jump to last post 1-33 of 33 discussions (113 posts)

How much does science really know?

  1. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    I am very greatful for science. I enjoy our advances in the medical fields, engineering, technology and so on but I feel evolution science is failing. I was a firm believer for over 30 years. Many have tried to bring meat to the table a few times from both sides. What I would like to do is talk in an intillectual maner about the Creator and about Evolution. It will include biblical quotes on our side- and hopefully scientific evidence from your side.

    1. No trolls
    2. No insults from either side.
    3. No hit and run comments. 
    4. Make this one as clean and factual as possible.
    5. Respect the "enemy"- we are all brothers and sisters in mankind by religion or evolution.
    6. Start by apologizing to those you have insulted.

    Proof God exists commences now.

    1. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I hope this works.

    2. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Proof God exists commences now." breaks rule number 3.

      http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/ … fignorance

      "But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention." -Neil Degrasse Tyson

      Mr. Tyson insists that god is only used when on the brink of ignorance.  He argues that when something is unexplainable it is "God's handiwork".  When it is easily explainable there is no mention of god.

      "To deny or erase the rich, colorful history of scientists and other thinkers who have invoked divinity in their work would be intellectually dishonest. Surely there's an appropriate place for intelligent design to live in the academic landscape. How about the history of religion? How about philosophy or psychology? The one place it doesn't belong is the science classroom.

      If you're not swayed by academic arguments, consider the financial consequences. Allow intelligent design into science textbooks, lecture halls, and laboratories, and the cost to the frontier of scientific discovery—the frontier that drives the economies of the future—would be incalculable. I don't want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before."

      This is why proclaimed "Free-Thinkers" argue so strongly against the blind subservience that religion requires.

      I'm not going to argue that God does or does not exist, I'm just going to say that religion stunts scientific growth.  One of the newest family guys prods fun at that very fact (they go to a parallel universe where Christianity never held power and it it thousands of years more advanced).

      So, how much does science really know?  A LOT more than religion!  Religion is merely an excuse for ignorance.

      One thing it knows for sure is that it doesn't really know much.  It is open to change, new technology, design, experimentation, use of the SCIENTIFIC method.  Religion does not claim the same freedom.  It takes wars to change religion, while it takes nothing close to change an idea.

      Me?  I believe in a god.  I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.  I can say with complete certainty that the bible is not completely truthful.  I also say with complete certainty that the Judeo-Christian version of God does not exist.

      Science > Religion

      1. sooner than later profile image61
        sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Prometheus- rule #3 remains unbroken until I run.

        The article you have posted was interesting. However, all of the points Mr Tyson made are subject to refute. Science has so much information that I suppose just about everything has been conjured up or pondered at some point.

        Newton's Law of Gravity was ground breaking and maybe more accurate than scientists tried to disprove in later generations. For example the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace, pulled from your article;

        "confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. Sire, Laplace replied, I have no need of that hypothesis."

        science always needs "More Time". More time in nature, more time in existance, more time to discover the missing link, more time for new breakthroughs, more time required for the planets to set orbit, more time for continents to shift, more time for oil to form, more time for fossils to form. Gradual selection, gradual changes, gradual forces. Millions of years. Billions of years. ONE TRILLION YEARS.
        We don't have that much time. And the more science discovers, the less time they assign to thier discoveries. Laplace requires minimal gravitational pull to start the motion- but what he really needs is no gravitational pull from the planets, no initial spin but certainly orbit. Otherwise all of the planets and thier moons would have clustered together at the sun or any gravitational pull would have brought some together. Julius Caesar noted a need to adjust for a leep year thousands of years ago, which means they were already acounting for the increase in the earths spin speed. So, you can exclude the idea of global warmings effect. P.S. we should have spun off by now given science's existance of the earth- even if we started from a dead stop which is not possible per his theory.   

        Archeology begs for more time. "Ice man 20,000 years old" no "40,000 years old" now you can't find that online. but I still have the original national geographic prints that stated these obsurd #'s. Guess what 4,300 +/-

        I have said before that God is a Complete Creator. He completed his creation in minimal time. the evidence for that is extremely apparent.

        Tyson concluded that these men would rely on God to explain the unknown. You believe in a god. Is that god responsible for any form of order?


    3. Evolution Guy profile image60
      Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are refuting every piece of scientific knowledge we have. Evolution is not the only proof that we and the planet are a lot older that you are suggesting.

      What is ironic is your use of a computer to even attempt to make this argument. Evolution happens, is happening and will continue to happen. No scientist would attempt to deny this.

      It is not really worth arguing with you because you are arguing from an untenable desperation which is unlikely to be swayed by reason, logic or facts. One can only assume that the proof of evolution that is absolutely not in question has caused you to realize your beliefs are false so you feel the need to defend them.

      I am really sorry that your beliefs have been proven to be garbage by scientific advancements. That was not the intention. No scientist sat down and aside, "Let' s see if we can prove the religionists wrong." lol

      No - what they said was, "Gosh! 6,000 years ago an invisible super being drew us in the dirt? Says the man with the holy book. Oh dear - that does not agree with the millions of observations we are making. Lets investigate - see if we can't come up with  more reasonable explanation that actually fits the facts."

      And I am not really interested in proving every single evolutionary step of every single animal on the planet. Odd that you bleat about proof when you have absolutely no proof whatsoever for your invisible creator.

      And I do not need to apologize to you. If I called you ignorant or uneducated or deliberately obtuse - it was not an insult - merely a statement of fact. wink

      This is an example of one animal's evolutionary development:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s … /5716/1728

      You will have to sign up to read the article as it is rather long, but here are some pictures to help you to understand better. The evolution of the horse.


      A simple explanation is here:
      http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/09/17 … evolution/

      With a few pointers as to why the creationist argument against evolution is largely semantics and smoke screens with no real basis in science. The said arguments against evolution are here:


      Most of which seem to be "Evolution couldn't have happened because it is too unlikely."

      Therefore God drew us in the dirt 6,000 years ago and all the proof is actually lies. I have heard some interesting and entertaining arguments.

      The spider woman's claims of dinosaurs being mentioned in the bible. lol Oddly silent as to why God decided to wipe them out - presumably they sinned very very badly in some way?

      The fact that people lived a lot longer back them because of the extra oxygen in the air. lol not that climate change is happening or anything. Personally - If I genuinely believed people used to live 800 years -= and we have screwed up the planet so badly we now only live 90- or so - I would be more concerned about changing that than I would about trying to fight proven scientific facts with this sort of poorly thought out argument that can only attract ridicule and ill will when it is taught to children. Child abuse is the word you are looking for.

      Now I understand that light actually travels much faster than we thought because it goes faster at the beginning and the stars were prolly a lot closer than they were 6000 years ago. wink

      Evolution proves there is no god. Or at least - your god does not and can not exist.

      A Random creator who made the universe by throwing a bunch of stuff in and seeing what came out? OK - I could go with that. The one with the rules and the guilt? lol lol Irrational garbage. Sorry dude - your beliefs are worthless. sad No insult intended.

      1. 0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If we truly study science, it will bring you closer to GOD." James Tour-Nanoscientist

        Evidence provided by  Dr. Heinz Lycklama

        The entire horse evolution series was disproved years ago. No knowledgeable scientist would support the horse evolution as depicted in textbooks today. Some of the evidence against the proposed theory includes:
        Eohippus was referred to as Hyracotherium by its discoverer because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax, which was not a horse
        The number of lumbar vertebrae changes from six to eight and then back to six in the “horse series.”
        Fossils of three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, showing that they lived at the same time
        Modern horses vary in size from 17 inches high (Fallabella in Argentina) to the 7 foot high

        As for the age of the earth. How does earth's magnetic field affect the formation of Carbon 14?

        Mark, your faith in Atheism is illogical and weak.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image60
          Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol lol

          Sorry your beliefs have been proven to be garbage. You must be very angry. Angry enough to lie? Apparently.

          1. 0
            thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice retort. Again you call me a liar(with no proof) so you can hold on to your irrational faith in atheism. poor mark. sad

            1. Evolution Guy profile image60
              Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well sweetheart saying "X has been disproven" when it has not is actually lying. I know it is for jeebus, but it still counts as lying. Sorry.

              And I hate to say it - but my lack of belief in your invisible super being (which I have not seen you put an argument forward for) has nothing to do with the fact that evolution happens.

              That is just common sense. Not sure why you continue to lie either. It is just persuading me that you do not actually believe it either. You must be very angry - and it shows. wink

              1. 0
                thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Angry? Labeling is so much easier than refuting isn't it? Ok "scientist" lol since you're in an answering mood.

                How does earth's magnetic field affect the formation of Carbon 14?

                How did photosynthesis evolve?

                Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

                What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits?

                You avoid answering questions. Why? Because it causes you to question your religious faith in evolutionary atheism.
                I'll be waiting! lol

                1. Pr0metheus profile image60
                  Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'd say he avoids them because they're irrelevant and pointless, and would take way too long to explain to somebody who doesn't want to know.

                  Carbon 14 questions: http://www.lamblion.us/2009/10/carbon-1 … tions.html  The article that you got this question from is BOGUS.  Google search 'How did photosynthesis evolve'; No, because evolution requires many generations to take its course; what do limits have to do with evolution? 

                  The main thing you need to realize is that proving your opponent wrong doesn't prove you right.  Maybe you should stop asking questions about evolution, and start asking questions about your blind beliefs.

        2. sooner than later profile image61
          sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          All fossil evidence is also collected because of catastrophism. these "horse" bones were collected in the same area, in the same strata layers?

          The theory suggests that these strata layers seperate millions of years in evolution. Why then are the most simple facts dismissed?

          1. Pr0metheus profile image60
            Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wait, WHAT!?

            1. sooner than later profile image61
              sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Catastrophism- the idea that the earth has been affected by sudden and violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. No fossil can be created without it. Would you agree?

              Strata(plural) Stratum(singular)- a sequence of discrete rock layers in the geologic record. Where fossiles are found. Each layer is said to separate millions of years in time and evolution sequence.

              In context- the fossils that Evo Guy submitted are found in one stratum layer, in one area- with evidence of Catastrophism(single event). More than one were not "horses"- so they did not belong in the same "horse" chart. The animals were living in the same time period. Unless you mean to tell me that catastrophism happened in the same area within the same stratum layer over millions of years? Oh, and carbon date similarly(which has flaws concerning actual time, especially when volcanic activity is involved).

              Sorry I didn't explain the first time- I sometimes assume that people know what I know.

    4. vrajavala profile image61
      vrajavalaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is no "scientific proof". Krsna even incarnated as Buddha, who said there is no God, just to satisfy the wishes of the atheists.
      Another famous saying is that there are "no atheists in the foxholes."
      Thomas Aquinas "He gave five rational proofs for the existence of God. These proofs provide no faith claims but merely human reason. For this reason they are still popular today. The one that is considered the most convincing is the Law Maker Proof. In this proof, Aquinas uses scientific laws and the natural order of the universe to show that there is a God. The Garden Allegory best demonstrates this proof. If in a jungle there is a patch of land resembling a garden that is cultivated, planted, and weeded, then there must be a gardener. Order does not appear randomly in chaos. Take for example Fibbanachi’s number, or pi. These numbers appear all over the natural world. Take also for example the law of gravity or the truths of mathematics. These things all are a natural order which humans do not create. Therefore these laws must imply a lawmaker. This lawmaker can be no other then God himself."
      the possibility of the "accidental" happening of life is impossible, "Sir Francis Hoyle calculated that in order for a single enzyme to be in the right place at the right time to create life is a chance of one in ten to the twentieth power. However upon further thought and analysis Hoyle realized that there are two thousand enzymes in the simplest living cells. These enzymes are each made up of nine amino acids. The probability of the correct sequence of amino acids gathering to form all of the two thousand individual enzymes, and them all being together at the right place in the right time is one in ten to the forty thousandth power. Mathematicians consider a probability of ten to the fiftieth power a mathematical impossibility."
      I cite these quotes from http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rzgh.htm

      1. Paraglider profile image91
        Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, it does. A random number generator will from time to time generate the sequence 1 2 3 4 5, or 3 3 3 3 3, etc which can be seen as patches of order in chaos. The nature of randomness is that order is just one special case of chaos. And further, 1 2 3 4 5 is exactly as likely as 4 7 5 9 8, or any other string you choose to mention.
        pi appears because things are round. It is because things are round (for good physical reasons) that pi is there to be discovered. Roundness sources pi, not vice versa.

        You have not proved the existence of a creator.

    5. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Their is no real proof that God exists, scientific proof that is.  I think we all should not under estimate the role has played in religion, and many of the positive results from such research.  Science is not Religion's enemy, people are.

    6. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why is it that you need irrefutable proof of evolution, but you are willing to accept the Bible with all of it's contradictions, preternatural nonsense and implausible events. How can one believe that a snake can speak, but find carbon-14 dating to be too flawed.  How can one believe that Jesus came back to live, but just can't find any logic in The Big Bang.   You have no proof, only faith.

      And why is it that religionist always use evolution to prove their side.  If evolution is extremely flawed, the Bible does not become the default.  The Bible is ridiculous whether there is proof of evolution or no proof at all.  The best you could gleen from your research is that evolution is flawed.  I can accept that.  But to presuppose that by proving evolution is flawed, it somehow validates your religion is totally illogical.
      You only have faith, nothing more.

    7. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is problematic from the outset. Science operates on theory. Theory is not fact. Theory never has been and never will be confused with fact to those who understand the definition of "theory."

      Belief operates on faith. Always has and always will.

      Trying to have a discussion based on these very different facets of understanding is deeply flawed.

      Theory: A cohesive and inclusive statement, or set of statements, that attempt(s) to define or explain what is observed.

      Faith: Acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim. 

      They are mutually exclusive of one another.

  2. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    Rule # 6.

    Cagsil, Earnest, Evolution Guy, Scott, Tantrum, Marine, Maximus, and many others that I may have offended- I apologize for taking some discussions to the bottom through insult.

    If you will, please join me in this new discussion.

  3. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    Starting from the beginning. Earth, space and the matter within- does the big bang theory work?

    I say no. I feel that while there are many arguable stances on both sides, Creation makes more sense. The issues that I have encountered contradictory to creation are; 'the amount of light years' that stars are from the earth require many years of existance for us to see them.

    I agree that the stars are many more light years away than I feel the earth is old. But there is a scientific flaw about light speed that is known, but now talked about. Light speed has curvature in time vrs speed on a scientific chart. So, even our light year "facts" are extremely inacurate. Light speed is faster at the beginning, not to mention the fact that these light sorces were probably a lot closer to earth @ creation or the big boom alike.

    My belief, God is a complete Creator. When He made the Garden of Eden and the Animals, they were already complete. The bird was made ready to lay the egg and the tree was made with fruit and seed. When He made the earth and the heavens and our ability to see the stars- it was made complete.

  4. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago

    I'm not really sure exactly what you're asking for here, as I believe that science and faith( I did not say religion or the church) can exist in compliment to each other as many of the scientific discoveries of the last century only increase my faith in a higher purpose or existence. Moving beyond that I don't see where this is going to solve much as whatever proofs either side believe they have will not be accepted by the other as proven by the last two weeks of forum threads. I think all of our time would be better spent living life and trying to discover our individual places and purposes rather then debating something no one will have conclusive evidence of either way until death.

    Sooner there is no need to apologize to me for representing your opinion or belief I have known where you stood from the beginning and knowingly engaged you regardless, things get heated on here and people say things they shouldn't enough said. It does not detract me from my beliefs or in living my life.

    1. sooner than later profile image61
      sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly, I am looking for a conversion. To say that nobody might change their mind would not be acurate, but who knows. I did. I knew creation science and evolution science- so for me it was a matter of evidence. Some people don't know both sides of the spectrum- I guess that is what I am looking for. I just don't know if many will look alternate evidence.

      1. Make  Money profile image70
        Make Moneyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Okay I believe in God now.  Who's next.

  5. fatfist profile image85
    fatfistposted 6 years ago

    Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called a SINGULARITY.

    The concept of the BB did not originate with Edwin Hubble but was proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lemaître in 1927.

    The Big Bang not only proposes a god, but it MANDATES a god who CREATED the singularity from nothing, and expanded by the graceful hand of god.

    Creation means "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) and fits the Big Bang model perfectly. This is why the Catholic church was completely behind it from the get go.

    1. wyanjen profile image85
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've heard people interpret the singularity not as a creation of god, but as god itself. smile

    2. sooner than later profile image61
      sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Fat fist,
      I do agree with you, but the Big Bang Theory that is taught in our school systems has nothing to do with a Creator. The purpose of much science is to exclude the idea.

      How God made this from nothing is beyond you, me and science. 
      I can think of 200 more unexplainable issues that stump scientists and believers.

      Believers, aren't you glad that your God is beyond comprehesion. This is exciting really.

      1. fatfist profile image85
        fatfistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes they exclude it, but only for the sake of mixing religion & science. The BB is only supported by religious zealots from the establishment of mathematical physics. The BB is a mathematical model that is irrationally applied to the explanation of reality being created. It is shocking to see that it is taught as a "factual event" and people speak of it as matter of fact.

        1. sooner than later profile image61
          sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed. The most interesting words you said are "taught as a 'factual event'". I am not surprised by the religious institutions mentioned that hold this theory either.

          Ex Nihilo does fit my perception of Gods hand for involvement.

  6. 0
    TMinutposted 6 years ago

    I've never known why the Big Bang theory was seen as proof against God, seems like you said, totally compatible. But now I've read (just looked, couldn't find it, thought it was in the latest Science or Science News) that the Big Bang theory is losing ground.

    Also, how are things supposed to have arisen from the primordial soup and just start reacting and being alive?

    I completely disagree that our earth being perfect for human life has any relevance - we evolved the way we did according to the conditions. If conditions had been different, we would be a different form of life.

    1. 0
      Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since this conversation is lagging I will add this little bit I read last night. Physicist that were investigating the impact of asteroids on the moon and earth came across an interesting side effect. When nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen are present in rock or the atmosphere in their simplest forms and subjected to the intense heat and pressure of an impact they form basic Amino Acids on their own, but the absence of any one of these elements precludes that formation. makes you wonder?

  7. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    Dear liberals, gays, atheists, abortionists, petas, one world governmenters, womens rights advocates, welfare recipients, race baiters, muslums, europeans, whale kissers, grazers, tree huggers, enviromentalists, peaceniks, politically correctors, agnostics, college students and all other free thinking radicals I'm sorry you got pissed off at me. I really do love you all(at a distance) and want to be your friend!

    Is that ok?

    1. 0
      Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow that's quite a list I didn't realize how active  you were in the forums Sneako, everyone is out for you.

      1. 0
        sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        All that and after I started bathing weekly too!smile

        1. 0
          Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well at least you're working towards a compromise then, if we can get you to twice weekly I think we can even get some of these on your list to apologize back.

          1. 0
            sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You really think it's that important? Is Axe a shower substitute?

            1. 0
              Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well the commercials say its popular with the ladies what could it hurt smile

    2. Colebabie profile image61
      Colebabieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess I fit into a lot of those categories. Why hate (from a distance) on good people?
      <-- kissed a whale (named teiko), hugged a tree, worked in the everglades, am in college, agnostic, like to think for myself, is a woman

      Why label? Why generalize? Why assume? Why care?

    3. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What about young people!   HUH!?  HUH!?

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The 'all other free thinking radicals" category. lol lol

        just kidding.

        1. Pr0metheus profile image60
          Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hah.  No no.  Sneako used to make fun of me because I was young.  Good times!

          I like your new profile pic Cag.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you.

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Young people still got a chance of making it.  If they are 1/2 as inteligent as they want to be.

    4. Colebabie profile image61
      Colebabieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yeah, and the answer to your question is no.

    5. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this


  8. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

        I'll answer this question with a question. 
        Do you think that mankind will live longenough to learn everything that there is to know Scientifically?


    1. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not really....

      And no, that's pretty much impossible.  Is that any excuse to stop learning more?  No.

      You'll never live enough to know 1% of what science knows, but does that mean you should stop trying to learn?  Don't answer to me, answer that question for yourself.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evidently you couldn't think about it.
          From what you said you admitt that science in not infalible cause they don't know everything yet.
          And as far as you sudjesting that I not stop learning. I knew what you think that you know when you was a yes on your momas lips and a gleem in your daddys eys. I'm way ahead of ya. As long as I keep learning you will never ketch up with me.

        1. Pr0metheus profile image60
          Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure I couldn't think about it, according to your definition of thought.

          Yes, I ADMITT that science does not know everything, but at least it's making an effort, and it is willing to change when wrong.  Can you ADMIT the same for religion?

          I did not SUDJEST that you stop learning.  I simply asked you a question in an attempt to put your question into perspective.  My MOMAS lips and the GLEEM in my DADDYS EYS are irrelevant to the knowledge I have obtained in my time here.  That's great that you believe I won't ever KETCH up with you, but I beg to differ.  I would SUGGEST that the quality of my learning has been superior to yours from the day my DADDIES EYES had a GLEAM in them, and my MAMA had a yes on her lips.  I'd say it didn't take long for me to CATCH up, thanks to freedom of thought.

          Spelling ftw.  Good try, though.

  9. yoshi97 profile image88
    yoshi97posted 6 years ago

    I have always concentrated my arguments to the debate and not those involved. To that end, I have never called anyone a name except Maximus, but that was after he said all women that write are chubby and ugly. I couldn't let that one go, as I think it's an invalid stereotype and I also believe that all people have the capacity to be seen as beautiful for what they are and what they add to this world. For that instance, I will not apologize, but if there were others I surely would. smile

    As for a calm debate ... I'm very open to that! I find myself on both sides of the thread, though that doesn't always peek out. I'm both religionist (their term, not mine) and evolutionist (again, their term, not mine).

    I'll start with religion:

    It's logical for me that everything started from nothing and the force that performed that first miracle I consider as God. Now, my version of God is not the fire and brimstone God in the Old Testament, as I conceive good as pure good and evil as pure evil. As such, I can't perceive my God of ever being able to harm anyone - nor have any want to.

    That places a lot of the Bible against my beliefs, until you reach the New Testament. Then, a man from Galilee says much of what I believe ... Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you ... May he without sin cast the first stone ... and on and on

    What I find most insulting about religion is the need to *convert* people. That, to me, ruins religion as it makes it sound like a cult desperate for members. In my frame of mind, I believe one should do good deeds to set the example then allow others to follow. Those who chose the wrong path know their fate and accept it. So long as we all know the score, and we as adults do, then we understand we are held accountable for all that we do or say.

    Now, I will move onto science:

    Science does it's best to explain everything, but I believe that some explanations add nothing to our knowledge. For instance ... a study done years back on how cows flatulence depleted ozone from the atmosphere. We shouldn't be considering ourselves with how the animals are messing up the planet, as it's our own behaviors we need to curb. Even if the cows contributed considerably what would we do to fix it - eat less meat? Give cows mufflers and filters?

    The origin of species is one of those pursuits that I see as needless. Yes, it's really cool to find bones of our ancestors, but it's not the same as meeting them, and each ancient ancestor found is another let down as it's another link we will never get to meet.

    As for evolution, the basic premise is proven but we will never fully understand the force behind it that makes it work. It's easy to dig into the most ancient layers of Earth and find only single celled organisms then dig higher up the layers to find more complex life. This shows all life has the capacity to evolve, but none of it shows how, why, or how long it takes to occur - and knowing the answers would never allow us to perform evolution with our own hands.

    As such, all the time and effort spent trying to prove evolution is wasted as it creates more theories, with more holes, making it all sound improbable.

    Putting it together ... I relate to disbelief in evolution as I do to disbelief in the Bible.

    From a religious perspective, a scientist comes along and reads the Bible and says ... 'And all those animals fit in that ark - how improbable is that?'  'And the serpent spoke to Eve - ever see a talking snake?' The list goes on and on. And the more one delves into the Bible the more they can pick it apart ... but all they are really doing is looking for holes, and anyone that looks for holes will find them ... or will create them.

    The same goes for evolution ... a bible scholar will point out that the radio carbon dating is inaccurate, making the Earth much younger. They will point out that layers of crust shift all of the time, so we can't be certain which layers are more ancient than others. And they will recite Darwin like Shakespeare, because most scientists have turned their backs on him. Again, holes can be found or created.

    The thing is ... faith plays a role in science as much as it does in religion - though men of science have chastised me for that one.

    They will say that gravity is a scientific fact, verified and proven - and I will agree. Upon that foundation they will say it's not about belief, and I will ask ... could there be a place in the solar system where gravity behaves differently? Perhaps at the core of a neutron star. They say that's preposterous and when I ask for proof they say 'I don't have to prove it - it's just not so' - which is a recital of *faith* - if it works this way here, then it must work that way there as well.

    That's why scientists and bible scholars are often at odds, as they see their studies as their beliefs and their beliefs as their religion. Neither can ever be swayed and both have ample facts to prove their case.

    I fear that the whole truth of the matter is that both sides are right about some things and both sides are wrong about others - and neither can ever prove beyond a doubt their truth to the other, as there is no truth ... there is only belief.

    I believe a man named Jesus walked in Galilee and Christianity was founded around him. I also believe man progressed from a lineage of ancient men before him, that date back millions of years. Does either invalidate the other? Even if one goes back to the dawning of man - Genesis - evolution and creationism don't cancel each other out.

    Genesis is the explanation of how everything got here, explained to Moses in a way God thought he would be able to understand. Remember ... we are but infants to any being superior to us, so the explanation had to be kept to what we could conceive and realize.

    Adam didn't write Genesis, nor did any of his direct descendants. The story wasn't even handed down from generation to generation. It was dictated to Moses, by God, which means it can only be treated as an account we could best understand at the time it was given to us.

    As such, God could have created everything and then allowed evolution to take its course. Ancient Jews running from Egyptian oppression would have cared less to know exactly how they arrived into being. They only cared that they had a God who created them and would care for them. As such, even if God had been an alien (and no, I'm not beating that drum - just saying if he was) he certainly wouldn't have shared that knowledge with one he considered far too primitive (in comparison to him) to understand such knowledge.

    It's interesting that the age of the Earth has been dated by some to be about 6,000 years old, which correlates to about when written languages began to appear. We record history to remember our past, and a species that runs out of past words to read would consider civilization dead before their time. What account existed back then to say different?

    Read beyond the Bible ... read beyond science ... There's a deeper truth beneath it all, hidden by our own beliefs.

    Our DNA is said to be a recording of all that we as a species have ever experienced. If this is so, then the real truths exist within us, which would explain why we continue to debate over what the truth really is, as we somehow - at a deeper level of conscious - know it's something neither side has uncovered yet.

    I have a feeling when we finally do discover the truth it might not be to our liking, for me might just be ants running around in someone's glass container. smile

  10. Pr0metheus profile image60
    Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago

    If I could join your fan club twice, I would.  Great post.

    I know I'm sort of biased towards religion, but I'd like to correct something.

    You could say that gravity may hold different in the core of the neutron start and that might be true.  Science would then alter its stance, and attempt to learn more about that phenomenon.

    I could say that god does not exist as originally explained in the bible, and people will fight wars to prove me wrong.  Religion is firm in its beliefs and science is fluid (most of the time... there have been exceptions).

    For this reason I will say that religion is holding us back as a species.

    1. yoshi97 profile image88
      yoshi97posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, many Popes over the years have changed the stance of the Catholic church.

      Religion is not the unbendable twig you might think ... It just takes a while for a change to reach the top before it becomes a belief for all; whereas in science, new ideas are disbelieved by many until only a few skeptics remain to dispute it. smile

      1. Pr0metheus profile image60
        Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I guess I'm talking on a more individual scale.

        I know my religious friends won't sway on biblical concepts that are obviously false.

        “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil” (Exodus 23:2)

        I found a biblical quote that I like!

  11. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Yes, I'll apologize to those who have hurt feelings. Broadly enough to cover just about everyone I've talked to.

    With that said- Make sure you have something to drink. This is surely to be a long post. lol

    Okay, let's start- The Universe and Why it came to be is completely irrelevant. This is the oldest argument on Earth. The theologians always used unfounded, but profound statements to reinforce the 'church's' position and of religious leaders. This has been part of the religion hoax. If you search, you will find that 'religion', it's initial happening was by accident, but was perceived as a necessary tool, because society was growing too complex. Those who didn't know any better, were the ones who were not conscious at the time.

    Yes, these people didn't know they were alive to begin with. They simply followed what the 'right-side' of their brain saw for images(which today is called- nature's automatic guidance system). It is where the sub-conscious resides.

    Yes, early humans, it has been discovered and been proven, through additional supported research in all the fields of science, philosophy, physiology, which are based on reality, to have been unconscious living and breathing people. Many spent most of their own existence, without ever realizing that they were alive.

    Now- Let's talk about YOU as a human being.

    The Nature of Man and Woman is to be one with themselves. To find love in themselves, so they can love others. It is also in the nature of man and woman, to create honest, rational thoughts and do for themselves through actions. Each one is to be honest with themselves and with others. This is why you have your very own conscience.

    Your individual consciousness is your sense of life. In humans, that sense of life is an integral part of your sub-conscious philosophy and psychology. Every person has a fundamental view or sense of life. While usually existing on a subconscious level, a person's sense of life largely determines his or her major actions.

    Sense of Life falls into two opposite categories:
    (1) An objectively rational, self-interest, benevolent, individualistic sense of life is characterized by: (a) the knowledge that conscious achievement is the highest value. (b) the knowledge that the conscious mind is competent to know reality.

    (2) A mystically irrational, altruistic, malevolent, anti-individual sense of life is characterized by:(a) the belief that non-man-made values, such as nature, the universe, the cosmos and mystical 'values', such as God, the state and society, are superior to man-made values.(b) the belief that the conscious mind is incapable of knowing reality.

    We, as a society, live in an objective reality. Our reality exists, within the bounds of what we know and can prove to exist. Aristotle's definition- Reality is what exists. Reality exists independently of anyone's thoughts, desires, will, or wishes. Reality is all knowable.

    If you live outside reality, for your belief. You risk psychological problems, not to mention, you go against your own existence as a man or a woman.

    FACT: A healthy, well adjusted person draws equally on his 'left-side' and 'right-side' brain hemispheres. He has objective, rational sense of himself in his 'left-side' coupled with an equally strong emotional sense of self in his 'right-side'. Underdevelopment of the use of either hemisphere results in psychological problems.

    Everything stated above is actual, factual information, that can be obtained by anyone.

    1. sooner than later profile image61
      sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You sound surprisingly similar to Colin Grant's book "Myths We Live By" Is there a connection here?

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all. But, I've heard of that book.

        Never read it tho.

  12. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I be impressed wsh ya

  13. yoshi97 profile image88
    yoshi97posted 6 years ago

    I almost forget to add this ... mankind seems to have a pack mentality, seeking to form small packs which (I suppose) at one time insured his own protection. However, pack animals don't prefer to travel en masses like migratory species, which is why I believe so many problems occur inside cities and why we chose to live in separate domiciles with our own property, when we could benefit more from communes where we would all share the spoils.

    This is why communism always eventually fails, as we are not a species capable of living communally for extended periods of time. We all strive to do more for our individual pack, which creates the competitiveness within our breed. smile

  14. GeneralHowitzer profile image63
    GeneralHowitzerposted 6 years ago

    Some of today's theories will be tomorrow's laughing stock... although there are laws and theories that are still unchallenged and not yet refuted.. Nice thread here eh...

  15. 0
    B.C. BOUTIQUEposted 6 years ago

    everyone is entitled to thir very own beliefs..
    so no, I do not know how much scientist really know and I will not go int my beliefs for fear of being bashed or tormented by someone who is a very strong advocate for either side of this discussion.

  16. mintinfo profile image82
    mintinfoposted 6 years ago

    How much does science really know? Science is the study of real life and the nature of things. What science can not prove it offers theories based on logical assumptions. For instance you cannot see electricity but you know it exists because of it's affects. Therefore we conclude that there is a thing called electricity. Science has revealed allot about the world but on the other hand there are scientific theories such as relativity that are so complex that it may never be proven to be true. Science is stereotyped as people in lab coats with thick glasses but science is anything and everything that attempts to explain life and living.

  17. Pr0metheus profile image60
    Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago

    Well of course god is greater than science (assuming he exists)....  that's kind of a pointless argument.  That's like saying the greatest thing that ever has been is greater than everything else.

    Is the god I understand responsible for any form of order?  Of course, he's god.  He IS everything that has been, will be, could be, could have been, was in a different universe, etc.  If you really want to understand how I see god read my hub.


    You also made another moot point.  We require more time to find answers to things we don't already know.  That's like saying we require more time to live.  It is a pretty obvious statement, and presents no real depth of analysis or thought.

    The main point here is that science attempts to explain the universe we live in (created by god or not) based on facts and experiments.  Religion on the other hand is based on stories in a book that is about 2,000 years old.  It's just a bunch of stories to help people live their lives well.  That's all it was meant to do!  It wasn't meant to be a governing document!  "God created spirituality.  Satan organized it and called it religion."  That's exactly what people did.  They manipulated the bible to control the masses and obtain power.

    God > Science
    Science > Religion

    Game over.

    1. sooner than later profile image61
      sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Easy there.

      I'm not defending religion, I'm defending the Creator. I think you need to read my set of rules again as well. Tyson merily identified that scientists who create theories outside of a god are more admirable. Read his article with that thought in mind and I am sure you will see the same agenda.

      1. Pr0metheus profile image60
        Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually he said God has absolutely no place in the scientific classroom because his mere presence is an excuse for ignorance.  No point in explaining that though, your ego has already twisted the meaning that much, I doubt anything I say will provide clarity.

        I did read your rules, and you broke #4 before the end of your first post.  Which one did I break?

        I have respect for my "enemies", it's other characteristics that make me lack respect in certain people.

  18. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    OK, as requested, I hereby apologize to the God-impersonator and spammer whom I once dubbed 'twit'. Sorry twit, OK?

    Scientists try to understand natural phenomena and formulate theories that describe the observable and predict the not-yet-observed. They ensure that their theories are falsifiable by contradictory observation, They do not claim to have stated truth; instead they invite refutation. If none is available, they might have advanced human knowledge, but they understand that everything is tentative. That is what science is and what scientists do.

    If that work casts doubt on some earlier explanations of natural phenomena, so be it. People are then free to choose to hang on to the old belief or to accept the new as 'more probably true'. Note - there is no need, in fact no justification, to believe the new. Belief is a psychological need, not a rational requirement.

    1. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You just earned yourself a fan.

      1. Paraglider profile image91
        Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Prometheus wink

  19. mintinfo profile image82
    mintinfoposted 6 years ago

    After reading  some of the posts hare it would seem that the question had become a debate about science vs religion long ago. While I do believe in a higher force I do not rely on religion to explain existence. Logically speaking if one were to rely solely on religion it could be easily concluded that there would be no advancement since the garden of Eden. Man would simply accept life as it was with no reason to be curious or ask questions about why things happen. We would just accept things as the way Gad wants it to be. Plagues, diseases, wars, famine, the situation would be mind boggling to say the least. You would have to be delusional to believe that you would still be walking around in Togas with a smile on your face by 2009.

    On the other hand the reason why science always needs more time is because of the limitations of our brains. No one is all knowing so we have to adjust and make improvements as we go. Curiosity fuels advancement.

    1. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'd say that mentality leans more towards spiritual than religious.

  20. cheaptrick profile image75
    cheaptrickposted 6 years ago

    "When Scientists reach the summit of the Mountain of Knowledge,
    They will find that Theologians have been waiting for them
    for Centuries".Perhaps Science and Unadulterated Religion are just two methods of attempting understanding of that which is not understandable...

    1. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because who needs a foundation of knowledge to get to the top when they can just pretend like they have one....

  21. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 6 years ago

    Ugh. This again?

    1. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yep! and you are?

      1. Colebabie profile image61
        Colebabieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not wasting my time. Have fun Mark. It always confuses me why people spend soooo much time defending the way they live their lives, rather than just living it.

        1. 0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you come again! lol

  22. yoshi97 profile image88
    yoshi97posted 6 years ago

    Here's something I would like explained to me ...

    There's one one Bible ...

    There is only one God ...

    There was only one Jesus Christ ...

    So why are there so many different religious denominations preaching differently?

    The question is highly relevant, as religion often bags on scientists for not all agreeing on their theories, but separate denominations prove that religious people don't all agree on religion.

    Also, which denominations are correct and which ones are wrong? After all, if they differ in opinion then they can't all be right ... in fact, it seems to me that only one denomination can be totally right ... I would like the name of that denomination as well as the distinct factor that makes that denomination correct.

    No, in my heart all denominations are somewhat right, with a piece of untruth we can safely ignore, but if a scientist must be 100% right on their theories then so should a religious denomination be 100% correct on their teachings as the souls of the congregation are on the line.

    So, to simplify things I would like to ask what denoimnation everyone is ... I'm a Methodist who was brought up with a Catholic background. I became a Methodist when I attended one of their sermons and found they were highly tolerant of the beliefs of others, which fit into my own beliefs.

    So, what denomination are you, and do you believe other denominations could be right or all of the others are wrong?

    Bonus points:  Anyone who can show all denominations are the same disqualifies science from here to the evermore, as it proves comclusively that people of religion can hold to one theory, whereas scientists can't all agree on most theories that exist.

    1. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus is God!

      I'm a bible thumbing Christian(A theist) no denomination.

      Religions are not God This hub I read might help.

      I also wrote on this "The Answer is Jesus Christ"

      If you have any other questions or just want prayer please feel free to PM me.

  23. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago

    I was doing alot of reading and research today into radio carbon dating after watching a NOVA special about the origins of the Hebrew Bible, which i might add does not paint a pretty picture concerning the history of the Israelite people prior to their exile to Babylon and later Persia. But that is a matter for widely accepted archeological information approved by the Hebrews themselves who remarkably don't have much of an issue with admitting that the OT is more a collection of myths and moral stories then it is a history book, and even go as far to state that much of Genesis and exodus were rewritten during the exile in order to paint a more uplifting and comforting view of their people.

    Point is that many of the digs going on and being funded by the nation of Israel and several religious organizations are relying on C-14 dating to measure the age of the objects found in the holy land. This I bring up in reference to the effects of the earth's magnetosphere on this process. The info I found is that while this magnetosphere indeed effects the amount of c-14 produced at any given year it does not alter the predictable decay of the isotope at all, only the amount of measurable material in a sample. There are in place several calibration methods to compensate for recorded variations of c-14 amounts over a period of the last 60,000 years. Subsequently scientist recognize that this method of dating is inaccurate after this time as c-14 has a relatively short life and fast decay rate, and avoid using it to date material older then 60,000 years, at which point they turn to radiometric dating which has been refined and developed over the last century to a error ratio of one percent. However this system too has in place calibration tools to limit the probability of error, also recognizing that the earth is a continually changing thing and elements are continually reformed and recycled, in essence scientist can only determine the age of the very oldest surface rocks and then compare them to lunar samples and asteroids.

    My point is c-14 dating has been used repeatedly to legitimize and substantiate biblical claims and corroborate passages within a historical timeline, which it has been found to be extremely accurate when compared to known records of the Egyptians, Romans, and Persians. However if this same accurate method is used to dispute the ages of the earth and other events, the same people relying on this dating method to confirm their biblical dates and accounts then turn on this method and declare it flawed. Which is it then, either it works and substantiates biblical claims or it is flawed and all the archeological evidence to back the Bible is also flawed and wrong. Faiths cannot use science to legitimize their beliefs then reject when it contradicts others this is hypocritical to say the least.

    1. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How does earth's magnetic field affect the formation of Carbon 14?

      1. 0
        Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        C-14 is made when solar particles impact elements and gases in the atmosphere, producing among many isotopes c-14, during times of magnetic flux the magnetosphere can reduce the amount of solar particles coming into the atmosphere thus reducing the amount of that isotope made or present in the earth's atmosphere and oceans, thus making it harder to date certain samples from certain time frames, but this variance in the amount of c-14 present can also be used to fix a samples age, as we know, by gas spectrometers that at certain periods in time there was more or less of the isotope present on earth and this amount is established and measurable. Likewise years of increased solar activity can also produce more c-14 isotopes thus increasing the amount of testable material in a sample and its accuracy.

        1. sooner than later profile image61
          sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Science also says that Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay. And so it does. But nitrates enter the equation naturally every time the rain falls too. So hopefully the earth which contains these items never recieves rainfall. smile

          The carbon is also washed into lower Strata- which is why science dates the bottom layer older.

          Now, throw volcanic activity in- and guess what happens.

        2. 0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Then why does coal still contain C-14? If the earth was billions of years old coal would have no C-14. Dr. D. Russell Humphreys research consequently, has extrapolated today’s energy decay rate back to a theoretical maximum energy, and so has derived an upper limit for the age of the earth’s magnetic field at 8,700 years.    Reputable scientist have admitted they really can't trust C-14 dating for 3,000 to 4,000 years so that why it can most accurately determine the bible’s accuracy.

          1. 0
            Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm wondering in this case if reputable to you only means agreeing with your point of view. I have tried to present you with a compromise that actually agrees with biblical accounts and you contest it. Once again if you discount c-14 dating you leave yourself with no concrete way to establish the historical relevance of an entire people and faith. You can't say it works but only to agree with you , then disagree with your opponents. I presented the evidence available and the definitions provided and you are saying they are wrong fair enough.

            1. 0
              thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              By reputable I mean reputable, scientist who I’ve researched and don’t have a anti God bias. Russell Humphreys research consequently, has extrapolated today’s energy decay rate back to a theoretical maximum energy, and so has derived an upper limit for the age of the earth’s magnetic field at 8,700 years.    Reputable scientist have admitted they really can't trust C-14 dating for 3,000 to 4,000 years so that why it can most accurately determine the bible’s accuracy.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are saying that a scientist is not reputable unless (1) he has been researched by you, and (2) has a pro-God bias.

  24. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago

    The problem with discounting radio carbon dating is that it is the very method that has been used throughout the 20th century to legitimize many biblical stories and accounts and prove them to be historically accurate. This method has established the existence of King David, and Solomon, the Exodus time-frame, and the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites. It has also been used to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the exile to Babylon. By checking the archeological data against other civilizations records c-14 dating has been shown to very accurate to within 30 years. If however we are to throw this out then you will literally discount every bit of archeological evidence to link events in the bible to factual historical events. then you are left with a book and a faith but no real concrete way to corroborate it with history, with what we have available to us today.

  25. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago

    Once again you are stating that it works but only for you in the time frame you desire any science outside of that is wrong. So while it proves you correct about biblical time lines anything else it may date or show is wrong if older then the timeframe allotted in the bible.

  26. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    Cross documentation should be enough to prove biblical time periods. Carbon dating was used in a defensive manner. We have to defend our biblical acuracy as should evolution science.

    1. 0
      Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In a perfect world it probably would be except so many different cultures have different dating methods that until modern dating it was hard to align different calenders these methods are not just limited to c-14 but to astrological occurrences and other scientific observations. You keep associating evolution with science as if they are unseperable, when they frequently are. Much of science backs up biblical claims but when you attack it out of hand everytime by associating it with evolution, you're cheating yourself. I never said anything about evolution, in my responses, yet here it is again brought up by you. Evolution is one theory and discipline among many in science to explain the progression of life.

      1. sooner than later profile image61
        sooner than laterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This thread was started with me saying something along the line that I find evolution science to be lacking. I still want to talk about that.

        1. 0
          Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Talk, I agree there are many things lacking in the theory except the truth of the matter is that most scientist have agreed, this theory is accepted because it best explains several things, not all of them, and not conclusively. As it is much of science also admits to be limited in their conclusions based on current evidence. Darwin is not science it was here before him, and will be here after. Alot of what I am reading on these forums about evolution is not even the facts this man presented or agreed upon but the popular misconceptions of its detractors.

          Here's the thing. If the earth is only 6-10,ooo years old as creation theory believes then evolution has a plausibility issue given the time frame. However if it is in fact 4.55 Billion years then the time allowed for adaption, and change is much more plausible and possible (I didn't say definitive) As I said in an earlier post scientist in the JPL have discovered this year that gases in the atmosphere specifically nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen, will form an amino acid on their own when subjected to the intense pressure and heat of an asteroid impact. This find has been repeated numerous times now in a lab. What it means is that the building blocks of life (Not Life itself) can naturally and spontaneously occur in certain cataclysmic events.

  27. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago

    I'm not arguing with you, everytime I come on here you both take the stance that you are right and the authority and everyone else is clueless. You are launching back into the old my scientist like God and are right other scientist don't and so are wrong, really I don't care who is an atheist or not in a science, there are many scientist who disagree with prevalent theories, I don't argue that, but the fact remains that science as a majority has accepted c-14 dating to be accurate and dependable to a small margin of error, so much so that it is the preferred method for dating all over the world and trusted by faiths across the planet to date and corroborate their scripture. Everytime you launch into poking holes in it, you only hurt your own historical data and call its legitimacy into question. You talk about wanting a discussion except everytime someone tries to discuss anything with either of you, its turned into an attack and argument.

    I just gave you an explanation that backed up c-14 dating and by proxy backed up archeological history concerning the bible and you shot it down in the next breath. Nice, you really will argue with anything won't you.

    1. 0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No one called you clueless. I'm not a fan of name calling unlike yourself. I'm simply stating to fact that C-14 has flaws when it is used to determine the age of things older than 4,000 years. Sources.

      1. 0
        Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        truthie, the problem is that unless you can say that someone else's belief is plausible there can be no discussion, only argument. Discussions are about mutually sharing ideas and thoughts, you definitely want to share your beliefs my enthusiastic friend but you don't want to receive anothers, you want to prove it wrong and tear it apart. The only issue I have with that is you continually attack me over what you assume I believe not what I have expressed to believe to you, point of fact being I've never discussed that with you and never will. Now you on the other hand go out of your way to make sure everyone knows what you believe and think, and i respect that you're honest in your dislike towards others even managing to get banned for expressing your love so strongly. I don't have to prove anything simply because I'm not trying to convert you one way or the other or even say you're wrong, I've only ever said that there are more ways to believe then just your own, and people should not be condemned for it. I've also expressed several times that there are many possibilities. regardless you continue to ask for proof while providing none for your own stance except your personal beliefs and feelings, while they maybe proof enough for you they never will be for many people when will you accept that?

        1. 0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you don't understand that by now, what are you doing here Scotty?

          1. 0
            Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well truthie( sorry typing the whole thing out is just too impersonal) I'm here writing hubs and making money. I'm on the forums reading people's opinions and sometimes commenting when I feel strongly about it. What I am not doing here is trying to convert people or make them accept my beliefs. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear about them, sometimes I even pause to consider other points of view.  Does that answer your question or were you meaning in a more purpose of life kind of thing?

            1. 0
              thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think I'll leave it at that. I have meeting shortly, I gotta get ready. Good day to you.

              Later, Sooner! cool

  28. tantrum profile image61
    tantrumposted 6 years ago

    So after 5 pages of nonsense ,what's the verdict ??

  29. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    Easy there everyone. I have not attacked anyone.

  30. Pr0metheus profile image60
    Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago


    Dr Russel Humphreys.... LOL

    I don't understand how people can be so closed minded and... stupid.

    I wish more religious people were like Scott Life...

    1. 0
      Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Whoa don't be throwing the religion tag my way big_smile , I hate religion and believe it is the death of faith and the beginning of slavery. Faith and belief are not the same as religion the sooner people realize that the better. beyond that believe as you will and live the best you can.

      1. Pr0metheus profile image60
        Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh, OK well I didn't really understand.  You're a spiritual person, not religious (like myself).  I approve.

        Hey truth,  your leader agrees with evolution.

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 705331.ece

        Game over.

        1. 0
          Scott.Lifeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I did not think I would see that in my lifetime. Hoped for it a little just to calm some of the bickering but never thought it would happen.

          1. Pr0metheus profile image60
            Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Apparently it wasn't enough hmm

        2. 0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My leaders? Wrong again. Laters

          1. Pr0metheus profile image60
            Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So you aren't a catholic then.  Oh well, I guess you just can't wrap your head around the fact that people 2,000 years ago could have been wrong.


  31. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 6 years ago

    I really wanted to see this thread go somewhere and it has not. Good luck to you all. Scott, Prometheus- you have concluded my attempt at evolutionary debate. Victory is yours, good night.

    1. yoshi97 profile image88
      yoshi97posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Then your eyes chose not to see, for something actually DID come of it, but the moment was wasted by the fires burning all around it.

      I asked a question that Thetruthhurts answered, and it had nothing to do with evolution and slammed a hammer into organized religion. Allow me to rewind.


      Jesus is God!

      I'm a bible thumbing Christian(A theist) no denomination.

      Religions are not God


      These are the words of a man who rejects organized religion and chooses his own path. As, for such, he thinks for himself. And why is this a plus?

      For ages, organized religion has told us how to think and how to believe ... but here are the words of a man who believes deeply - and yet - chooses to lead himself by his own virtues.

      He is ... dare I say it ... the evolution of religion, where a man looks at God through his own eyes instead of having it spoon fed to him.

      This is also a man of science, as he digs through scientific research to verify his claims, rather than hold up the Bible as the only only source of knowledge.

      Do I agree with what he has to say about evolution and the age of the Earth ... no ... but I do respect a man who can abandon the pulpit to try to validate his debate on his own.

      I see that as progress - considering past debates - and worthy of approach. I have also heard a man of science validate the Bible by stating carbon dating had verified parts of what had been written.

      Are we so blind that we can not see? Science and belief reached out to one another ... and if any of us care to get to the truth then the only method is to question our own beliefs until we can find no means by which to disprove them.

      True science never says something is an absolute ... everything waits to be disproved and can only become proof when no other viable explanation or possibility remains.

      This is why creationism and evolution are often seen in violation of each other, as each creates a plausible hole for the other. If only there was an absolute definitive way to date the Earth without carbon dating - only then could either side claim an absolute victory.

      However, just the fact that we are both willing to see a little bit from the other's perspective offers hope, as it gives rise to the premise that absolute proof could be accepted by all involved.

      I wish I could offer that grain of irrefutable proof either way, as I surely would accept it, but without an absolute dating of the Earth that can not be refuted, there is no truth to be had.

      Thus, the proper course is to believe what we will, allowing ourselves an open mind to the possibility that the other said could someday be proven right when science advances itself further ...

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have followed your thread and I found that it really did go somewhere, although, maybe, not where you had intended it go.  There is no victory when thinking men and women exchange ideas because their purpose should not be to convince or convert others but, rather, to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. To exchange ideas with people who do not agree with you is to have an opportunity to learn something you may not know.  I have learned from this thread.  I hope you have too.

  32. yoshi97 profile image88
    yoshi97posted 6 years ago

    I found this and thought it was very interesting:

    Under the best of circumstances ... individual corals can grow no faster than 0.5 - 1.0 inch per year. The coral reefs, formed from the breaking up and cementation of coral sand, grow much more slowly--perhaps less than a tenth as fast.

    Weber reports [op. cit., pp. 29-31] that H.S. Ladd has drilled bore holes through the coral cap that crowns the volcano underlying Eniwetok atoll, in order to measure the thickness of coral that has grown there since the lava cone began to sink beneath the sea. At one point, Ladd had to drill 1380 meters (almost nine-tenths of a mile!) before reaching the lava lip of the volcano. It is inconceivable that that much reef could have formed in less than 130,000 years.

    Now, that's not saying the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, but it does make it seem it's a bit older than 10,000 years.

    Weird, eh?

  33. drej2522 profile image88
    drej2522posted 6 years ago

    All I know is this...I don't know if anything is real, except one thing...ME. Everything else could be a figment of my imagination, but I know I exist for that's the only proof I have.

    1. yoshi97 profile image88
      yoshi97posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      or ... you could be a program running around in a computer matrix, believing it is sentient and alive. smile

      1. drej2522 profile image88
        drej2522posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, if that's the case, then it really doesn't matter does it? tongue