Tchan909 said:

You've provided arguments against the belief in a "no-God universe." However, you have provided no tenable arguments in favor of a "God universe." You have only provided the assumption that awareness is universal and all-powerful.

---

Disco Cat said:

Being specific in explaining, and detailed understanding, should dispel semantics. If I can't avoid them then I've tried to dispel them through explaining.

---

The Dictionary said:

Semantics n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

  1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
  2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
  3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

---

DieCommie said:

Then where did all the dinosaurs live?

---

Quote:

Note that when referring to evolution, it starts with the Big Bang Theory and the idea that something came from nothing, and progresses to the theory of life forming on earth through billions of years.

---

Quote:

On August 1, 2000, voters in Kansas had their first chance to show support for or opposition to the decision last year by the state school board to eliminate evolution as a necessary part of science curricula.
Citizens of Kansas rejected in the primary elections three of the four school board candidates who had previously been pivotal in the decision that provoked concern from the scientific community coast to coast.

We applaud the good citizens of Kansas, and offer this bit of satire in honor of what might have been...

DRY HUMOR

The Kansas Board of Education voted today to eliminate mandatory teaching of the theory of evaporation from schools across the state. Most scientists believe that water and other liquids are spontaneously converted by so-called evaporation into the form of a gas, and carried off into the atmosphere. This, they say, is the explanation behind sudden disappearances of water all across the state.

Many non-scientists, however, stand by the widely accepted theory that a lovable invisible two-headed thirsty blue giraffe named Clarence is responsible for the disappearances. The two theories, evaporation and Giraffism, will now be taught on a more equal footing to school-children across Kansas. Parents are pleased, saying that Giraffism is easier to understand and far more comforting to small children. "There's nothing happy about evaporation," says Frank Nubbins, father of Jason, 6, and Sue Ellen, 4. "Clarence the giraffe is blue, and he's lovable. You can't say that about evaporation, that's for sure. I love my children."

"Nobody has ever adequately explained evaporation," says Dr. Harold Thumper, of the Kansas Board of Education. "With evaporation, we're expected to imagine that water just disappears, all by itself, with no rhyme or reason. That's ridiculous."

Clarence the lovable invisible two-headed blue giraffe, on the other hand, is always thirsty, an explanation which is simple and obvious. He has a well-established presence in children's literature. "Every culture on the planet," says Dr. Thumper "has a story about giraffes, or thirstiness, or lovable blue things. Most of these have happy, happy endings. My children just love these stories. But I challenge you to find a single good story about evaporation."

The theory of evaporation is getting a dry reception in academia these days. At leading universities including Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, it's impossible to find a single professor of Evaporation on the faculty. "What's the point?" says Gwen O'Malley, dean of the Harvard Medical School. "It's not exactly a good career move to spend your life trying to explain evaporation to people."

---

I like how the SAT scores at 49th in the Nation..

And they also mention how science revises itself, using this to signify these scientists are wrong.  I mean, I don't have to explain this...  but a lil story... Before the human genome project, we thought there was ~140,000 genes for humans. After, then they claimed ~40,000.  And now, they say ~25,000 genes, which isn't too far off from the simple roundworm with ~20,000 genes.  If everything in science were static then what good would it be?  New instruments and methods for research are developed that give another angle to a new or pre-existing question. 

What about the old and new testament?  Did God make a mistake and need to revise his thoughts into the "New Testament"?  Hey, maybe god is using the scientific method to formulate a better or more modern type of population control?! 

I don't totally dislike the bible... Though, from the religious zealots, it's a piece of garbage.

Quote:

Don't post if you're not going to provide anything thats even close to intelligent.

---

Quote:

I grew up in cobb county

---

Quote:

If you think a post breaks a rule, feel free to hit the "Notify Moderator" button.

---