|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
posted November 29, 2008 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm not sure what wasn't serious (i'm not a creationist though) in what I said. But sometimes, if you at least want to accept something, don't start with "I know it's not true" because then you'll just bury your head in the sand. 
Quick post 'cause I don't have time right now to reply. That wasn't for you, it was for Galev  . I did say "@Galev".
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"We don't know" means "We don't know." "It's God" means "We don't know, but we're going to make something up."
It's not just "we don't know" because that would be agnostic (i.e "we don't know, it could be either God or something else"). The atheist says "We don't know, but it's not God or anything like that, it will be explained in the future" -- by that logic it's impossible to ever claim anything else.
And in "God did it" case, it's not about "made something up", they rather know (or believe) that God did it. And in the case with atheism, they believe that it will be explainable simple with their current beliefs -- just like in religion, it is explainable with their beliefs (well at least it's how everyone thinks).
Quote:
Now tell me, that if science is based on belief and so is religion, why is that of religion better than that of science? In other words, why should we believe in God?
I don't persuade you to choose religion. I like to point flaws in arguments. People always use to say that science is above because it doesn't require beliefs (like they are some kind of devil's work and need to stay away from them at all costs, i mean beliefs). I like to point out flaws
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't persuade you to choose religion. I like to point flaws in arguments. People always use to say that science is above because it doesn't require beliefs (like they are some kind of devil's work and need to stay away from them at all costs, i mean beliefs). I like to point out flaws
You're avoiding my question. I will rephrase it, if you prefer. Why believe in God?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 10:11 PM |
|
|
You ask me that or do you want an universal answer?
I explained that last year somewhere -- i.e with some rational arguments why the morals are absolute, and how God is like a parent that doesn't tyrannically want you to worship him, but just request His help (since you do need that), surely you remember right?
Sometimes, such question is like asking "why not be selfish?" (of course it's not the same, but it is difficult to explain). I think especially for me it's easier because I have had some experiences (take a while to explain) probably because of my deep thinking (I have difficulties falling asleep at night because of it ) about stuff, or probably because of meditation, either way it doesn't matter.
What I am tired of is people claiming stuff which doesn't hold much credit, that includes a LOT of religious people (just so you know I don't discriminate). Then, there are people who say that they don't have ANY beliefs at all -- and I just point out their flaws for their love in authorities (scientists) or something they don't understand (i.e most of these are "average Joe-like" about science yet they claim like THEY know everything and don't need beliefs, can you believe that?).
I don't have any problems with believing some things, since I have no problem with belief, I can safely say that science requires a great deal of assumptions/belief which I, of course, don't ALWAYS find hard to do, since it is not ME who claims that we do not need beliefs. However I can't stop but wonder whether we should extend them to everything -- that is more philosophical actually. People who say they don't need beliefs and sometimes don't even know what they're talking about but rely on "scientists" (this is a belief in them) are too arrogant to debate with (mind you, I'm talking about YouTube trolls here ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by mitzah at 22:59, 29 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I don't have a problem with that -- but think like this: if you now are prepared to answer any "weird" situation with "we just don't know yet", how will ANY sign/proof of God ever get into you? (not saying that there are proofs, it's just a hypothetical question). If you keep on that answer to any question which you don't have answer to, it's basically similar to saying "God did it! Question answered", only that you use "I don't know yet, but I'm sure it'll be explainable with induction and repeatable logic", but scientists some 50 years ago said "I don't know yet, but I'm sure it'll be explainable with induction and repeatable and deterministic logic".. Phew how quick their thinking changes
But dude..this actually happens. Scientists explain things today which couldn't have been explained 50 or 100 years ago.
Quote:
nope. I'm not promoting religion with my posts. I'm finding flaws in the science -- mind you I'm not trying to prove God, I'm trying to disprove the fact that science doesn't require beliefs
So..a biologist, for example, needs to have beliefs in order to come up with the DNA, for example ? To what kind of beliefs are you reffering ? I'm not sure I follow..give me an example or sth .
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I think "stupid" is not the appropriate word here..it's more like unknowing. Can't you imagine people inventing stories for things they couldn't explain (3000 years ago) ?
I don't mean "believe" as in "believe" (related to faith and all)..I mean "think".
Well mathematics is a story in itself too, but now we take it as the law of the universe -- it is an axiom so to speak, to assume that the universe follows mathematics laws.
I understand, but I don't see the relation between my quote and yours . I just explained what I mean by saying "believe"(=think, not related to faith or sth else).
Quote:
If it were Hawking or Einstein saying it, do you think I would interpret it differently or that I would care? In fact, he has a pretty good point with triangulation. Then, what you said with "If it workd on a star which is 400 ly away from us, why shouldn't it work on a star which is 800 ly away ?" and this is exactly what I was talking about:
this isn't knowledge, it is extrapolated information, or to put it more for the average Joe around here (if there's any), it's an assumption. Assumptions are based on beliefs -- i.e we believe it is uniform (the universe) and we use the logic of induction to apply that here. (if you want look it up on wiki, but don't take the mathematics definition, that's a different case)
But wait..the color spectrum does work. It allows astronomers to make predictions (i.e. when a star's life will end, for example). It might not be 100% accurate (and no one says it is) but it is considered to be reliable at the very least. I do agree..this might not be complete knowledge about the distances between stars and the Earth..but that doesn't mean that it's false.
He might have a point, but not on purpose  . Still, analogies were used and are being used..and they give results. Do you think that science had come so far if it weren't for analogies and assumptions ? Analogies are used because they actually work (maybe not 100%, but I'd say at least 90% because scients wouldn't make any analogies if that were the case). As for assumptions, well, they're considered to be credible until proven wrong. But that's how it all works..you need to assume something to find out if it's true or not.
Quote:
Not sure if it's bs actually -- I know a lot of so-called evolutionists who claim here and there that "God is a bastard" or "why did God do X then?" as arguments. I realize they have other arguments but if they really didn't care about that, they wouldn't post it. It seems pretty clear to draw the conclusion here. And who said that I took the video as something else? Of course that's what I understood from it, that he thinks it's possible for us to have been created by "intelligent design". But of course it's easier for him to imagine aliens with human-like behaviors rather than Gods in another dimension, which is why he used that argument instead.[/quotes]
Well, he has other arguements..he wrote a full book full of them. He also says something about Einstein in that book if I'm correct. I think he meant to say something like: ok, so I could accept that an alien race made us (imagine us creating a race of microorgamisms and controlling their development..does that mean that we are gods ?) but under the conditions of the theory of evolution and under any other scientific laws, and not by magic. Of course he dismisses the christian god here, and he has a good reason: christians believe that man was created from mud/soil. He did say that the alien race would have to respect the scientific laws, and the christian god theory does not..I don't know if I made myself clear. The concept of a god is different than the concept of an alien race (by definition).
Quote:
It's based on acquired information from data. It doesn't make it true however. For example, some aliens could have planted all fossils (just a hypothetical example). Not saying it's true, but whoever says it's knowledge is completely false. Period.
Well, theory of relativity is also a theory..Scientific theories are based on bodies of evidence. Furthermore, theories allow us to make predictions. You should check out how scientific theories are actually tested I think there's a clip about that in the "Made Easy" series. It's not like they put out a theory and test it afterwards..It takes years for a theory to be accepted. So it's not based just on acquired info from data.
Quote:
While I agree that it sounds funny I can only start to wonder: isn't this the reason we don't find any "signs" by God? Isn't the fact that we dismiss them all as "silly" things because we don't want to believe? Aren't we ignoring something? (note: not saying that all of them are true, but SOME).
Well, how can you ever know which is and which is not a sign? You never know..but how does that become an arguement which can be used to prove that a god exists ? Uncertainty is not an evidence.
Quote:
Take alien signs for example: sure not all of them are true, but that doesn't mean some aren't -- if we keep on saying "no such thing" or laugh whenever someone gives an alien video, just because there are 99 previous false ones, doesn't mean we should ignore the new one. If we do, it becomes impossible to ever find proof because we dismiss it.
Then I guess that a god would know that, and he wouldn't give us signs, now would he ? If he would realize that we'll keep on laughing, then what would be the point of giving us signs in the first place ?
Quote:
Hmm not sure what wasn't serious (i'm not a creationist though) in what I said. But sometimes, if you at least want to accept something, don't start with "I know it's not true" because then you'll just bury your head in the sand.
That wasn't for you, it was for Galev . I did say "@Galev".
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So..a biologist, for example, needs to have beliefs in order to come up with the DNA, for example ? To what kind of beliefs are you reffering ? I'm not sure I follow..give me an example or sth
He has to believe his tools and work methods are absolutely flawless. That his predecessors were right with their theories that you are using.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 10:59 PM |
|
|
Ok, I understand now. But how is that a bad thing ? I mean, experiments are constantly being repeated..
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 11:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But dude..this actually happens. Scientists explain things today which couldn't have been explained 50 or 100 years ago.
Yes but 50+ years ago scientists said the Universe had no beginning and laughed at anyone who believed that "fairy tale" (even without God). I'm saying such statements shouldn't be made but people (including your video) make them all the time unfortunately, somehow they feel it makes their arguments stand out better for those who have to 'believe' them and take their word for granted (i.e the average Joe). It doesn't work for those like me though.
Quote:
But wait..the color spectrum does work. It allows astronomers to make predictions (i.e. when a star's life will end, for example).
I think you confuse the color of the star with the "redshift" which is used to measure distance (or so it is believed). 
The redshift can't usually make predictions because you can't travel that far -- in fact I think somewhere it was said (in an article) that some galaxies have stars with different redshifts even though they are close, which is an argument against the "redshift can be used for measuring distance", it was called an "unsolvable riddle" or something.
Quote:
It might not be 100% accurate (and no one says it is) but it is considered to be reliable at the very least. I do agree..this might not be complete knowledge about the distances between stars and the Earth..but that doesn't mean that it's false.
Well technically the distance itself is just an assumption we made from information aka the color of the star.
Quote:
He might have a point, but not on purpose . Still, analogies were used and are being used..and they give results. Do you think that science had come so far if it weren't for analogies and assumptions ? Analogies are used because they actually work (maybe not 100%, but I'd say at least 90% because scients wouldn't make any analogies if that were the case). As for assumptions, well, they're considered to be credible until proven wrong. But that's how it all works..you need to assume something to find out if it's true or not.
Technically by that logic we would have to assume that God exists if we want to find more about Him, and most atheists first need some evidence before the assumption takes place (read: reproducible evidence, which is kinda contradicting the God stuff), but that's not the point anyway. The point was that science needs heavy assumptions about the way the Universe works.
I'm not saying they're false (I'm a computer programmer and I use such assumptions everyday). I'm saying that we use them as the basis of all explanations, which is false. They aren't false, but we shouldn't overuse them or extend them to all areas, especially those which we know don't "accept" that (God isn't a machine to do our bidding depending on laws of physics, for example, so He isn't reproducible).
Put it simply: I can make assumptions about the way some person reacts, depending on my experiences with him/her, but it doesn't mean I have to use those assumptions to explain another person!
The problem here is that most atheists are asking for some sign from God that falls under their assumptions, or science's assumptions so to speak, which is like extending it to "another person" or "area of interest". Just because it fails assumptions doesn't mean it's false, but it doesn't mean it's true either. It's inconclusive. But I ask, why waste time on such assumptions when we know they won't work anyway? If you are not prepared to take other assumptions into account then there's nothing I can do, because after all, if one is not inclined to take the science's assumptions (i.e a reproducible universe/mechanistic based on logic of induction) then to that person it is impossible to prove with experiments, since he doesn't have such assumptions.
For example, if you make a test in your lab, you then usually assume it works the same outside right? Extrapolation or "logic of induction" is called. If someone doesn't have 'faith' in this then he will say "How can you be sure it works outside? Just because it worked 1000 times in the lab doesn't mean it'll work again" -- this is a person that doesn't have such assumptions. It is impossible to prove to such person.
So here is the conclusion I've been trying to make: proof can only exist with the right assumptions. Are you prepared to take the assumptions in thought?
Quote:
Well, he has other arguements..he wrote a full book full of them. He also says something about Einstein in that book if I'm correct. I think he meant to say something like: ok, so I could accept that an alien race made us (imagine us creating a race of microorgamisms and controlling their development..does that mean that we are gods ?) but under the conditions of the theory of evolution and under any other scientific laws, and not by magic. Of course he dismisses the christian god here, and he has a good reason: christians believe that man was created from mud/soil. He did say that the alien race would have to respect the scientific laws, and the christian god theory does not..I don't know if I made myself clear. The concept of a god is different than the concept of an alien race (by definition).
Hmm well the alien race is more 'plausible' because it follows physics laws, but what if it follows something "higher"?
Did you watch "The Matrix"? Maybe we're in a virtual simulation and thus, everything 'outside' (i.e real) is complete magic, since these laws of physics we experience are artificial. I'm not saying it's true, just pointing out that laws of physics may not be robust.
Quote:
Well, theory of relativity is also a theory..Scientific theories are based on bodies of evidence. Furthermore, theories allow us to make predictions. You should check out how scientific theories are actually tested I think there's a clip about that in the "Made Easy" series. It's not like they put out a theory and test it afterwards..It takes years for a theory to be accepted. So it's not based just on acquired info from data.
Yes it is. A theory is used to make predictions, but sometimes we just take it for granted. Take gravity. The information is that things fall to the Earth. More advanced information is that if falls spherically around the Earth, we call it a "gravitational field", whatever.
The idea is, we then assume with the logic of induction, that it applies to all mass and other planets and stars. Sometimes we predict it as true, but sometimes we cannot, but we take the assumption. This isn't bad, it just shows how heavy we rely on beliefs/assumptions.
Like I said above, the question is: should we rely on such assumptions for all areas? For everything? (by definition God isn't reproducible for example)... so we shouldn't expect proof with such assumptions. It is impossible, contradictory to the definition of.
Quote:
Well, how can you ever know which is and which is not a sign? You never know..but how does that become an arguement which can be used to prove that a god exists ? Uncertainty is not an evidence.
Exactly. Like I said, if there are 99 false alien videos, discarding the next one is just going to make it impossible to prove. There are a lot of pranks out there -- but if we keep on saying "it's a prank" or "it's fake" then it makes it, automatically, impossible to prove no matter what
Quote:
Then I guess that a god would know that, and he wouldn't give us signs, now would he ? If he would realize that we'll keep on laughing, then what would be the point of giving us signs in the first place ?
Not sure, maybe some don't laugh and wants to know which... but I was mostly talking about things like Jesus, and all those other "insignificant" things.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Again, that's not an answer. You say that science relies on assumptions just as religion does, so if you want to get away from assumptions, be an agnostic. So, why not be an agnostic?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fortress_II
Bad-mannered
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:35 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 09:03, 01 Dec 2008.
|
Time for Teletubbies
____________
I am a christian and I am proud of it!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:41 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:46, 30 Nov 2008.
|
Wait, who said I don't believe in things? Look, for someone who can believe in God, surely it won't be difficult to also believe in my computer, for example
The problem is with people who claim they have no beliefs or that beliefs are for fools or all that, when they either use it all day along (in fact most such people are "average Joe" who put beliefs in scientists, they don't know **** themselves).
As to why I believe in God, like I said I explained this in 2007 (see my post who was supposed to be an answer). It was a (very) lengthy explanation, and not only one post -- personal experiences + some philosophy + overall kindness & morals & feelings. I believe in God also because of the (hidden) morals I understood from it, and it somehow made perfect sense to me (even absolute morals, not even taken from the Bible, but since to explain I would have to go to Moral Philosophy, suffice to say I won't write that in this post since it has a thread of its own and we debated to exhaustion in it). There are a lot of things that one must "get" to believe in God, not just a recipe or learning things by rote/heart -- you have to truly dwell in it. For me it made perfect sense, not saying it must make for others. It is also sometimes the experiences one can have from meditation or deep thinking -- but it can also be hope for all I know. You have to get the basics like "why" you suffer in Hell (it's not just "burn with fire" that's just too metaphorical for a world without time and without the normal 3 dimensions/matter, don't you think? just logic...). In my philosophy (yes I know some will say it's flawed) you suffer because you are suffering yourself (i.e you were evil so to speak), so you encounter your own mirror, your own self. (I detailed this in 2007 but heck, with the rate this thread's going I know it's buried there and I don't blame you  ).
I could go on with other 'aspects' from religion that I philosophically contemplated on, but I don't have time now. But for the record, I have like 10% good knowledge of the Bible, I never took the time to read it and learn it by heart, that's pointless, just the basic idea (and yes, I do know, people can corrupt anything they touch).
Note that I also have "personal" views towards physics myself, and it has nothing to do with religion -- it's again because of philosophy and deep contemplation, there are little moments in my life that I don't think to be honest (I mean, deep think) or meditate. For example it lead me to believe there is no such thing as particle or "solid" things or "objects" at all, just forces/fields, and this is not based on any experiments or anything (it can't be proven anyway), just some philosophical questions -- which in turn, can apply to "spirits" as well (since when you consider everything an 'immaterial' force, then there's no problem in the "ki" force or whatever it is called). That's all the 3D universe is made of, with varying degrees -- and in fact I can even imagine a 4th dimension (not time mind you) 
all this stuff makes up to it. But I don't think I have time to (re)write that lengthy explanation why I believe in the things I do (and not only religion btw).
Quote:
Since agnostics are going to hell because of their ungratefulness for His Sacrifice.
Well that's not really my opinion on the matter. I think we need to ask to be saved by Jesus because we all sin, there's no doubt in that. All people, religious or non-religious, sin, and all we have to do is say "Daddy, please help me!" or something like that -- of course if you don't say it, daddy doesn't force you to be helped either.
(yes I detailed this before with the "parent" analogy, it's sad when you think it was wasted and buried in other pages  ).
damn forums, they were right... they are a waste of time, and it's not always because of the debates/people you argue with, so don't get me wrong, it's not your fault...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:43 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 00:52, 30 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Since agnostics are going to hell because of their ungratefulness for His Sacrifice.
Who says one cant be greatful for something they arent sure happened? Me for instance.. I say Quote:
"Jesus, if your real and if that really happened, way to go man, thanks"
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 01:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Since agnostics are going to hell because of their ungratefulness for His Sacrifice.
So, why don't we ban members any more?
TheDeath:
I'd be interested in reading that post. But it seems to be buried quite deeply.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 01:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Since agnostics are going to hell because of their ungratefulness for His Sacrifice.
Hooray for the religion of fear and hate!
It's in Montserrat somewhere:
Coronel: "people just don't believe in the true God, anymore"
Izquierdo: "No, he does believe in God. He's just different than your fearing, childish god who needs power."
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 10:45 AM |
|
|
Well, I really enjoyed discussing with you, TheDeath (might be because you're also Romanian ) because you really do have some interesting ideas and points. I used to discuss with other christians on a Romanian forum, and they either ignored my statements/points of view or they just insulted me just because I'm an atheist.Hell, one of them tried to prove that dinosaurs lived in the same period as modern humans did . I took that chance when I began posting in this topic, actually. I'd really like to continue posting here but it's a real time killer (not in a positive way) and this will be a very crazy month for me. I can see that you have a more phylosophical approach.
Which scientists said that the Universe had no beginning ? And what does this have to do with things being explained now which couldn't have been explained years ago ?
No, actually I did mean "color spectrum": http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_color_spectrum_be_used_in_the_study_of_stars. Like I've said..triangulation really does work (triangulation and the color spectrum have the same results), that guy says that it doesn't work at all. And it's not just the color of the star.
I think your analogy is flawed. You cannot make an analogy between a person and a star, for example.
Well, things are tested outside a lab, you know .
Come to think of it, I've been thinking about the Matrix thing myself . But come on..you can't think that physics laws are not robust. How can the law of gravity not be robust ?
Well, it does apply to other planets which have the same configuration as Earth does. Did someone ever assume that Mars' (or the Moon's) gravity is the same as the Earth's ? Of course they made assumptions that things would move kinda slow on the Moon..and that was true. They made assumptions based on the observation of the Moon.
"Maybe"..that's an assumption.
The thing is that Jesus is only mentioned in the bible. A christian historian did "mention" him, but:
1. He was christian.
2. He mentioned (just mentioned) Jesus some 50 years after his death.
3. The historian was born after Jesus' death.
4. He was christian so he could have been inspired by the gospels.
So, if Jesus is only mentioned in the bible, why him and not Horus, or Dyonisos ?
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:00, 01 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
I'd be interested in reading that post. But it seems to be buried quite deeply.
You might have read it but probably forgot it, unfortunately. I don't think I even was debating with you back then, but more like presenting our OWN personal stuff and philosophies there, and I remember Doomforge posting his as well, and Minion perhaps -- it was somewhere around when debating with Corribus I think but heck even I forgot exactly so how can I expect you since it wasn't even your post...
Also for those that missed it (like mitzah) this can shed some 'light' on some things -- note take it philosophically, not as absolute truth, but something to PONDER on
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 09:07 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 09:11, 01 Dec 2008.
|
I believe that christianity should be learned as lowercase in my spelling dictionary.
Done.
Because "In the name of @#$%# take up thy swords and destroy that village of people who are not like us"
____________
What are you up to
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 09:16 AM |
|
|
That above post made me immediately think of:
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 03:21 PM |
|
|
It made sense to me, but I understand how you could be confused.. The cats only half way out of the bag.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by Mitzah at 18:47, 01 Dec 2008.
|
The assumption thing with science really made me think about certain aspects and I've come to a conclusion:
What are the chances of science (or evolutionism) being wrong with the hundreds of sequenced genomes,millions and millions of fossils,millions of geological samples collected from all over the planet,the anatomical and biogeographical data,thousands of evolution expermients,scores of macroevolution examples observed in nature,physics and chemistry expermients conducted in the last century and so on and so forth ? All of these lead scientists to conclusions that are FAR from guess work.
You don't need to see what happened, with enough empirical evience it's easy to figure out what happened. All the branches of science "agree" that the Earth is at least hundreds of millions years old. What about atavisms..what about the banobos..what about mitocondrial NA..what about our chromosomes..what about embyology ? Are these just set up by a god ? You just need a bit of common sense.
Scientists have to work hard and to come up with a valid theory about the creation of the Universe (and about other things)..while things are much easier for religion. The Universe was made by a(some) god(s). You might ask : "But wait..who made the god ?". The answer will be..he just was and just is. Why does religion get away with it ?
LE: TheDeath I just saw your link. I'll look into it later
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
