Will someone please see to it that anti-Christian

[KittenKoder]

Oh, remember that 'god' sent the light from the stars billions of years away to us only a few thousand years. *smirk*

 

[AllieBaba]

Baba, WE ARE THE ONES WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Expanding Universe. Fossil Record. Geographic Time. ALL of these things are PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.


now, please.. show me your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Except you have no physical evidence (and expanding universe is a theory, dear. There is no evidence to support it) to explain the creation of the universe. Or the beginning of life.

You have lots of theories. Not the same thing.

 

[LOki]

Except you have no physical evidence (and expanding universe is a theory, dear. There is no evidence to support it) to explain the creation of the universe. Or the beginning of life.

You have lots of theories. Not the same thing.

No evidence...except the well confirmed observation that just about every object in the observable universe is getting farther away from every other object in the observable universe.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Gunny]

Scientific method = Mythology? Really?

Time for you to come down off your high unicorn.

Chock full of lulz.

Just a nice try at thought.

Hardly. There are whole volumes on scientific method and theory. I did not address method nor am I lame enough to be confused by such a simple ruse as your attempt to apply my statement to method.

Scientific theory itself claims to be based on facts, but is in fact not. If it was, it would be scientific FACT, not theory. It cannot be proven and is guesswork based on the limit of human intellect as well as limited by it.

Science does a great job of explaining Man's world to Man where it is limited to the observable, proven and/or fact/evidence.

It however does no better a job proving a creation theory than the Bible. Both are based on guesswork. Science just tries to make up its own little shit so folk like you can deny Creationism.

Fact: The Big Bang is based on creating something from nothing. Nothing is absolute, and IIRC my science class correctly, something cannot be produced from it. So your Big Fizzle defies its own laws.

Then there's the "Happenstance Theory". In a supposedly random and chaotic universe, just the right amount of water, matter and energy formed to create life on a planet perfectly suitable to support it. Perfectly suitable to support it in fact to the point that from slime, self-aware humans evolved.

Then there's Darwin's Theory of Evolution, not to be confused with actual evolution itself. For all the dinosaur bones and artifacts and cave drawings and fossils that have been dug up, none exist to link Darwin's theory to reality. There's a gap, and only guesswork designed to support his theory to fill in the blank.

Sorry dude. We disagree. A Creator is FAR more likely and plausible, IMO.

But please don't try to sell scientific mythology as any more or less than religious mythology.

You're entitled to believe what you will. Don't waste your time however making condescending comments to me. I don't even expect you to accept the logic of my argument because that would require some self-examination of one's belief's -- the same thing you nonreligious, science-types are always trying to accuse religious people of not doing.

Obviously, such is not the case this time. I've looked at both. I see the same thing, different names.

 

[Gunny]

Eve notice, the only proof I see of creationism is the myth itself? I still have yet to see anything in science that says some magical hand did it all.

Really? Then you can explain complete with evidence the "magic hand" that created something from nothing?

Ever notice, the only proof you see of scientific theories of origin is scientific theory itself? I still have to see anything in science that proves a "magical hand" didn't do it all.

Do bear in mind that "magical hand" is your condescending term. All a Creator really has to be is an intelligent life form beyond human understanding with the ability to create life.

The major flaw to you science-types beliefs is that science is limited by and to Man's intellect. We're not all that smart. We haven't gotten past killing each other for material possessions.

 

[del]

Really? Then you can explain complete with evidence the "magic hand" that created something from nothing?

Ever notice, the only proof you see of scientific theories of origin is scientific theory itself? I still have to see anything in science that proves a "magical hand" didn't do it all.

Do bear in mind that "magical hand" is your condescending term. All a Creator really has to be is an intelligent life form beyond human understanding with the ability to create life.

The major flaw to you science-types beliefs is that science is limited by and to Man's intellect. We're not all that smart. We haven't gotten past killing each other for material possessions.

good post. i'm not in complete agreement with you, but you raise some good points. you might enjoy this take on the subject at hand. it's a little long, but not too bad.

Heaps of Stones

 

[LOki]

Hardly. There are whole volumes on scientific method and theory. I did not address method nor am I lame enough to be confused by such a simple ruse as your attempt to apply my statement to method.

Ok, the semantics got a little (and I mean a very little) crossed there. No ruse involved though; scientific theories are still the result of the application of scientific method to describe and understand reality--your gripe is the basis of scientific theories, or you would not equate them to myths which are derived by an entiely different method, founded on an entirely different basis.

Scientific theory itself claims to be based on facts, but is in fact not. If it was, it would be scientific FACT, not theory.

You need to get reaquainted with scientific method. This time don't ask your Sunday School teacher to do it for you.

Scientific Theories are indeed based in facts established by observations subject to the rigors of scientific method.

It cannot be proven and is guesswork based on the limit of human intellect as well as limited by it.

If you want to get into the metaphysics of "proof", we may as well end this discussion here--I can't have a meaningful exchange with someone who's about to argue that provable reality cannot be real because unprovable realities have not been proven.

Science does a great job of explaining Man's world to Man where it is limited to the observable, proven and/or fact/evidence.

Well, why don't you "prove" there's anything else.

It however does no better a job proving a creation theory than the Bible.

You are certainly wrong.

Both are based on guesswork.

See what I mean? There's no guess work at the Bible--it's just unfounded assertions of reality as if they were facts supported by reality.

Science just tries to make up its own little shit so folk like you can deny Creationism.

You have this perfectly reversed--Creationsim is made up shit so superstitious folks can deny that their mythology is verifiably wrong.

Fact: The Big Bang is based on creating something from nothing.

Fact: You are so fucking wrong. The Big Bang Theory specifically states that conditions before the singularity, that the universe arose from, are unaccountable for by the theory, and our understanding of reality.

This admission, of course, is no proof what-so-ever of a Creator--it doesn't even suggest one.

The suggestion of a Creator is derived from the mythology of the superstitious--the little shit that is "made up" so they can avoid saying, "I don't know."

Nothing is absolute, and IIRC my science class correctly, something cannot be produced from it. So your Big Fizzle defies its own laws.

Nothing is absolute. . . except, obviously, the certainty of the superstitious.

Then there's the "Happenstance Theory". In a supposedly random and chaotic universe, just the right amount of water, matter and energy formed to create life on a planet perfectly suitable to support it. Perfectly suitable to support it in fact to the point that from slime, self-aware humans evolved.

Which is perfectly understandable if you consider the Weak Anthropic Principle of reasoning how it is that we get to sit here and marvel at this exact universe we live in.

Then there's Darwin's Theory of Evolution, not to be confused with actual evolution itself. For all the dinosaur bones and artifacts and cave drawings and fossils that have been dug up, none exist to link Darwin's theory to reality.

The fuck they don't, and they certainly do NOTHING to disprove the Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

There's a gap, and only guesswork designed to support his theory to fill in the blank.

Well, I guess you've made your point--Darwin was not 100% right in everything he said. But what you can't say is that the application of his observations, according to the rigors of scientific method, failed to support his hypothesis, and were evidence that contradicted the Theory that ultimately bore his name.

Sorry dude. We disagree. A Creator is FAR more likely and plausible, IMO.

Not by any objective measure, it's not.

But please don't try to sell scientific mythology as any more or less than religious mythology.

Science will always be mythology to those whose intellectual paradigm rests upon notions that one's strength denying valid logic, and verifiable observations is the measure of the strength of their Truth.

You're entitled to believe what you will.

You are certainly right, Gunny.

Don't waste your time however making condescending comments to me.

I'm not being condescending, I'm being playful; and I don't consider my comments to be a waste, because I consider myself to be chatting it up with a rational human being.

I don't even expect you to accept the logic of my argument because that would require some self-examination of one's belief's -- the same thing you nonreligious, science-types are always trying to accuse religious people of not doing.

1) I don't accpet the logic of your argument, because there's no logical argument involved, and 2) in presuming that I have not engaged in self-examination, you have presumed wrong. Just like you presume that your rationale for holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you.

Which is actually fine by me--you deserve it.

Obviously, such is not the case this time. I've looked at both. I see the same thing, different names.

I beleive what I see--you see what you believe.

 

[Shogun]

Except you have no physical evidence (and expanding universe is a theory, dear. There is no evidence to support it) to explain the creation of the universe. Or the beginning of life.

You have lots of theories. Not the same thing.

are you smoking fucking crack?

The Expanding Universe
For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions about the size and age of the universe. Does the universe go on forever, or does it have an edge somewhere? Has it always existed, or did it come to being some time in the past? In 1929, Edwin Hubble, an astronomer at Carnegie Observatories, made a critical discovery that soon led to scientific answers for these questions: he discovered that the universe is expanding.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/astro/universe/universe.asp

Hubble Measures the Expanding Universe
May 25, 1999: The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project Team today announced that it has completed efforts to measure precise distances to far- flung galaxies, an essential ingredient needed to determine the age, size and fate of the universe.

Right: A NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) view of the magnificent spiral galaxy NGC 4603, the most distant galaxy in which a special class of pulsating stars called Cepheid variables have been found. Researchers found 36-50 Cepheids and used their observed properties to securely determine the distance to NGC 4603. Observations of distant Cepheids such as those in NGC 4603 also help astronomers to precisely measure the expansion rate of the Universe (more information).
Hubble Measures the Expanding Universe

Astronomy 123: Galaxies and the Expanding Universe
Astronomy 123: Schombert

YOU DONT MEASURE A THEORY BABA. EVER GET THE IMPRESSION THAT, WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE, YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

 

[Gunny]

Ok, the semantics got a little (and I mean a very little) crossed there. No ruse involved though; scientific theories are still the result of the application of scientific method to describe and understand reality--your gripe is the basis of scientific theories, or you would not equate them to myths which are derived by an entiely different method, founded on an entirely different basis.

You need to get reaquainted with scientific method. This time don't ask your Sunday School teacher to do it for you.

Scientific Theories are indeed based in facts established by observations subject to the rigors of scientific method.

If you want to get into the metaphysics of "proof", we may as well end this discussion here--I can't have a meaningful exchange with someone who's about to argue that provable reality cannot be real because unprovable realities have not been proven.

Well, why don't you "prove" there's anything else.

You are certainly wrong.

See what I mean? There's no guess work at the Bible--it's just unfounded assertions of reality as if they were facts supported by reality.

You have this perfectly reversed--Creationsim is made up shit so superstitious folks can deny that their mythology is verifiably wrong.

Fact: You are so fucking wrong. The Big Bang Theory specifically states that conditions before the singularity, that the universe arose from, are unaccountable for by the theory, and our understanding of reality.

This admission, of course, is no proof what-so-ever of a Creator--it doesn't even suggest one.

The suggestion of a Creator is derived from the mythology of the superstitious--the little shit that is "made up" so they can avoid saying, "I don't know."

Nothing is absolute. . . except, obviously, the certainty of the superstitious.

Which is perfectly understandable if you consider the Weak Anthropic Principle of reasoning how it is that we get to sit here and marvel at this exact universe we live in.

The fuck they don't, and they certainly do NOTHING to disprove the Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Well, I guess you've made your point--Darwin was not 100% right in everything he said. But what you can't say is that the application of his observations, according to the rigors of scientific method, failed to support his hypothesis, and were evidence that contradicted the Theory that ultimately bore his name.

Not by any objective measure, it's not.

Science will always be mythology to those whose intellectual paradigm rests upon notions that one's strength denying valid logic, and verifiable observations is the measure of the strength of their Truth.

You are certainly right, Gunny.

I'm not being condescending, I'm being playful; and I don't consider my comments to be a waste, because I consider myself to be chatting it up with a rational human being.

1) I don't accpet the logic of your argument, because there's no logical argument involved, and 2) in presuming that I have not engaged in self-examination, you have presumed wrong. Just like you presume that your rationale for holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you.

Which is actually fine by me--you deserve it.

I beleive what I see--you see what you believe.

You are quite closed-minded on the topic. Is it not encumbent to me to prove anything. I'm not trying to tell you I can either prove God exists, or that you should believe in Him. I'm merely stating that your belief is no more grounded in fact nor proveable than anyone else's.

Scientific method not only is not the only means of explanation, just one of them. If scientific theory was as infallible as you believe it wouldn't be constantly corrected by new evidence/fact.

Just like you presume that your rationale for holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you.

Since I couldn't have improved much on your statement, I quoted it. It applies to you every bit as much as you believe it applies to me; especially, the last. Science presumes man's intellect is supreme; therefore, that Man is God.

 

[Shogun]

Insisting upon physical evidence may be "close minded" but that IS the standard of the scientific method. It's the core of deductive logic. Ask Francis Bacon.

 

[KittenKoder]

The term 'magical hand' that you find so 'condescending' is truer to a fault. Magical means anything that is untestable or beyond scientific study, so it fits anything that is myth or unproven, taking offensive at it shows that you are seeking offense. Also, I was saying that ll creation myths use themselves, while scientific theory and fact use many differing theories and sources for evidence. Science has many differing theories, methods, etc. just like religion, only the scientists are not huffing up their chests saying 'my beliefs are better than your beliefs'. A good scientist (yes there are bad scientists who do ignore all other science for their own arrogance) will look at all pertinent facts and theories to develop or maintain their own.

 

[LOki]

You are quite closed-minded on the topic.

In what way exactly, Gunny?

Is it not encumbent to me to prove anything. I'm not trying to tell you I can either prove God exists, or that you should believe in Him.

My request that you prove the unprovable was not meant to obligate you in any manner; it was rhetorical.

I'm merely stating that your belief is no more grounded in fact nor proveable than anyone else's.

Oh, I'd disagree. The validity of my beliefs are far more grounded in verifable fact, and proveable as valid, than ANYONE'S superstitions.

Scientific method not only is not the only means of explanation, just one of them.

Right. It's not the ONLY means of explaination-you can just make your explainations up, or . . . you can choose to accept explanations others have made up based upon unquestioned, and unquestionable authorities--which turns out to be the same thing as "just made up."

Scientific method is certainly not the ONLY means of explanation; it might not be the only valid means of explanation; it might not be the only objective means of explanation, but it is the only valid means of objective explanation we've got.

If scientific theory was as infallible as you believe. . .

Say again exactly what I beleive . . . ?

. . . it wouldn't be constantly corrected by new evidence/fact.

Here's unequivocal proof that you can be absolutely wrong. Have you gotten used to it yet?

Just like you presume that your rationale for holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you.

Since I couldn't have improved much on your statement, I quoted it. It applies to you every bit as much as you believe it applies to me; especially, the last.

Not in the least. Scientific method asserts categorically the exact opposite of what your superstitious beliefs must necessarily insist--i.e. that, ". . . holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you."

Science presumes man's intellect is supreme;...

Supreme to what exactly, Gunny? To your invisble white father who lives in the sky?

( I'll let you in on a secret, Gunny: Man's intellect is indeed supreme to your invisible white father in the sky; my invisible white father in the sky said so. )

. . . therefore, that Man is God.

Oh. Science is a threat to your superstions is it?

 

[dilloduck]

In what way exactly, Gunny?

My request that you prove the unprovable was not meant to obligate you in any manner; it was rhetorical.

Oh, I'd disagree. The validity of my beliefs are far more grounded in verifable fact, and proveable as valid, than ANYONE'S superstitions.

Right. It's not the ONLY means of explaination-you can just make your explainations up, or . . . you can choose to accept explanations others have made up based upon unquestioned, and unquestionable authorities--which turns out to be the same thing as "just made up."

Scientific method is certainly not the ONLY means of explanation; it might not be the only valid means of explanation; it might not be the only objective means of explanation, but it is the only valid means of objective explanation we've got.

Say again exactly what I beleive . . . ?

Here's unequivocal proof that you can be absolutely wrong. Have you gotten used to it yet?

Not in the least. Scientific method asserts categorically the exact opposite of what your superstitious beliefs must necessarily insist--i.e. that, ". . . holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you."

Supreme to what exactly, Gunny? To your invisble white father who lives in the sky?

( I'll let you in on a secret, Gunny: Man's intellect is indeed supreme to your invisible white father in the sky; my invisible white father in the sky said so. )

Oh. Science is a threat to your superstions is it?

Science is only socially accepted superstition. It's theory

 

[LOki]

In what way exactly, Gunny?

My request that you prove the unprovable was not meant to obligate you in any manner; it was rhetorical.

Oh, I'd disagree. The validity of my beliefs are far more grounded in verifable fact, and proveable as valid, than ANYONE'S superstitions.

Right. It's not the ONLY means of explaination-you can just make your explainations up, or . . . you can choose to accept explanations others have made up based upon unquestioned, and unquestionable authorities--which turns out to be the same thing as "just made up."

Scientific method is certainly not the ONLY means of explanation; it might not be the only valid means of explanation; it might not be the only objective means of explanation, but it is the only valid means of objective explanation we've got.

Say again exactly what I beleive . . . ?

Here's unequivocal proof that you can be absolutely wrong. Have you gotten used to it yet?

Not in the least. Scientific method asserts categorically the exact opposite of what your superstitious beliefs must necessarily insist--i.e. that, ". . . holding on to your superstitious beliefs is anything but your insistence that the universe is about anything but you and your relationship with the object of your superstition--which is to ultimately say, for you, it's just all about you."

Science is only socially accepted superstition. It's theory

This bears an explanation.

Go on, tell us: how is science a superstition? How is science a theory?

I predict that this will prove to be absolutely rich.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

yea! the scientific method sure ISN'T the only method of validation! I mean, look at all those breakthroughs in excorcism, praying for rain, human sacrifice that killing in the name of provided humanity!





no thanks. I'll go ahead and take SCIENCE instead of MYTHOLOGY. It's fucking hilarious to see the lengths you dogma junkies will go in order to feel equal to the same losing game that caused your kind to call Copernican HELIOCENTRISM just a theory.

 

[del]

HA!

yea! the scientific method sure ISN'T the only method of validation! I mean, look at all those breakthroughs in excorcism, praying for rain, human sacrifice that killing in the name of provided humanity!





no thanks. I'll go ahead and take SCIENCE instead of MYTHOLOGY. It's fucking hilarious to see the lengths you dogma junkies will go in order to feel equal to the same losing game that caused your kind to call Copernican HELIOCENTRISM just a theory.

at the time, it was. just as the big bang, evolution and relativity are now. scientific method proved heliocentrism to be true- jury's still out on the others. thanks for playing

 

[KittenKoder]

at the time, it was. just as the big bang, evolution and relativity are now. scientific method proved heliocentrism to be true- jury's still out on the others. thanks for playing

Good explanation. The difference between science and religion is that science only starts out as a theory, then they move to prove facts with gathered evidence, there is a whole series of steps before it becomes accepted as fact. There are MANY scientific facts, chemistry is full of them that have been tested and retested, and without those facts we would not have any of the medical sciences we have now. Without the fact that electrons behave in certain ways we would not have electronics. Without any facts about aerodynamics we would not have planes. Science is full of facts, millions of them, and a lot of theories, many which simply cannot be proven over night and will takes many more years of study before they can be proven one way or the other. Religion however has no method, no room for growth unless you are willing to admit when your religion is wrong when proven wrong and grow with what science proves. However, for those areas that science has yet to find any hard evidence or solid proof (what or who created it all to begin with) you can easily fall back on myth for comfort, acceptable so long as no one expects everyone to agree or even like their myth on that subject.

 

[del]

Good explanation. The difference between science and religion is that science only starts out as a theory, then they move to prove facts with gathered evidence, there is a whole series of steps before it becomes accepted as fact. There are MANY scientific facts, chemistry is full of them that have been tested and retested, and without those facts we would not have any of the medical sciences we have now. Without the fact that electrons behave in certain ways we would not have electronics. Without any facts about aerodynamics we would not have planes. Science is full of facts, millions of them, and a lot of theories, many which simply cannot be proven over night and will takes many more years of study before they can be proven one way or the other. Religion however has no method, no room for growth unless you are willing to admit when your religion is wrong when proven wrong and grow with what science proves. However, for those areas that science has yet to find any hard evidence or solid proof (what or who created it all to begin with) you can easily fall back on myth for comfort, acceptable so long as no one expects everyone to agree or even like their myth on that subject.

i see my religion as a way to expand my horizons, not limit them, so i'm not sure that i agree with your premise that it limits growth in any sense.
certainly there are those who meet your description, but to ascribe their actions to everyone who is religious is a ludicrous as saying that all pagans paint themselves blue and worship trees. that said, we probably agree more than we disagree. thanks for your thoughts on it.

 

[KittenKoder]

i see my religion as a way to expand my horizons, not limit them, so i'm not sure that i agree with your premise that it limits growth in any sense.
certainly there are those who meet your description, but to ascribe their actions to everyone who is religious is a ludicrous as saying that all pagans paint themselves blue and worship trees. that said, we probably agree more than we disagree. thanks for your thoughts on it.

It is true that some do accept change, however I don't see how your defending your way has much to do with what I was saying.

 

[Valerie]

i see my religion as a way to expand my horizons, not limit them, so i'm not sure that i agree with your premise that it limits growth in any sense.
certainly there are those who meet your description, but to ascribe their actions to everyone who is religious is a ludicrous as saying that all pagans paint themselves blue and worship trees. that said, we probably agree more than we disagree. thanks for your thoughts on it.

God called; he said you should STFU
thanks