For example, when discussing general notions of a "God", I am an "agnostic atheist".
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
147 votes
|
|
88% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
8% | |||
An Agnostic doesn't believe there is a God, but doesn't believe there isn't either.
In a religious context, an agnostic would not confirm or deny the existence of God. He or she would simply claim the matter is beyond the scope of ordinary human experience.
Less stringent agnostics might claim they think God exists but have no way of proving this or any of the many claims made by religious leaders (thus no reason to follow these leaders).
One can be agnostic simply by not taking a stand on something, because you are uncertain or cannot possibly know the absolute truth about it.
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings for sure, because they think they know something, just like the religious people think they know something.
Agnostics are just not sure but lean towards Atheism.
Agnostic is the belief that you can't prove anything either way
An atheist has an even simpler definition; atheists don't BELIEVE there's a god, and many would define themselves even more strongly by saying that they believe that there is no god.
" Now you can clearly see dats " Strange the Father Forest Ape is still alive but his inbetween evolutionary links to Australopiths or Gorilla or Chimpanzee - ALL DEAD . or you can say
The ROOT is still alive but the TREE is Dead & thats we called " SCIENCE "
- sorry its JUNK SCIENCE ( inter-connected Imaginory Links )
&
or
see it clear - Its EVO - DIGI - volution :)))
What if in all of (place desired creator here) wisdom he/she created us to evolve?
By your answer you have obviously never even read about evolution. It is apparent that you have simply parroted someone else's opinion. (By the way, why the capital E)?
Let's see...
"Evolution is a Theory with no Practical Proof..."
Erm, no. Please educate yourself.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all co...
By your answer you have obviously never even read about evolution. It is apparent that you have simply parroted someone else's opinion. (By the way, why the capital E)?
Let's see...
"Evolution is a Theory with no Practical Proof..."
Erm, no. Please educate yourself.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
"but Bunch of Hypothesis or " JUNK SCIENCE "..."
A) Learn English: A bunch of hypotheses, one hypothesis
B) Difference between an hypothesis and a theory:
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Please define how the theory of evolution is junk science, seeing as it is the second most rigorously tested in the scientific world (after quantum mechanics).
" If you says EVOLUTION disprove 1 GOD - than i along 80-90% of the world , discard Evolution from the Chapter of Science & all its just wastage to argue with cross - hypothetical-imaginary- asumpted- LINKS
No matter or what Atheist have less knowledge of existance of Universe and they makes there existance from Apes so they are faaaaaar away from Science too ...
" Evolution is just a fairy tail of million years , wraped in cover of science from outside , and all its just stories or imaginary Junk Science Links . for me its just Digivolution :)
Go Man - Its just a Theory - with no PROOF but imaginary self created links .
Even its true , Man evolved from Apes , Mountains came into being by Kidney stones , Light create light , colours create colours , brain create brain and nails create nails , it cant DISPROVE GOD .
" Evolution when become Law than tell me its a SCIENCE - its just a Theory and million theories are rotting in Junk Science " Chill man
The rest of your answer is unreadable gibberish. I posted proof, you post points of view. Somehow, I'm not persuaded.
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
Read the 1400 years old Book - at that time where there were no Scientific equipments rockets or micro scopes - is it not sufficient to be a Word of God ?
God knows Science too - Not only Man who is so arrogant to Know Science -
"...at that time where there were no Scientific equipments rockets or micro scopes..." Not strictly true. there was plenty of scientific equipment, rockets have nothing to do with anything here, and microscopes are the tool which allowed us to discover the reasons for most illnesses (microbes). Until there were microscopes, religious books tried to pin the blame for illnesses on "evil forces".
"...is it not sufficient to be a Word of God ?" Not really sure what you mean by this, but the Qu'ran, just like every other "holy" book, is obviously written by men.
"God knows Science too..." Really, please show me proof of this bland assertion. While you are at it you might want to prove there is such a thing as god to start with.
"Not only Man who is so arrogant to Know Science" What does this actually mean?
There is an excellent analogy that explains the differences down further in this thread by boltfox20, for anybody curious enough to take the time to read it.