back from more business,...i 've found this gem in one if the guardian's magazines (last saturday's issue).. here is the link given: .
http://www.cusscontrol.com/tips1.html.
here is the text:.
Mind,
That was too funny!!
Mac,
You have got taste, and common sense.
I really don't get offended when someone swears at me most of the time.
Thanks for sharing that article, as well as other fine things.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if evolution is true and god doesnt exist, and all matter always existed, and life keeps adapting and getting more and more advanced, conquering all problems set before its existence.. then life should have already filled the entire universe and advanced to the point of never dying.. am i being presumptuous?.
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Lark,
It is not necessary to give a specific example, the Fact that theories change in time is "EVIDENCE ENOUGH".
"Evidence enough" is also a very subjective phrase isn't it?,..athiest and beleivers in God use it all the time.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if evolution is true and god doesnt exist, and all matter always existed, and life keeps adapting and getting more and more advanced, conquering all problems set before its existence.. then life should have already filled the entire universe and advanced to the point of never dying.. am i being presumptuous?.
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Abbadon,
Now that we have gotten away from the insults, and the casting of aspersions, perhaps we can have a meaningful adult conversation and avoid useing weak misdirecting of attention to personalities.
You make a good point:
I think you are being a little two faced doubting the sincerity of thousands of scientists. Why? Because you admit yourself you would rather think there was a god, but at the same time kid yourself that you are being fair and objective in your analysis of facts.Yes I readily admit that I'd rather beleive there is a god. Can you admit that you rather beleive there is no god?
Next point a good one too:
Hasn’t it occurred to you that the pre-existence of god is the assumption that something always existed or came from the nothing? You are criticising people for doing what YOU do.This is so true of both, the atheist and beleiver, both sides have the very same weakness. I'm glad you agree the shoe need to be put on the other foot so if we agree then we have both our shoes on.(Look ma no CAPS).(SORRY).So, let’s put the boot on the other foot.
I think this too is a fair queston:
What proof is there of the theory of god? For all your attack of scientific theories you seem to have an almost complacent acceptance of the theory of god, as you do not seem to seek the same proofs of that as you seek of scientific theories.I'm not a 100% beleiver in god, more like 99 to 95% depending on what I'm thinking of at the time. I can only try to be fair in my deductions just like you, but realistically,.. well we are both in the same boat don't you agree?
Now this is a gem:
In your answer please explain, if you are supporting the existence of a loving and concerned creator, why it is even possible to have a debate about IF there is a god and WHAT god wants.To be honest Ab, that's one that stumps me, I have heard many an explaination for the reason of God's letting bad things happen to good people, and God being distant from the human race, I can't say that I found the answer that I feel 100% sure of.
What proof is there of the theory of god? For all your attack of scientific theories you seem to have an almost complacent acceptance of the theory of god, as you do not seem to seek the same proofs of that as you seek of scientific theories. In your answer please explain, if you are supporting the existence of a loving and concerned creator, why it is even possible to have a debate about IF there is a god and WHAT god wants.In a Universe with a loving concerned creator these things should not be subject to the vagaries of belief, but should be as certain as the sunrise. They are not. Why? If you support the existence of a creator who is not concerned with us, please explain what this has to do with anything.
I just can't dismiss these things as coming from nothing, because deep down I know the most basic truth "nothing from nothing" and "something from something"
Yes I know the question of: "where did God come from?"
And the standard answer: "God had no origination or begining."
A question that has no satifactory answer for the unbeleiver and also leaves the beleiver mystified.
Yet we have to be honest and say the atheist has as many or more unsatisfying answers, with no appearent answers comming forth.
Abbadon, I'm not a scientist, I don't know if you are, but I'm sure you will agree that there are many scientist who beleive in evolution and God at the same time. So I don't think we can use the argument that stupid people or people with little education beleive in God.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if evolution is true and god doesnt exist, and all matter always existed, and life keeps adapting and getting more and more advanced, conquering all problems set before its existence.. then life should have already filled the entire universe and advanced to the point of never dying.. am i being presumptuous?.
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
lark,
Lark I never said this:
In your post directed to me, you asserted that scientists ignore facts that don't fit their theory. Please provide one example
I used singular and not plural,here's my quote:
I don't think a scientist is being truthful when he forms a theory and then proceeds to ignore evidence that conflicts with his choosen conclusion.
Yeah I know we're only human.
Please don't make it look like I don't beleive Science, or Scientist as a whole, by the little change to the plural instead of singular sense of the word Scientist.
I beleive science, I beleive scientist.
I don't always accept their theories, but I do beleive the facts(not theories) they have uncovered. I would be silly not to.
As to theories well they are educated guesses and that is all.
These educated guesses can easily carry personal predudice since they are guesses waiting to be proved wrong by facts.
As you can see by the above quote I didn't say "ignores facts" I said "ignores evidence" a subtle difference but important.
By say passing off a theory as an established fact is one such ignoring evidence.
Here are a few examples of what I meant:
What about the most common equation known to man: 0=0 or 0+0=0 or nothing from nothing is nothing.
The theory of a singularity with no God as creator is the same as saying 0=1 or from nothing came something.
I never ment to say you personally said anything negative about my person, and I appologize to you personally if I gave that impression I'm sorry for that.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if all matter in the universe came from a singularity where did this singularity come from?.
can science ever hope to see one or find one?.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Radar,
I appreciate your bringing this observation up since it bears logic:
Scientist have found that the material universe is expanding away from us(Earth)
This we know from(wavelengths given off objects like stars.)
Logicly therfore, if we go back in time, there must be a point of origin from which matter began to expand from, a starting point.
A singularity.
But to be honest there are other conclusions that also can be made on the above observations.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if evolution is true and god doesnt exist, and all matter always existed, and life keeps adapting and getting more and more advanced, conquering all problems set before its existence.. then life should have already filled the entire universe and advanced to the point of never dying.. am i being presumptuous?.
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Lark, Rem, Julie and others,
I'm not saying evolution is not True.
I'm not looking for where to find information, I can find tons of it on the internet and local libraries.
I just proposed a situation in this thread and an outcome that I thought reasonable. If you read the start of my thread you will see it is true. It doesn't mean I beleive what I propose is the truth. I don't like to think in terms of black and white.
Life and answers to some very important questions has variables that make answers difficult and leaves us searching.
My feelings are that when some one claims to know the answers, question him with hard questions, and see how they answer.
Some I think took some offense, and intimated that I was a lazy person who sat on his fat ass and didn't have to go to work for a living.
Also that I had very little education, didn't know what I was talking about, was rude, and probablly a Troll.
I guess if you have a weak position make the person who raises an issue look unreliable, dumb, and any other thing that is unfavorable.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
a few days ago i was told matter didn't always exist.. i was told this by several persons who spoke with much certainty.. they said matter came from a singularity.. this as you know raises more questions than it answers.. have they any proof that singularities even exist?.
how come people state things as a fact, that they have no solid proof for, and expect others to just beleive them.. and if you don't accept their beleif, you are said, not to be intelligent.. isn't that a case of attacking the straw man?.
instead of the argument?.
Sleepy,
I think what you have posted will make persons think.
As you bring out there are variables and facts not known that can make mans theories about the origin of the universe change drastically.
I never said in this thread that I personally beleive that matter always existed.
I just wanted to show we only have theories and not conclusive facts.
My question was for that purpose.
You statement I think does bring more light on the uncertainty.
Actually I'm more inclinded to favor, matter having a begining or perhaps a transferral from pure energy.(nothing + nothing = nothing)
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if evolution is true and god doesnt exist, and all matter always existed, and life keeps adapting and getting more and more advanced, conquering all problems set before its existence.. then life should have already filled the entire universe and advanced to the point of never dying.. am i being presumptuous?.
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Abbadon,
Apology accepted.
I'm sorry too.
But remember people that think different than you are not stupid.
As for research I've done it and still do.
My ass isn't too fat.Height5'7" 185lbs
I have my own business and work much overtime.
While I do read what scientist say, I think some times they get carried away in there assumptions.
While I apreciate facts I gloss over what I concider far out assumptions.
I hope you enjoyed our little sparring.
Have a nice evening.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
a few days ago i was told matter didn't always exist.. i was told this by several persons who spoke with much certainty.. they said matter came from a singularity.. this as you know raises more questions than it answers.. have they any proof that singularities even exist?.
how come people state things as a fact, that they have no solid proof for, and expect others to just beleive them.. and if you don't accept their beleif, you are said, not to be intelligent.. isn't that a case of attacking the straw man?.
instead of the argument?.
Sleepy,
That's a interesting obuservation.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
if all matter in the universe came from a singularity where did this singularity come from?.
can science ever hope to see one or find one?.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
Comf,
That's trully very funny!
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
