Why do some religious people ridicule Sciences beliefs on how the Universe came to be

[ny123]

i dont know why most of you guys are wasting time on a boxing forum when you have the knowledge to answer all of mans questions on why and how we are here this is serious **** this doesnt belong in the boxing scene lounge.

[arraamis]

i know where ya goin i already made a vid bout dat **** :wank:

If the purpose of the speaker and this video is to disprove intelligent design, then it was not conclusive.

The concept of a Superior being\God is very plausible if you take into consideration the very subjective nature of the topic.

[-Spinal-]

This guy may have a problem with your attitude towards caveppl



^^^^^ that something you wanna deal with? huh?

Lol well even he is into Science. Just not the one we're talk about here, he's into something sweeter

[Mares]

If the purpose of the speaker and this video is to disprove intelligent design, then it was not conclusive.

The concept of a Superior being\God is very plausible if you take into consideration the very subjective nature of the topic.

The thing is no one has found the evidence of a Superior being\God so it should not be taken into consideration.

[squealpiggy]

If the purpose of the speaker and this video is to disprove intelligent design, then it was not conclusive.

The concept of a Superior being\God is very plausible if you take into consideration the very subjective nature of the topic.

The concept of a designer is entirely superfluous to the pursuit of knowledge if the claim is that their influence is undetectable.

in other words you can't exactly "disprove" a designer but unless there is evidence that points to a designer then the existence or nonexistence of a designer is completely irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge.

And in answer to your anticipated next comment, no. There isn't any evidence that points to a designer.

[arraamis]

The thing is no one has found the evidence of a Superior being\God so it should not be taken into consideration.

The reason why that option {GOD} is still on the table along with the Big-bang theory is because it is a possibility. Ergo, there isn't sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either concept.

We're just not at a point, where Intellectually\technologically we can without a doubt declare either as false or implausible.

[-Spinal-]

it is curiousity it is the way we are it is what lead us to the scientific age and our current technology it is the foundation of modern civilization, if don't like investigating and try understanding more about the nature of the world around then your not human.

That is how I like to see it also. It's natural to be curious about things. Now that we're much smarter we're no longer curious on how ot make fire, we already have stoves for that. Who would've known back in the days when man tried to make fire with sticks, that we'd have a stove to turn fire instantly. We're much smarter and advance so now we're curious about more sophisticated things like space, how did we get here, etc.

This has gone OT now because I was asking why do some religious people make fun of the way science believes the universe came about but then they sorta have similar beliefs just more magical and fairy tail-like with unicorns and harder-to-believe stories about an imaginary, never before seen, thing.

[Dan...]

LOL, the pig is one wise cat.

[Spray_resistant]

The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself is a noble one. And that's without even considering the side effects that all discoveries have that end up improving the level of technology in eberyone's lives. Do you think that the moon landing itself actually changed anyone's life that was not directly involved with the programme? No. But the advances in technology that made the moon landings possible certainly did, part of the result a few decades down the line is the computer you are communicating with me on.

This one issue is separate and very different from other discoveries because
this is the one that ppl have been trying to figure out endlessly since man arose and became aware of the world around him but unlike inventions our fixation with this question of "where do we come from and how" and its answer has no real power to change out lives for the better.

Discovery is fine and inventions like this laptop here are great but you are lumping the big question in with man's triumphs over thousands of years and more so over the last couple hundred years......the thing is ppl have been trying to figure out how it all started since the start and no one is any closer to the truth yet.

All sorts of problems arise out of ppls vain and unsuccessful attempts, ranging from pointless arguments on the streets to genocide which is why that particular question would be best not answered and no longer pursued. At the end seems like alot of trouble with no pay off.

[Mares]

The reason why that option {GOD} is still on the table along with the Big-bang theory is because it is a possibility. Ergo, there isn't sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either concept.

We're just not at a point, where Intellectually\technologically we can without a doubt declare either as false or implausible.

If u add the option of God then u might as well add the billions of possible options that have no scientific basis or evidence.

I can put in the following

1. It all originated from Parrelel Universe ASDXCV1111234343 which is a steady universe which has an ulitimate god called Mike tyson he is a semi shifting dragon god/ human... well not reall yhe is semi god baby dinasaur.. cum-master excellent ****** genius goat ****er who invented the universe which then made a monkey truck half tiger rabbit that humped and a rocket ballon midget with an ass of a shrimp which gave birth to adam and semi-repitilian eve.. in a parrelel universe which then exploded into a big bang then exploded again then created allah which a new universe based on the minikrytonferamite...

i cant prove that thing about all of that meanwhile u cant disprove it either... so it really amounts to nothing.