Jesus Rode a Dinosaur

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
204

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
If you point out a flaw in evolution, then the scientists will say, “Yes, that is a problem and we are working on that.” Just because a theory can’t explain everything doesn’t mean its not useful. As was stated twenty times already, all of our scientific theories break down at some point, which is why we still have scientists. But the important thing is the process and the methodology: science doesn’t accept supernatural explanations, and you should be happy about that the next time you need some cutting-edge medical procedure to save your life. Or, you could just have someone pray for you…

So because I don’t believe in a certain theory in science, that means that I’m automatically not thankful for medical care and anything else that is related to science in any way?

I had a major operation when I was 17. I am thankful for what science had to offer, none of which had anything to do with the origins of man and the universe.

You make some horrible points. Actually you don’t even make points.
[/quote]

But its the same process… If biologists looked at the human body, and said “its impossible to understand because it was created by God, lets just go pray and kill heathens”, then modern medicine would not exist. But, they didn’t accept a supernatural explanation, and through scientific methodology they arrived at cures, surgeries, etc.

So if it wasn’t for the scientific method, then your surgery wouldn’t have happened. And its the same method that is being used to find out more about our origins, and the origin of the universe. No God, no supernatural explanations, just science. That’s my point.

And about the medicine-science connection: the technology that created MRI’s is based on nuclear physics, the same nuclear physics which is used to date the oldest rocks in the earth (4.5 billion years old). We know the half-lives (and other properties) of elements to an astonishing degree. If we didn’t MRI’s wouldn’t work. So there is a connection. Science drives technology. Technology improves your life.

205

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
But its the same process… If biologists looked at the human body, and said “its impossible to understand because it was created by God, lets just go pray and kill heathens”, then modern medicine would not exist. But, they didn’t accept a supernatural explanation, and through scientific methodology they arrived at cures, surgeries, etc.

So if it wasn’t for the scientific method, then your surgery wouldn’t have happened. And its the same method that is being used to find out more about our origins, and the origin of the universe. No God, no supernatural explanations, just science. That’s my point.

And about the medicine-science connection: the technology that created MRI’s is based on nuclear physics, the same nuclear physics which is used to date the oldest rocks in the earth (4.5 billion years old). We know the half-lives (and other properties) of elements to an astonishing degree. If we didn’t MRI’s wouldn’t work. So there is a connection. Science drives technology. Technology improves your life. [/quote]

So every scientific method that a scientist starts always ends up being exactly what the scientist predicted?

With this logic, if a scientists starts a scientific method, I should automatically believe that the outcome is exactly what the scientist is trying to prove before he has even proven anything.

206

[quote]vroom wrote:
Would you guys be so upset about someone else pushing some other religion? I doubt it as in the PC world it is in to be Buddhist and out to be Christian.

Are you changing the question now that I’ve already answered it or are you just looking for a second opinion?[/quote]

That was always the question.

207

Scroll back…

208

[quote]DPH wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The idea that the world was flat was a scientific fact of that day, like evolution today, until proven wrong by someone sailing around what was considered the end of the world.

could you please tell me the names of the scientists that claimed the earth was flat…I’d really like to know…

could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…

I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…

I asked you this once before and you never replied…

your help would be appreciated…thanks![/quote]

Well, I guess I used the word “scientists” too loosely. We are talking about AD 200-300, so there were really no scientists as we view them today. Just philosophers who came up with theories and apparently didn’t understand or know the scientific process we know today. The term “peer-reviewed” did not exists in AD 200.

In any case, not everyone believed in the flat earth, but many of the so-called scalars did.

Here is a reference:

209

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DPH wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The idea that the world was flat was a scientific fact of that day, like evolution today, until proven wrong by someone sailing around what was considered the end of the world.

could you please tell me the names of the scientists that claimed the earth was flat…I’d really like to know…

could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…

I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…

I asked you this once before and you never replied…

your help would be appreciated…thanks!

Well, I guess I used the word “scientists” too loosely. We are talking about AD 200-300, so there were really no scientists as we view them today. Just philosophers who came up with theories and apparently didn’t understand or know the scientific process we know today. The term “peer-reviewed” did not exists in AD 200.

In any case, not everyone believed in the flat earth, but many of the so-called scalars did.

Here is a reference:

[/quote]

so, another words, the number of scientists throughout the ages that have espoused a flat-earth hypothesis is zero…

thanks for clearing that up!

210

Wikipedia has a good discussion of Christianity in general. Here is a page on criticisms of it…

211

[quote]ZEB wrote:
JOB 38-15, 16, 17 & 18:

The Lord spoke:

"The wicked are denied their light and their upraised arm is broken.

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?

Have the gates of death been shown to you?

Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?

Tell me, if you know all this."[/quote]

Ben, shut the fuck up. This is exactly the kind of trolling bullshit that got you thrown off of the Crossfit site.

212

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:

No. Science is not a leap of faith. It is, in fact the OPPOSITE of a leap of faith. Fossils, carbon dating, etc. These are not articles of faith. They are things that can be proven or disproven.

To further show you to be an incredibly thick moron, were you around 200 and something years ago? No. Then how do you know that the American Revolution took place? Do you believe in it based on faith?

Jackass.

Bones left in the ground can fossilize rather quickly.

Carbon dating is a myth.

On faith, I believe our history books since I was not around 200 years ago for the American revolution.

Boy harry, you are quite dumb to believe everything people tell you. Do your homework…you might actually learn something.

You no longer have any credibility whatsoever.

Hmmm. You are qualified to make that decision? I think not.

Yeah, I am. Seeing as how you’re the lackwit who said that carbon dating was a myth, it can be clearly stated that you are not bright.

[/quote]

Harris, you are just a prissy little punk. I bet you got your tail waxed in high school and now you pretend to be tough on the net as a form of redemption. I’d bitch slap you if I ever saw you.

That said, there are many qualified and intellignet people who believe that carbon dating is flawed. Need links?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Remember Harris…As much as you hate the Bible, and God, and things of morality, if I’m wrong in my religious philosophy, then when I die it doesn’t matter much. If you are wrong, don’t forget the suntan lotion!

213

Psst, Ivan, qualified sources aren’t usually found on free web hosting sites…

216

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33318/print/

I’m in. Jesus is my lord and savior. Now I’m gonno go have a nice coke and hooker party with some stolen credit cards… And I’ll see you all in heaven!

217

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:

So every scientific method that a scientist starts always ends up being exactly what the scientist predicted?

With this logic, if a scientists starts a scientific method, I should automatically believe that the outcome is exactly what the scientist is trying to prove before he has even proven anything.

[/quote]

Dude, if you say “proof” or “proven” one more time, the kitten gets it. Do I make myself clear? Now, you wouldn’t want to kill a kitten would you? Then just ease off of the p-word.

For the last time: Science is not in the business of proving things. Science offers models and theories to explain the natural world based on mathematical principles of logic.

So when you say, “macroevolution cannot be proven,” you are absolutely correct. In fact, you could replace “macroevolution” with any scientific theory. Because that’s not what science does. It may be semantics, but its important to understand the nature of the thing you are arguing against.

The important distinction between science and the supernatural, is that scientific theories are falsifiable. That means that if they do not accurately describe nature, then you could set up an experiment to discredit them, and they would be discarded.

But, if you claim that a supernatural power created life for example, then there is no experiment which can falsify that claim. Therefore, it is not science, and shouldn’t be advertised as such.

And what’s the big deal with being descendent from monkeys? Does it offend your sense of aesthetics or something? Are humans so different? I mean, we share 99% of our DNA with them. Plus, they make farting noises with their lips, which is pretty damn funny.

218

Why are monkeys still around then. Did they get caught in a time warp?

219

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Why are monkeys still around then. Did they get caught in a time warp?[/quote]

Because every monkey in the world didn’t mutate at the same time?

Hell, here’s proof Darwin was on to something:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=404893

Two die of carbon monoxide poisoning
By BOB PURVIS

Posted: Feb. 28, 2006

A Milwaukee man and a 17-year-old girl died of carbon monoxide poisoning while having sex inside a running car in a closed garage last week, according to a Milwaukee County medical examiner’s investigation report.

.

220

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Why are monkeys still around then. Did they get caught in a time warp?[/quote]

oh my…

221

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
miniross wrote:
Surely selective reading…

But if you take it that god made the big bang then it conflicts creationism and eveything that springs forth from that.

This is yet another example of the gap god, the puniest of all gods.

Either way, the big bang is an idea, not fact. It will never be proven…

No shit. Nothing physical can be proven. You can’t prove that every time you drop a rock it will fall.

This has been said so many times on these forums, that I can’t believe we are still having the “proof” debate. Science DOES NOT offer proofs, it offers theories which make predictions. Mathematicians and theorists have proofs because they work off of a set of axioms which describe the rules of logic.

Evolution is never presented as fact by competent scientists. Just like physics, chemistry, etc are not presented as facts. A fact in the scientific sense is a statement like “at time t the object was at position x with a velocity v.” Thats a fact. There is no theory involved. Theories have to describe how the object got there, and what it will do next, etc.

If you point out a flaw in evolution, then the scientists will say, “Yes, that is a problem and we are working on that.” Just because a theory can’t explain everything doesn’t mean its not useful. As was stated twenty times already, all of our scientific theories break down at some point, which is why we still have scientists. But the important thing is the process and the methodology: science doesn’t accept supernatural explanations, and you should be happy about that the next time you need some cutting-edge medical procedure to save your life. Or, you could just have someone pray for you…

And in response to your butterfly question, please explain to me the purpose of flightless birds. Or the spleen. Or the defective configuration of our eyes. For every example of intricacy in biology, there is another example of evolutionary dead-ends. Viruses anyone?[/quote]

As a science/math teacher, I want to compliment you on your presentation of the the facts. I am also deeply religious and it pains me to see the ongoing debate between two vastly different realms. Matters of faith and matters of science should not be antagonistic – they are simply two facets of the human experience.

222

HeadHunter, it’s my guess that generally they get along very well, except for those that get into a fundamental literalist mindset.

In that case, beliefs are in conflict with science, so science gets rejected and then the fun starts.

223

[quote]vroom wrote:
Matters of faith and matters of science should not be antagonistic…

HeadHunter, it’s my guess that generally they get along very well, except for those that get into a fundamental literalist mindset.

In that case, beliefs are in conflict with science, so science gets rejected and then the fun starts.[/quote]

But why play that game? This discussion isn’t even interesting. At least the religion thread from about a year ago had enough interest that it literally went on for over a month and most of it was actually civil discussion. I mean, Boston hasn’t even posted a 5 page bibliographical source so clearly this thread is lacking.

224

[quote]vroom wrote:
Psst, Ivan, qualified sources aren’t usually found on free web hosting sites…[/quote]

Pony up some cash vroom, and I’ll do some research myself.

225

ACTS 18-9:

One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: Do not be afraid keep on speaking do not be silent.

JAMES 1-21:

“Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”