|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
That's what make's this country great.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319 |
I can't settle this argument. You are ALL wrong, and I am right.
Oh crap I am starting to sound just like my wife.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Well you was there in the begining!  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319 |
It was a beautiful sight to see 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
That would give new visuals to the creation theory.
GM: Hmm, wonder what happens if I do this?
/ BAM! the earth is created.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319 |
and after all these years, there is still plenty of natural gas left 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
j/c Thought this pertinent to the discussion. Quote:
A Friend of Unfair Park wondered earlier this week what had become of the Institute for Creation Research's federal lawsuit filed in April against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in which the Dallas-based organization claimed the THECB violated its constitutional rights when it refused to grant the ICR's request to dole out master's degrees in science. Well, turns out, quite a bit's happened -- including the filing of a similar suit in Travis County, which has since been moved to federal court in Austin. And the whole shebang now has its own page on the National Center for Science Education's Web site, which has collected some of the more pertinent legal docs filed in recent weeks.
But not included are two docs you'll find after the jump, including the ICR's motion for summary judgment filed in Dallas federal court three weeks ago and the defendants' response, filed only yesterday. In short: The ICR claims that since it doesn't take government money, the government doesn't have the right to tell it what kind of degrees it can hand out. Meanwhile, the THECB members member say District Judge Jane Boyle can't rule on the case yet because, look, they haven't even responded to the original complaint yet, come on.
link
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Here's something I had wanted to post, but couldn't find the link: http://xkcd.com/154/~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
I have often wondered if many of the blocks of science are flawed at the foundation and everything based upon those blocks are just a dead end...kind of the evolution of life...some find or luck into the correct keys and end up with truly advanced civilizations/worlds and others never get off the ground.
I suspect in the wonders of the universe, us humans are comparative chimps to the advanced levels of life. I somehow think we can't be at the top of life's hierarchy.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
I have often wondered if many of the blocks of science are flawed at the foundation and everything based upon those blocks are just a dead end...
If that were true, I'm not sure how we would have come up with radios, TVs, GPSs, nuclear power, airplanes, or any of the other million things that are have been proven to work time and time again.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I have often wondered if many of the blocks of science are flawed at the foundation and everything based upon those blocks are just a dead end...
If that were true, I'm not sure how we would have come up with radios, TVs, GPSs, nuclear power, airplanes, or any of the other million things that are have been proven to work time and time again.
~Lyuokdea
Possibly flawed wasn't the correct word...let's say limiting...it isn't that what we base everything on doesn't work...it may just be a dead end road so to speak....maybe we are there, maybe we aren't...had we stumbled on another path in this journey of existence, possible we have much, much more.
My point is possibly the science we follow has it's limits and won't allow us to achieve much further....not much we can do about it now unless a truly renaissance moment occurs.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
I have often wondered if many of the blocks of science are flawed at the foundation and everything based upon those blocks are just a dead end...
If that were true, I'm not sure how we would have come up with radios, TVs, GPSs, nuclear power, airplanes, or any of the other million things that are have been proven to work time and time again.
~Lyuokdea
Wow - you got that from what he posted?
He wasn't saying all science is flawed - if I may speak for him. At least that's not what I took from it. Rather - when a scientific theory is believed to be true - more "science" gets based on that. And when the original theory is proven wrong........well, I won't get into it with you.
Science has brought us a lot - no doubt. Science has been wrong more often than right. Who's to say that todays scientific theories - things that by some are taken as fact - won't one day be proven wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I somehow think we can't be at the top of life's hierarchy.
Agreed.
If we are it makes me question the universe a bit. Or at least concede that it has a lot to learn...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
Luke sometimes limits his mind to the bounds of science.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
j/c
I think the earth is really old.
Enough said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Possibly flawed wasn't the correct word...let's say limiting...it isn't that what we base everything on doesn't work...it may just be a dead end road so to speak....maybe we are there, maybe we aren't...had we stumbled on another path in this journey of existence, possible we have much, much more.
My point is possibly the science we follow has it's limits and won't allow us to achieve much further....not much we can do about it now unless a truly renaissance moment occurs.
Ah....I misunderstood. As above, I believe science is generally correct in the claims that it makes. That is evidenced over and over again by the successes of things like GPS, computers, etc.
It's entirely possible that science is locked into small corner in the realm of things that are "real". I don't think anybody would argue that, certainly not most scientists. But it's not something I worry about, I worry about the line between things that I do know, and things that I think I can know. Sometimes those jumps are large, mostly they are imperceptibly tiny, either way, they are what I know how to do, and I'd rather not waste time worrying about things that I don't know how to do.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I somehow think we can't be at the top of life's hierarchy.
Agreed.
If we are it makes me question the universe a bit. Or at least concede that it has a lot to learn...
No sense questioning the universe....it is what it is...I think learning is where the answer rests.
We have to realize that in 500 years we are going to be viewed as a pretty primitive culture who held to some strange views just as it was pretty goofy the people 500 years ago thought they were going to sail off the edge of the earth, and went on expeditions looking for the fountain of youth.
For every 100 links in the chain we think we have added, future generations will have to remove 95 of them and wonder why it took so long.
In time, Chemo is probably going to be viewed much the same way we view doctors of the 18th century bleeding patients.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
In time, Chemo is probably going to be viewed much the same way we view doctors of the 18th century bleeding patients.
I don't think that's a good analogy. Hopefully chemo will someday be replaced by a better treatment. However, Chemo statistically works, and greatly improves the prognosis of Cancer patients. That fact itself is indisputable.
Bleeding is known to actually increase the chance of death among patients. Back then, they didn't have the type of statistics we have now to determine the efficacy of different treatments.
There's a huge difference between the two. One is a poor (but the best available) treatment, while the latter was actually hurting patients.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Quote:
We know through the observation of radioactive decay of certain elements, IE timing their half-lives and how much of certain elements are left in layers of rock containing other elements, such as uranium. From this geological study, we know that earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. This is scientific theory is proven by geology and backed up by hard physics, there are no assumptions involved or necessary in this science.
Uhh, yeah, radioactive decay clearly tells us the age of the Earth and is backed up by geology and physics, so long as geology and physics are valid sources when judging Earth's age. - Considering that both Geology and Physics are man-made concepts, and also considering that nobody has any hard proof whatsoever that the Earth is older than themself, I'd hardly consider the age of the Earth, as presented by scientists, anything other than a theory.
Quote:
If you wouldn't mind pointing out the solid evidence for creationism?
Uhh, yeah, I'm here. I was created by something, which had to be created by something else, and on and on. - This isn't hard to comprehend.
Quote:
The point being that there is no test for creationism that proves anything, and they only try to tear down evolution because they perceive it as an afront to religion
Uhh, no, there is no test for creation because man wasn't programmed to be smart enough to figure out anything about the force that created us. - Of course, scientists are people that are obsessed with figuring nature out, but are too arrogant to admit that something much smarter than any scientist created everything ranging from bodyparts to emotions.
Quote:
Evolution has been tested, observed, and verified by many avenues of science using well understood methods.
Tested by whom? Who created the test?
There is no way that you can replicate the history of the Earth. - You can't do it, it's impossible. Without being able to replicate the history of the Earth, you have nothing to base any sort of test on. You don't have a video camera of men/women evolving from anything. You don't have any first hand accounts, or sources of anything that tells you how life was created or how the Earth was created. All you have is what's here, that's it.
A MEMO TO ALL SCIENTISTS:
YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS WHAT CREATED US.
YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR ANYTHING PHYSICAL, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CREATION OF EMOTIONS, AND FEELINGS, WHICH COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN CREATED BY SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Quote:
Quote:
In time, Chemo is probably going to be viewed much the same way we view doctors of the 18th century bleeding patients.
I don't think that's a good analogy. Hopefully chemo will someday be replaced by a better treatment. However, Chemo statistically works, and greatly improves the prognosis of Cancer patients. That fact itself is indisputable.
Bleeding is known to actually increase the chance of death among patients. Back then, they didn't have the type of statistics we have now to determine the efficacy of different treatments.
There's a huge difference between the two. One is a poor (but the best available) treatment, while the latter was actually hurting patients.
~Lyuokdea
Uh...I think you are correct...but the geniuses who came up with "bleeding the patients" thought that they were correct too.
At the end of the day...I am with Peen on this one...and said so fairly recently after two friends went through the procedure.
It's the best we have going right now based on what we know...we just don't know enough...or so I hope and pray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
Sure the statistics show improvement...60 years ago you just died....the ones who somehow got better for one reason or another didn't become a statistic unless you want to count miracles.
Like I said before....I think you are a little anal in your thinking and hide behind the statistics of science.
Dude....bottom line is we aren't half as smart as you think we are, though I am sure you have some statistic to "prove" otherwise..
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Sure the statistics show improvement...60 years ago you just died....the ones who somehow got better for one reason or another didn't become a statistic unless you want to count miracles.
Like I said before....I think you are a little anal in your thinking and hide behind the statistics of science.
Dude....bottom line is we aren't half as smart as you think we are, though I am sure you have some statistic to "prove" otherwise..
Where did I indicate that we know everything? I think quite a few people her are attributing a lot of views to me that I don't hold.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
.bottom line is we aren't half as smart as you think we are
I can point you to a group a teenagers that knows everything there is to know in the world, if you want. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Possibly flawed wasn't the correct word...let's say limiting...it isn't that what we base everything on doesn't work...it may just be a dead end road so to speak....maybe we are there, maybe we aren't...had we stumbled on another path in this journey of existence, possible we have much, much more.
My point is possibly the science we follow has it's limits and won't allow us to achieve much further....not much we can do about it now unless a truly renaissance moment occurs.
I think I fully understand your point... a professor of mine once used the automobile analogy... we used to have animal drawn carriages, 4 wheels, a frame, and a powersource... we made constant improvements on that, making covered carriages, better wheels, cushioned seats, improving roads... then we replaced the horsepower with internal combusion engine but the 4 wheels, frame, etc remained basically the same.. since then we've spent the last 100+ years trying to improve and perfect the automobile making it faster, more comfortable, paved roads, etc... Now we are still working within the confines of the automobile as we know it, just trying to come up with more fuel efficient power sources...
As he put it, 99% of science and technology is just working to improve what we have... very little is spent figuring out if what we have is the best path to take..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
We know through the observation of radioactive decay of certain elements, IE timing their half-lives and how much of certain elements are left in layers of rock containing other elements, such as uranium. From this geological study, we know that earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. This is scientific theory is proven by geology and backed up by hard physics, there are no assumptions involved or necessary in this science.
Uhh, yeah, radioactive decay clearly tells us the age of the Earth and is backed up by geology and physics, so long as geology and physics are valid sources when judging Earth's age. - Considering that both Geology and Physics are man-made concepts, and also considering that nobody has any hard proof whatsoever that the Earth is older than themself, I'd hardly consider the age of the Earth, as presented by scientists, anything other than a theory.
Look Muni, Lyoukdea already posted why we know that half-lives are valid sources of info in determining why the Earth is the age it is. It's not based off of assumptions, or guesses, but on observation and testing. These are natural things that occur that are comparable to the laws of thermodynamics. If this is wrong, then ALL of our physics is wrong, and nothing in our world today based off of these facts would work. It's all based off of the same foundation and principles. Saying that geology or physics has only hypothesis shows your ignorance to the subject matter. You have no clue what these two avenues of science say about anything. You scoff at them based on the fallibility of man and have nothing else to back up your argument.
So how old are you Muni? You don't think the earth is 6000 years old, you think it's whatever your age is. Which is more laughable and shows that you are grasping at straws for your argument. There is no basis for your thoughts other than speculation, not fact.
Quote:
Quote:
If you wouldn't mind pointing out the solid evidence for creationism?
Uhh, yeah, I'm here. I was created by something, which had to be created by something else, and on and on. - This isn't hard to comprehend.
Firstly, that's not creationism and that's not what it says. Secondly, you have an observation (the fact that you are here) and a hypothesis (that God placed you here). That's it. I can make the same assertion and say that aliens placed us here and have the same amount of evidence supporting the statement. You say creation should be regarded on the same level as Evolution. Show me, or point me to, the evidence that shows that creationism should even be considered. That's all I want. Something that states that creationism should be just as viable a theory as evolution. The fact is that there isn't any. Just like your supposed proof from above, there is no proof for the question of special creation only an observation and an untestable hypothesis. That isn't science, and therefore should not be taught as science in schools.
Quote:
Quote:
The point being that there is no test for creationism that proves anything, and they only try to tear down evolution because they perceive it as an afront to religion
Uhh, no, there is no test for creation because man wasn't programmed to be smart enough to figure out anything about the force that created us. - Of course, scientists are people that are obsessed with figuring nature out, but are too arrogant to admit that something much smarter than any scientist created everything ranging from bodyparts to emotions.
Too arrogant? Really? Your pessimistic view of man is disheartening and sad. This statement is also is a cop out, there's nothing you have left to say to show your point, so you brush it off with the failings of man. You obviously don't know any scientists. You have a view of them that's been instilled by people who want to paint them all in a poor light to undermine what they do. Your statement that we're too dumb to understand nature so therefore shouldn't study it not only shows how you feel about learning, but also how you feel about nature as whole. For a God worshipping man you sure do gloss over his most amazing of His creations. Our understanding of the natural universe in the past 500 years has grown at a logarithmic rate. There are certain aspects of the universe we won't understand, but I believe that given enough time we'll (the human race) be able to comprehend the majority of it. To say that Man wasn't meant to comprehend is hogwash. In genesis, it says that God gave creation to man to hold steward over. I take that as we were meant to study his creation, understand it, and take care of it, not throw it away and pooh pooh it. If you believe in God, you must also believe that he gave us this intelligence for something. To squander it would be a waste of His gift.
Quote:
Quote:
Evolution has been tested, observed, and verified by many avenues of science using well understood methods.
Tested by whom? Who created the test?
Go to this link, type in "Evolution" and start reading my friend, there's only 25,000 publications or so. I would tell you to go to ISI web of knowledge, but you need to be on a university network to use it. Http://www.pubmed.com
And yes, the tests are done by men and women. But the tests are done using the scientific method, which takes out human bias and error. If a test has ever been shown to be wrong, it's pointed out by colleagues and the idea is disavowed.
Quote:
There is no way that you can replicate the history of the Earth. - You can't do it, it's impossible. Without being able to replicate the history of the Earth, you have nothing to base any sort of test on. You don't have a video camera of men/women evolving from anything. You don't have any first hand accounts, or sources of anything that tells you how life was created or how the Earth was created. All you have is what's here, that's it.
No, you're right we don't. But we see the evidence of similar events that are occurring when we look through microscopes. We see past events when we delve under the waves and into the earth. These things aren't made up. You don't need first hand accounts to figure something out, when the evidence is there. Can you ever be 100% sure? No, but you can never be 100% sure of first hand accounts either (our memories aren't perfect), or video (video can be altered), or pics (photoshop). We do this all the time in our daily lives. What science does is set out to provide the best fit explanation for what we see in many avenues of research and apply it. By matching up all those verified and reverified tests, you get things like the Theory (scientific) of Evolution.
Quote:
A MEMO TO ALL SCIENTISTS: YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS WHAT CREATED US. YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR ANYTHING PHYSICAL, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CREATION OF EMOTIONS, AND FEELINGS, WHICH COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN CREATED BY SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT.
A note to you Muni. No one ever said that scientists, professors, researchers, teachers, etc. were claiming to be smarter than a creator of any kind. We have explained much of the natural world around us, but no where close to all of it. We know that emotion, and feelings, are not just in humans, but in dolphin and orangutans down to dogs and birds to differing degrees. Emotion isn't special. Sorry. Neither is conscious thought. A handful of organisms on this planet have been shown to be self-aware and capable of cause-effect thinking that many people thought only occurred in our own species. No one is trying to be as smart as a creator, they're just trying to understand the world we live in.
Science doesn't try to explain that which cannot be tested, like God. To say that science is anti-religion shows that you truly know nothing of science, how it works, and what it says. You see some flame arguments by the vocal minority like Dawkins and think that's how we all think. It's not. In the vast majority of science, we know that we can't explain things like the moments that life began 3.5 billion years ago. We can make educated guesses, showing how life could begin, but we won't know for sure. That being said, we've been able to show that things like RNA molecules and enzymes hold to the theory of evolution, it wouldn't take much to get life as we know it started here on Earth. By showing that something is at least a viable hypothesis, we are in fact showing that life can spring from non-life given the right condition. It's not so much a proof of how life came to be, but a proof that life is capable of formation.
Turning a blind eye to fact doesn't make it go away. Ignorance can be fixed, but the desire to fix it has to be there. Unfortunately, Muni, I don't think you have the desire to learn anything in addition to your belief system. A belief system that includes a theory (laymen), better to say a hypothesis I guess, of how old the earth is based off of the biblical genealogy done by a man in the 1700's. He's not correct, he's been shown in the past 150 years to be wrong and verified to be wrong by subsequent generations of research. Did you read that? Did you know that? The 6,000 year old earth isn't in the bible, it's the interpretation of a man from 300 years ago based solely on his assumptions of how long people lived back then, and how many "begats" occur in the old testament. You believe that since he used the word of God that it must be true, when in all actuality the only thing he has to go on is the length of time humans have been keeping birth records, and not very good one's at that might i add.The argument is flawed in exactly the same way you say science is flawed. This idea of a young Earth is based solely on interpretation of an old text by a man, assumptions taken from that interpretation by a man, and the use of simple math by a man. This 6000 year old earth idea is exactly the type of thing that you despise in science, it was done by fallible man and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
Compare the young earth is up against whats observed through astronomy. We are able to see, and measure, the expansion of the universe and have a good idea just how old it is. We know through the study of physics that these constants, like the speed of light, are just that, constants. If they were different 6000 years ago, we would see a difference in how the universe is today. Things would not be the same. Put it up against what we observe in Geology. Radioactive decay is a solid, evidence-based, measure of how certain elements like to be in a stable state. This is verified by physics and by chemistry. There are no assumptions in these measurements, so no models are needed. The only thing you need is a measurement apparatus specific for the type of rock you'll be testing. Yes, there are multiple radioactive decay measurements that are more useful than others in different applications like Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and radiocarbon. The reason they give different results is that they have different half-lives. Those are just two small examples of how we know the Earth's rough age, and why a 6000 year old earth is wrong based on our observations. Now, thats not to say that God didn't create the universe to look this way as it is now. But that hypothesis is not testable, so therefore not scientific at this moment in time. Science doesn't say there is no creator, just that if it's not testable it doesn't figure into our observations and therefore Theories (scientific) about how the universe works.
So Muni, I have my tested evidence of why the Earth is the age it's said to be, where's yours?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
why would people tell us the opposite of what we know to be true?
WE? as in you and I? They are only guessing what is true or false! Show me some proof...then we can discuss this, scince is all bassed on guessing game's...as far as in the past.
So when you look up at a red-giant that's 500 million light years away, you're not seeing that red-giant as it is today, but as it was 500 million years ago.
So is that a guessing game because what you're seeing is 500 millions years old, or is it fact because we know that light travels at 186,000 miles per second?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I suspect in the wonders of the universe, us humans are comparative chimps to the advanced levels of life. I somehow think we can't be at the top of life's hierarchy.
Bingo 
Kinda goes back to the saying we were told as kids to learn us some lessons, which is that there's always going to be someone bigger, someone stronger, someone faster, or someone smarter that yourself. In the vast expance of the Universe, WE are the pinacle of evolution?  Not! Hehe.
It's ironic that your comment has brought this fully back to the beginning of this topic, since church doctrine demanded that humans were the pinacle of the Universe.  Quote:
I have often wondered if many of the blocks of science are flawed at the foundation and everything based upon those blocks are just a dead end...kind of the evolution of life...some find or luck into the correct keys and end up with truly advanced civilizations/worlds and others never get off the ground.
Well.............science is inheritantly flawed if you choose to examine it as an application that has to reach erroneous conclusions before finding accurate ones. However, in terms of learning about the laws of physics, science has got it mostly right. We can't say it's absolutely right all the time, but the foundations of science are based in the laws of physics which are simply correct (at least in this section of the Universe). Did other civilizations make it further than we did? It'd be damned hard to say with any confidence that we've evolved further than anything has anywhere  One has to think that older planets house the proper conditions for life to evolve, which likely happened there sooner than it did here.
Then they got smacked by a red-giant before they could learn to flee their solar system and BAM!! they are toast........and we go to the top of the civilization list *L*
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Uhh, yeah, radioactive decay clearly tells us the age of the Earth and is backed up by geology and physics, so long as geology and physics are valid sources when judging Earth's age. - Considering that both Geology and Physics are man-made concepts,
Geology and Physics are NOT man-made "concepts." Those two words represent the study and understanding of things that exist. The laws of physics have been proven for decades. Those are facts, not flawed man-made creations.
Quote:
Uhh, no, there is no test for creation because man wasn't programmed to be smart enough to figure out anything about the force that created us.
Not yet, but evolution may one day get us there
I can prove how things mutate and thus evolve, so it's reasonable to believe we can get smarter and figure out more complex problems. You can't prove that we were programmed.
It's sad to me when I see people that limit what mankind can become because they believe we were created and are as we were meant to be and can't be anything more.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
J/C
The simple fact that stem cell research and other comparable methods has given humans the power to create something out of a cell is proof enough to me that science isn't something that should be ignored. How could something (science) so "wrong" perform the "miracles" that only God is smart enough to understand?
I never understood why people that believe in God can't look at science as the tool to which God created everything. Why can't both co-exist? According to Bobby Bouche's mom..."Science is the devil!"
Last edited by ChiefsFan; 07/14/09 12:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I never understood why people that believe in God can't look at science as the tool to which God created everything. Why can't both co-exist?
Because science, taken in that context, refutes the teaching of the church, and many pastors, preachers, ministers, etc are cut-and-dry, black-and-white in that regard.
Furthermore, when you've grown up in the church and that's all you've been taught, it's much harder to accept that anything else could be real, especially under the threat of eternal damnation in Hell 
As much as churches do good in preaching about love and helping out your fellow man, they are doing terrible damage by motivating people through fear.
My buddy is a perfect example of this. He's a great husband, a great father, and would do anything for anyone. But because he doesn't go to church three days a week, he's CONVINCED he's going to burn in Hell. Why? Because that's what his church has taught him. 
GMAFB.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553 |
enjoy. open letter to the kansas school board Quote:
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.
John Barrymore
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,563 |
Quote:
It's ironic that your comment has brought this fully back to the beginning of this topic, since church doctrine demanded that humans were the pinacle of the Universe.
Does it?? I am religious and believe in God, but I haven't been to a service in maybe 10 years...I seem to wake up once every 10 years and go to some service.
Even if it does, I don't think it is contradictory with that teaching and saying other forms may be more advanced.
I don't think it was intended to be the most advanced as in who has the best spaceships so to speak. I think it refers to levels of consciousness and the ability for humans to expand their minds and souls.
The fact we may not have done such a good job of that doesn't diminish the fact it is, or at least was possible.
Kind of gets back to that path I talked about...once you start down one long enough, it is pretty hard to undo and start over.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
since church doctrine demanded that humans were the pinacle of the Universe.
I'm pretty sure that typical church doctrine teaches that God is the pinnacle of the universe...
Then it goes on to say that man should have dominion over the plants and animals of the earth (I don't remember exactly that it states "of earth" but it's implied)....
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Earth at that time was not Earth the Planet...it was earth as in ground, dirt, soil, etc...Earth the Planet did not come about until science showed us that Jupiter, Mars, etc...were not Roman gods but planets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
his church has taught him.
What chuch does he belong to?...If you read the bible, it say's you do not have to go to church! as long as there is more then one pearson in the room you can pray, or somthing to that efect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
as long as there is more then one pearson in the room you can pray, or somthing to that efect.
I can't pray unless there is someone else in the room?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
his church has taught him.
What chuch does he belong to?...If you read the bible, it say's you do not have to go to church! as long as there is more then one pearson in the room you can pray, or somthing to that efect.
I think Toad's implying his religious organization
And yes, i think the new testament says that a church is any gathering of people to honor the Lord. But, I think it also says that you can praise Him on your own too. If you follow the teachings of Christ, then as long as you believe that he died, rose again, and walked among the living for a few days to cleanse our sins, that's enough for eternal life. Everything else i think is just suppose to bestow blessing (crowns) on you in the after-life. Like reading revelations and perfect attendance at church. 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
as long as there is more then one pearson in the room you can pray, or somthing to that efect.
I can't pray unless there is someone else in the room?
That's not what I ment!...lol 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
as long as there is more then one pearson in the room you can pray, or somthing to that efect.
I believe it says that wherever two or more are gathered in My name I will be there...
but that doesn't mean you can't pray alone.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Earth 6000 years old
|
|
