Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Stars?

Author
Message
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 00:59 Edited at: 17th Aug 2004 02:09
Link
My thoughts exactly Jerico, and why bother putting down fossils?

Searching google myself: these are to disprove disproving evolution
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Dec2002/1038844741.Ev.r.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27686 << this one I'm sure disproves creationists theory, so God created dinsours, killed them then just made up everything else just like that? What's the point? And there is evidence to suggest Noah's flood happened, which is probally quite probable, but its not just christians that have a story of a great flood - similar stories feature in many cultures and religions.

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000280.html << good argument on another forum.

Evidence that supports evolution and kills creationism: The appendix! It does nothing now, but 'back in the day' it would have been the same as a cows extra stomach or a rabbits stomach - full of friendly bacteria that breaks down green plant matter to get the max energy from it. We don't need to get most of our energy from green plants now - we've evolved, oh and why would God give his creation something that has no use?

More stuff that proves evolution: The HIV virus (and other viruses) viruses in the body spread by infecting cells and forcing them to create copies of the virus, not every copy is exactly the same they are all mutated slightly. The HIV virus is possibly the fastest evolving thing on the planet, it mutates nearly 10x as much in one day (in one person) then the flu virus mutates in the entire world in one year. The mutation of viruses and bacteria leads to resistance to anti-biotics and antibodies, thats why you can always get a cold and we have new 'killer' infections like MRSA. A virus is barely more than a blob of matter, some people dispuite that it's actually alive - now imagine how much can happen in an animal/plant/bacteria.

A good article on religion and God was written by Douglas Adams, go to the libary and get the Salmon of Doubt!

Tum ti ti tum ti tum....

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 03:13 Edited at: 17th Aug 2004 03:14
Link
The lack of logic here is painful. A few things.

-Creationism is not equal what the Bible says. There are a good deal of other religions who have their own scriptures, legends, etc. Please stop equating the two terms.

-Creationism cannot be disproved. The world could have been created by a random quantum reaction five seconds ago, or set up by a thorny red guy named Billy Bob five thousand years ago, or created by the Christian god when the Bible says it was... no matter how much evidence for any theory we find, we'll never be able to disprove the theory that it was all put there.

-There is no modern evidence that disproves evolution. There is plenty that makes it a weak theory IMO, but there's nothing that disproves it. People just love overusing this word.

- The appendix does do stuff. You still twenty years ago? Scientists love saying various organs in our body are useless and having doctors cut them out, and then it turns out they're useful a few decades later. "Ooops, here's your tonsils back, sorry for the diseases!" Religion aside, scientists tend to like playing god like that.

-Good point about there being a big flood in many religions. I think it's pretty obvious that, religion again aside, there was a big flood at some point in our past. As to what caused it ...

-Your virus argument is fundamentally flawed. The more complex an organism, the more difficult for it to 'evolve' in any given way without destroying itself. That's why there have been all of two beneficial mutations in the annals of modern science. Humans are filled with irreducably complex systems, thousands of them, where a single 'tweak' would send the whole body crashing down. This is evidence against either the big bang or evolution, take your pick; scientifically, it is vastly, massively, ridiculously unlikely (but not impossible of course) that humans would have evolved into what they are today in the amount of time since the big bang supposedly happened.


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:18 Edited at: 17th Aug 2004 06:32
Link
There's two explaitions for that, one it's not as hard for life to evolve as you think or two maybe the big bang happened before we thought it did! I'm sorry but you'll never convince me that creationism/the bible/any religion is right - if you think its so hard for human beings to come about how do you expect a god to!

Edit: So what does the appendix do?

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
JeBuS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2004
Location: Undisclosed Location, Dominion of JeBuS
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:32
Link
My take on religionists verse scientists/evolutionists (for lack of better term).

Religionists believe God always was and always will be, Scientists/Evolutionists believe the universe/multiverse always was and always will be.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:39
Link
Scientists don't believe the universe always was - the big bang started it all remember?

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
JeBuS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2004
Location: Undisclosed Location, Dominion of JeBuS
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:40
Link
lol, no, the big bang didn't start everything. Do a little more research on the multiverse and string theory. It's theorized that the big bang was the result of 'seepage' from another dimension. That's a very simplified explanation, so don't grill me because it's technically incorrect.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:43
Link
Hehe it seems to me theres two big flaws in science and religion:

God creates universe, who creates God?

Big bang creates universe, what started big bang?

Both of which are huge flaws to build up well, everything on.

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 06:55 Edited at: 17th Aug 2004 06:56
Link
JeBuS has it right. As for where those other dimensions came from, they really have no idea. That's just how it works.

Quote: "There's two explaitions for that, one it's not as hard for life to evolve as you think"


Sure, I'll believe that as soon as you put together a solid simulation showing that the probability of human DNA evolving from a single-celled organism in 15 billion years. I'll even grant you the extreme inprobability that a single-celled organism came about virtually instantly. Go ahead ...


Quote: "or two maybe the big bang happened before we thought it did!"


Based on that theory of how matter works-- as JeBuS said, don't grill me on this one-- you've only got a maximum of one billion years margin.

Quote: "I'm sorry but you'll never convince me that creationism/the bible/any religion is right"


That's because you're not opened minded-- notice how I'm considering what you're saying but you're not considering what I'm saying?

Quote: "if you think its so hard for human beings to come about how do you expect a god to!"


Maybe the worst argument so far in this thread . Since I'm saying I don't believe in evolution, obviously the god wouldn't have evolved-- that's called circular reasoning. Furthermore, what makes you think you could possibly comprehend what limits a deific being could have? It could be extraplanar, subatomic, larger than our universe, live in a completely different level of reality, or just be outside of reality altogether-- you have no idea and I have no idea. That's the point. And until I find a believable theory with a good deal of supporting evidence, I'll continue beliving we've been created in some way, shape or form by some kind of powerful being, because that's what the material evidence points to.

Edit:

Quote: "
God creates universe, who creates God?

Big bang creates universe, what started big bang?

Both of which are huge flaws to build up well, everything on."


Precisely. It's an infinite loop. Thus the only explination is that something that completely and utterly transcends reality or our human understanding created the 'rules', the planes of existance, reality, metaverse, whatever you want to call it.


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
JeBuS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2004
Location: Undisclosed Location, Dominion of JeBuS
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:00
Link
I wouldn't say it's the only possible explanation, I would say it's one of 2 possible explanations. The other being that the multiverse has always been and will always be, in one form or another.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:01
Link
True .

Pick your poison-- both explinations are rather unsatisfying . Unless you follow a religion which understands/knows about its creator, as do most of them, that is.


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
JeBuS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2004
Location: Undisclosed Location, Dominion of JeBuS
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:05
Link
Well, personally, I chose the poison that allows me to make tests and observe results. I can't buy into religion/god, but that's a personal thing. I have nothing against people who believe in religion/god, it's their choice. It takes some courage to truely believe in something you can't be sure of. I admire that in religious folks.

On the flip side, I also despise some religious folks, because they have blind faith and don't challenge what they believe. How can you truely have faith in something if your faith is never tested?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:07 Edited at: 17th Aug 2004 07:08
Link
I rather agree with you. I think it's very foolish to blindly follow a religion because you're not willing to change, but it's admirable to follow one with experience behind you and an open mind. Being open-minded doesn't neccessarily mean being an athiest or being unreligious; it also strengthens faith. I also admire open-minded athiests in that way, for the same reasons. But, for all of how popular it is for the majority of them to talk about being 'free-willed' etc, they are very rare. Most of them, in my experience, just aren't willing to give faith and try or consider what their belief really means. But some aren't .


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:40
Link
Quote: "as do most of them, that is."


really? I don't remember hearing any religion stating how their god was created? Would you care to divulge?

Hakim's Razor states the simplest way is the most likely way, . . .
the problem is figuring out which is really the easy way.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 07:49
Link
Quote: "really? I don't remember hearing any religion stating how their god was created? Would you care to divulge?"


That's not what I said.

Quote: "Unless you follow a religion which understands/knows about its creator"


See ?


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 11:37
Link
Quote: "could somebody else please "prove" evolution wrong to him? i don't have the time..."

notice i put quotation marks around the "prove"?

that's because there is no complete evidence against evolution. And there is no proof for Creationism(or christianity for that matter)

BUT there are a bunch of facts which seem to go against evolution and make it very unlikely, and there are very few facts which support it...

"We make the worst games in the universe."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 13:38
Link
Quote: "Unless you follow a religion which understands/knows about its creator, as do most of them, that is."


then please reform your statement, as it's confusing/misleading.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 20:37
Link
I was trying to post this yesterday but it wouldn't work for some reason, your right mouse I wasn't being openminded I'm sorry.

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 23:13
Link
No need to apologise , we're all like that at one point or another. Cheers...

Jerico-> I really fail to see how it is .


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Aug 2004 23:23
Link
you said 'as do most of them' as in, 'most religions understand/knows about their creator' in the context of how their creator was created.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 00:12
Link
Actually that wasn't the context, read the posts around it a bit.

If it really offends you that much I might edit it out, but this is rather making a mountain out of a molehill...


Oh how perfect...
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 02:29
Link
lol, no no offenses^_^ Just wanted to figure out what you meant..

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 08:37
Link
Slightly off topic but: has anyone heard the theory that the actual chance of us being real is one billion to one because its more likely that we are all actually living inside massive computer simulations of the past (not pyshically plugged in we're just 1's and 0's!).

I think that is easier to understand than string theory or theology!

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 08:48
Link
Anyone who says that is having a laugh or hasn't thought about it properly. There is no way to compute the chances of us being real or simulated in one way or another. Think about it-- to know the likelyhood of us being a simulation, we'd have to be able to see infinitely far into our own future, know the technology that would come about everywhere at every time, understand every aspect of science... see what I mean ?


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 13:10
Link
lol, i just read an article by steven hawking about that very idea. To compute the actual likelyhood of us being real, we would have to know how big the universe is. Since we don't, we can't..

unfotunately I can't find the article now, instead I'm finding a bunch of hogwash about his thoughts on dna engineering, and if you found the specific article, you would understand what he's really trying to get at... I wish I could find it now

and also, since it's been estimated that our own galaxy alone contains about a hundred billion stars, according to your statistics, even if only half a million of those stars contain planets and even fewer capable of hosting life, it would be quite logical to assume there would be many intelligent beings out there, considering how vast the universe we know of so far is.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ilya
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 15:09
Link
Quote: "lol, i just read an article by steven hawking about that very idea. To compute the actual likelyhood of us being real, we would have to know how big the universe is. Since we don't, we can't.."

Umm how would that help us determin if we are real or not?
And I think the Univierse is infinate(like DirectX).

-Ilya
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
ReD_eYe
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 17:59
Link
Stars are an illusion created by the government. I mean, have you ever been to a star? I think not...


DBP Fanboy is a Unregistered trademark of ReD_eYe uninteractive, no rights reserved.
http://redeye.dbspot.com/fanboy.html
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 18th Aug 2004 23:27
Link
the Anthropic Principle is what he called it.

Read his lecture here :: http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/life.html

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ilya
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 01:50
Link
Quote: "Two questions I shall discuss are, 'What is the probability of life existing else where in the universe?' and, 'How may life develop in the future?' "

Okayyy
(so where's
Quote: "To compute the actual likelyhood of us being real"
)

-Ilya
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 02:46
Link
Quote: "We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small."


Straight from the horse's mouth... he's just afraid to admit the extreme likihood of extraplanar aliens who have lived for trillions of years by sending their civilization back to the Big Bang every time the universe begins to end!


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 04:59
Link
Quote: "However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there."


did you forget to read on?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 05:06
Link
But that's not an argument supporting above point-- there, he's saying that 'since we did come about, it's obviously not too unlikely'. He's taking evolution for granted in that paragraph.


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 05:08 Edited at: 19th Aug 2004 05:10
Link
Quote: "We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.

One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there."


that's not really what he's saying, he's saying that something similar to DNA, (he's getting at the point that there was perhaps a DNA predacessor) and explaining his reasoning

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 05:19
Link
But ultimatly it's still incredibly unlikely, though possible. That's what he says pretty clearly.


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 05:22 Edited at: 19th Aug 2004 05:23
Link
No, what he's saying is yes it's unlikly. But since the universe is so vast if not infinate. That it's not surprising that it did happen.

(And with all seriousness. It did happen, or else we wouldn't be standing here)

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 07:02
Link
Heh, isn't it strange that people seem to read their own prejudices into what other people say and write

What I think that hawking is saying is that as low as the chances are of DNA spontaneously coming into existance, if there is a chance, then given enough time it will happen.

Three and a half billion years seems like long enough to me ...

*** Coming soon - Network Plug-in - Check my site for info ***
For free Plug-ins, source and the Interface library for Visual C++ 6, .NET and now for Dev-C++ http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 07:34
Link
Quote: " Heh, isn't it strange that people seem to read their own prejudices into what other people say and write "


I respect your views on the matter too, thank you

Quote: "
What I think that hawking is saying is that as low as the chances are of DNA spontaneously coming into existance, if there is a chance, then given enough time it will happen."


Given infinity anything and everything will happen-- the question is how much time it'd take for it to become remotely probable. That's not really what his article is about.


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 07:59
Link
Quote: "He [God] did not create the universe so we could sit on our ass and only use blind faith"


Actually, he did. You obviously didn't even get past the first page in the bible. It was when concupiscence became stronger than faith, it all went bits-up.

Scientists have one minor shortfall...they can't work out how everything started. They can't even prove the beginnings of our own solar system, never mind the rest of the universe. Therefore all science is based on primary assumptions. One small, but very significant point they tend to brush under the carpet.

BatVink
http://biglaugh.co.uk/catalog AMD 3000+ Barton, 512Mb Ram, 120 Gig Drive space, GeForce 5200 FX 128 Mb, Asus A7N8X Mobo.
Terms & Conditions apply
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 08:42 Edited at: 19th Aug 2004 08:43
Link
I don't have anything against reasonable assumptions in science, but if they'd just come out of the closet and admit they will never have any way to really know how things began then I'd be a lot more friendly with them. When they're making an assumpion; basing a theory off of a hypothesis or theory and not a scientific law; then they should say so... they often don't. It's bad policy.


Eight Words
Back to top
Profile PM
Damokles
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th May 2003
Location: Belgium
Posted: 19th Aug 2004 17:12
Link
Quote: "Therefore all science is based on primary assumptions. One small, but very significant point they tend to brush under the carpet."


Not really, they try to find out how to prove this assumptions.

- Mind the gap -
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 01:31
Link
Quote: "that is considered young for a planet"


I find that a bit hard to believe seeing as the Big Bang supposedly happened only 5 billion years ago. Billions implies 2 at least; surely a good deal of planets are younger still?

Back to top
Profile PM
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 02:26
Link
The current theory says 5 billion. I agree, it seems a ridiculously short time. I'd find the big bang more believable if the evidence they'd found pointed to fifty million ... well, and there wasn't strong evidence against it. But that's another topic.

Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 02:30
Link
eh, so what's the difference between 5 and 50 billion as per the age of the universe? So we're closer to the center of the universe than other planets.. what of it?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 02:32
Link
I've already gone over that earlier in this thread, not gonna repeat it .

Back to top
Profile PM
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 02:51
Link
The current estimate of the age of the Universe is around 15 Billion years. Our sun is thought to be third generation.

*** Coming soon - Network Plug-in - Check my site for info ***
For free Plug-ins, source and the Interface library for Visual C++ 6, .NET and now for Dev-C++ http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 02:53
Link
Ah... in that case, the link someone put up earlier is out of date. It said 5 billion .

Back to top
Profile PM
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 05:12
Link
Quote: "
Quote: "He [God] did not create the universe so we could sit on our ass and only use blind faith"

Actually, he did. You obviously didn't even get past the first page in the bible. It was when concupiscence became stronger than faith, it all went bits-up.
"


Only use blind faith? Even though God talks to Adam, Moses etc and he actually even goes and beats someone up.

Has anyone heard of the book 'The Davinchi Code'? Although it is fictional it is supposedly based around a 'true' theme (basically the whole church is not how Jesus wanted it).

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 06:56
Link
Quote: "Quote: "Therefore all science is based on primary assumptions. One small, but very significant point they tend to brush under the carpet."

Not really, they try to find out how to prove this assumptions.
"


Which means they are primary assumptions...unproven.

BatVink
http://biglaugh.co.uk/catalog AMD 3000+ Barton, 512Mb Ram, 120 Gig Drive space, GeForce 5200 FX 128 Mb, Asus A7N8X Mobo.
Terms & Conditions apply
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 06:58
Link
ye, but if the nay-sayers had their way..we'd still believe the earth was flat, that the moon makes you go nutso, people would be dropping dead from unknown reasons and we would just assume it was teh debil

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 07:11
Link
Um..But they proved all of that so they're primary assumptions were unproven but then later proved. Oh and for the love of Jebus please nobody start an argument saying the earth is indeed flat!

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Aug 2004 07:50
Link
Quote: "Has anyone heard of the book 'The Davinchi Code'? Although it is fictional it is supposedly based around a 'true' theme (basically the whole church is not how Jesus wanted it)."


Sounds like the whole Protestant idea

Quote: "Oh and for the love of Jebus please nobody start an argument saying the earth is indeed flat! "


Yes, please

Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-22 14:30:45
Your offset time is: 2024-09-22 14:30:45