You choose to take it that way... I'm using it as a description. I'm not belittling anyone's opinion, I'm merely referring to it as what it is. You bring your own personal agenda into any argument. Before you go off getting offended again... that's a global "you".
So why bring it up other than to use it as a weapon? If, as you say, everyone is debating from an agenda, why mention it at all?
No, the more I look into it, the more likely it sounds. I choose not to believe that everything in life is based on chance. The odds of a "big bang" randomly occurring that eventually led to the formation of plants and eventually life is so astronomical that it tells me there has to be another explanation. So I have chosen to believe the one that makes the most sense for me personally. I don't consider myself to be indoctrinated into anything... I was raised going to church, but I spent a lot of time outside of the church as well. I've come to my own conclusions based on my own personal life experiences. I don't think that the Bible is necessarily completely relevant today, especially the old testament. But the existence of Jesus makes perfect sense to me, and his recorded teachings make plenty of sense and have a good message to them.
Actually no, the odds of life occurring are pretty solid in fact. Given the amount of time, the right forces, the right matter, it's an inevitability.
Also, that's a pretty bad argument there. It's like the clock argument theists use all the time. It's a highly fallacious logical construct because the fact is we are here. How we got here is a matter of record, and that is a record science is understanding, and it's getting very complete these days.
Remarkable processes took place for us to live. But nothing magic. Nothing supernatural. All perfectly explainable.
The universe revolving around the earth was accepted as scientific fact until proven otherwise. It could very well be the same with our scientific "laws", we just don't know any better yet.
Given the limited instrumentation at the time (the naked eye) it's no wonder that was believed. And it was disproven once the technology was there.
But it was never a "law". That's not what a law is.
Sure, our understanding will always improve, but have you noticed how there have been few such massive breakthroughs and contradictions of old scientific beliefs in recent history? In fact, that was one of the last.
Now, we're at a sub-atomic level of understanding of the universe... to the point of figuring out what reality is made of.
Our understanding of the natural laws of the universe could be so fundamentally shifted that it would make the actuality look an awful lot like breaking, based on our previous understandings. That's the nature of science. Just because something is understood to be one way doesn't mean that the law that we have created as a result is correct. Our understanding could be inherently flawed to the point where we simply don't understand it, and so the truth could be so fundamentally different that the law was "broken" when we realized the truth.
Well no it doesn't really work like that. Discoveries being made these days fit very well with knowledge over the past 100 years. Science can see things so small, go into so much detail, that there really isn't much left to dramatically change other than the underlying nature of reality. The current theories, string theory and M-theory are very interesting and well worth investigating.
I used quotations around the world miracle... and you appear to have completely missed the point. Things that would have been considered to be a miracle 50 years ago are medically commonplace today.
As far as the miraculous recoveries go... I know for a fact that sudden onset cancer remissions have been studied in depth, and in a lot of cases, there is absolutely no medical or scientific explanation for what happened. Does that mean we simply don't understand? Or could there have been a miracle of some sort that took place? I have a family friend that lost her hearing in one of her ears when she was about 5 years old. The doctors told her that there was damage to the eardrum, and that she would never have the use of that ear again. When she was 22 I believe, out of nowhere, she was simply able to hear out of that ear again. The doctors couldn't ever explain how it happened, and medically it wasn't anything that should have been able to happen... but it did. Was that a miracle? Was it a aberration? Whatever it was, it defied and still defies medical, scientific, and logical explanation... but it still happened.
But that doesn't make it a miracle!! It doesn't make it supernatural. There is a reason, just no one has the resources to find out what it was. To cal anything a miracle is to give up on intelligence, and accept the easiest and lamest of answers. If man always did that, we would a still be living in mud huts.
