or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 2

post #41 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

13.72 billion years is the age of the universe. We know this to 4 decimal points. The evidence is quite solid.

You do know you're arguing with someone who doesn't use logic don't you? However the fact that there are people who still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old with all of the evidence to the contrary out there ( cabon dating, geology, how long it takes for some things to form etc. ) I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 450
Obviously, those people who believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old also believe Trigonometry to be patently false... which I suppose means they just don't believe in Math at all.



The earth is only 6000 years old ?!?!? REALLY ?!?!? you really BELIEVE this ?????
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #43 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You do know you're arguing with someone who doesn't use logic don't you? However the fact that there are people who still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old with all of the evidence to the contrary out there ( cabon dating, geology, how long it takes for some things to form etc. ) I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

It's not any more absurd than believing that government is the solution to our problems.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #44 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

13.72 billion years is the age of the universe. We know this to 4 decimal points.

I love how the appearance of such precision leads to such cocky assurance. Four decimal places indeed!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

13.72 billion years is the age of the universe. We know this to 4 decimal points. The evidence is quite solid.

You can't even define the universe and you are cocky pulling accuracy to within 4 decimal points as quite solid? You have a prior life selling snake oil in Tucson?

Stay thirsty my friend!
post #46 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You can't even define the universe and you are cocky pulling accuracy to within 4 decimal points as quite solid? You have a prior life selling snake oil in Tucson?

Stay thirsty my friend!

'An alternative approach to estimating is the age of the universe is to measure the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is a measure of the current expansion rate of the universe.'
In more familiar units, astronomers believe that 1/Ho is between 12 and 14 billion years.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

New Look at Big Bang Radiation Refines Age of Universe

To calculate the age of the universe, scientists including David Spergel of Princeton University and Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore compared the size of those hot and cold spots today with the size of the spots when the radiation was first released into space. Using data from WMAP along with studies of distant supernovas and other phenomena, the team finds that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, give or take 0.11 billion. (By comparison, the teams previous calculation, which used the same method but included only five years of satellite observations, had pegged the universe at 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 0.12 billion.)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...#ixzz0xm7dSGZu

Gauging Age of Universe Becomes More Precise

The universe is 13.73 billion years old, give or take 120 million years, astronomers said last week.
That age, based on precision measurements of the oldest light in the universe, agrees with results announced in 2006. Two additional years of data from a NASA satellite known as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have narrowed the uncertainty by tens of millions of years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/sc...smos.html?_r=1
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #47 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You can't even define the universe and you are cocky pulling accuracy to within 4 decimal points as quite solid? You have a prior life selling snake oil in Tucson?

Stay thirsty my friend!

We live in a flat universe. It is not closed. It will not end with a crunch. Astrophysics and cosmology through many many predictions and confirmed observations has told us so. You just don't understand the science behind any of it so you throw it all away in favor of campfire songs from 4000 years ago.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #48 of 450
Thread Starter 
Actually we don't know that much about the universe yet, 90% of the universe is now supposed to consist of dark matter, ie. matter we still don't know anything about and can't register.

By the way just lately the astronomers found a strange phenomena that couldn't be explained by the relativity theory, a dying star that should have become a black hole didn't.

Science is always interesting the most when things are unexplicable yet, a few years/decades back we thought we had it pretty much figured out and only details needed to be figured out just like at the end of the 19th century but now we see in pretty much every field of science cracking up, new unexplicable things get discovered, theories questioned and changed... it's a very exciting time for scientists and those interested in science.

It will lead eventually to new theories that will be the basis for new technologies (of course both benifitting and destroying).

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #49 of 450
GIVE UP.

Let this thread die.

You are arguing with someone who believes that the planet is 6,000 years old.

That's all you need to know. Logic and evidence and irrefutable proof don't mean a thing to the people you're arguing with.

You can stop now. They have their Book. There is no arguing with them, reasoning with them, showing them, persuading them, and even the best, soundest, clearest arguments backed up with archeological evidence, a ruler, a microscope, a time machine and a graph won't make a blind bit of difference. It's 1859 for these people, and it will be 1859 for ever.

Let them keep their Book and we'll keep the majesty and glory of the unimaginably ancient universe and all its mysteries, which we might figure out one day.
post #50 of 450
This study doesn't disprove survival of the fittest. It disproves survival of the fittest as the sole cause of evolution, which no one believed anyway.

Quite similar to global warming arguments, actually. You can show that global warming can be caused by cyclical patterns or natural events, but that doesn't mean that global warming cannot be caused by man as well.
post #51 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You can stop now. They have their Book.

With all due respect, jazzy has the same book yet wrote one of the most reasonable posts in this thread other than the scientific posts.
post #52 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

With all due respect, jazzy has the same book yet wrote one of the most reasonable posts in this thread other than the scientific posts.

grr goshdarned... reasonable... people
post #53 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

A couple of points:

In the account of the creation in Genesis, the word "day" is not necessarily referring to the period of 24 hours that we call a day. Rather, it is simply referring to a distinct period of time. Each day could just as well represent 24 million or 24 billion of what we call years.

Another point I would like to make is that there is nothing in the Bible that specifies how long Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out. That period of time also could have been millions of our years.

OK then... if the terms used to define time were so metaphorical, then perhaps the entire idea of a god is also entirely metaphorical in this book. Merely a construct used to encompass all the stuff they didn't know and didn't understand.
We've since moved on and realized that it's OK to admit we don't know everything, but we can work to learn and understand it... the idea of a god is no longer necessary.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #54 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Actually we don't know that much about the universe yet, 90% of the universe is now supposed to consist of dark matter, ie. matter we still don't know anything about and can't register.

Added to your post, we don't know much about the earth in the total sense either.

National Geographic premiered a show last evening speaking about the oceans; 75% of seas covering earth and less than 1% explored. So not only do we not know much about the universe where are in, we don't know a lot about the planet we are on. So those of you already figuring decimal points on age of earth, or the universe, be aware that you may be premature counting facts until the research is complete.
post #55 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's not any more absurd than believing that government is the solution to our problems.

Think about what you just said for a second. Do you really want to be in with this the is only 6,000 years old group?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 450
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #57 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Added to your post, we don't know much about the earth in the total sense either.

National Geographic premiered a show last evening speaking about the oceans; 75% of seas covering earth and less than 1% explored. So not only do we not know much about the universe where are in, we don't know a lot about the planet we are on. So those of you already figuring decimal points on age of earth, or the universe, be aware that you may be premature counting facts until the research is complete.

We do know enough to know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. That part is a certainty. Not a theory ( for many reasons ) a fact. To ignore that is to ignore the truth.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #58 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Added to your post, we don't know much about the earth in the total sense either.

National Geographic premiered a show last evening speaking about the oceans; 75% of seas covering earth and less than 1% explored. So not only do we not know much about the universe where are in, we don't know a lot about the planet we are on. So those of you already figuring decimal points on age of earth, or the universe, be aware that you may be premature counting facts until the research is complete.

So how is your research progressing--facts and supporting evidence??\
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #59 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

With all due respect, jazzy has the same book yet wrote one of the most reasonable posts in this thread other than the scientific posts.

Thanks, tonton.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #60 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Think about what you just said for a second. Do you really want to be in with this the is only 6,000 years old group?

For an infinite god 6,000 years are not noticeable.
They are claiming that for god 1 day could be 1 million years or so think about what a human lifetime is. 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 femto second at best.
You prayer to god can not be perceived by him. It just is far too short.

Creation
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #61 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

So how is your research progressing--

As I said, National Geographic is at the forefront of exploring the world's oceans that cover 75% of the earth and only 1% of those seas are so far explored! That statistic should offer formidable evidence that it is way too premature to be writing the books on the age of the earth when we have less than 25% of it explored and understood!

As often happens with the Darwin set, they advance on something as settled science only to be smacked down years later with research that conflicts with their facts. In fairness, the non-secular faithful are comfortable with their religious beliefs but they are not the ones setting the decomal places on the specific age of an earth yet unexplored and a universe yet understood.
post #62 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You prayer to god can not be perceived by him. It just is far too short.

I'm sorry, but I've got to side with the Theists on this one. If God is truly omnipotent, even though a ten second prayer may be infinitesimal compared to a single "day" in Genesis, He could conceivably still be able to perform an infinite number of miracles within the space of that prayer.
post #63 of 450
I think the more we discover about our world and the universe, the more we realize we don't know about it.

I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. I believe the Bible does relate some events that actually happened, but I also believe it contains a lot of metaphor and symbolism - particularly in the Old Testament.

Did Moses literally part the Red Sea? Perhaps. But I saw a documentary not too long ago that suggested the Biblical account may originally have referred to the "Reed Sea" - a marshy lake - rather than what we know as the Red Sea. There could have been a section of the lake shallow or dry enough to cross on foot, but that would have rendered the Egyptians' chariots useless as they got stuck and clogged with mud. Interesting stuff.

If Moses didn't really part what we know now as the Red Sea, does that in any way shatter my faith in God and Jesus? Not at all. Perhaps Moses was lead to the place of the crossing through divine inspiration. My point is, it doesn't change the underlying theme of the Bible, which is that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the World.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #64 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

As I said, National Geographic is at the forefront of exploring the world's oceans that cover 75% of the earth and only 1% of those seas are so far explored! That statistic should offer formidable evidence that it is way too premature to be writing the books on the age of the earth when we have less than 25% of it explored and understood!

As often happens with the Darwin set, they advance on something as settled science only to be smacked down years later with research that conflicts with their facts. In fairness, the non-secular faithful are comfortable with their religious beliefs but they are not the ones setting the decomal places on the specific age of an earth yet unexplored and a universe yet understood.

In case you didn't read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You can't even define the universe and you are cocky pulling accuracy to within 4 decimal points as quite solid? You have a prior life selling snake oil in Tucson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

'An alternative approach to estimating is the age of the universe is to measure the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is a measure of the current expansion rate of the universe.'
In more familiar units, astronomers believe that 1/Ho is between 12 and 14 billion years.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

New Look at Big Bang Radiation Refines Age of Universe

To calculate the age of the universe, scientists including David Spergel of Princeton University and Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore compared the size of those hot and cold spots today with the size of the spots when the radiation was first released into space. Using data from WMAP along with studies of distant supernovas and other phenomena, the team finds that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, give or take 0.11 billion. (By comparison, the teams previous calculation, which used the same method but included only five years of satellite observations, had pegged the universe at 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 0.12 billion.)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...#ixzz0xm7dSGZu

Gauging Age of Universe Becomes More Precise

The universe is 13.73 billion years old, give or take 120 million years, astronomers said last week.
That age, based on precision measurements of the oldest light in the universe, agrees with results announced in 2006. Two additional years of data from a NASA satellite known as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have narrowed the uncertainty by tens of millions of years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/sc...smos.html?_r=1

Earth's age:
"Many independent lines of scientific evidence show that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Current measurements yield an age of about 4.6 billion years for the Earth and about 14 billion years for the Universe."

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/pubs/...-universe.html

More scientific than trying to calculate the age of the earth biblically and arriving at about 6,000 years.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #65 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

For an infinite god 6,000 years are not noticeable.
They are claiming that for god 1 day could be 1 million years or so think about what a human lifetime is. 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 femto second at best.
You prayer to god can not be perceived by him. It just is far too short.

Creation

I was going to add to yours, but why try to reason with them, however:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlF...eature=related
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #66 of 450
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #67 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In this new scientific analysis, they come to the conclusion that new living space is the most important thing triggering evolution and not competition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939

Nightcrawler

Which eventually means some of us will become this:

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

I agree but you're missing the main point here; as holes begin to appear in the instruction of Darwinism, it behooves educators to offer balanced instruction in life origin curricula, to embrace all beliefs, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and others, not simply advance evolution alone (within or without the protection of science classroom).

How is promoting completely science-free beliefs balancing the curriculum?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I originally posted this in the Obama policies thread but it needs to be posted here as well.

One entry on this list :

So there's hope for the next generation.

It's OK, really. Most people are ignorant of many things and a very small number of people (relative to the world's population) are either intelligent enough, motivated and/or connected enough to want to change or control things.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #70 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Firstly, "most on earth" do not believe what Christians believe. You're in a minority.

Not that I'm endorsing religions here, but at least in 2007 that's not so. If you rank it as Christianity versus "Everything Else", then yes, you are correct.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #71 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Unknown to any precise degree. I mean, I have no basis to judge, as "science" has provided conflicting theories and our comprehensive handle on the creation that I believe does not render a precise value that I could state unequivocally within our "year" units. Indeed, if the earth could be somehow split open and an empirical assessment of its "age" rendered, much as one might split a tree and count its rings (though I know planets do not lend themselves to growth rings but I am just using that simply as an comparative example) we might have more precision available here to make a best guess.



Unknown to any precise degree since you can't quantify "the universe," physical or in any other way.



I'll reluctantly go along with that; as long as companion theories are advanced equally that's fine. If you want to establish artificial barriers in which to compartmentalize instruction and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to do so within separate classes than that's fine... as long as children receive equal unbiased instruction in all life origin theories and you're not advancing one with any bias over the other we're cool...

CD, you're asking that we simply pack things up and return to the Dark Ages, which is a quaint, retrograde, unenlightened scenario. Even the Catholic Church, which I do not endorse, has said that evolution and closely held religious beliefs are not diametrically opposed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #72 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You're evidently trying to pigeonhole an estimate when I already admitted lack of evidence, apart of religion and secular, to precisely state. Nevertheless, if I look toward a biblical chronology I see a relatively recent creation of approximately 6000 years.

How many dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. Why didn't Noah take any on the ark?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #73 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

God "knows" and has a male sex organ?
What does he do with the latter if there is no other god or goddess?
The bible says his sex organ is compatible with humans but not large enough to harm the hymen.

You say God has a need to retain information as in "knowing", this means he is able to learn. However this would render "all knowing" and "all powerful" false.

If there is no other god besides the one you believe in, HE MUST BE AN ATHEIST. Humans were created by an atheist.

Perhaps there are more gods than we first thought... The Norsemen were right!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #74 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Excellent points here jazzguru; as I said previously, the idea of measuring time led to the human construct of units of years. It is quite remarkable, however, that we measure them beginning from the Lord. Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct that "day" may not lend itself to 34 hour increments based on scripture.

Why would God decide to hand out the transcript to creation in the form of numerous scattered biblical writings thousands of years ago, then stop? Shouldn't God provide continual updates in the form of a daily paper or a blog? What, nothing more to say?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #75 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's not any more absurd than believing that government is the solution to our problems.

I agree. Both are patently absurd.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You can't even define the universe and you are cocky pulling accuracy to within 4 decimal points as quite solid? You have a prior life selling snake oil in Tucson?

Stay thirsty my friend!

You're quoting a Dos Equis commercial. Is this the word of God?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #77 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How is promoting completely science-free beliefs balancing the curriculum?

Balance in education means instruction of all beliefs, not just the secular ones! Science has its place but it is not universal nor the solution for all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Why would God decide to hand out the transcript to creation in the form of numerous scattered biblical writings thousands of years ago, then stop? Shouldn't God provide continual updates in the form of a daily paper or a blog? What, nothing more to say?

God gave us the product tools; He is not responsible for service updates!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

You're quoting a Dos Equis commercial. Is this your true God?

No but a manly man just the same who drinks a good brew!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How many dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. Why didn't Noah take any on the ark?

Why does this absurd question arise whenever someone questions Darwinism?
post #78 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We live in a flat universe. It is not closed. It will not end with a crunch. Astrophysics and cosmology through many many predictions and confirmed observations has told us so. You just don't understand the science behind any of it so you throw it all away in favor of campfire songs from 4000 years ago.

The most interesting questions, in my mind anyway, are these...

How did the universe spring forth and expand from nothing?

What came before the universe?

If the universe is in fact 'contained', what is beyond/outside the container? If it is "flat", does it have an edge or a seam?

These are the things I used to worry about as a kid, but are just interesting puzzlers as an adult. I'm fairly confident these questions will never be answered. We can never observe beyond the moment of the creation of everything.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Balance in education means instruction of all beliefs, not just the secular ones! Science has its place but it is not universal nor the solution for all.

So how many classes in Wiccan beliefs are you or your children willing to sit through? I think it would be interesting, myself.

Quote:
God gave us the product tools; He is not responsible for service updates!

So, maybe God is no longer interested in the affairs of humans and Earth. Maybe he split. Maybe his job is done and we need to carry on without him?

Quote:
No but a manly man just the same who drinks a good brew!

And yet so many Christians believe alcohol is the devil's brew. Seems like a lot of inconsistencies in the rock-solid foundation.

Quote:
Why does this absurd question arise whenever someone questions Darwinism?

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? If so, why were they never mentioned in the Bible? Didn't God create them as well?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Balance in education means instruction of all beliefs, not just the secular ones! Science has its place but it is not universal nor the solution for all.

But why teach unsubstantiated beliefs in a classroom as if they were true?

The public schools should teach what can be backed-up with observation and evidence... and teach that new evidence may (and has in the past) lead us to change what we believe to be true.
Religion is the exact opposite... it requires belief with NO evidence, and any contrary evidence must be ignored and treated as false, no matter the proof. It has no business being taught in public schools except as a study on human psychology, or as part of a philosophy class. Please stop confusing it with science... which the study of evolution IS.

If you want your kids to believe in fairy-tales, then send them to church somewhere. Mine don't need to be told that they should believe in a god that cannot be observed in any way, for which there is no supporting evidence, simply because some "priest" said to believe it.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...