Not sure about that Daniel but in the Bible years refer to normal years here on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
Printable View
Not sure about that Daniel but in the Bible years refer to normal years here on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
I read something recently that sounds similar. Some scientist wondered whether time was unwinding like a clockwork toy and whether our perception that the universe is fleeing from the center ever faster (which is difficult to explain) is based on a flawed assumption that time passes linearly.
I can't find the article.
Here's what I know. I'm not going to watch any dumbass video you post saying modern science is disproving evolution, because that's certainly not true. However, if you can find comfort in thinking you're different and believing things you see in youtube videos, that's cool. Our genome has been mapped and compared to that of chimpanzees, so you can choose not to believe that.. but it doesn't make it any less true because you prefer to ignore it.
At least make your religious arguments to support evolution.. you still can.. God could have orchestrated evolution.. Although it does show fundamentalist Christianity for the ridiculousness that it is. So don't be one of the idiots that's like, "haha, you believe in evolution".. Because it's the same thing as saying, "haha you believe in gravity".
I won't say there couldn't be some being or beings that orchestrated our existence; however, evolution is a fact and the bible is nothing but stories from primitive times of our history.
Man! I can't stay silent on these religion threads. I simply don't understand how anyone can talk about "irreductable complexity" with a straight face and still believe in God. I don't get it, if anything complex had to come from a creator, then where'd God come from? If you're allowed to say God just exists, then you're either saying that God is simple, understandable and in fact predictable; or you're saying that everyone else has to follow your rules exept you -which really is where I suspect most arguements come from.
I also feel like you either agree with Science, or you don't understand it. People who disagree with Evolution, Global Warming, etc... challenge the science from the percieved paradigm of "Science" acting rather like a collective body with self-serving interests; and that anyone who challenges the established order is discredited, and run out (that's only in your religion!). As anyone who is familiar with the rigours of the scientific process knows -ideas must be presented, proven, repeatable, tested, judged... Facts are not called so lightly and scientific advancement is based upon a foundation of stable knowledge.
Which is why science knows that plants need the sun -and which is why in Genesis, plants come a whole day before the sun. How could people who lived during the middle of the bronze age know about Photosynthesis? Its not their fault. They tried their best, and at the time it was probably what they needed. But lets go, Earth! People needed religion like sailor's needed a flat world. Those days are gone, people! Let's grow up and move on!
Dude, I don't understand how people can believe in religion while typing on plastic keys which punch binary data across a world wide network of connective information. But that's their journey to make. The achievements and abilities of man are incredible and miraculous in their own right. I appreciate the world as it is because it's far more incredible than any reality that some guy has ever tried to pawn off on me.
If someone can't understand why people believe in something that isn't "proven" or tangible than they don't understand what faith is.
Why do people think that it's okay to disprove things on the basis of not having proof?
With a universe full of unknown, the only things to believe in is what you see and what you can prove?
That is ignorance.
The terms faith and religion are often confused. Religion should be the outward expression of inner faith. It's sad that this is often not the case.
Because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You can't prove that something is not real. Prove to me that Unicorns don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
No Daniel, that's just reality. I respect the willingness of others to entertain and experience things that cannot be validated by our senses, great insight has been achieved by such endeavors. However, when people want to insert their non verifiable views as rules and ideals into this reality, that's when I have a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
God could very well exist and I could very well be wrong about every thought in my head. But, from this laptop in my loft, a god does no currently exist. I just looked towards the kitchen, and all I saw were pots, pans, and my cat trying to shit on my wood floor. (wtf)
A sidebar on understanding cats. They were once worshiped as gods and they have never forgotten this :)
Ok, so here are my thoughts, if anyone cares:
Science should be left to the scientists. You wouldn't let a 7 year old football player play for the Patriots, would you? How would the little kid fair in the NFL? Creationism is a blatant disregard for for facts, it's simply Christianity's proven-to-be-failed attempt to answer scriptural discrepancies posed by science. It doesn't account for anything relevant.
I happen to sympathize with AJ, because if one were so inclined, one could factually disprove nearly every aspect of every religion using the internet (university websites and databases are excellent sources for reliable information). People choose to remain ignorant of certain facts, or fail to put them into meaningful context, and that's their choice to make, or disability to endure. It wouldn't be so bad if people's religions didn't require them to attempt conversion. I have no real problem with Buddhism, for example, even though I believe it's fundamentally illogical and incorrect.
One of the many things that science cannot answer (yet) is what happens when we die. Although this is true, it was also once factual that the world was flat, that bleeding cured diseases, that people got sick from evil spirits, and that open heart surgery was impossible. Imagine what we will be considered fact tomorrow...
To Joshua, I would find a philosophical debate forum of arguments between objectivists and subjectivists as they pertain to perception. This would provide some much needed clarity (no offense good sir).
Whatever your belief system just make sure it's yours and your willing to live and die with it. The truth is most people put more thought into programing their dvrs than what their eternal belief systems are. The end does come. My best estamate is that I've been present at the deaths of about 4500 people. Not once have I ever seen someone call out to science in their final moments. There is no double or nothing. Take some time, your worth it.
Well I would agree with your main point, that people should really research what they believe extensively, and not follow blindly. If following blindly makes people comfortable, I can understand that, but they should not expect others to do the same. As you say, the end comes for everyone, but to me, life is far more important than death, and it's what we do while we are here that counts, because we only get one chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Beaumont
Well said.
I remember once I went to a Romeo and Juliet high school play for college Literature studies. When we got there we realized it was an all girl play. Being immature guys we were excited about seeing some girls kiss for we were all losers with greasy hair and haven't experienced the pleasures of drugs, fried foods, and women. Upon arrival we take our sits and lean back to enjoy the play. We have to say the ladies looked pretty nice. Finally the time came when the kissing scene was upon us. The two ladies leaned over to each other put their hands in front of their mouths and touched their faces together connecting with the hands that were covering their mouth. Wow what a shock no kiss huh. A guy in the back yelled loudly "THIS PLAY SUCKS!!!" as everyone else booed the stage for over 5 minutes. Some extra pissed off guys threw their 12 ounce coca cola cans filled with the carbonated original flavors of Dr.Pepper onto the stage. The play was canceled and most of the ladies cried.
The End
Dedicated to Timmy "Many Hands" Longacre R.I.P
The first thing to note is that the mapping out of the human genome is not complete. DNA was not discovered until the late 70's after advances with the electron microscope. Since then only about 80-90% of the human gemone has been sequenced while only 2 chromosomes have been completed. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46 so the job is far from done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Gammel
The statement that humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees is far from conclusive since neither the human nor chimp gemone with their sum total of chromosomes has been completed. Scientists are only comparing a small portion of code and assuming the overall percentage of similarity from the incomplete sequence that they have at this time.
That being said, homology between kinds of plants or animals, whether it be structural or genetic, is not proof or evolution. It supports a common designer as much as it does a common ancestor.
On top of this DNA is not designed to change, it is designed to preserve the integrity of a species. DNA is a code of information that insures the perpetuity of a species. Genetic mutation, or changing the DNA of a species results in death. There is not one recorded case of a mutation producing a new gene. Also, 98% percent of all mutations are harmful to the organism or result in death. This is why we as humans avoid nuclear radiation.
When we really look into the science of genetics and DNA we see that it could not possibly have happend by chance or the mechanism of natural selection (which does not produce new genetic material but re-organize existing code). Human DNA alone is made up of more than a billion molecules of alternating phosphate and sugar that all have to be in a precise order. DNA in humans could not have organized by chance, let alone the rest of the DNA in every living organism on this planet.
My intention in starting this thread is to share how the idea of an intelligent designer and the advances in knowledge and modern science are not at odds with each other. The surprising fact is that as our knowledge base grows the evidence is mounting AGAINST evolutionary theory and proving it to be false.
I don't know about anybody else but I'm human, I do not descend from from a monkey, ameoba or a rock 3 billion years ago. :)
That is your reality, it sure isn't mine. You can believe what is in front of your face and what you can touch is the only reality all you want. Who is inserting views on your reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
As far me proving things to you, your wrong thinking that i have any burden to you or anyone else. I hold all my own burdens thank you. I put more importance in believing what I believe has been proven to me. Especially not over the internet.
You can keep the shades down on your windows, but don't blame the people outside for not being able to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
It's your reality too. You face it every time you hit the mats. Of all people, athletes, grapplers, we require a complete real time connection with objective reality. You can wish for things to work a certain way and you might be right but you have to get up and deal with this world like the rest of us. No matter how many internal mental journeys you take you'll always come back to this reality.
I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word burden, because you keep repeating it. If I say, "Daniel, I have 10 dollars in my wallet." And you don't believe me then the burden of proof would be mine because I made the claim. It's nothing more complicated than that. Until I show you the ten dollars you wouldn't know that it was real and any attempts for me to use that 10 dollars for a bet against you would probably not be respected.
You lost me on your last analogy. I understood the part about how my standards of proof are acting as blinders on my metaphorical window but what does that have to do with the people "outside" and who are they? And what is outside? Yeah, you lost me.
the more I separate myself from "object" reality, the more I accomplish.
It's "objective reality". Do you mean accomplishing things in alternate realities or accomplishments in objective reality?
You lost me.
There is a lot to be said in having a strong spirit and strong mentality. These are not things that you can make strong just by touching things or mat time or paying attention to the physical world we live in.
That last statement was rather presumptuous and self serving but I'll move on.
Well you said that your distance from "object reality" (??) has allowed you to accomplish more. Well, if by accomplishments you mean higher meditative states or your own sense of spiritual enlightenment, then yes I could understand that. But if you mean in terms of getting accomplishments in the real world then I guess I don't understand. You distance yourself from an objective reality just to accomplish things within objective reality? That part lost me.
Hovind's theory on the Flood in the book of Genesis. Lots of good stuff but I do not agree with his theology of 'praying for salvation.'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4276297772786#
Few things make less sense to me than biblical fundamentalism. If there is a creator, there is no greater insult to him, than biblical fundamentalism. Im a geologist. I can tell you, or show you, without the slightest scrap of doubt that the earth is more than 6000 years old based on dozens and dozens of lines of evidence.
For the sake of argument, lets say Im a devout Christian.
The bible had to be written in a way that it was meaningful to the people it was written by and for, >2000 years ago. If you took a book written in the context of the world we live in today would it mean anything to them? Forget the science denied by Christianity. Just in the context of the undeniable science. Like the internet we are using for this discussion.
What I dont understand is why people feel the need to simplify the works of a god to the level of what a man could understand. Especially a man educated >2000 years ago.
There can be no greater insult to your god than to say that his work can be summed up by a few words in a book. I have no problem with creation, I just have a problem with people trying to dumb it down to a human level. You have to be completely blind to see that the world is unfathomably diverse, complex and beautiful. All Scientists try to do is fathom it.
Biblical Fundamentalism makes no sense at all, not even if your a Christian. Theres no doubt that Christianity and the Bible have often been used to do mans work, I think this is just another example. People with closed minds are the easiest to control.
What we knew 150 years ago was sufficient to argue successfully against the arguments used by creationists today. What we know now means its not even worth bothering.
Like what for example ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
This question really isn't a question at all. The truth is, the comprehension of the "God" idea is beyond our minds capabilities. Everything has to be created, even is the creator is a gust of wind carrying proteins. But then we get into the creators creator. It is just an infinite question. Human science can never live up to the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
My enthusiam for this thread is waning but there is a lot here that simply isn't correct that should be addressed. Again, my intention is not to be hostile so please don't read it that way. I'm at work, I'm short on time, and as this thread grows the quantity of misinformation seems to grow exponentially (as it does every time I see this topic anywhere. *sigh*). It now requires that much more energy to refute/discuss and I already wrote my honors thesis once. I'm not doing it again (appearances to the contrary...).
1) The human genome was fully sequenced in 2001 (see link). James Watson and Francis Crick dechipered the structure of DNA in 1953 using x-ray crystallography performed by Rosalind Franklin (whose snubbing for her share of the Nobel Prize is a sore spot with me.)
[Venter JC et. al. The Sequence of the Human Genome. Science 16 February 2001:Vol. 291. no. 5507, pp. 1304 - 1351] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../291/5507/1304
2) The chimp genome sequence was completed in 2005 and MANY comparisons have been made with the human genome and published since (see link).
[The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04072.html
The comparison is really true for all mammals. Indeed, we not only share 99% of our DNA with chimps, we also share 99% of our DNA with mice. From the human genome project:
"Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion. I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species. The exceptions generally appear to be of a particular type --genes that arise when an existing sequence is duplicated."
3) Homology implies only a common mechanism, not what that mechanism is. When we find similar simple structures across widely divergent species -- from simple to highly complex -- that implies that those structures evolved early and remained useful. Structural homology imples a common function while genetic homology implies common descent.
4) DNA changes regularly. Mutation occurs quite frequently in fact (see link). It often results in the death of the cell but not necessarily. It depends on the type of mutation and where it is.
[Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000] http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297 (mutation rate in humans)
Everytime a cell divides, its DNA must be transcribed in full so that a copy goes to the new cell and a copy remains with the original cell. Transcription errors occur all the time and it's simply called mutation. First let's understand what DNA does. DNA encodes for amino acids. We have bases, codons, genes, and chromosomes. Three bases make up a codon. Each base can be thought of as a letter and each codon is a three-letter word. Each codon codes for an amino acid and a string of amino acids makes up a protein so the codon "words" are translated into amino acid "words" which form protein "sentences". The protein may be structural or chemically active (e.g. enzymes, ion channels, etc.). Each amino acid has several codons that code for it, but each codon only equals one amino acid. For example, CGU, CGC, CGA, and CGG all mean "arginine" and nothing else. With two exceptions, there are multiple codons for each amino acid plus three "stop" codons.
There are four types of mutation: Insertion, Deletion, Frameshift, and Substitution. Mutations may be point mutations where only a single base (or "letter") is changed or the mutation may change a few bases.
Insertion and Deletion mutations are exactly that: a base or bases are inserted or deleted. This may or may not effect the function of the protein depending on what was inserted/deleted and where. A Substitution is when one base is replaced during transcription with another base and does not change the length of the gene. One of three things may happen with a Substitution: a "silent" mutation is where the replaced base does not change the amino acid; e.g., CGU is mutated to CGA. The result is still Arg so there is no change to the protein. The substitution may code for a different amino acid in which case it will change the protein. Sickle cell anemia is an example of a point mutation. A single change from adenine to thymine at the 32bp of the DNA that codes for the beta-hemoglobin chain results in the disease. The single base pair change replaces glutamine with valine. The result is hemoglobin-S. That's it. ONE base change causes ONE amino acid change in ONE protein and the result is disease. Another example of a disease caused by point mutations is cystic fibrosis (see links).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...asestudy.shtml (sickle cell)
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/cftr.shtml (cystic fibrosis)
A frameshift mutation results from either an insertion or deletion. The loss of or addition of base pairs shifts the remaining "letters" in the sentence so it no longer makes sense. Think of a sentence composed of only three-letter words: "the fat cat sat." Removing or adding a letter turns it into nonsense: "hef atc ats at". The result is a truncated protein.
That's about all I have the time and energy for at the moment. Suffice it to say, there is an enormous amount of data freely available that strongly contradicts your claims. There is not one argument I've seen here on this thread against the science of evolution that has not already been refuted, debunked, or otherwise countered by those whose profession is the study of evolution and who are much better at it than I. If you'd like to go further down the rabbit hole I recommend the journals Science, Nature, and Genetics. I'd also recommend the Human Genome Project and genome.gov. If you'd like a great primer on all things introductory-evolution Berkely has a fantastic site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Anybody wanna talk about black holes and Hawking radiation as long as we're on the subject of really complicated science shit? It's one of my favorites and far less exhausting... :)
It's been a while since I was in college or read about this stuff but there is no intention to decieve on my part. It's good to be brought up to date about the human genome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
Homology still is not proof of evolution. You said yourself, and I'm trusting it's accurate, that humans share 99% of their genes with other animals such as mice. Homology, whether it be structural or genetic is still support for intelligent design. Simiarity in structure or genetics does not prove common ancestry, it proves that similar functions or features must have a similar genetic programming.
Nothing you have said or linked to, although interesting, proves evolution occured. There are plenty of people who study this stuff full time, who are not theists, that do not believe in Darwinian evolution.
Oh, and there is still no evidence that mutation can produce a new gene unless I missed something from the sciencemag.org link.
Cystic fibrosis.
"The normal CFTR protein product is a chloride channel protein found in membranes of cells that line passageways of the lungs, liver, pancreas, intestines, reproductive tract, and skin." Mutation of three base pairs changes the amino acid sequence in the protein the gene codes for.
"About 70% of mutations observed in CF patients result from deletion of three base pairs in CFTR's nucleotide sequence. This deletion causes loss of the amino acid phenylalanine located at position 508 in the protein" The end result is a transmembrane protein that is more permeable to chloride.
"People who are homozygous for delta F508 mutation tend to have the most severe symptoms of cystic fibrosis due to critical loss of chloride ion transport. This upsets the sodium and chloride ion balance needed to maintain the normal, thin mucus layer that is easily removed by cilia lining the lungs and other organs. The sodium and chloride ion imbalance creates a thick, sticky mucus layer that cannot be removed by cilia and traps bacteria, resulting in chronic infections."
Changing just three base pairs results in a different gene. The "normal" protein is no longer normal. That's now a different gene. Just like if you're not hugging the knee, you're not in New York. Change a small detail and you've changed the structure. The details matter. All ANY gene does is code for a protein. Change the bases, you change the gene and thus the protein. This may have a small effect or a very, very large effect depending on what the specific change is and where it occurs. There is a tremendous amount of data out there. Google isn't bad, but Google scholar, medline, Ovid, and the individual journal websites are a good place to start. To understand genes, gene flow, drift, and genetic variation I once again highly recommend the Berkely site. Google for "berkeley evolution 101 genes".
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/cftr.shtml
Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.
Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.
I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.
Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.
I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!
I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.
Yes but it points to evolution much more than to intelligent design. There is no evidence that suggests I.D. in the physical world. Just because there are certain aspects to how we became Human that we do not know, does not mean that we will never know. Filling in the gaps with God is the easy way out. It was a good way to control and maintain order for people 2000 years ago, but it is unnecessary and a hinderance upon our development as "moral" beings today. Teaching young people with so much conviction that something as transparent as religion is fact, is just wrong. Everything I have seen in my very short life effectively disproves god as an intelligent being. If god ever existed he was definitely a monkey painting a picture with his feces, but thats just wishful thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Im keen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
Well put. When I was small I believed there might be a god, because people older than me I respected told me there was. The more religious education I received, the less convinced I became.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Romano
At the risk of sounding confrontational, you seem to be falling into the same trap as many others; that is, no single piece of evidence demonstrates conclusively that Darwinian Natural Selection is the mechanism behind evolution or that evolution occured. What there is, is a MOUNTAIN of data all pointing in much the same direction that leads those people who have spent their lives studying the process to a similar conclusion. That there are still questions among biologists about how evolution occurs does not discredit the theory. Among biologists, there simply is no debate about WHETHER evolution occurs but rather HOW it occurs. Darwin came to his theory after YEARS of study. There was no single piece of data that made him come to the conslusions he did. It was his observations of THOUSANDS of species from all over the world that lead him to his remarkable insight and discovery. It is no coincidence that he ranks far ahead of any other notable scientist on the list of "all time greats" including Einstein. His methodology, hypotheses, and insight were far ahead of his time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
You're also getting hung up on "proof". Nothing in science is EVER proven, it can only be disproven. A theory can only ever be falsified; it can never be "proven true" or "become fact". The only thing ever properly called a "fact" in science is data. Theories are descriptions of the phenomena that produce data. Data is fact, theory is a description of why those facts are the way they are. Across more than 150 years and literally a stack of data taller than the Empire State building not once have Darwin's four postulates been falsified. Not once. If it had been, you'd be reading about the person who did it in the cover story of every national magazine and newspaper (just like Einstein was when he kicked Newton in the nuts). Understand that in science you don't make a name for yourself going around showing where other people went right and verifying their data. You make a name by proving the status quo wrong and changing the paradigm. That's why scientists aren't bothered by the critique that we used to "know" X and now we know X is wrong. That's OK. That's really the whole point. Science is self-correcting. It is the process that is important because it is the process that refines knowledge. That a theory isn't complete or still asks questions is not indicative of a failed theory.
A great example again is gravity. Newton first described it mathematically. Einstein corrected that description. But even Einstein wasn't complete. We still haven't reconciled gravity with quantum theory (Sorry string theory proponents. It's a nice theory with some very elegant math but until it makes a testable prediction and actually has some data it's just really pretty math.). Because we don't understand everything about gravity does not make either Newton or Einstein's theories "wrong" or otherwise useless. The same is true of evolution and there is FAR more data supporting evolutionary theory than there is for gravitational theories. Since you're not floating aimlessly around the room I imgine you have a pretty firm belief in gravity as a force. That the theory is incomplete probably doesn't bother you that much since you can tell that -- however it works -- it works. That's the same way biologists feel about evolution.
Which brings me to another point.
Jason. As you require some evidence from me as to ages etc. I would like some evidence from you.
What evidence do you have for the existence of god and a creator?
The day I learned that there is no such thing as proof changed my life.
It amuses me that, while he is not famous for it, Darwin was also complicit in the work that lead to the conclusion that the world was old.
It also pisses off countless lawyers on a daily basis. No one has told marketers yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Romano
Why does it have to be one way or another? "there is a god." "there isnt a god." Why cant we just believe what we want to believe? And just get along with each other.And be glad that we are alive.:)