Never does a logic driven deep thinker, such as myself, laugh harder than when I hear an atheist make the argument that they don't believe in any god because they prefer to follow the logical strictures of science rather than the folly of religion.
In making such a silly argument, they actually do that which they claim that they are above.
They abandon Science, in favor of Religion.
What is Science?
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "science" that portends to apply explanations to the phenomena of life that are exclusive to the idea that there cannot be a higher power.
Only a complete frothing moron would say that there is.
In fact, atheism makes up such a minuscule portion of the world's population (less than 5%) that the disciplines of science could not exist if only atheists were at the helm.
Does Science disprove God?
It would be absurd to suggest that it could or would even attempt to. Science (from the Latin) means simply "to acquire knowledge". In Christian tradition, the gaining of knowledge is a value of the highest order.
In Science, people make observations and gather data. Based on that data, they draw conclusions and form theories and based on rigorous testing of those theories, we can move towards/away from scientific law.
Provable Scientific law.
If I put a bucket of water outside when it is 10 degrees, it will change state from a solid to a liquid. If I throw a rock into the air, it will come down.
Unproven (and unprovable) Scientific Theory
The earth is 3 billion years old.
The planet is warming, more than in world history, due to man's activities
The more the Atheobots crow that the above 2 statements are scientific fact, the more they only demonstrate their own stupidity. You can no more tell me the age of the earth than you can tell me how many grains of sand there are in Saudi Arabia. I never cease to laugh hysterically when this new scientific discovery shows that mango pango bango bajango man was the oldest homo sapian while that study says no, no, no, it was whackoff tackoff backoff bajackoff man.
and the supporters of BOTH have the audacity to look you in the eye and say that evolution is proven science.
They missed by 65 million years on the Coelacanth and then had the temerity to tell us that 65 million years is a very small miss in the scope of 3 billion years. Um... earth to evolutionists.
Your argument only holds water if you misdated the Coelacanth as 3,065,000,000 years old when it was, in fact, only 3,000,000,000 years old. That would be a miscalculation of a statistically insignificant 2.2%
Applying that same tolerance to something you say is only 47,000 years old would give you a range of less than 1,035 years in either direction. These people pegged the Coelacanth's age at
65 million years and it wound up being zero. So, the missed by 65 million years, or 100%.
Simple statistical mathematics tells us that if you take a number 46 times as large, such as their estimates of the age of the earth, the Margin of error will be 46 times as large, or 4,600%.
So, due to the great wisdom of the evolutionists, we can now safely conclude that the age of the earth is 3,000,000,000 years old +/- 138,000,000,000 years old.
I hope that cleared things up for you.
Do I fault Scientists for not being able to truly tell me how old the earth is? not at all. It is unknowable. What I fault these Scientists for is not having the integrity to admit that, at the end of the day, they have no more idea how old the earth is than you or I do and that the person who guesses 10,000 years is just as likely to be right as the one who guesses 6 Billion years.
And there is scientific evidence aplenty to support either argument.
Science deals with the realm of what can be demonstrated and Religion deals with the realm of what is believed. Where the Evolutionists trip up is in saying that Creationism is Religion while Evolution is Science.
No, Creationism is Religion and Evolutionism is Religion. Neither can be proven or disproven by Scientific method. Atheism is as much a Religion as Christianity, although far less logical and plausible.
"How did the house get built?"
CREATIONISM: "The precision of the cuts, the quality of the stone work, the sturdiness of the foundation indicate that the house was built by an intelligence of some sort"
EVOLUTIONISM: "Well, ya see there was this big bang, and trees and rocks and mud all got mixed up in the atmosphere and fell to earth in exactly that formation"
Neither are Science because no one saw the House built. Yet, I would argue that the former is far more likely than the latter...even exponentially so. For the Evolutionist determined to believe that the House assembled itself, I cannot prove that it did not any more than he can prove that there wasn't a builder.
All Science can add to the argument is the application of what can be observed in life.
- Is there evidence of spontaneously self generating houses in other times and places?
- Without intervention, do things (such as houses) proceed from chaos to order or order to chaos?
- What are the statistical odds of all those bricks, stones, studs, nails, sheeting, insulation, decking and beams cutting and shaping themselves to that exact order?
The most basic enzymes required for life are infinitely more complex in structure and design than that house. In fact, a Nobel prize winning astrophysicist determined that the odds against the spontaneous generation of even the simplest enzymes would be a number with 40,000 zeroes at the end of it.
That is a fraction so small that it could fit hundreds of trillions of times on the head of a pin.
Does this refute Evolution? Certainly not....and it does not even aim to. However, it most certainly refutes atheism. For anyone who would claim to follow and adhere to the dictates of science, that would claim that science eliminates the plausibility of an intelligent design in creation, is a fool who is so far out of touch with reality and science as to make rational discussion impossible. This is not a person respective of science but a kool aid drinking adherent to a religion in which a creator is anathema.
Imagine going to the horse track and betting on the horse that had 1:1 (followed by 40,000 zeroes) odds against it. People would laugh at you.
Yet, there are people who look square at those odds, bet against them and then insist that theirs is the logical and scientific view, even as science itself, derides their stupidity.
Before I am accused of representing Science to show more than it does, let me be clear.
Though the laws of statistical math, eliminate the possible of creation being an act of happenstance, it, by no means, has given this creator a name or even a form. It does not prove that the Christian version of God was this creator. It does not even prove that evolution was not the vehicle by which this creator brought forth creation.
Of course, I have my own beliefs on such questions. I just don't claim they can be proven by Science. Of course, they cannot be disproven either.
One thing is certain, though. Science disproves atheism. That is a fact. Only a fool would argue it.
Labels: A Newt One, American Truth warriors, Blog talk radio, Checkmate, Conservative, Darter45, Fred Thompson, Freedom Fighter, Freedom Fighter Radio, freedomfighteronthehomefront.com, freedomfighterradio.com, George W Bush, Iraq, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Z, Moonbats, Operation America Rising, Patriots for Conservative values, Politics, Science., SonlitKnight, surge, Terrorism, The Headless Thompson Gunners, The Truth Surge, Zulz
|