the facts.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

fair enough, scientists 'play god' in a way by creating the first spark of life (just recently actually), but this is very unintentional. this is also assuming there is a God, which is something that is not out of the question for scientists. scientists are just curious as to how life could have started in the first place, and they came up with the possibility of abiogenesis. its been proven to be possible and you would be ignoring this new found fact if you did not agree.

Then I guess I'm irgnoring the new found fact. And here is why. Abiogenesis was already disproven. Take a look at these links.

The first one that disproved Abiogenesis was Redi.Take a look...Francesco Redi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now lets check out the other person whose studies have disporved Abiogenesis...Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia now there is one thing that I don't agree with in his studies is how he leans towards biogenesis. Which in my eyes can be disproven many times over. But his studies do disprove abiogenesis.

Why don't you try and do your own experiment at home and see if an inanimate object can produce a living object. I doubt it horribly.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

'chance' in the development of our world is negligible. a slight change in the chemical makeup of our atmosphere and the sky could be purple or red or orange. again, scientists were curious as to why the sky was blue, so they looked into it and discovered the cause. if you look at the theories and explanations for certain phenomenon, scientists have very rational explanations for things and it would be silly to count them as impossibilities. yes, its a crazy circumstance that things worked out, but you have to remember that it is possible. and to my mind, its more possible than a God making all of it.

I would like to see the threories and explanantions that you are reffering to. If you are willing to quote them, then you should be willing to expound on them and list them. Although changes in the chemical make-up of our atmosphere gives no indication of abiogenesis, nor does it prove that the atmosphere was not created. Chemicals, are just chemicals unless someone portions them out the right way, to produce the right effect. To believe that it just happened on it's own is more impossible.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

side effects of medicine are few and far between. that cheerleader girl who got the swine flu shot and had some serious disabilities as a side effect is a very rare case, and not to be blamed on scientists. the formula worked, but its unreasonable to tailor make everybody a formula. i heard one video blogging guy say that there is a side effect of NOT getting the swine flu shot...getting swine flu! and he is so right. youre picking out the small handful of people who got side effects and ignoring the...probably millions of people the swine flu shot saved. science is responsible for the extinction of small pox - and who knows how many other deadly diseases. if it werent for medical science, you or i might not be here. maybe nobody would be here. if anything, medical scientists are to be thanked a thousand times by all of us.

in about grade 7 i stopped getting the flu shot and did so until about grade 11. i later looked at my report cards for absenses and the results were very surprising. for the years i got the flu shot, i missed maybe one, two, sometimes zero days of school, while when i did not get the flu shot, i was missing school in double digits. again, some people dont react well, but on the whole almost everyone benefits from the shot.

Who told you they are far and few between? It is funny how you overlooked the fact that I stated that the recalls of medicine are daily. Side effects are often, even if it is a small percentage as opposed to the many that are not affected, it is still too many. For example; let's say that 2%-5% out of the billions of people on the earth get sick because of side effects, how many people is that?! Thousands. Which is entirely too many!! Which even though they are a small number percentage wise, they are still too many when you think in terms of just numbers.

And your experience with the flu shot is small compared to the ones that don't have as good an experience with it as you had. I know alot of people that don't take them because of the decline in their health when they do.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

people who value science still do think on moral terms. just because they are interested in something that is not based on morals does not mean they drop what theyve learned their whole lives. when was the last time you heard a scientist flying planes into a building? or strapping bombs to children and sending them out to a busy public area?

Does this sound familar to you?!

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i am one of the atheists you say are deluded, and i choose my morals from what i think is acceptable in society and acceptable to the people i meet. i see nothing wrong with this, if i say something that is mean to someone, i will apologize and remember to consider other people's perspectives. this will almost always lead to me changing what i think is acceptable, but whats the problem with that? i can adapt my views to accomodate for other people's emotions in order to be kind to more people that i meet.

Now it seems to me that you really don't know where your morals lay. You base them on what you think is acceptable, rather then what you know to be acceptable, and then they constantly change. Now that seems like a person that is confused as to their own morality. A moral code is never changing, it is a set of moral laws that constantly stay the same. It does not need to change because the morals are upright and just, why change them on a whim?! To constantly change what you think is accpetable, means to be a person who allows circumstance to govern the way you think and how you react to certain things. Meaning that you are not your own person. Scientists have this same problem by the way. They make their own moral code and continue to stay confused as to their own morality.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

altruism is a word that has a double meaning. humans have applied altruism to religion, but it was in nature long before. its an ethological term that means certain animals will act cooperatively and sometimes risk their own lives for other members of their species. this seems to go against Darwinian principles, but its for the benefit of the species as a whole.

we can relate this to our conscience because it explains why we do good things for people of our species that we have never even met. they may not even be in danger, and our species may not be threatened but we do it anyways because its in our genes. thats not as romantic as the religious explanation, but it makes perfectly logical sense.

Sorry hun, but you're wrong. Altruism, is rooted in religion, not applied to. It's root meaning comes from religion. What you are talking about when you reffer to the different species of animals is instinct. They have an instinct to protect what is their own. Not because they can reason, but because that is how they were made. Animals do not know why they are acting a certain way, but they do have the impulse needed to survive. And in case you are still unsure as to instincts, I have taken the time to give you a link to that effect.Instinct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now when you are talking about humans, they can think and reason, and adapt the way in which they want to act. Altruism has been adapted by people to form a moral code of conduct. Which has to do with thinking, and reasoning, and choosing to act that way. That has nothing to do with animals, and their instincts.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i know you dont want to discuss religion, and i respect that but it is hard when you made earlier attacks on atheism. i made those claims about religion because they are all true - and more. theism can result in really horrible things whereas atheism cannot. the people who do some of the really bad immoral things can be motivated by religion, but no one has ever been motivated to do bad things in the name of atheism. if anything, people have been motivated to do good things in the name of atheism, because of their moral foundation. i dont need to be told what is right or wrong and to follow those rules for the reason of 'well, just because' or 'God will forgive your sins', i learned right and wrong on my own and thus, i think ive learned them really well. i treat all people with dignity for reasons i have learned.

That's right, I don't want to deate religion so I'll leave this comment alone.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i never said to treat a bacteria as if it were superior to humans, i said to respect other forms of life. i gave the example of being insulted at being called an ape. im not saying apes are better than us, just have respect for other organisms like a chimpanzee. an Ecoli virus is dangerous, so it could be argued that we treat them the same way they treat us, with hostility. but to say we have dominion over ecoli, worms, chickens, chimps and every other form of life on this planet is insulting to me. respect is a huge issue that people face when looking at the plant and animal kingdoms. bacteria dominates all life on earth because (and ive explained this already) they have survived far longer than any other form of life, they occupy nearly everywhere on this earth, and as a ratio between other animals, bacteria outweighs any other organism by a long shot. so bacteria do dominate this planet. they arent better than us, im just stating the facts.

I understand treating animals with respect, because I'm an animal lover myself. But let's set the bar a little higher here buddy. Animals are inferior to humans because they go on instincts, and they cannot reason, nor can they choose what is best for themselves. Humans can, which makes us of higher intelligence to them. Period. And even though bacteria do outnumber humans, that does not mean that we walk around tipping out hats to microscopic organisms. There should be a limit to what we as smart humans should be asked to do. Plus, I do not believe that we came from apes.

Originally Posted by SeriousSister08

Then I guess I'm irgnoring the new found fact. And here is why. Abiogenesis was already disproven. Take a look at these links.

The first one that disproved Abiogenesis was Redi.Take a look...Francesco Redi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now lets check out the other person whose studies have disporved Abiogenesis...Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia now there is one thing that I don't agree with in his studies is how he leans towards biogenesis. Which in my eyes can be disproven many times over. But his studies do disprove abiogenesis.

Why don't you try and do your own experiment at home and see if an inanimate object can produce a living object. I doubt it horribly.



I would like to see the threories and explanantions that you are reffering to. If you are willing to quote them, then you should be willing to expound on them and list them. Although changes in the chemical make-up of our atmosphere gives no indication of abiogenesis, nor does it prove that the atmosphere was not created. Chemicals, are just chemicals unless someone portions them out the right way, to produce the right effect. To believe that it just happened on it's own is more impossible.



Who told you they are far and few between? It is funny how you overlooked the fact that I stated that the recalls of medicine are daily. Side effects are often, even if it is a small percentage as opposed to the many that are not affected, it is still too many. For example; let's say that 2%-5% out of the billions of people on the earth get sick because of side effects, how many people is that?! Thousands. Which is entirely too many!! Which even though they are a small number percentage wise, they are still too many when you think in terms of just numbers.

And your experience with the flu shot is small compared to the ones that don't have as good an experience with it as you had. I know alot of people that don't take them because of the decline in their health when they do.



Does this sound familar to you?!



Now it seems to me that you really don't know where your morals lay. You base them on what you think is acceptable, rather then what you know to be acceptable, and then they constantly change. Now that seems like a person that is confused as to their own morality. A moral code is never changing, it is a set of moral laws that constantly stay the same. It does not need to change because the morals are upright and just, why change them on a whim?! To constantly change what you think is accpetable, means to be a person who allows circumstance to govern the way you think and how you react to certain things. Meaning that you are not your own person. Scientists have this same problem by the way. They make their own moral code and continue to stay confused as to their own morality.



Sorry hun, but you're wrong. Altruism, is rooted in religion, not applied to. It's root meaning comes from religion. What you are talking about when you reffer to the different species of animals is instinct. They have an instinct to protect what is their own. Not because they can reason, but because that is how they were made. Animals do not know why they are acting a certain way, but they do have the impulse needed to survive. And in case you are still unsure as to instincts, I have taken the time to give you a link to that effect.Instinct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now when you are talking about humans, they can think and reason, and adapt the way in which they want to act. Altruism has been adapted by people to form a moral code of conduct. Which has to do with thinking, and reasoning, and choosing to act that way. That has nothing to do with animals, and their instincts.





That's right, I don't want to deate religion so I'll leave this comment alone.



I understand treating animals with respect, because I'm an animal lover myself. But let's set the bar a little higher here buddy. Animals are inferior to humans because they go on instincts, and they cannot reason, nor can they choose what is best for themselves. Humans can, which makes us of higher intelligence to them. Period. And even though bacteria do outnumber humans, that does not mean that we walk around tipping out hats to microscopic organisms. There should be a limit to what we as smart humans should be asked to do. Plus, I do not believe that we came from apes.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Redi and Pasteur's experiments were of spontanious generation, which they did disprove. im not arguing spontanious generation, im arguing abiogenesis - the ability for life to generate from non-living matter under the right circumstances. the circumstances are right in certain parts of the world and this is possibly how life started. it isnt an inanimate object transforming into an animate object, please dont be ridiculous. a bit of simple research on the subject would prove helpful.

to rule out the possibility of chance would be a very unscientific thing to do. i was just stating that the sky being blue is a good example of how chance could have produced such a colour. if the chemical makeup of the atmosphere were slightly different, it may be a different colour and you would claim THAT was a miracle created by God.

like i said before, why should scientists be blamed for certain side effects? would you expect medical scientists to custom make a formula for everyone getting an injection? and also, why would you blame medical scientists for probably saving your life? if it werent for them your great great grandparents would have small pox and you would never have been born and its plausible that the human race would have succumb to a number of diseases if it werent for them. you might as well blame Henry Ford for the pollution crisis.

'confused as to their own morality.' that doesnt make any sense at all. my morality is my own so how could i be confused about something i formulated? i have developed my own morality and whats the problem with that? if your moral code is set in stone and it suddenly occurred to you that you were being unintentionally rude to a large majority of people, would you just shrug it off or would you change your habits?

on altruism: Richard Dawkins' first two books were on the subject of altruism in nature. by Darwinian principles, animals should not be nice to each other because natural selection is a brutal fight for survival, but as Dawkins theorized, animals used a sort of naturalistic altruism to explain how animals were nice to other animals. what you misunderstood was that i was saying animals were using altruism long before it was ever applied as a moral rule in religion.

Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pity can be associated with animalistic altruism. if i give money to a homeless person, its not because i was told to because of religious reasons, its because its in my genetics to feel sorry for these people.

again, please dont be ridiculous. very simple respect for animals is the only thing i said. i never said to tiptoe around micro-organisms. read very carefully: as Zorba put it, we have a dominion over everything else that is alive, and humans dominate the world. in fact we do not have a dominion over other animals, animals are not here for us to use and abuse. under those pretenses, if an animal or plant is not usable to us, it may as well be despensable. and of course, if any one of these 'useless' organisms were cut out of the bio-diversity circle, the effects would be devastating. thus, plants and animals are NOT on this earth for us to take advantage of, they serve a different fundamental purpose. the second point that Zorba made was that we dominate the earth, which in fact we do not. if any organism were to dominate the earth, it would be bacteria and other micro-organisms which make up the vast majority of life on this planet.

believe it or not, its true, its been proven and confirmed time and time again, there is a gargantuan pile of evidence to support that we not only came from apes, we are apes. and thats exactly the point i was trying to make. if you truly are an animal lover as you say, you must not take offense to me calling you an ape.