from my perspective the science side says.. there is nothing beyond question. The non-science side says… don't question me.
Does that perspective have room for anything which might exist in between those two "sides"... or is it too narrow to visualize anything but polar opposites?
Originally Posted By: sandbox
It's not the science side that needs to explain the hypothesis, the questions remains in your court. Why do you believe absolutely and where is the evidence that supports your assertions?
Pretty stupid question, don't you think? -Â Evidence?!?! Else um... what is your scientific definition of "faith"?
Originally Posted By: sandbox
because you will not present the rational for your absolute belief the questions remain and haunt you. Being haunted you strike out at the questioner, attempting to put the onus on them. The arrogance, I would suggest, is found in the refusal to answer the question and continue to claim, that there is something when there is nothing to present.
Oooh, "haunted". Brrrr. Spooky. Continue to claim??? Â Sorry sandbox... Ryck isn't the one "continuing" around here. [Methinks thou doth protest too much.]
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Science has questions, belief has doubt.
Yawn. I doubt you know much *actual* science. At least... your posts don't show any evidence.
 Sorry sandbox... Ryck isn't the one "continuing" around here. 
