Summations Only

I was going to say that your ignorance of science is astounding, but the fact of the matter is that it's all too common. You really should try to learn at least the basics of a subject before commenting on it. Well, it is preposterous to say that since we came into existence through a natural process life means nothing. But it's only the creos who believe this. Never would have guessed.You have a lot to learn. If you are truly interested in learning, you came to the right place. There are many people here, me included, who would be delighted to teach you what science really is, what it does, and how it works. On the other hand, if your intent is to come here and tell us what we think and tell us things about science that we know to be incorrect, you are wasting your time.

Wonderful, wonderful. More misunderstandings about how science works and what it thinks.Here's a hint: when you're trying to learn, the best way is to ask questions, not make ridiculous claims.In any event, I'll address those points you make to the best of my ability.We don't know exactly how life came into existence. There are different theories and research into that question is ongoing. However, since there is no definitive answer, there is no dogma to cling to about this question.There was no "cosmic explosion," at least not in the sense that most people think of when they think of explosion. There was an expansion. Don't let the somewhat misleading name "Big Bang" mislead you.I don't really know much about the Higgs boson. I never got past high school physics. Since, to my knowledge, it hasn't even been seen, I don't think anyone knows how it came to be. Research in this area is ongoing. You have an undefined referent there. I don't know what "phenomenon" you are referring to, so can't reply directly to that. However, your implication that an event must be repeatable to be scientific is incorrect. Science studies many, many things that are not repeatable. What's important is not that the event itself be repeatable, but that others be able to replicate the same observations that a scientist makes. Whether those observations are about an event that happened in the past is irrelevant. An oxymoronic word salad.Running through your post is an implicit derogation of science if it hasn't answered all questions about a particular subject. The fact that scientists are still researching an area is actually one of the hallmarks of any field of scientific inquiry. Any scientist will tell you that for every answer, there is another question, sometimes more than one. So if you think you can attack science by asking questions it cannot yet answer, this is just something else you are wrong about.

You are wrong.

Science doesn't reject everything spiritual. It ignores it.Science studies the natural world. Science studies anything that can be observed. Since the spiritual cannot be observed and does not have any observable impact on the natural world, science has nothing to say about it. Religion has nothing to offer science. Religion is about believing in the absence of evidence or, in many cases, in contradiction to what the evidence shows. This is anathema to science. Where there is no evidence, science stands mute. And, to the extent that religion insists on making claims in the absence of evidence, science has nothing to offer it. To the extent that religion makes claims that defy observable facts, science will say that it is wrong. I sincerely hope that science can get over the profound disappointment it no doubt feels following this revelation. Science doesn't deal in "truths." Science is about putting together the best explanation for the evidence found to date.One theory says that the Earth is the middle of the universe. One says the Earth revolves around a star near the edge of a galaxy in a universe that has no discernible center. Do you think the truth is between those two theories, or is one accurate and one inaccurate?

Well, in one sense, bb is accurate. Creos are considerably more accepting of things they don't know, and quite willing to let those unknowns remain unknown, particularly when they might not like the answers.Scientists, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge what they don't know, but then set about finding out the answers.

It's not, not for science. For science, it's a mystery, to be investigated and solved, if possible. That's because you don't know what the evidence is. Well, you haven't been insulted here, and you haven't learned. Maybe we should try being insulting.

I must commend you. Like many other creos, you came here with a lot of incorrect ideas, but unlike many, you seem willing to learn. I encourage you to do so. You will find that many of the things you thought were so are not. This may or may not change your belief structure, but at least you will know what you are up against. And it will give you a chance to conform your ideas to reality, always a good thing.

Knowing that you do not know is the first step on the path to wisdom, grasshopper. You have begun your journey.

No, not really. Most of those posts are just jar and Panda pretending they're having a debate while they practice typing.

Your subtitle is wrong.You seem to be a typical bible-quoting creo.