God vs. Science

[ThaABomb]

Let me start by saying that I am an engineering student who went to an episcopalian elementary and middle school, so I am intimately familiar with both science and religion. I do "practice" science more than I do religion nowadays, so I may be slightly biased. That being said, here we go:

First of all, the whole idea behind "faith" is that someone belives in something, not because there is evidence to support it, but because that is what they fundamentally believe from the depths of their soul. True faith cannot be shaken by a lack of evidence or even by evidence that would disporve the beliefs in question.

Second of all, and more importantly, does it matter if god exists or not? See, I think that peoples' belief in god is more important than the existence of god. Belief in god is a very powerful force. The belief in god causes people to determine the set of ethical values by which they live their lives. The belief in god causes people to go war and kill other people. If even the BELIEF in god is powerful enough to cause all that, does it really matter whether god exists or not?

[Maniac1]

Second of all, and more importantly, does it matter if god exists or not? See, I think that peoples' belief in god is more important than the existence of god. Belief in god is a very powerful force. The belief in god causes people to determine the set of ethical values by which they live their lives. The belief in god causes people to go war and kill other people. If even the BELIEF in god is powerful enough to cause all that, does it really matter whether god exists or not?

It's important to a certain extent. For those that believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proven to exist or to have ever existed, must been shown their waste of time trying to achieve something that will not be awarded at the end. Some may believe they will, others like myself don't. I believe that as long as you don't live a life of doing mean and harmful things there is no reason you can be considered evil. Although I haven't killed anyone, im sure some activity's I've done would put me in a category that most christians, catholics or whatever would dislike.

[bu villain]

I think its funny when Christians quote the bible and think it means something to someone who is not Christian. I have searched for a logical reason that leads me to believe in God but I have yet to find one.

Whats the meaning of life?
How did we get here?
etc.

To me the answer is "I don't know" not "it was God". Does anyone actually have a logical path that leads to God?

[ahabion]

I think its funny when Christians quote the bible and think it means something to someone who is not Christian. I have searched for a logical reason that leads me to believe in God but I have yet to find one.

Whats the meaning of life?
How did we get here?
etc.

To me the answer is "I don't know" not "it was God". Does anyone actually have a logical path that leads to God?

Logically, we can accept that most things in the world happen naturally or meaning that it is of nature. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation, [such as God.] That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
-Francis Collins- a geneticist, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint

[ahabion]

It's important to a certain extent. For those that believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proven to exist or to have ever existed, must been shown their waste of time trying to achieve something that will not be awarded at the end.

In all reality, the beginning of life has yet to be scientifically proven. Even based on the Big Bang theory and evolution itself has yet to still be scientifically proven, because for scientist and others alike, there has to be definitive proof of what can be seen and witnessed. No one was there to witness the first enzymes that collected in the pool of slime/mud/whever you wanna call it, and no on was there to examine and witness the evolutionary process of (i dare say) ANY living animal or creature over the expanse of a few millenia. If we came from apes or cows from some type of dinosaur, or anything else, why are we carbon dating fossils of dinosaurs (that existed 65 billion years ago) and yet can not find the evolutionary skeletal remains of everything else inbetween (the evolutionary changes from for example: dino to cow?)

Some may believe they will, others like myself don't. I believe that as long as you don't live a life of doing mean and harmful things there is no reason you can be considered evil. Although I haven't killed anyone, im sure some activity's I've done would put me in a category that most christians, catholics or whatever would dislike.

if they judge you, thats on their own conciousness and you shouldn't worry about it. Pre-martial sex, sure who hasn't, stealing... plenty of times, cursing and swearing... still do from time to time... no one is perfect... but I think what you are talking about is simply, Morality. Has science proven that?

[Maniac1]

I'll reply to post's number 188 and 189, tomorrow. Kinda tired, and this will proabably be along one...

[Clegger]

ALL HAIL THE GREEK GODS OF ICE PENIS AND BIG BLACK TITS

[BuBBa DRiFT]

my theory is your sister is much smarter than you and your counter manipulation of your own opinion shows you know nothing about the topic to even be on the same tier to argue about it in the first place.

i mean that in the best possible way of course.

[Maniac1]

my theory is your sister is much smarter than you and your counter manipulation of your own opinion shows you know nothing about the topic to even be on the same tier to argue about it in the first place.

i mean that in the best possible way of course.

I won't argue the fact that my little sister is smarter than I am. Cause I know it, she hasn't made any stupid decisions as I did growing up. She is on her way to collage, something I never even thought about. She didn't make the blog, she found it and copied and pasted it. I thought it was col, so I thought I'd share.

If you're not going to add your thoughts or opinions on this matter, just leave.

[BuBBa DRiFT]

well, heres my opinion, you cant disprove god, and you cant disprove science, so believe in what you want, and stop trying to put other people down for being in the same boat you are. we all may think we know the true answer, but in all reality, your theory is as good as mine, regardless of how far fetched it is.


not directed towards anyone in particular.

[_Christian_]

well, heres my opinion, you cant disprove god, and you cant disprove science, so believe in what you want, and stop trying to put other people down for being in the same boat you are. we all may think we know the true answer, but in all reality, your theory is as good as mine, regardless of how far fetched it is.


not directed towards anyone in particular.

true, you can disprove neither, but science provides solid evidence whereas faith does not. as for theory...religion has no theories, only beliefs. some people dont realize where christian beliefs originated or the inconsistencies and utter stupidity of certain aspects of the christian faith. very few people tend to question religion since they've been brainwashed since inception and will continue to brainwash their offspring. i used to be brainwashed. hell, i went to a private catholic school for 9 years. a school where the theory of evolution did not even exist. most people are so closed minded that they cant rationalize the facts because their mind rejects theories that conflict with their beliefs. i am neither trying to debate nor persuade anyone. i am just stating my standpoint...the logical one!

p.s. You are all sheep and establishment is your shepherd.

[ahabion]

[QUOTE=MKIV VR6]true, you can disprove neither, but science provides solid evidence whereas faith does not. QUOTE]

Yes and no... yes science is real based on what we as humans understand it... but I wouldn't go as far to say that there is no God BECAUSE there is science.

Not to say thats what you were saying, but again, it stems back to creation vs evolution. The possibilities are probably endless... <=== (another thought, just because possibilities are endless, does that really mean they don't exist?)

[_Christian_]

p.p.s. lol

[StupidBikerBoy]

Blogs like this are always funny to me. Another attempt to bash science with ignorance in an attempt to "discredit" it. I believe in God, but the people that write these things are idiots.

And the so called science professor in the blog has to be the biggest idiot of all


Edit: And the whole "you can't disprove it" arguement has to be the weakest of all. You might as well give up when thats the best arguement you can come up with. Disproving ANYTHING is much harder than finding supporting evidence.

Example: Did Bill Clinton sleep with that ho?

Supporting evidence: jizz on her dress

Disproof: Umm........because he said he didnt?

[man]

"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."

— Albert Einstein

Anyone who can say they are 100% sure either way lacks true intelligence and the ability to think for themselves.

[BABY J]

In refute to the claims of eyewitness accounts of Jesus - There are no first-person, contemprary, eye witness accounts of anything Jesus did. The gospels were all written in third person 30-40 years after the end of Jesus' ministry. We don't know who the authors really were. We've made educated assumptions in regards to their authorship. Given that none of the texts we have are in the author's hand, nor written in the first person, we have no real way of knowing anything about their authorship. None of them would be admissable as evidence of anything in any courtroom in the United States. Our flawed legal system has higher standards for credibility than Christianity does.

Most of the New Testament theology and doctrine comes from an egotistical man who claims to have had a miraculous conversion experience with no corroboration other than his own claims. Today we'd call that person a "nut case."

I think it's absolutely mind boggling that anyone would give credence to the mystical, superstitious, inconsistent, ignorant, thousands of years old writings of multiple authors over the peer reviewed, acredited, reality-based science of today. Makes no sense to me at all. And the only proof you have of your contrarian viewpoint is to say, 'I believe it.' Well, welcome to Heaven's Gate, or the People's Temple, or the Manson Family.

The Earth is not flat. It is not the center of the Universe. The stars and planets do not revolve around it. It is not carried on the back of a turtle, Atlas doesn't carry it on his shoulders, etc etc etc.

When I was churched, I always made a similar argument about Judas Iscariot. He's vilified by church tradition for betraying Jesus, but that makes absolutely no sense. He should be treated as a hero since he set about the chain of events leading to the crucifixion and eventually the resurrection. (if u belive the BS - lol). Seems he was the only one of the cowards that followed Jesus with enough spine to do what was necessary and to put his beliefs in action. Maybe the only one who didn't think he needed to stay on the gravy wagon and could see a bigger picture?

[Maniac1]

The Earth is not flat. It is not the center of the Universe. The stars and planets do not revolve around it. It is not carried on the back of a turtle, Atlas doesn't carry it on his shoulders, etc etc etc.

Astrology isn't something many religion supporters like to talk about when brought into a discussion about the worlds origin. I find it hilarious when people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days even though they went to school and had plenty of science classes that disproved that ludicrous idea.

[YoTa_BoX]

Astrology isn't something many religion supporters like to talk about when brought into a discussion about the worlds origin. I find it hilarious when people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days even though they went to school and had plenty of science classes that disproved that ludicrous idea.

if you would do some research Before posting comments then you would know that in the Bible it is said that 1 day for god is 1000 years here on earth. He made the earth in 7 days his time not ours.

[Maniac1]

if you would do some research Before posting comments then you would know that in the Bible it is said that 1 day for god is 1000 years here on earth. He made the earth in 7 days his time not ours.

7,000 years... That still doesn't come close to the actual age of the earth. LOL!

[man]

Astrology isn't something many religion supporters like to talk about when brought into a discussion about the worlds origin. I find it hilarious when people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days even though they went to school and had plenty of science classes that disproved that ludicrous idea.

Can you post said proof. Pretty sure everything out there is still a theory. There is no proof to support either side, so once again I'll post this:

"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." -Albert Einstein

[Maniac1]

Can you post said proof. Pretty sure everything out there is still a theory. There is no proof to support either side, so once again I'll post this:

You should know that there is proof, of the earth being wayyy older then 7,000 years. Am I right or wrong?

[YoTa_BoX]

"And the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed." Isaiah 29:14
I Corinthians repeats this thought:
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I Corinthians 1:19
Man has used his theory and definitions of time to question the validity of the Bible. The major question is when was the earth formed. The differences in the Bible's version of creation and Science's Big Bang Theory is a function of time. Both consider the universe to have been instantaneously formed, the Bible says by the Word of God, thousands of years ago, and science says from the rapid expansion of a small particle, four billion years ago. However, science does not say where the small particle originated. The scientific theories and the Bible are in agreement that there was a super continent at the beginning of Earth. 35 But they differ greatly in the time frame in which the continents were set adrift.(See Days of Peleg) The scientific theories indicate that Pangaea, the name science has given to the super continent, started breaking up millions of years ago, 36 whereas the Bible states that it occurred in the days of Peleg. 37 If one takes the Biblical chronology literally, then the breakup of Gottsland, my name for the super continent, was approximately 4000 years ago. (For a complete discussion of the continental breakup see "The Days of Peleg" on the webpage.) This difference in time frames presents a significant problem.

It has been suggested that a continental breakup in Peleg's time, approximately 2000 B. C., would have caused great destruction on the earth and history shows evidence of civilization before that time. The effects of the continental breakup would be a function of how the event occurred and the point of reference. The scientific community agrees that the volcanic action and earthquakes are probably caused by the subduction and movement of land masses or plates, but this would occur only on the leading edge of the continental movement, not in the interior of the continents. There probably would have been surface destruction at the breakpoint of the continents, but it probably would not have been much effect on a very large percentage of the continent. It would be the same problem when the earth was divided. The atmospheric sheath would not necessarily be affected and ones in the interior of the continent would not notice a great change in their immediate environment and the area in the center of the movement would experience very little destruction if any. Thus the people around the center of the continental movement 38 would probably experience little or no disruption because there would be little or no perceivable movement at the epicenter. Any point on earth is traveling at more than 1000 miles per hour, relative to a reference point outside the atmosphere, but would be stationary if the reference point is on the earth. One does not experience any sensation of the speed because our environment moves at the same speed. The earth and its atmospheric sheath are also traveling 33,000 miles per hour in its orbit around the sun, but only the radiation effects are felt on earth.
This date is based on the sea-floor spreading measurements of 1.5 cm/yr, 39 which converts to 126,000 yrs/mi or 760 million years for the separation of the North American continent from Europe. The Sea-floor spreading movement data are based on estimates utilizing the information available, and these data indicate differences of hundreds of millions of years, depending on which continental movement is considered.. Scientific equipment and instrumentation were not available for direct measurements of this small incremental movement at the ocean depths of the mid Atlantic riff. Measurements taken during the International Geophysical Year (1967-68) indicate that the South American continent was moving away from Africa at the rate of 15 to 18 inches/year, placing the separation at 4 million years ago for the separation. Satellite measurements in 1971- 72, indicate an 11 in/yr movement, or approximately 6 million years for the separation. Satellite measurements for 1975 show an 8 in/yr movement yielding a separation time of almost 9 million years. These data would indicate that the speed of the continental movement is decreasing. The current Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS) measurements are taken at a different location but do show an additional slowdown in the rate of movement. These data were not available to the authors of the early continental drift articles when the 465 million year date was suggested.

Current research and studies on the continental movement are directed at modern affects on geophysics, volcanology and fault displacement, and are not challenging the original geometry or the time of the breakup of Pangaea because it has no bearing on their research. An extrapolation of the GPS data for South American data show that South America and Africa were joined between 87,000 and 2,000 years ago, the larger number being a linear extrapolation and the smaller a minimal exponential extrapolation. The extrapolation is based on insufficient data to be adamant about the time required for movement, but the methodology is the same as the extrapolation of the sea-floor spreading data used to arrive at the continental drift number. The whole point is none of the physical measurements provide sufficient data for an accurate extrapolation; however the new data from satellite measurements tend to show the continental drift started much later than 465 million years ago. Recent discussions with Dr. William A. Hess, former director of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's GPS program, indicated that at present the GPS system has 24 satellites in orbit, providing GPS data for the entire world and several new more sophisticated satellites are to be launched this year.

The current use of the GPS by earth scientists is focused on areas of interest concerning major faults and volcanoes. However, the receiving stations do provide information on continental drift and several countries including England, Japan, Peru, Brazil, and some African nations have installed or are installing receiving stations. Earth receiving stations see approximately 6 to 8 satellites at the same time. This translates into approximately 18 data points per satellite pass. Based on four satellite data signals for locating the receiving stations position, this produces a massive amount (approximately 100,000 data points per year per location) of actual locational data for analyzing the movement of the receiving station. These data will provide a much more accurate analyses of the continental movement by providing sufficient data for accurate extrapolations. The observation point of the satellite removes the problem of an earth bound reference point. The annual and five year averages over the next twenty years should indicate the extent of the slowing of the movement and provide the basis for an accurate extrapolation to the time of initial movement. The current physical data indicate thousands of years for the initial movement rather than 100's of millions of years since the breakup of Gottsland.
It appears that the initial breakup of Gottsland could have occurred in the days of Peleg. The geologic dating presents the same problems, since most methods of atomic dating are questionable beyond 10,000 years, and are also dependent on the speed of light. The Geologist and Earth Scientist use the index fossils to decide the age of the strata and the Archeologist uses the strata to determine the age of the fossils. Whose definition does one use?
The conclusion from the above is that God controls time and man can only measure it under controlled conditions.

[YoTa_BoX]

im just stating what is written. you on the other hand didnt take the time to research what you were talking about, which is why you hold little water in a conversation like this. I'm not saying i do on the other hand...But for some one to start a conversation with out knowing the facts from both sides is sure as hell to go no where.

[Maniac1]

im just stating what is written. you on the other hand didnt take the time to research what you were talking about, which is why you hold little water in a conversation like this. I'm not saying i do on the other hand...But for some one to start a conversation with out knowing the facts from both sides is sure as hell to go no where.

You can think that all you want. But what makes you think I know nothing about the bible? I mean, it makes just as much sense as a dr. seuss book lol. You are analyzing my post way to hard man. Go back and read this whole thread if you really want to know what kind of knowledge I have on this subject.

[YoTa_BoX]

Your post Maniac() You're right, evolution and the big bang theory haven't been physically or scientifically proven, but there have been clues about there exixtence. Evolution threw our fossil remains and the big bang threw the stars moving away from each other. We did NOT evolved from dinosaurs or cows. Dinosaurs and other reptiles existed way before some mammals. Around 65 million, not billion. The earth is thought to be only 4 billion years old. Anyways, sure there were rodents, but nothing big enough to give spark to actually primate evolution.




this seems to be the only statement that you made that holds any facts in either one of these discussions, all your other posts are just what you feel.

Im not analyzing anything to much...your just not doing enough research before you make a post about something you know little about. Your just going off Feelings and past unanswered prayers to fuel your rant.

[Maniac1]

this seems to be the only statement that you made that holds any facts in either one of these discussions, all your other posts are just what you feel.

There not feelings, but more of an "opinion" on the subject. People were posting their beliefs and so was I. Me and a few others were just having a discussion, nothing more. I wasn't out to make anyone think differently. I mean, who am I? Just another normal person just like everyone else... I have no powers whats so ever so why should I try to guide anyone? Even if its in a good path or evil?

Im not analyzing anything to much...your just not doing enough research before you make a post about something you know little about. Your just going off Feelings and past unanswered prayers to fuel your rant.

Im actually in the process of going to church and asking questions to the pastor. LOL but if I disbelieve in religion, in which that makes me evil. BUT im still allowed in the church, just so I can give 10%. What does that tell you? Dude, im not calling your faith childish. But everyone has different ways at looking at things. You have your ways and I have mine.

[YoTa_BoX]

There not feelings, but more of an "opinion" on the subject. People were posting their beliefs and so was I. Me and a few others were just having a discussion, nothing more. I wasn't out to make anyone think differently. I mean, who am I? Just another normal person just like everyone else... I have no powers whats so ever so why should I try to guide anyone? Even if its in a good path or evil?

Im actually in the process of going to church and asking questions to the pastor. LOL but if I disbelieve in religion, in which that makes me evil. BUT im still allowed in the church, just so I can give 10%. What does that tell you? Dude, im not calling your faith childish. But everyone has different ways at looking at things. You have your ways and I have mine.

That is great that your going to church and asking questions, I hope you find what your looking for. But when you start making statements which you know nothing about its better to stick to your opinion, than just blatantly say something you know little about. You are the one who made this thread God vs. Science you keep bringing up there is no proof this no proof that...yet you bring really nothing to either side of the conversation. Alls im saying is go do a hell of allot more research on both sides before you try making these kinds of posts.

[Maniac1]

Alls im saying is go do a hell of allot more research on both sides before you try making these kinds of posts.

I rather continue what im doing then waste my time reading a man made book. Religion members that posted in this thread had no proof either. Just like me, no one does. NOT even pastors. Are you saying they need to stop acting like they know everything and do more research before they start telling people whats right and whats wrong?

[YoTa_BoX]

[QUOTE=Maniac©]I rather continue what im doing then waste my time reading a man made book.[/QUOTE


If you dont want to research the other side of a Discussion you made then Keep it to Just your opinions. Don't try and state facts which you know nothing about. This has nothing to do with God vs. science as far as your posts go..They are just uneducated Rants about your opinion...Keep it that way and Leave the Facts to some one who is willing to do the Research on both sides of the subject. You say you are going to church and asking questions and its not really showing.

[BABY J]

That is great that your going to church and asking questions, I hope you find what your looking for. But when you start making statements which you know nothing about its better to stick to your opinion, than just blatantly say something you know little about. You are the one who made this thread God vs. Science you keep bringing up there is no proof this no proof that...yet you bring really nothing to either side of the conversation. Alls im saying is go do a hell of allot more research on both sides before you try making these kinds of posts.

I find the idea that young earth creationists require that good, solid science be completely ignored and to instead believe in magic to be very insulting. To me, other believers should be offended by the suggestion.

Seriously, you guys are stuck in the Dark Ages.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the universe to be AT LEAST 13.9 billion years based on solid astrophysics and the amount of time it has taken light from the most distant objects we can see to reach Earth, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on solid geophysics and the geological record, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that living organisms inherently improve their abilities to process available energy through proven natural evolutionary processes (even at it's lowest simple forms -- bacteria/viruses), or you believe in magic.

You can't expect people to take you seriously, to put any credibility in what you say, as long as you take such a ridiculous stance. Whether or not you believe "God" was responsible for these processes is up to you, but whether or not these processes exist is simply not open to debate unless you have some cult-like mentality that eschews the reality that you're surrounded by. And believe me, concepts like dinorsaurs with saddles on them are definitely cult-like in their ridiculousness to any rational human being.

Now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

[YoTa_BoX]

I find the idea that young earth creationists require that good, solid science be completely ignored and to instead believe in magic to be very insulting. To me, other believers should be offended by the suggestion.

Seriously, you guys are stuck in the Dark Ages.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the universe to be AT LEAST 13.9 billion years based on solid astrophysics and the amount of time it has taken light from the most distant objects we can see to reach Earth, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on solid geophysics and the geological record, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that living organisms inherently improve their abilities to process available energy through proven natural evolutionary processes (even at it's lowest simple forms -- bacteria/viruses), or you believe in magic.

You can't expect people to take you seriously, to put any credibility in what you say, as long as you take such a ridiculous stance. Whether or not you believe "God" was responsible for these processes is up to you, but whether or not these processes exist is simply not open to debate unless you have some cult-like mentality that eschews the reality that you're surrounded by. And believe me, concepts like dinorsaurs with saddles on them are definitely cult-like in their ridiculousness to any rational human being.

Now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

and where in my posts did i say what i was for?

[On_Her_Face]

god created chuck norris so there for

god > science

[CHUCK NORRIS]

god created chuck norris so there for

god > science

I created God.

[Maniac1]

I created God.

Bwahahahaha!!! you're the man dude!

[BABY J]

Who cares what you're for?

But it's pretty obv what "side" you are trying to defend. Don't act brand new... it's not sexy. My post is directed at any1 who is a bible thumper. If that's you - then it's meant for you - if not, carry on.

[YoTa_BoX]

Who cares what you're for?

But it's pretty obv what "side" you are trying to defend. Don't act brand new... it's not sexy. My post is directed at any1 who is a bible thumper. If that's you - then it's meant for you - if not, carry on.

well you quoted me so is why i said what i said... when you quote what some one says you generally are aiming at them... lol and how did i act brand new? oh well...To be honest im not for either side. Im still learning more and more about each side. I do read the bible and at the same time am an avid science person.

[Maniac1]

Yota, you gonna answer my question or ignore it because you know im right?

[YoTa_BoX]

Yota, you gonna answer my question or ignore it because you know im right?

lol well in the case of Pastors and scientist they Did do the research that you refuse to do.. so no they can keep doing what they studied for. There is a diff between your uneducated ranting and some one who has spent Years learning both sides.

[Maniac1]

lol well in the case of Pastors and scientist they Did do the research that you refuse to do.. so no they can keep doing what they studied for. There is a diff between your uneducated ranting and some one who has spent Years learning both sides.

But like you said, I had no proof to back up any of my posts. Right? Pastors and Scientists don't either, on alot of things. So answer my question, should they stop doing what they're doing, yes or no? I mean, you can continue trying to disprove my theory on this subject, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Do you really want to win, or just look good losing?

[YoTa_BoX]

lol im not losing anything man. And i said no they should not stop what they are doing, yet again where you did not take the time to read and educate your self. Im not trying to disprove anything. Your the OP of this thread and im just telling you before you try and make a post about something Read a damn Book about it first before Blabbing on and making your self look like a dumb ass. Those pastors and those Scientist continue to learn more every day to gain knowledge. No one person can know every thing about anything. But you on the other hand dont want to learn all you can on both sides to make an educated post. Dont get your panties in a wad man, you asked for opinions and im giving you mine. Like i said in my post..im for neither side as of right now.. but i can open mindedly look at both sides unlike you.