I regard myself as among "the faithful" (in that I think there probably
is "something" like a God in this Universe although I doubt any religion
really has a handle on the way it truly is), and I have no problem with
a 4 billion old Solar system/Earth.
Of course it changes. The Catholic Church accepts the Sun being at the
center of the Solar system. The fact that it at one time did not means
simply that humans are error prone (and worse).
Any number of scientists through the ages have been wrong as well.
Sometimes the scientific community itself can be quite hard on those
who do not follow the widely accepted theory of the way things are.
Does that mean Science is a bad thing? Nope, just means scientists
can be egotistical, self-interested and narrow minded at times just
like anyone else.
The Bible says it can't be 4 billion years old according to our resident
My point was that at the time their religion was based on their belief
the Earth was the center. It was a fundamental principal in their
belief. We see that same thing with todays religions. To them the
Earth can not possibly be older than about 8,000 years. They make no
room at all for the possibility they are wrong. They turn their back on
anything that suggests they are wrong. Just as happened in prior
cultures and religions that are long gone.
Actually, if you take the bible LITERALLY, it COULD be. In Genesis 1
it says: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,and the
earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. The beginning of the world AS WE KNOW IT started here. The
"seven days", whether literal 24 hour days or not, start here.
Is it possible this is "earth MK II"? The remains of "earth MkI" may
date from MUCH OLDER. NOWHERE in the bible does it say God created
the earth from NOTHING.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
While the literal 7 day time span seems rather incorrect given
current evidence, the ordering of developments seems to be quite
Even with current good evidence of Big Bang theory and the expanding
universe, you still get back to "why was all the matter of the universe
compressed in on infinitely small point of space time dense enough to
cause the mother of all explosions?" "How'd it get that way?", etc, etc.
Science has a long way to go in outright disproving the existence of
some sort of very powerful supreme being/beings.
I don't think the lack of knowledge is evidence of some supreme being.
It just means we know so little. In the history of man people have
explained what they can't understand by crediting a supreme being. If
you could take modern knowledge and technology back in time the people
of that time would think you were a God. We can now explain some things
that were once credited to a supreme being.
Yes, there are those who insist the Bible is a literal book and
the universe really was created in 7 days and a woman really does
have one less rib than a man, etc., etc., etc.. I don't know that
those beliefs necessarily characterize "religion" as narrow and
even offensive in nature.
On need not concentrate on religion alone for those type qualities.
They are *human* qualities and they can be found in modern science
and certainly politics or nearly any other form of organized or
semi-organized human endeavor.
We're working with flawed players here.
If Budd insists that the world was created in 7 days because the
Bible says so, let him think it. He chooses to ignore the best
evidence we have *at the moment*. His choice. If he calls you
blasphemer for saying otherwise, chuckle and move on to the next
thread. Don't interact with him on the subject if it gets you too
annoyed or upset. Is it really worth it?
You obviously don't understand the concept of "burden of proof".
The individual making a claim bears the burden of proof so, in the absence
of physical evodence, it's up to believers to prove the above.
In a word, BULLSHIT!!! The Bible is chronologically correct in SOME
instances but the only way the spiritual content can be proven is by
interviewing the (long dead) participants.
We're talking personal beliefs not a scientific journal article.
If you have a belief, than it must at be provable, or at least
reasonable or possible to you. What it is to anyone else is
irrelevant, and no one is under a burden to "prove" a "belief"
to anyone, much less one that is unprovable.
I might reiterate what another poster said: proof of a God, or of
the lack of a God, is largely impossible. These are "beliefs" and
as such are not proven.
Generally, it's easier to prove something "isn't" rather than
something "is", so deriving a proof that there isn't a God should
be an easier task to accomplish.
What's to prove? A thought is a thought. A manifestation of a
cerebral state I suppose.
I wasn't arguing one can/can't prove of disprove a thought, "merely"
the existence or non-existence of God.
The Scientific Method requires that one observe, formulate a
hypothesis on why the observation occurred, and than attempt to
*disprove* the hypothesis. It's generally very difficult to
outright prove a hypothesis, so disproving it is the preferred
Clearly, the existence, or lack thereof, of a God, is well outside
the realm of the Scientific Method's service to us, at least for
quite a time into the future.
Whoa, this is getting heavy now! Remember back in the old days
when this group talked Dodge trucks? What simpletons we all were
back then, huh?
First off, "science" isn't trying to disprove the existence of God.
There are too many tangible, useful hypothesis to be tested ... like
global warming, cancer, etc. I spend about 20 hours a week in the lab
testing various hypothesis (some mine and some others) ... and I assure
you, proving or disproving God never enters my, or anyone elses, mind.
Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is a complete waste of
time. So is talking about it.
Correct. The Scientific Method is for proving that which pertains to
matter or energy. NOT the fantasy of an all powerful, all knowing God
... who apparently cares so little about his "followers" that he allows
science to keep their sorry asses alive with the medical research we
*have* proven, using the Scientific Method.
Didn't mean to imply that science had any focus on proving/disproving
the existence of God. I was merely responding to someone who claimed
their beliefs were based on proofs. The scientific method, which has
served humankind tremendously well in the past couple hundred years,
is unusable for this task, as we agree.
You've decided the concept of a supreme being is fantasy. Fine
for you. It is based on some sort of reasoning that a God would
show more care for his "sheep" than appears to be the case.
Fair enough of an assessment. Not a proof since none will [probably
ever] be available.
I choose to believe there is "something" based on the incredible
complexity of life and the the universe as we currently understand
it. It's just too big and interconnected to have come about purely
randomly, as indeed current evolution says it did (for life). Even
given gene mutation rates and an extremely long period of time, it
just doesn't seem to be fully random. Why else a horseshoe crab
that essentially hasn't changed in 200+ million years versus the
evolution of humans in a mere 3 million (modern humans only a 200K
years)! I have lots of questions like that.
I don't believe any religion is correct in its definition of God.
They're perhaps all partially correct, but way off base for the
whole of it.
My Ram got a remanufactured engine 7K miles ago. Never would
have thought a 318 with only 150K miles would have heads so bad
that they couldn't really be rebuilt, so it was either brand
new heads at $3200 or a Jaspar remanufactured engine at $4700.
The new engine gets only about 14 mpg while the original regularly
Well, at least God brought down the gas prices of late!
Well, I disagree. Evolution (adaption of biological organisms), can be
proven. Your questions, as I understand them, really do not question
whether evolution is "fact". Rather they pertain to "how much"
evolution played a role in our current state of being. Tough question
... and one that will take a very long time to answer with science.
I choose to believe that we did evolve from something else. How that
"something else" came into to existence is beyond my abilities as a
scientist to prove without more concrete information. However, my
opinion is that my version of how I got here is much more plausible
than some all powerful being that only exists in the heads of humans.
Evolution, at least to a certain degree, can be proven. God and the
spirit realm cannot.
If you choose to believe in that all powerful being, then that is your
choice and I respect that as long as you or anyone else that believes
it doesn't try to cram it down my throat.
Actually, this is incorrect. It is just about impossible to prove that
something isn't because just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that
it didn't or doesn't happen. To prove something is only requires that you
see and verify it and although this can be extremely difficult at times, it
is still easier than proving something never happened since we currently
don't have the ability of time travel.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:00:23 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
Bullshit! Atheists and Agnostics could care less what anyones believes because
we know it doesn't make any difference in the end. I've been an Agnostic all my
life and I married a Catholic girl. To this day I encourage her to go to church
every Sunday and pursue her inner happiness. What we do object to is having
someone or the government trying to shove their views down our throats. Making
a child stand up and thank God for his or her food before school lunch is a good
example of what we object to. OTOH, I have no objection to a child reading his
or her bible at school or saying grace before they eat their school lunch. I
think you will find that we are the most tollerant of all.
I have no problem with Budd's beliefs. I just think that what he has been doing
in here is far from a Christian behavior. He is exhibiting a terrorist mindset
and doing Chritianity a huge disservce.
Your view and right to believe as you choose? Yes, absolutely.
Unsolicited talk (or preaching) resulting in the brow beating of
To many, Budd, God is no more real than Bugs Bunny. To others, God
exists, but they are bitter about what religion has done. To either
group, your need to CONVINCE them otherwise is, well, intolerable.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.