Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/20/07 05:48 PM, poxpower wrote: C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

I lol'd

The Big Bang theory was never the end question of the universe, it's simply something that apparently happened X billion years ago

Yes, but it is the most widely accepted today.

:and accounts for pretty much every observation we can make of the universe today.

Exactly: Today.

How is "God appeared out of nothing" more logical than "the universe appeared from nothing?"
And how would "God has always existed" be more logical than "the universe has always existed"?

Well, I'd find it most logical for there to be some kind of Godly being to create such order and form in the universe. My last post is found below:

Sir, even if you don't believe in a God everyone knows the universe had to start with something. Since the universe was nothing at first, as pretty much all scientists agree on, there must have been something pretty big to start the huge chain-reaction that started the entire universe and everything in it. Now, what could that force be? There was nothing, right? Even if you don't believe it Christianity, you should at least admit that there was something big that started the universe, and us religious believe it is God, which seems the most logical. Not some atom being split into another atom (or whatever the hell atheists believe) leading to gigantic planets, living humans and animals, minerals, elements, and everything that exists.

At 12/20/07 05:56 PM, Toasty4you wrote:

Yes, but it is the most widely accepted today.

SO what?
I'm saying it doesn't explain how the big bang itself came to be, just that there was such a big bang before there was an expanded universe.

The theory has evolved a lot since it's conception 20+ years ago, and it will keep changing as we hopefully find more things, it might even be completely written out.

But it won't be by you, and for all argumentative purposes, the Big Bang is the best theory, backed by thousands of observations and facts by people with giant juicy brains who wear lab coats.

Well, I'd find it most logical for there to be some kind of Godly being to create such order and form in the universe. My last post is found below:

Yes, I read it, but you don't understand: how did God himself come to be?
The only answer to that is "he has always existed"
Then you admit that something can have always existed, something that has properties that cannot be accounted for by our observations of our own universe.

Of course you don't have anything to back yourself up on that, nor is there anything that would press you into having the answer to that. Basically you want to have an answer for a question no one can use the answer for or prove.

It's like saying "well, there's DEFINATELY a blue space lizard". Who asked? Who cares? It changes nothing, explains nothing and can't be proven, so cut it out.

You don't know if there's a God, and you know even less what he wants, what he does/has done and what he can do or not do, don't pretend you do know any of that. You don't have the intellectual RIGHT to base ANYTHING in your life around anything you "deduce" of "God", NOTHING. NOT ONE THING.

At 12/20/07 05:43 PM, Toasty4you wrote:

At 12/20/07 03:30 PM, Drakim wrote: Sigh. You know what? I won't bother explaining it for you. You'll just ignore it and go on to tell somebody else how all the prophecies came true anyway, no matter what I say.

Probably

At least you are honest.

Incorrect. Atheism doesn't claim how the universe came to be anymore than vegetarians or pacifists does.

Incorrect. Most scientists believe in the Big Bang theory, and a lot of scientists are atheists.

Faulty logic.

The majority of atheist are not scientist, thus, it's very wrong to apply a small part of a groups as the standard of the whole group.

Let me demonstrate your logic in another situation.

Pedophile Christian priests molests children, does that mean that molesting children is part of being a Christian?

Prove this.

Sir, even if you don't believe in a God everyone knows the universe had to start with something. Since the universe was nothing at first, as pretty much all scientists agree on, there must have been something pretty big to start the huge chain-reaction that started the entire universe and everything in it. Now, what could that force be? There was nothing, right? Even if you don't believe it Christianity, you should at least admit that there was something big that started the universe, and us religious believe it is God, which seems the most logical. Not some atom being split into another atom (or whatever the hell atheists believe) leading to gigantic planets, living humans and animals, minerals, elements, and everything that exists.

You are doing a big logical fallacy, which I will explain.

Imagine that I believe in Magic Green Goblin Lords. They are giants who govern our culture, but nobody can see them because of magic. In our culture, there are various artifacts which is said to have been created by these Magic Green Goblin Lords. There is also a big mountain nearby, that has a big hole in it, which according to legend was created when the Magic Green Goblin Lords fought.

You, do not believe in the Magic Green Goblin Lords. So, I ask you:

"Then how the hell do you think the artifacts was made? They are too advanced for human hands to build! And how do you think that big unnatural hole was made in the mountain was made?"

Now, you don't believe in the Magic Green Goblin Lords. But, does that mean you automatically have alternative explanations for the artifacts and the hole? Does your non-belief in the Magic Green Goblin Lords include a positive explanation for these things? What if the Magic Green Goblin Lords had a thousand different tales and such, would you have to devote your entire life to find other explanations to them, just because you don't hold the belief in the Magic Green Goblin Lords?

You are not a Hindu. Does that mean that you have to explain the origin of every little tale they have? You are not a Muslim, does that mean you have to explain what the big black rock in Mecca is if it is not a gift from God?

Even worse, what if some other people who does not believed in Magic Green Goblin Lords said that the artifacts and hole was created by giant mushrooms. And then, believers assumed that ALL (including you) non-believers thought that mushrooms did it. And started mocking you by saying

"Haha, you stupid non-beliver, thinking mushrooms can do stuff like that".

Because, that is basically what you are saying against me now. I'm an atheist, and these other atheist believe X, therefore I must also believe X. When X in reality isn't connected to atheism.

I do not believe in God. But, just because the story goes that God created the world, does not mean I have to offer a new explanation instead. I do not know how existence arose. I cannot offer a good explanation because I lack the knowledge and evidence to draw any conclusion.

I have however, seen the conclusions that Christians and other religions have made, and I do not think they hold water. So, instead of picking a weak bad explanation for how everything arose, I'm being agnostic for the issue. I simply don't know, and it's okay.

You people are idiots.

To be a true Christian, you have to accept everything in the bible as the infallible, completely true word of god, otherwise you are blaspheming. The bible doesn't agree with empirical evidence in many, many cases, so Christianity isn't compatible with science.

If you believe the Christian God created the big bang, evolution, etc., then you are going against the word of an (allegedly) omniscient being, which means you aren't really a Christian.

At 12/20/07 06:09 PM, poxpower wrote: SO what?
I'm saying it doesn't explain how the big bang itself came to be, just that there was such a big bang before there was an expanded universe.

The theory has evolved a lot since it's conception 20+ years ago, and it will keep changing as we hopefully find more things, it might even be completely written out.

But it won't be by you, and for all argumentative purposes, the Big Bang is the best theory, backed by thousands of observations and facts by people with giant juicy brains who wear lab coats.

Of course the scientist's theories will evolve, but I'm talking about what they think TODAY. I think I directed the whole "today" idea to a user somewhere above me.

Yes, I read it, but you don't understand: how did God himself come to be?
The only answer to that is "he has always existed"
Then you admit that something can have always existed, something that has properties that cannot be accounted for by our observations of our own universe.

Of course you don't have anything to back yourself up on that, nor is there anything that would press you into having the answer to that. Basically you want to have an answer for a question no one can use the answer for or prove.

It's like saying "well, there's DEFINATELY a blue space lizard". Who asked? Who cares? It changes nothing, explains nothing and can't be proven, so cut it out.

You don't know if there's a God, and you know even less what he wants, what he does/has done and what he can do or not do, don't pretend you do know any of that. You don't have the intellectual RIGHT to base ANYTHING in your life around anything you "deduce" of "God", NOTHING. NOT ONE THING.

And that, my friend, is where the great barrier between the religious and the non-religious comes in place. The non-religious always want proof for EVERYTHING. At least us religious have faith.

At 12/20/07 06:20 PM, Toasty4you wrote: And that, my friend, is where the great barrier between the religious and the non-religious comes in place. The non-religious always want proof for EVERYTHING. At least us religious have faith.

Most non-religions think believing in things without a good reason is not good.

At 12/20/07 06:12 PM, Drakim wrote: You are doing a big logical fallacy, which I will explain.

Imagine that I believe in Magic Green Goblin Lords. They are giants who govern our culture, but nobody can see them because of magic. In our culture, there are various artifacts which is said to have been created by these Magic Green Goblin Lords....

I applaud you for putting so much effort into that post, which I am pretty impressed by. But as I've said to poxpower, you can't PROVE anything. It's just a matter that believing something is there. Yes, it sounds stupid, but that's because you weren't raised as a Christian.

right?

Oh by the way, a compliment you a 2nd time on the green goblin thing. That was a pretty entertaining read.

At 12/20/07 06:13 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: You people are idiots.

To be a true Christian, you have to accept everything in the bible as the infallible, completely true word of god, otherwise you are blaspheming.

that means most major Churches are blaspheming.

At 12/20/07 05:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/20/07 05:43 PM, Toasty4you wrote: and a lot of scientists are atheists.

and that somehow means that science and atheism are one and the same? you sir, are an idiot.

I never said that. Both my parents are Christian and my dad is a Geologist and my mom is a Chemist.

At 12/20/07 06:20 PM, Toasty4you wrote:

Of course the scientist's theories will evolve, but I'm talking about what they think TODAY. I think I directed the whole "today" idea to a user somewhere above me.

Yes and today they're not saying the big bang caused itself or the universe, nor does anyone say the big bang was definately the first thing ever.
Which is what you seem to think.

And that, my friend, is where the great barrier between the religious and the non-religious comes in place. The non-religious always want proof for EVERYTHING. At least us religious have faith.

I think the barrier is not realizing how stupid and hypocritical it is to live your entire life based on science except for THAT ONE THING where you're religious. You'll agree with everything about math, chemistry, reasoning, history etc. except when it's inconvenient to your views, views which have no basis and no use.

Also I have faith that all jews should burn, yes, you crazy scientists and your science, what do you know of my faith that all of the jews much perish? Faith is wonderful, pass it around, only great things can come out of proclaiming reasoning and proof can't sway your views.

At 12/20/07 06:27 PM, Toasty4you wrote:

At 12/20/07 06:12 PM, Drakim wrote: You are doing a big logical fallacy, which I will explain.

Imagine that I believe in Magic Green Goblin Lords. They are giants who govern our culture, but nobody can see them because of magic. In our culture, there are various artifacts which is said to have been created by these Magic Green Goblin Lords....

I applaud you for putting so much effort into that post, which I am pretty impressed by. But as I've said to poxpower, you can't PROVE anything. It's just a matter that believing something is there. Yes, it sounds stupid, but that's because you weren't raised as a Christian.

How is just believing something is there a good thing? What if I just believed that racism was true? Just like you believed God exists? How can you tell me that I am wrong and that you are right when we are both simply believing what we want to believe?

With evidence and proof, you could at least say, "you are stupid for believing in racism, because there is no evidence to show that one race is better than the others, so your belief is nothing but make-believe and isn't grounded in reality".

Lastly, I'd like to point out that a very large number of atheist used to be religions before they changed their mind. Thus, they should perfectly well be able to understand what you are trying to say. You can't blame atheism on ignorance of something (such as faith), simply because there are a lot of people who have seen both sides at their deepest, and still chosen atheism.

Oh by the way, a compliment you a 2nd time on the green goblin thing. That was a pretty entertaining read.

Thanks ^^

At 12/20/07 06:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
that means most major Churches are blaspheming.

It's the only way they can make their beliefs plausible in this day and age.

Remember the 'ol brain twister question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

This is a good one for the science only people. Explain it with science. Kinda hard to do since you need a chicken to hatch the egg. For the creationists it's easy, God made the chicken and then they started hatching their eggs.

The moral of the story is this. Science that ignores religion is not science at all. Science needs to examine all possibilities to be real science. To make the assumption that God does not exist and base all your theories upon that assumption without proving it will result in nothing but error if God does exist.

Another thing, Science has proven that there is something that exists beyond the physical. A scientist, (sorry I can't remember his name, learned about it years ago in science class,) in the early 1900's developed a very sensitive scale for weighing things. It could measure extremely small units of weight. With the permission of several terminal ill patients they were placed on this scale. At the time of death they lost weight. The weight was always pretty much the same amount of weight and was significantly more weight than could be explained by just exhaling the air from their lungs.

The explanation of the experiment raised some questions. Did the spirit of a human actually have mass and when it left the body take that mass with it, thereby causing the patient to weigh less without it. We've all heard stories that some have people actually seen something leave the body at the time of death.

My point is this. Science that ignores the spiritual is in error. The spiritual is apart of the natural; they are interlocked. It is my opinion that the spiritual is more real than the natural. It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

To argue Science only is foolish. To argue blind faith only can be just as foolish, even more so because the possibility exists that your source of information for your faith is a lie. And that is not a far stretch since the Christian faith believes in a deceiver that wanders to and fro seeking to devour whom he may devour. This is a built in red flag waving and screaming watch out for those that will lie about true faith. If the blind follow the blind, both fall in the ditch. Christians read this warning and automatically assume that they are not blind to the truth. Then they turn around and celebrate Easter. Easter is the English transliteration of the word "Ishtar." Ishtar is a pagan fertility god, and yet the first commandment of the Christian faith says "thou shall have no other gods before me," and yet they celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of their lord and savior in the name of some strange god.

Remember Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men" with Tom Cruise. "You can't handle the truth!" This is my message for most Christians.

Even if God does exist, why should he care about us? I mean humans have been around for about 1/1000th of the Earths lifespan and yet in that time all we have done is give birth to hundreds of deadly bacteria and viruses. Wiped out hundreds of species of animals and plants driving more and more to exstinction every day. Destroyed landscapes and made desolate beautiful lands. Have we attoned for these acts? 'Have We Fuck!'

At 12/21/07 02:09 PM, ripmycat wrote: Even if God does exist, why should he care about us? I mean humans have been around for about 1/1000th of the Earths lifespan and yet in that time all we have done is give birth to hundreds of deadly bacteria and viruses. Wiped out hundreds of species of animals and plants driving more and more to exstinction every day. Destroyed landscapes and made desolate beautiful lands. Have we attoned for these acts? 'Have We Fuck!'

cause maybe god rule us? maybe he want us to belive? but maybe not?maybe we need continue with

tech? making wars? bombs? why not?

At 12/21/07 01:57 PM, HookerRoad wrote: Remember the 'ol brain twister question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

This is a good one for the science only people. Explain it with science. Kinda hard to do since you need a chicken to hatch the egg. For the creationists it's easy, God made the chicken and then they started hatching their eggs.

The moral of the story is this. Science that ignores religion is not science at all. Science needs to examine all possibilities to be real science. To make the assumption that God does not exist and base all your theories upon that assumption without proving it will result in nothing but error if God does exist.

Another thing, Science has proven that there is something that exists beyond the physical. A scientist, (sorry I can't remember his name, learned about it years ago in science class,) in the early 1900's developed a very sensitive scale for weighing things. It could measure extremely small units of weight. With the permission of several terminal ill patients they were placed on this scale. At the time of death they lost weight. The weight was always pretty much the same amount of weight and was significantly more weight than could be explained by just exhaling the air from their lungs.

Ah, yes, the "the soul weigths 21 grams" guy. Let me quote from wikipedia:
Although generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit, MacDougall's finding that the human soul weighed 21 grams has become a meme in the public consciousness. It lent itself to the title of the film 21 Grams. In the end however, his practices were considered fallible due to shakey methods and small sample size. Scientists disregard his research into this field due to allegations of bias (MacDougall was a fanatical Christian). Any reference to MacDougall in philosophical debates regarding the soul (see also Mind-Body Theories) are mostly for novelty or to ridicule his supposed "scientific experiment".

This "scientist" of yours is the laughing stock of old professors when they drink their tea.

The explanation of the experiment raised some questions. Did the spirit of a human actually have mass and when it left the body take that mass with it, thereby causing the patient to weigh less without it. We've all heard stories that some have people actually seen something leave the body at the time of death.

And lots of people say that they have been abducted by aliens who anally probed them. But, it doesn't actually make it true.

My point is this. Science that ignores the spiritual is in error. The spiritual is apart of the natural; they are interlocked. It is my opinion that the spiritual is more real than the natural. It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

The spiritual would be taken into account if we could detect it in any way. If there was a single way to see or touch or feel the spiritual, then we would have taken account of it as if there was no tomorrow. There would be famous names for people who made great discoveries about the spiritual nature.

But, there isn't. It's a sad truth, but there just isn't any proof at all.

You can't just plug your ears and scream that "YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THE SPIRITUAL BECAUSE IT DOES EXIST!!!!!!".
Science is unable to detect the spiritual in any way, and therefore science has no choice but to not include the spiritual. It's that simple. It's nobodies wish or will. It's the facts.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

If the rules of reality isn't stable, then it's not just science, but EVERYTHING that fails. Including you.

Have you ever thought, since you are so hot to show that we can't be sure of anything, that your faith might be just as unstable as everything else? What if those feelings you hold deep down inside are simply fake?

To argue Science only is foolish. To argue blind faith only can be just as foolish, even more so because the possibility exists that your source of information for your faith is a lie. And that is not a far stretch since the Christian faith believes in a deceiver that wanders to and fro seeking to devour whom he may devour. This is a built in red flag waving and screaming watch out for those that will lie about true faith. If the blind follow the blind, both fall in the ditch. Christians read this warning and automatically assume that they are not blind to the truth. Then they turn around and celebrate Easter. Easter is the English transliteration of the word "Ishtar." Ishtar is a pagan fertility god, and yet the first commandment of the Christian faith says "thou shall have no other gods before me," and yet they celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of their lord and savior in the name of some strange god.

What if Allah is the true God, but the devil tricked you into beliving in Jesus? How are you to tell what is true? Is your faith simply a guess?

At 12/21/07 01:57 PM, HookerRoad wrote:

For the creationists it's easy, God made the chicken and then they started hatching their eggs.

That doesn't make it the least bit more credible though.

The moral of the story is this. Science that ignores religion is not science at all. Science needs to examine all possibilities to be real science.

The reason science ignores religion is because it HAS examined religion, and there's really not a lot, if any, evidence suggesting it's metaphysical claims are accurate.

To make the assumption that God does not exist and base all your theories upon that assumption without proving it will result in nothing but error if God does exist.

IF GOD EXISTS, yes. But there is no evidence to suggest he does, so we just assume he isn't, which is what you do in science.

Another thing, Science has proven that there is something that exists beyond the physical. A scientist, (sorry I can't remember his name, learned about it years ago in science class,) in the early 1900's developed a very sensitive scale for weighing things. It could measure extremely small units of weight. With the permission of several terminal ill patients they were placed on this scale. At the time of death they lost weight. The weight was always pretty much the same amount of weight and was significantly more weight than could be explained by just exhaling the air from their lungs.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No modern (credible) scientists actually regard his experiments as proper science.
In this day and age we have infinitely better recording instruments, yet we have seen no evidence of his findings being true.

The explanation of the experiment raised some questions. Did the spirit of a human actually have mass and when it left the body take that mass with it, thereby causing the patient to weigh less without it. We've all heard stories that some have people actually seen something leave the body at the time of death.

People make all kinds of claims. Doesn't make them true.

My point is this. Science that ignores the spiritual is in error. The spiritual is apart of the natural; they are interlocked. It is my opinion that the spiritual is more real than the natural.

That's funny, because nature is observable, yet Sprits are NOT.

It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

You have ZERO evidence to back this up.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

But SOO many scientific dating methods ALL date the world as far older than 6k years.

And another thing, even if a supernatural being exists, why do you think that is your god?

choo choo, all aboard the pain train.

At 12/21/07 07:11 PM, poxpower wrote: choo choo, all aboard the pain train.

It already left.

At 12/21/07 01:57 PM, HookerRoad wrote: The moral of the story is this. Science that ignores religion is not science at all. Science needs to examine all possibilities to be real science. To make the assumption that God does not exist and base all your theories upon that assumption without proving it will result in nothing but error if God does exist.

science ignores religion because religion cannot be tested. science does not assume deities do not exist, whether or not gods exist is irrelevant to science, science makes no stand on the supernatural.
while science doesn't say anything about magic it can and has answered historical and physical questions regarding religion, i.e. creationism, the flood, age of the earth, etc...
these are observable, physical and testable things. if science cannot test it it can't say anything about it which is why it doesn't take a stand on the supernatural.

At 12/21/07 08:22 PM, SolInvictus wrote: science ignores religion because religion cannot be tested. science does not assume deities do not exist, whether or not gods exist is irrelevant to science, science makes no stand on the supernatural.
while science doesn't say anything about magic it can and has answered historical and physical questions regarding religion, i.e. creationism, the flood, age of the earth, etc...
these are observable, physical and testable things. if science cannot test it it can't say anything about it which is why it doesn't take a stand on the supernatural.

you right - but... if we find out that all the sience are wrong? and someone controll us? and we just toys?

have you ever think that IF there are gods - they watching us? laughing about us?

At 12/22/07 01:25 AM, satanbrain wrote:
you right - but... if we find out that all the sience are wrong?

We use evidence, not faith, k bud?

and someone controll us? and we just toys?

WTF. Even if God is real, it's a well established fact that he gives us free will and doesn't control us.

have you ever think that IF there are gods - they watching us? laughing about us?

And? So what if there is? How is this REMOTELY relative?

Don't post in politics again, plzkthx?

cant compare them, too different

At 12/22/07 02:48 AM, AmontilladoClock wrote: cant compare them, too different

Sigh, it's not about comparing them, it's about the fact that science downright contradicts religion, and people of religion can't seem to comprehend this.

At 12/22/07 02:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:48 AM, AmontilladoClock wrote: cant compare them, too different

Sigh, it's not about comparing them, it's about the fact that science downright contradicts religion, and people of religion can't seem to comprehend this.

no, do you even understand the concept of science and religion

At 12/22/07 02:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sigh, it's not about comparing them, it's about the fact that science downright contradicts religion, and people of religion can't seem to comprehend this.

ignorance is a two way street, you probably assume religious people are less intelligent because they have faith in a un-provable diety, dont you?

It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

You have ZERO evidence to back this up.

You totally missed the point. I wasn't providing evidence. Only a possibility that science totally ignores as a possibility, just like the chicken and egg dichotomy. In fact I think everyone missed the point of the post. So let me make it perfectly clear. There is just as much bunk science out there as there are bunk faiths. But science that refuses to acknowledge a possible truth is operating with one blinder attached. So anyone that professes to be a scientist and then approaches each experiment with a fore gone conclusion is no scientist at all but merely an activist with an agenda.

The point of the chicken and egg problem is to demonstrate to the neo-scientists (don't know what that means but it sounded good) that they have a problem that they can't solve with science. Faith doesn't struggle with the question. It all makes good sense from a faith based perspective. But a simple question like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", has science completely befuddled because they don't know where to start because they ignore the obvious.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

But SOO many scientific dating methods ALL date the world as far older than 6k years.

Need I say it again??? Totally missed the point. This discussion is all about possibilities. If God indeed made the earth 6million years on the day he made it... how could any dating method be accurate? I didn't say he / or she did, I said IF. <--- possibility ---- get it? Prolly not!

And another thing, even if a supernatural being exists, why do you think that is your god?

Wow... a lot of presumptions in this last question, especially for being so short. When did I make a statement that a supernatural being was my god? And if there is one supernatural being, don't you think there is more than one? If there is nothing beyond the natural then it should be simple for the scientist to answer the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" All science has to do is examine the natural evidence and draw natural conclusions. But the question poses certain problems to the natural explanation. Enough question that you would think it might warrant a deeper study into the supernatural, but "Nay" say the scientist, "don't confuse me with facts."

I'm absolutely amazed that science can ignore such a simple question. It's an easy one guys. Answer the question if your science is so good.

At 12/22/07 04:11 AM, HookerRoad wrote: You totally missed the point. I wasn't providing evidence. Only a possibility that science totally ignores as a possibility, just like the chicken and egg dichotomy. In fact I think everyone missed the point of the post. So let me make it perfectly clear. There is just as much bunk science out there as there are bunk faiths. But science that refuses to acknowledge a possible truth is operating with one blinder attached. So anyone that professes to be a scientist and then approaches each experiment with a fore gone conclusion is no scientist at all but merely an activist with an agenda.

Well, I think this is more of an economic problem. We simply don't have the time, resources and money to just explore all possibilities. Sure, we could organize huge expiditions with millions of people and high tech equipment to look for flying unicorns, but the fact is that through rational thought it seems that the possibility of their existence is rather low. Hence, we're far better off spending that money and manpower on more feasible and more useful research.
For the same reason it's just not feasible to acknowledge every possible truth. Sure, it could be that the world isn't deterministic and that this next instant my pc will turn into a goldfish. There's no way to prove that it won't. But without any reason to assume otherwise, there's just no point in accounting for it in all experiments.

Furthermore, often experiments are done to falsify or confirm hypotheses. You expect to see something, through intuition or a theory, and then compare your thoughts with the real world. Just blindly doing experiments without any attempt to predict what's going to happen through theories is pretty damn useless. Sure, it's probably interesting to see what happens, but the whole point of science is trying to explain and predict how and why it happens.

Of course, disregarding the results of an experiment because they don't fit with your initial hypothesis all the time makes experiments useless as well. But then more experiments could be in order to find out whether the problem is with the experiment, or with the theory.

The point of the chicken and egg problem is to demonstrate to the neo-scientists (don't know what that means but it sounded good) that they have a problem that they can't solve with science. Faith doesn't struggle with the question. It all makes good sense from a faith based perspective. But a simple question like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", has science completely befuddled because they don't know where to start because they ignore the obvious.

No, it makes no sense whatsoever from a faith based perspective. Faith simply doesn't make sense, it's faith. "It's magic", "My goldfish wants it to be so" and "God did it" are all equally valid, and equally flawed and useless propositions. They don't explain anything, they don't predict anything. Science can't find the answer to everything, and sometimes the questions are not relevant either. Evolution theory indicates that the transition between egg and chicken is not a discontinuous one, but a continuous one, which makes the question obsolete. It depends on what we accept as being a chicken, and what we accept as being 99.99999% chicken, but not quite chicken yet.

Need I say it again??? Totally missed the point. This discussion is all about possibilities. If God indeed made the earth 6million years on the day he made it... how could any dating method be accurate? I didn't say he / or she did, I said IF. <--- possibility ---- get it? Prolly not!

Sure. And what if my goldfish created this world 9 seconds ago, including all your memories? And what if we're all just brains in a jar, playing some perverse massive multiplayer online game called "First Life"? What if, what if... What is the value of these questions? Until we get any reason to assume that we are indeed brains in a jar, or that my goldfish is actually capable of creating the world it is in, let's just assume the most plausible option shall we? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But we don't gain anything, nor advance in knowledge, if we just sit in a cave contemplating all the possibilities. Besides, before we can answer these questions in any way, we need to have a lot more knowledge about how this reality works.

Somewhere, we've got to make choices, make assumptions. And if they're wrong, we'll find out as we go along, discovering more and more. Just like we assumed for ages, until quite recently, that the speed of light was infinite. We've since been proven wrong, but planes still flew, and telephones still worked. Newton's theoretical mechanics? Completely debunked by general relativity. But there are conditions for which the assumptions make for a good approximation of reality.

My point is that it is not inherrently wrong to make some assumptions, if they result in good theories that both explain and predict reality. Up until there's reason to be believe the assumption is wrong, and a new and better assumption comes along.

And another thing, even if a supernatural being exists, why do you think that is your god?

Wow... a lot of presumptions in this last question, especially for being so short. When did I make a statement that a supernatural being was my god? And if there is one supernatural being, don't you think there is more than one? If there is nothing beyond the natural then it should be simple for the scientist to answer the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" All science has to do is examine the natural evidence and draw natural conclusions. But the question poses certain problems to the natural explanation. Enough question that you would think it might warrant a deeper study into the supernatural, but "Nay" say the scientist, "don't confuse me with facts."

What are these "facts" then you talk about? The chicken or the egg simply isn't a pressing question in the frame of evolutionary theory, which has proven its merits time and time again. Nobody is stopping you from doing your own research, publishing your conclusions and having them reviewed by the world's top scientists.

I'm absolutely amazed that science can ignore such a simple question. It's an easy one guys. Answer the question if your science is so good.

Protochicken has sex with protorooster, extremely similar but not quite 100% chicken and rooster yet. Sperm and zygote combines, cell division takes place. Crossing over of the chromosomes and mutation during cell division causes infinitesimally small changes in the DNA which results in a very very slightly different new species, but this one fits our definition of chicken. The chicken is in the egg of the protochicken, it hatches, and voila, chicken.

Of course, the problem is that the division in species is somewhat arbitrary. When do we stop talking about the ancestor of a species, and when of the species itself? We know that monkey and man have a common ancestor, and that we since have parted our evolutionary ways. But where in the course of evolution would we draw the line? "this is ancestor, this is protohuman, and this is protomoney!". The differences are very small at first, and it isn't until the course of thousands of generations that we can more or less draw a line to separate them. The question "when exactly does it happen" isn't any more important than the question of how many atoms exactly you are comprised of.

At 12/22/07 04:11 AM, HookerRoad wrote: There is just as much bunk science out there as there are bunk faiths.

That is a stunning assertion and I think it speaks far more about your mindset towards science and religion than it describes reality. whatever Quantum Theorists and Evolutionary Biologists and Neurologists are studying, they're way smarter than either of us, and it's astonishing for you to dismiss any of their work as 'bunk'. When religion is as peer reviewed as science, then they'll be on an equal footing.

'God did it and He is Magic' is as good an explanation as anything else you can pull out of your ass, but it doesn't conform to the materialistic study of science. Science doesn't dismiss God, but the more we discover about the origins of life and the Universe, the more unlikely God is, and the more impossible any Abrahamic faith seems.

The main issue with God, of course, is that it doesn't answer anything. "What made the universe? Why, something infinitely more complex than the universe, that existed forever.' Any confirmed atheist views this explanation as deeply wanting.

Science doesn't dismiss God; through no fault of its own, however, it has marginalised the potential role of God beyond all recognition. If you want to appply God to science, fine, but 'God guides evolution' brings as much to the table as 'God made these chemicals react'.