well maybe I'm God and I just haven't told anybody... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

If you're God, what am I doing with my thumb right now?

JadeRose wrote:

Remember god spelt backwards is anal

teedubbya wrote:

Lana does anal?

victor809 wrote:

well, you're not Little Jack Horner.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Maybe not but look what a good boy am I!

JadeRose wrote:

Am I? I don't recall an us vs them argument.



For one, science is the act of formulating and testing theories, so by it's very nature, the act of science is attempting to prove theories wrong, not trying to prove them to be correct. The idea is to test to see if the reality matches predictions, then to retest against other predictions until something doesn't match, then back to the drawing board, rinse and repeat.

As far as an intelligent creator being responsible, there's no way we can prove/disprove it so why waste brain power on it?

bgz wrote:

To claim that if we cannot replicate what we are estimating occurred over billions of years is evidence of an outside party is simply poor logic.

That's like saying if you, as a man, can't give birth, women must not exist.

victor809 wrote:

No, if life resulted from some random lightening strike into some primordial goo, it should be reproducible. Perhaps you have a better explanation for the origin of life?

Gene363 wrote:

why would the product of the lightening strike be expected to be able to reproduce the event?
Proving or disproving what? It's own creation?

frankj1 wrote: