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).