Some interesting science

[MikeM]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uob-sps050509.php

No, it does not prove either + or - on God but betting on science is like catching a jelly fish:D

[SchizoDeluxe]

Just because something cannot yet be explained doesn't mean there isn't a scientific one there. The whole basis for religion is on the idea that the unexplained must be of supernatural causes, it goes back to our primitive days when we didn't know any better.

[Iridescence]

Imagine what it would be like now if medical doctors still thought that heroin, leeches and stool samples were the best way to cure what ails ya. I am thankful for the ever questioning minds of scientists always searching for answers instead of being happy about what some men (with a tiny frame of reference) wrote in a book a few thousand years ago as being the source of all truth.

You appear to have completley missed the point of scientific research. Or as others on this board have concluded, you are a troll and not very interested in what we have to say anyway.

[davo]

DO NOT FEED THE MIKEM TROLL.

Save your time, it's all been explained before, he just wants a response, and is mentally 'challenged'. Research Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Ten commandments of the MikeM troll.

1/ Ask questions, don't answer them, repeat.
2/ Insinuate atheism as being alike to being born again, continually. Reinforce any way you can, repeat.
3/ Redefine definitions continually, ignore the proper definitions or explanations, repeat.
4/ Choose 1 phrase out of expansive responses, to again try to redefine someones position. Ignore resulting reponse, repeat.
5/ Continually define atheism as a belief and faith, repeat.
6/ Continually define atheism as wanting to 'convert christians', repeat.
7/ Continually state that atheists do not have proof there is no god, so therefore a god fairy must exist, repeat.
8/ Post one liners, ignoring all information presented, to again have the original poster explain themselves, repeat.
9/ Never explain your position regarding the basis for belief in the supernatural, ever.
10/ Use any frustration from atheists, as a case in point for any of the above, repeat.

[davo]

bye bye MikeM

[Jaar-Gilon]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uob-sps050509.php

No, it does not prove either + or - on God but betting on science is like catching a jelly fish:D

What a stuuuupid thing to say!!!??!! Piss off and live in a cave then if you think that's what science is like!

[SinisterDexter]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uob-sps050509.php

No, it does not prove either + or - on God but betting on science is like catching a jelly fish:D

Huh? "Like catching a jellyfish"? Except that this jellyfish is solid and has adhesive on it so it sticks to your hand.

There are many hundreds of scientific concepts that are not yet fully understood, and yet science has still given us... well... pretty much everything you see around you and take for granted on a daily basis.

Your argument is a good example of a non-sequiteur: science can't answer dark matter (yet) thus all of science is wrong. This is a fallacy because science never claimed to know all the answers. It claims to look for them, and this is an ongoing quest. That it has found a good many, all of which have increased your longevity and standard of living (despite your God's apparent wish for us to live short squallid lives) is a testament to just how effective science is at what it does.

So crawl away little man and conjure up your next logical fallacy for me to strike down.