the books of the bible are written by men, and decided by men to be included in the bible. now why would men want to exclude certain books, that were also 'inspired' by God?
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
to say intelligence is opposite of faith is to say that religion is unaffected by science and vice versa. how is this rude? maybe you should go read your dictionary some more.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
so you believe the earth is only around 2000-3000 years old? well im sorry but thats very untrue.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
since when has 1 = 2 ? never.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
numbers are always true and always correct.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
radio-carbon dating is precise enough to point out a period of time in the earths history. not exact, but close enough to have a general theory.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
magistrate thinks scientists are stupid enough to only take one sample from one strata, and only complete one experiment, which is so untrue that an analogy to religion would be like saying God is the son of Jesus.
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
you have the wrong definition of intelligence. is what im talking about.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
dude seriously not everyone is as dumb as you think. when it comes to life changing theories in science, they do thousands of the same experiment over and over.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
but im not even talking about calculations, im purely speaking of numbers. like 1, 2, 3, 4. which are perfect. science requires no faith when you have procedures
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
im sorry but im clearly less ignorant than both of you combined. sorry if you take that into offense.
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
And that was arrogant, but no, I took no offense.
umm putting words in my mouth? dont get angry now...
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong. they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old. the bibles date is much off. and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research. you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate. so you say that we did accurately date the earth to be billions, instead of thousands of years old, as the bible claims, does that mean that religion has officially died? no. science has no effect on religion. and say we find an old scripture of, lets say, John, does that make religion correct? no. thus they are not the same. intelligence is clearly the wrong word to use i see now, i meant it as not in a stupid or smart way, but as in a way to think logically. as in you seriously cant believe that all the water in Egypt turned to blood.
lol and to give an analogy to a video game...lol. elements are pure in nature. once their isolated, they are an element. only a couple of experiments will suffice. but the ones not naturally occurring undergo a series of tests to determine their genuine-ness
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
oh but i love sports and art and music, maybe i have a severed corpus callosum?. as much as i love science and biology, i know little about psychology but i did take the intro class in college. it doesnt interest me is all i can say. did u even read any of my posts, i am a Christian. now go and see who is truly limited, you who opposes order and fact, supplying arguments about how scientists are ignorant, dumb, and incautious, while i say that science is something that can only be more accurate and give you examples that fall on deaf ears.
hr 64 bpm, breathes 5, blinks 1. done.the lost gospel of peter was not included. and yes, alot of the rejected books are under suspicion, but you must remember that according to you, and me, humans are flawed, so to say there was divine intervention is contradictory. and yes, it is all a matter of faith. i have that faith, but i do not 'know'. i 'know' of science and math. and the latter is true 100% of the time whether you like it or not.
yup, its all a matter of faith whether that divine intervention was present. But as to whether the Earth is as old as Carbon dating says is not technically factual, non of us were there when it happened so we dont actually know. Although it may very well be that old we are putting our TRUST and FAITH in the numbers to give u results and believe in them. Saying that the earth is specifically w/e milions of years old as concrete, solid fact is like saying I know that my shift at work is 4 hours long so i am gauranteed to get off at 8. That is saying there wont be another variable like a waiter calling in sick and a big rush coming and the manager needs me to work another shift. Its that extra variable that you factor out, you dont know if there is another factor playing a role in the experiment just like i didnt know that the other guy would call in sick. You dont know that maybe there is an unknown element in the earths crust that may lead you to believe it is older than it really is. you just don't know, that is why it is a matter of faith that it is that old, faith that there are no other variables effecting the experiment. You can argue with the example but its logical lol. And the possibility of other variables needs to be factored into the possibility that it might not be right. So then if you dont and say that it IS this many years old then you have faith that there is no unknown that you don't know and dont question the unknown just like religious people dont question a lot of what happens. I know that all of the dating techniques are very accurate and very skillfully done.
Personally i dont question the dating methods. In the bible it says that a day could be like a thousand years to God. According to the bible time is irrelevant to such an abstract being, and sinc ethe writers were inspired if you so wish to believe then it means that the earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and people who try to say that it was literal are pathetic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
yup, its all a matter of faith whether that divine intervention was present. But as to whether the Earth is as old as Carbon dating says is not technically factual, non of us were there when it happened so we dont actually know. Although it may very well be that old we are putting our TRUST and FAITH in the numbers to give u results and believe in them. Saying that the earth is specifically w/e milions of years old as concrete, solid fact is like saying I know that my shift at work is 4 hours long so i am gauranteed to get off at 8. That is saying there wont be another variable like a waiter calling in sick and a big rush coming and the manager needs me to work another shift. Its that extra variable that you factor out, you dont know if there is another factor playing a role in the experiment just like i didnt know that the other guy would call in sick. You dont know that maybe there is an unknown element in the earths crust that may lead you to believe it is older than it really is. you just don't know, that is why it is a matter of faith that it is that old, faith that there are no other variables effecting the experiment. You can argue with the example but its logical lol. And the possibility of other variables needs to be factored into the possibility that it might not be right. So then if you dont and say that it IS this many years old then you have faith that there is no unknown that you don't know and dont question the unknown just like religious people dont question a lot of what happens. I know that all of the dating techniques are very accurate and very skillfully done.
Personally i dont question the dating methods. In the bible it says that a day could be like a thousand years to God. According to the bible time is irrelevant to such an abstract being, and sinc ethe writers were inspired if you so wish to believe then it means that the earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and people who try to say that it was literal are pathetic.
woot good stuff. i agree with everything except the faith in dating the earth part. no one know how old, no one ever will. but we know its more than what the bible dates. we know its in the billions, thats unquestionable. but there are so many variables that defy our current physics as well, should we factor them in as well? what we know, is concrete at the moment, but science is always altering; answer one question, ask 10 more.
and exactly, since in genesis, God does not explain a day, it could be anything, but in later books, and combined with historical fact, we did find out the dates of certain biblical events...just not creation myths
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Concrete at the moment is kind of an oxymoron wouldn't you say? If it's concrete it's not something that will change, if it's subject to the whim of the moment then it's not concrete. Science has always been at the whim of change. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if within a 50 year time frame the "Solid concrete factual age of the earth" suddenly more than doubles or halves or some other seemingly drastic change. I brought up the point of Einstein previously because the idea that you couldn't calculate where for instance an electron would be at any given time essentially drove him insane in a sense. Their arose a theory within his life time that you could merely calculate the probability of an electron's placement and never the actual place it would be, and to that affect, he to the moment he died, writing on bed sheets, tried to figure out how to solve that equation to no avail. I believe the point some others have been making is that the scientific methodology is so subject to change and new information, to say anything is solid about the information is simply a poor observation of historical fact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
woot good stuff. i agree with everything except the faith in dating the earth part. no one know how old, no one ever will. but we know its more than what the bible dates. we know its in the billions, thats unquestionable. but there are so many variables that defy our current physics as well, should we factor them in as well? what we know, is concrete at the moment, but science is always altering; answer one question, ask 10 more.
and exactly, since in genesis, God does not explain a day, it could be anything, but in later books, and combined with historical fact, we did find out the dates of certain biblical events...just not creation myths
glad we can agree
idono, but when it comes to numbers i will have you know i have a natural biased hatred of math because i failed calc =D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
umm putting words in my mouth? dont get angry now...
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong.
Nope, I can't, but I also cannot say it is accurate, because I was not alive at the same time as that animal was alive, and so I don't have a reference. I can say that the numbers the scientist got were close to what that particular scientist is biased to believe (bias in this instance as just inclined to believe, not negatively used.) I can say his readings were accurate as to what he was expecting, but I can't say it's truth.
they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
the bibles date is much off.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate.
Yes! That's what I mean! We can get close, but never, ever perfect, and so you will always need a measure of faith in those calculations to be true.
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
I'm not pretending to know more than you, I might (and probably) not- all I'm offering is reasoning, not more facts than have already been presented. JavaScript isn't that hard to learn, and it's barely a programming language- you should try it. You can make all kinds of nifty things with it, like games and such, besides its more tedious and boring applications in modern web development
Concrete at the moment is kind of an oxymoron wouldn't you say? If it's concrete it's not something that will change, if it's subject to the whim of the moment then it's not concrete. Science has always been at the whim of change. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if within a 50 year time frame the "Solid concrete factual age of the earth" suddenly more than doubles or halves or some other seemingly drastic change. I brought up the point of Einstein previously because the idea that you couldn't calculate where for instance an electron would be at any given time essentially drove him insane in a sense. Their arose a theory within his life time that you could merely calculate the probability of an electron's placement and never the actual place it would be, and to that affect, he to the moment he died, writing on bed sheets, tried to figure out how to solve that equation to no avail. I believe the point some others have been making is that the scientific methodology is so subject to change and new information, to say anything is solid about the information is simply a poor observation of historical fact.
it is, but so is jumbo shrimp, the at the moment is pretty much what im getting at, its gonna change. read my other post.
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
i trust your dad. but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
theres more than one scientist working on the same subject. errors are eventually corrected.
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
calc was easy to understand and do, just not easy to take tests for lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
Vague terms are not scientific- we want strict words, answers, and facts here. Or maybe I missed something, could you re-explain it?
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
Sorry, I just got in to this discussion so I probably missed it If you want or wouldn't mind, could you put a link to it?
but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives.
Yes, it could very well mean that! Those materials have always had motion, have always been radioactive- therefore you could extract a date as far back as 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 years if you want since energy (and through extension, matter) is eternally self-existent and neither is destroyed or created.
read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
Which require additional doctrinal theories, which would be adding more faith to it. I'm talking about the bare bones- it never literally says how old it thinks the earth is.
And why does anyone who disagrees with scientists' view of the age of the earth have to be religious or believe dates based on events in the Bible? That seems kind of like stereotyping to me.
Quote from "applesoffury" »
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
this argument has come to a mute point. Its all repetitive now.Subject change?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
i know the concept and the proof, i can look that stuff up. i just cant decipher it. i meant i want to know how exactly.
lol almost got me
in a philosophically way of asking, do we ever know for sure, isnt everything in existence a matter of faith?
back to angels and the bible, did you know some scientist, yes, scientists claim that there is a scenario for the plagues that happened to the egyptians?
btw everyone, i voted yes, i do believe in angels. so for the guy calling me close-minded, i urge you to reconsider, why would i argue to prove that religion is a lie when i am religious? lol ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
i know the concept and the proof, i can look that stuff up. i just cant decipher it. i meant i want to know how exactly.
lol almost got me
in a philosophically way of asking, do we ever know for sure, isnt everything in existence a matter of faith?
back to angels and the bible, did you know some scientist, yes, scientists claim that there is a scenario for the plagues that happened to the egyptians?
it just keeps on going in a circle! lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"The most correct" answer is relative to perspective. If I say the meaning of life is "pink fluffy wolves", and the guy next to me says "Evolution" then most people would conclude that evolution by comparison is a more accurate explanation than "Pink fluffy wolves". The primary problem I see with Evolution as a whole is that the basis falls apart at the very start. You can argue that different things morph into other things over time due to the needs through adaptation and that carbon dating can explain the generalized age of anything you can test, but at no point in recorded history to my knowledge has there ever been a case of anything that was dead becoming alive. All living things come from other living things, and without that, the entire basis for the system is shut down into "This is our best guess and you have to have a level of faith to believe that it works." In that measure of thinking Creationist views are as valid as if not more so than evolutionist because at least there is a somewhat logical sense of "this is how it could have happened."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
"The most correct" answer is relative to perspective. If I say the meaning of life is "pink fluffy wolves", and the guy next to me says "Evolution" then most people would conclude that evolution by comparison is a more accurate explanation than "Pink fluffy wolves". The primary problem I see with Evolution as a whole is that the basis falls apart at the very start. You can argue that different things morph into other things over time due to the needs through adaptation and that carbon dating can explain the generalized age of anything you can test, but at no point in recorded history to my knowledge has there ever been a case of anything that was dead becoming alive. All living things come from other living things, and without that, the entire basis for the system is shut down into "This is our best guess and you have to have a level of faith to believe that it works." In that measure of thinking Creationist views are as valid as if not more so than evolutionist because at least there is a somewhat logical sense of "this is how it could have happened."
one question.
what are you, a wiccan or something?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
My view on my this thread just keeps cycling back through the same information:
If were are to assume that there are angels, then we have to assume we, too, have spirituality. That is the level, then, that a "spirit" would communicate on. But, in another sense, if you assume there are angels, then something must have created them, unless you want to buy in to some kind of spiritual evolution or something, like some new agers do. If we are to assume then, for sake of argument, that angels do exist, and that they also have a creator, we would have to assume that the same being created our spirituality, and, thus, everything that would come along with that, primarily meaning everything, at which point the creator would be called "god". And if this god were to create everything, he or she would have no chains to our rules, and thus be able to change them or go beyond them at anytime he/she so wishes. So, this god could command the angel to appear to deliver some kind of divine message, and then take whatever necessary steps he or she so chooses to keep that creature from being defined quantitatively.
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
one question.
what are you, a wiccan or something?
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
My view on my this thread just keeps cycling back through the same information:
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
Very nice quote, i like it. That is the thinking i strive to be able to ponder. Was it in this thread Magistrate?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I already stated my view on it, none of which would suggest wican :-P. I could probably find as much rational in a wican as in your belief system though apple ;-).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
My view on my this thread just keeps cycling back through the same information:
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
no i was being serious. his everything comes from everything cycle of life and lion king thing made me wonder.
i dont have a problem with any religion really. i just wanna know his stance.
I already stated my view on it, none of which would suggest wican :-P. I could probably find as much rational in a wican as in your belief system though apple ;-).
o i didnt catch it then. we went on forever. mind you saying it again? and im sure you can, all religions are founded on some truth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
And that was arrogant, but no, I took no offense.
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong. they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old. the bibles date is much off. and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research. you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate. so you say that we did accurately date the earth to be billions, instead of thousands of years old, as the bible claims, does that mean that religion has officially died? no. science has no effect on religion. and say we find an old scripture of, lets say, John, does that make religion correct? no. thus they are not the same. intelligence is clearly the wrong word to use i see now, i meant it as not in a stupid or smart way, but as in a way to think logically. as in you seriously cant believe that all the water in Egypt turned to blood.
lol and to give an analogy to a video game...lol. elements are pure in nature. once their isolated, they are an element. only a couple of experiments will suffice. but the ones not naturally occurring undergo a series of tests to determine their genuine-ness
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
yup, its all a matter of faith whether that divine intervention was present. But as to whether the Earth is as old as Carbon dating says is not technically factual, non of us were there when it happened so we dont actually know. Although it may very well be that old we are putting our TRUST and FAITH in the numbers to give u results and believe in them. Saying that the earth is specifically w/e milions of years old as concrete, solid fact is like saying I know that my shift at work is 4 hours long so i am gauranteed to get off at 8. That is saying there wont be another variable like a waiter calling in sick and a big rush coming and the manager needs me to work another shift. Its that extra variable that you factor out, you dont know if there is another factor playing a role in the experiment just like i didnt know that the other guy would call in sick. You dont know that maybe there is an unknown element in the earths crust that may lead you to believe it is older than it really is. you just don't know, that is why it is a matter of faith that it is that old, faith that there are no other variables effecting the experiment. You can argue with the example but its logical lol. And the possibility of other variables needs to be factored into the possibility that it might not be right. So then if you dont and say that it IS this many years old then you have faith that there is no unknown that you don't know and dont question the unknown just like religious people dont question a lot of what happens. I know that all of the dating techniques are very accurate and very skillfully done.
Personally i dont question the dating methods. In the bible it says that a day could be like a thousand years to God. According to the bible time is irrelevant to such an abstract being, and sinc ethe writers were inspired if you so wish to believe then it means that the earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and people who try to say that it was literal are pathetic.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
and exactly, since in genesis, God does not explain a day, it could be anything, but in later books, and combined with historical fact, we did find out the dates of certain biblical events...just not creation myths
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
glad we can agree
idono, but when it comes to numbers i will have you know i have a natural biased hatred of math because i failed calc =D
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
Nope, I can't, but I also cannot say it is accurate, because I was not alive at the same time as that animal was alive, and so I don't have a reference. I can say that the numbers the scientist got were close to what that particular scientist is biased to believe (bias in this instance as just inclined to believe, not negatively used.) I can say his readings were accurate as to what he was expecting, but I can't say it's truth.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
Yes! That's what I mean! We can get close, but never, ever perfect, and so you will always need a measure of faith in those calculations to be true.
I'm not pretending to know more than you, I might (and probably) not- all I'm offering is reasoning, not more facts than have already been presented. JavaScript isn't that hard to learn, and it's barely a programming language- you should try it. You can make all kinds of nifty things with it, like games and such, besides its more tedious and boring applications in modern web development
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
i trust your dad. but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives. read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
theres more than one scientist working on the same subject. errors are eventually corrected.
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
calc was easy to understand and do, just not easy to take tests for lol.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Vague terms are not scientific- we want strict words, answers, and facts here. Or maybe I missed something, could you re-explain it?
Sorry, I just got in to this discussion so I probably missed it If you want or wouldn't mind, could you put a link to it?
Yes, it could very well mean that! Those materials have always had motion, have always been radioactive- therefore you could extract a date as far back as 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 years if you want since energy (and through extension, matter) is eternally self-existent and neither is destroyed or created.
Which require additional doctrinal theories, which would be adding more faith to it. I'm talking about the bare bones- it never literally says how old it thinks the earth is.
And why does anyone who disagrees with scientists' view of the age of the earth have to be religious or believe dates based on events in the Bible? That seems kind of like stereotyping to me.
DING DING DING! Survey says: faith!
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
i know the concept and the proof, i can look that stuff up. i just cant decipher it. i meant i want to know how exactly.
lol almost got me
in a philosophically way of asking, do we ever know for sure, isnt everything in existence a matter of faith?
back to angels and the bible, did you know some scientist, yes, scientists claim that there is a scenario for the plagues that happened to the egyptians?
btw everyone, i voted yes, i do believe in angels. so for the guy calling me close-minded, i urge you to reconsider, why would i argue to prove that religion is a lie when i am religious? lol ?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
what are you, a wiccan or something?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
Very nice quote, i like it. That is the thinking i strive to be able to ponder. Was it in this thread Magistrate?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
i dont have a problem with any religion really. i just wanna know his stance.
o i didnt catch it then. we went on forever. mind you saying it again? and im sure you can, all religions are founded on some truth.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."