Diversity remains a one way street

Status
Not open for further replies.
Winky said:
Aw shucksers I was with you until the third paragraph

Man I'll certainly give you credit where credit is due.
You are truly relentless!!!!
Never let go of your key point, that knowledge is rooted in 'belief' and not reality Hah
Click to expand...

And yet, you never actually addressed that key point, at all.




Hey Lemme take you onna widdle mental trip (without ever leaving the farm)

I'm a self avowed Atheist M'Kay? I like most parents
that have a belief in this matter I'd like my son to 'think'
as I do in these matters. The one place in this entire city
that I knew he could get the best education just so happens to be 1.7 miles from my house. A Jesuit college prep school! So I let him go there. (he actually asked to go there) So do you think that they influenced his beliefs, would you send your Kids to an ATHEIST school?
Click to expand...

Atheist school is exactly where my kids go. It's called public school.


Guess what? Theology is a required course, of course he got straight A's every time, knows some stuff about Catholicism he does. Fact is the proper morals taught by Christianity are the way I've lived my life and 'pray' he lives his.
Click to expand...

Big deal? I took several courses on religion in HS and College. It's a class about religion. It isn't a class on converting to that religion.

But don't think for a second that at anytime creationism can be held in the same esteem as science by any rational being nope not ever.
Click to expand...

Well, that's quite a leap. How did you get from your kids school, to that?
Anyways, to argue your point. That you hold science in esteem ....? Esteem for what? science is a concept. It's nothing to hold in esteem.



So partailly attempt an answer to your original query...
Click to expand...


Finally

Belief is a concept not rooted in facts. Belief requires no substantiation. Knowledge on the other hand MUST be based in facts,
Click to expand...

Yes, I said that already


if the facts are found to be false or are superceded by new facts then the knowledge changes it become greater.
Click to expand...

:confused:

The belief regarding creation remains static because it isn't based on any facts. The Christian (and the fables regarding the matter from other religions) 'story' of creation remains unchanged since it began, whereas science is evolving grow increasing knowledge about creation!
Click to expand...


Well, here's most of your problem. Science beats it's self up daily, trying to say what .... exactly .... happened. And they're always going to be wrong. Because they're trying to infer what happened forensicly. After the fact, from the remenants.

Religion doesn't address "what" happened. Or "how" it was done. It addressed "why" it was done.



Damn that’s nearly as incoherent and lengthy as one of TG’s posts.
I said nearly as I would never be able to approach that gurls skillz
Click to expand...

Probably because you don't actually understand the subject of discussion. Happens a lot, don't worry about it. Took scientist thousands of years to realise that they have to actually understand the question before the answer makes any sense.

---------------
No wait edited to add

IF your Kids are in public school they are ALREADY
in an Atheist school lol
Click to expand...


I said that already. It's not exactly news. But my kids also go to sunday school (which, IMHO, is the correct place to be learning religion to start with)
 
In another thread, it is suggested that, perhaps, I don't know much about science, having suggested that it is mostly belief. I would recommend that anyone feeling that way read the attached article. It shows quite well how science works.


Researchers: Some Missing Matter Found
By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 02 February 2005
01:28 pm ET


Only about 5 percent of the mass and energy in the universe is normal matter, the subatomic particles that make up all things visible. Scientists have no clue what the other 95 percent is, so they've dubbed part of it dark matter and the rest dark energy.

Even a good portion of the normal matter, the 5 percent slice of the overall pie, has proved elusive to spot. New observations have found some of it.

The total mass of the universe, visible and hidden stuff, is calculated based on how stars huddle in galaxies and the fact that clusters of galaxies are gravitationally glued together. Normal matter alone can't explain the full gravity of this universal situation.

Dark energy is presumed to exist because the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing pace, and something must be driving that acceleration.

The 5 percent of normal matter includes stars, planets, their satellites, plus interstellar and intergalactic gas.

The new observations, by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, reveal two huge intergalactic clouds of diffuse hot gas. These clouds are the best evidence yet that a vast cosmic web of hot gas contains the long-sought missing matter, scientists said Wednesday.

Normal matter is referred to as baryons.

"An inventory of all the baryons in stars and gas inside and outside of galaxies accounts for just over half the baryons that existed shortly after the Big Bang," explained Fabrizio Nicastro of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "Now we have found the likely hiding place of the missing baryons."

The results are detailed in the Feb. 3 issue of the journal Nature.

Computer simulations of the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters indicated that the missing baryons might be contained in an extremely diffuse web-like system of gas clouds from which galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed.

These clouds have defied detection because of their predicted temperature range of a few hundred thousand to a million degrees Celsius, and their extremely low density. Evidence for this warm-hot intergalactic matter (WHIM) had been detected around our Galaxy, or in the Local Group of galaxies, but the lack of definitive evidence for WHIM outside our immediate cosmic neighborhood made any estimates of the universal mass-density of baryons unreliable.

Nicastro and colleagues looked at X-rays coming from a distant bright galaxy called Markarian 421 as they passed through a region of warm gas. The X-rays were absorbed by ionized oxygen and nitrogen atoms there that are normally 'invisible,' and the scientists say that there is enough matter in the gas to account for the missing mass.

But these are just two gas clouds, so more observations are needed.

"It is difficult to know whether this region is typical of the entire universe," writes J. Michael Shull in a related commentary in the journal.
Click to expand...

source

Hmmm.
 
You’re really reaching for it.

Yup you win God snapped his fingers and Poof
outta nowhere everything was created and that's
all we need to 'know' end of discussion!
 
Winky said:
You’re really reaching for it.

Yup you win God snapped his fingers and Poof
outta nowhere everything was created and that's
all we need to 'know' end of discussion!
Click to expand...

And you still haven't answered any of my challenges directly, Winky. Oh, and if you read real close, you might notice something. I haven't said anywhere that I'm a creationist, have I? I'm saying that people who discount any possibility are blinding themselves to an option that they haven't disproved yet. These scientist (above) are working from a theory that needs more matter than they've discovered to work. They entered an X into that equation, and now they're trying to discover that X.

But you have to admit. A scientific theory that requires 20 times the matter believed to exist is still better than religion ... right?
 
SNP said:
But I have yet to hear these ideas explain in an acceptable way how that first being came to be at all. Trace any organism back far enough...that's fine with me. But something had to start it all.
Click to expand...
General question, and I'm not just being a facetious jackass here.

Where did God get the "stuff" to make earth with? If something can't be created out of nothing as is questioned in the above quote. He created the Heavens and the stars <- out of what? from where? and then the Earth <- out of what? from where?

How do you resolve that?
 
Leslie said:
General question, and I'm not just being a jackass here.

Where did God get the "stuff" to make earth with? If something can't be created out of nothing as is questioned in the above quote. He created the Heavens and the stars <- out of what? from where? and then the Earth <- out of what? from where?

How do you resolve that?
Click to expand...

Mechanism's been discovered. I believe it's referred to as Hawking radiation (I'll be corrected if it's not). Nature abhors a vacumn. In a perfect vacumn, particles will pop in and out of existance in pairs. Positive and negative. But, because of a quirk of quantum mechanics, the positive ones can live longer than the negative ones. If they colide, they're instantly reduced.
 
Dood if I didn't know better I'd think you are either quite insane or merely fuckin' with us. This type of thing might get a rise out of yer arch nemesis Bish but I'm on to your scheme. Anyone who attempts to debate a madman certainly doesn’t come out looking the better for it now does he? WTF is the point you are trying to make?

That science is no better than superstition?
That man can never have true knowledge?
Is that it?

Inquiring Wink’s wanna know!
 
I think you might actually want to read some details of what I wrote, Wink. But I'll try one last time to talk down at your level.



Science doesn't have all the answers. They may have, one day. But right now, most of what's called science is a matter of Come up with a theory, and see how it fits. Then try and discover what doesn't.
 
Winky said:
Yup you win God snapped his fingers and Poof
outta nowhere everything was created and that's
all we need to 'know' end of discussion!
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

God did not snap his fingers. He spoke, and poof it happened.
 
You see thar buddy I do read whut you type
(it is becoming nearly as painful as some of TG's posts)

Of course mankind’s science doesn't have all the answers

I hold that seeking the answers to the as of yet unanswered questions is eminently preferable to
simply saying God created everthang and that;'s that.

This thread began as a discussion as to whether or not
creationism can be held up as a viable alternative to evolution.
Perhaps you are right, it certainly can not because one is science, the other dogma.

So....

Answer Les's question

nope you can not and no 2,000 year old fable can either

Man as of yet does NOT have the answer to these questions
but have faith Brotha science WILL one day provide them.
 
Leslie said:
General question, and I'm not just being a facetious jackass here.

Where did God get the "stuff" to make earth with? If something can't be created out of nothing as is questioned in the above quote. He created the Heavens and the stars <- out of what? from where? and then the Earth <- out of what? from where?

How do you resolve that?
Click to expand...

My belief structure grapples with that question thusly:

Being all powerful, God created the heavens and the earth. He spoke them into existence.

Believe it or not, despite preconceptions to the contrary, I am quite educated and of above average intelligence. I too have asked these questions, of others, of myself, and of God. The answers I received and/or conclusions I have arrived at satisfy my own needs. I did not question until I could satisfy everyone else's questions; I stopped when I was OK with things. Sue me.

I am at peace knowing that a God capable of creating the heavens and the earth is also capable of doing so in a way that would allow these creations to sustain themselves. He did not stop at creating trees; He created them in a way that allows for photosynthesis. He did not stop at creating a firmament upon which man could dwell; He created it in such a way that the firmament would provide food for man's body, air for man to breathe, and so forth.

I also hold that God created various animals with an adaptability built in to enable them to survive in their elements. To me, that adaptability is what many refer to as "evolution".

Could I be wrong? Of course. Any of us could. When I look at the astounding advancements in technology, from raw elements to implements to refinements such as plastic or nylon or whatever, things that man had made from the raw elements, I am amazed. None of these could be discovered unless it was within God's will for man to develop them. Theoretically, primitive man had all the ingredients necessary to invent anything we currently have. Through generations of learning, we have achieved fantastic advances. There may well be more to come. To think what modern life could be like in 20 years, and then to think that people who enjoy those things will take them for granted just as we do, always with an eye toward further development, is truly a daunting idea. But it will happen, as long as God allows the world to continue. His gospel tells us that the world will end someday, when He sends His son to claim the faithful. Until that day arrives, man will forever continue to refine and improve his life through science. God gave man the ability to do so, therefore I feel that it is His will that we do so. Future generations will enjoy more advanced technology than we do. That does not mean they are more favored by God; it simply means that those generations will have the benefit of learning from where we leave off.

In my statement which you quoted, I stand by the notion that if evolution is the true answer to life's inception, then where did the first being come from. In the notion of creation by an all powerful God, it is implied that this God created it. Anything beyond the actual things He created are the result of man's ability to manipulate what he had into what he could make of it. The first being was created by God, as were all the things he found here on this earth. Man has simply manipulated these things into new things. A computer is nothing more than a combination of naturally occurring elements, correctly combined and powered by electricity (another naturally occurring phenomenon that man has learned to harness). It's as simple as that.

I don't mind admitting, I have questions. Some of them have been answered, others have not as yet, and still others never will be answered in this life. God's word states as much. Upon our death, all things will become known to us. I have questions...lots of them. What did God do before He created man and earth? Did He just hang out? Why did He create? I don't know, and in the end I have concluded that it is not important that I know these things.

I fully anticipate this post to be disected to pieces by any number of people. That's OK too. I do not have to answer to anyone for my beliefs. As a Christian, I am charged to be a witness to all people. I am charged to be "instant in season and out", to be an ambassador to others for God. It is my responsibility, as it is that of all Christians, to do my utmost to spread God's message to any and all who will listen. It is not my charge to defend that message against those who will not hear. It is not my responsibility to force anyone to believe; only to present the message. God gave man free will. He made the assurance that all people would have the message presented to them, and the opportunity to believe or disbelieve it. It saddens Him when people reject His word, but He allows us to do so if we choose. So go ahead, any who feel the need. Cut this post up. Hack it to pieces. Laugh, joke, and have a merry old time. It does not change my opinion of the person one iota. Yes, it makes me afraid for that person, and I have said so many times before. But in the end, I am not responsible for your soul...you are. I feel I have carried out the instructions Christians have been given. Probably not as well as others could have, certainly not as eloquently as others or as knowledgeable or as completely as others could have. But to the best of my ability, yes of that I am certain.

I expect to change zero minds with this. I hope someone surprises me.
 
Winky said:
I hold that seeking the answers to the as of yet unanswered questions is eminently preferable to
simply saying God created everthang and that;'s that.
Click to expand...

Without having disqualified that as an answer. There's good science for ya. "Nope, I don't like that answer, so you're not gonna explore it"

This thread began as a discussion as to whether or not
creationism can be held up as a viable alternative to evolution.
Click to expand...

It did? I thought it began as a discussion concerning the rights of a "prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington "? And of how small minded people (such as yourself) were making his job impossible because of his religious beliefs.

Perhaps you are right, it certainly can not because one is science, the other dogma.
Click to expand...

And you can't possibly see past one to the other.


Answer Les's question

nope you can not and no 2,000 year old fable can either
Click to expand...


Really? See above.
 
Oh My God
and just HOW through a scienetific method would you
propose to explore the existance of God???

Now THAT would be a great thing Proof positive of one
diety! Man I'd be in church every morning (or praying to Mecca) !!!!


as for seeing past Dogma Yeah keep the Dogma out of science and we'll all be better off.

As for:
-------
Answer Les's question

nope you can not and no 2,000 year old fable can either

Really? See above.
-------------
No see S&P's beautiful prose for the definitive answer
on that one Bub!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top