|
On September 25 2007 00:02 Cpt Obvious wrote:
Lycaeus made some good points. Faith in God in itself is not wrong at all, if that gives you strenght and hope and perspective, that's perfectly fine.
What he was saying, and I agree, is that many many many people use religion and God as a general excuse for their own fucking failures. I know I suck at studying because I am lazy. I know I am not the person with the best social skills out there, and I fucking blow at BroodWar. But what do I do?
I learn, I go out, I practice. I don't pray to some imaginative person that might exist as well as not, and hope for some divine intervention that's gonna make it all easy as pie for me. Life is tough, get over it, there is nobody to help you but yourself and maybe your family. That's it. Again, faith is ok, but row for yourself.
im a christian and i agree with everything except for when you say "dont pray"
i believe that u should row urself and that god actually wants that,
and praying should be used as a way to get help from God instead of praying and just sitting there hoping that something good will come.
I believe thats also wat the bible says, i cant really quote, sorry.
For example, if i wanted to pass an extremely hard test, i would pray to help study well without distractions and then study my ass off. then before the test, pray that you would do well and that the loads of studying you did will go to good use.
|
I just figured out that we basically all agree. All we have to do is redefine the words reasoning, logic, sense, evidence, proof and facts, and it's all the same.
Seriously you guys, science is NOT a religion. Not in any way. It is by definition the exact counterpart of any religion. Religion is based on faith, the blind belief that God created Earth and Humans and Animals, that the world is just slightly over 6000 years old, etc. etc.
Science is based on methods to break down problems into smaller ones, and testing them till you find a theory that explains them consistently. Those experiments have to be repeatable, so everyone can see it works that way. If you throw an apple out of your window, it's gonna fall down, no matter what. That is because we have gravity. And that also explains why our planet orbits the Sun. It also explains why galaxies, stars, and planets began to build out of huge dust clouds in the first place. It's not in any way like you said "something out of nothing".
Scientists did the math up to the point where it was just 10^ -10 seconds away from the Big Bang. Granted, they do not yet know what preceeded that, but still they explain around 15 billions of years of universal history consistently. The Bible barely manages a couple of decades. In the Bible, a 4 year old can spot logical flaws. The most known one probably is "Did all animals live within walking distance of Noah's house?".
There are various others. It just does not make any. fucking. sense. Science has the facts, not religion. There are still things we don't understand, but at least we go through some fucking effort to find the answers, not just accept that "some guy did it". You are the spiritual equivalent of the guy who doesn't give a shit. AIDS? God's punishment I guess. War? Another test of faith. Poverty? Hunger? Our very existence?
You just always point the finger and blame Him. How is that any different to just saying that all human existence is coincidence?
If God ever existed, and he did in fact create Humanity, he failed horribly. Because most of us are ignorant, blindly following fuckheads that don't question the biggest bullshit story ever created.
Oh, and science doesn't charge me a monthly tax, and I can sleep as long as I want on Sundays. Suck it, Christians.
|
Science is trying to find an answer. No matter what the answer is. If the answer is that god exist then ok we have our answers and we are done. No hard feelings. Theories are updated and if it come up that one particular theory is wrong then it will be replaced by better one.
On the other side the Christians have their one particular answer and they are trying to prove that science is wrong so they can assume the they are right. Bad logic. They are trying to twist the bible and explain it in ways that it will finally add up a little.
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Regarding that retarded video debunking big bang. That retarded kid didn't take physics classes beyond high school level. You can destroy matter => it will becomes energy and energy doesn't occupy any space.
Science is not an religion by any means. In religion you believe that you know. In science you know that you don't know you are trying to find answer.
Oh and I love how christians thinks that their fairy tales are better then fairy tales of other religion.
Oh and that idiot who believes that all books are lying (except brainwashing christians books ofc but they are all based on one single book) but only one particular books is not lying. What if it's other way around? From stand point of probability theory that chance is pretty slim (that all books are wrong and bible is right).
Is there god? I don't know. There is plenty of evidence that he doesn't exists. But we don't have ultimate theory (thanks to what is called Planck's time). If god come to me and says "hello" then ok it won't change my life because I'm living good life and I don't have the reason change it. No big deal.
But what if it will be proven that god doesn't exists? What would you do, dear religious zealot?
|
On September 25 2007 20:59 sundance wrote:
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Hmm, well I know the oldest tree at the moment is around 4000 years old and whatever trees in the past that claim to be 10,000 are just as disputable as fossiles and carbon dating. I don't know about the plants you're talking about in Death Valley though.
|
On September 26 2007 04:26 RebelHeart wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 20:59 sundance wrote:
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Hmm, well I know the oldest tree at the moment is around 4000 years old and whatever trees in the past that claim to be 10,000 are just as disputable as fossiles and carbon dating. I don't know about the plants you're talking about in Death Valley though.
I would love to see some evidence of the "10 000+" trees your talking about, lets consider also that radiocarbon dating its proven that its a flawed way to date how old things are, its ,margin of error its around 98.9 if u believe according to recent studies. So your argument doenst make any sense
|
On September 25 2007 18:01 Cpt Obvious wrote:
I just figured out that we basically all agree. All we have to do is redefine the words reasoning, logic, sense, evidence, proof and facts, and it's all the same.
Seriously you guys, science is NOT a religion. Not in any way. It is by definition the exact counterpart of any religion. Religion is based on faith, the blind belief that God created Earth and Humans and Animals, that the world is just slightly over 6000 years old, etc. etc.
Science is based on methods to break down problems into smaller ones, and testing them till you find a theory that explains them consistently. Those experiments have to be repeatable, so everyone can see it works that way. If you throw an apple out of your window, it's gonna fall down, no matter what. That is because we have gravity. And that also explains why our planet orbits the Sun. It also explains why galaxies, stars, and planets began to build out of huge dust clouds in the first place. It's not in any way like you said "something out of nothing".
Scientists did the math up to the point where it was just 10^ -10 seconds away from the Big Bang. Granted, they do not yet know what preceeded that, but still they explain around 15 billions of years of universal history consistently. The Bible barely manages a couple of decades. In the Bible, a 4 year old can spot logical flaws. The most known one probably is "Did all animals live within walking distance of Noah's house?".
There are various others. It just does not make any. fucking. sense. Science has the facts, not religion. There are still things we don't understand, but at least we go through some fucking effort to find the answers, not just accept that "some guy did it". You are the spiritual equivalent of the guy who doesn't give a shit. AIDS? God's punishment I guess. War? Another test of faith. Poverty? Hunger? Our very existence?
You just always point the finger and blame Him. How is that any different to just saying that all human existence is coincidence?
If God ever existed, and he did in fact create Humanity, he failed horribly. Because most of us are ignorant, blindly following fuckheads that don't question the biggest bullshit story ever created.
Oh, and science doesn't charge me a monthly tax, and I can sleep as long as I want on Sundays. Suck it, Christians.
Giving 10% of you income for a good cause and to help the poor and church is not directly proportional to how much of a lazy asshole you are on Sundays.
You see, the problem with Science is You will not accept that Big Bang theory is religion and faith is involve in it too, just like Christianity the difference is that we admit it is ,and you dont.
If we talk about blindly follow something you are too without even knowing which its more sad
|
On September 26 2007 06:18 TesisMech wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2007 04:26 RebelHeart wrote:On September 25 2007 20:59 sundance wrote:
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Hmm, well I know the oldest tree at the moment is around 4000 years old and whatever trees in the past that claim to be 10,000 are just as disputable as fossiles and carbon dating. I don't know about the plants you're talking about in Death Valley though. I would love to see some evidence of the "10 000+" trees your talking about, lets consider also that radiocarbon dating its proven that its a flawed way to date how old things are, its ,margin of error its around 98.9 if u believe according to recent studies. So your argument doenst make any sense
August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old. Researchers are still trying to verify the growth rate to determine is that age is an accurate measure.
March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old. This aging method also relies on determining the plant's growth rate. Scientists are stilly verifying the growth and performing genetic analyses of neighboring specimens to determine if they are from the same organism.
Source:http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm
As you can see it's not based on carbon dating.
|
And by the way how do you explain coal? And plant imprints found in it. God created coal and imprints in it? Why didn't he just created coal?
|
On September 26 2007 20:34 sundance wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2007 06:18 TesisMech wrote:On September 26 2007 04:26 RebelHeart wrote:On September 25 2007 20:59 sundance wrote:
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Hmm, well I know the oldest tree at the moment is around 4000 years old and whatever trees in the past that claim to be 10,000 are just as disputable as fossiles and carbon dating. I don't know about the plants you're talking about in Death Valley though. I would love to see some evidence of the "10 000+" trees your talking about, lets consider also that radiocarbon dating its proven that its a flawed way to date how old things are, its ,margin of error its around 98.9 if u believe according to recent studies. So your argument doenst make any sense August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old. Researchers are still trying to verify the growth rate to determine is that age is an accurate measure. March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old. This aging method also relies on determining the plant's growth rate. Scientists are stilly verifying the growth and performing genetic analyses of neighboring specimens to determine if they are from the same organism. Source:http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm As you can see it's not based on carbon dating.
"scientist are still verifying this aging method"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh man, not this young earth stuff. the age of the environment etc is very important for a host of natural studies, you'd think there would be a body of theory claiming something like, 'giant mirror in the sky distorting light from stars that are raelly just 300 light years away to make them seem like 2 million light years away'
this is just plain bias. stuff like this makes things difficult for sympathizers of religious communities.
|
I don't know why you guys keep engaging Rebelheart. He's conspicuously fake.
|
TesisMech is apparently unaware of things like "mathematics", "experimentation", and "observable evidence".
|
On September 26 2007 06:18 TesisMech wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2007 04:26 RebelHeart wrote:On September 25 2007 20:59 sundance wrote:
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Hmm, well I know the oldest tree at the moment is around 4000 years old and whatever trees in the past that claim to be 10,000 are just as disputable as fossiles and carbon dating. I don't know about the plants you're talking about in Death Valley though. I would love to see some evidence of the "10 000+" trees your talking about, lets consider also that radiocarbon dating its proven that its a flawed way to date how old things are, its ,margin of error its around 98.9 if u believe according to recent studies. So your argument doenst make any sense
You sir are retarded. Cite your source. 98.9? Oh really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
