stream.....guess I haven't noted your inclinations....I'm not that passionate sort of poster, I guess. The 6000 year thing...where did that come from? I have certain beliefs, but they don't conflict with natural intelligence...much...until it gets to where life began. Anyway, how do you get by the very real evidences science provides (using, btw, the gifts given by our creator...so, not to be denied on the grounds of faith, etc.)? I mean, carbon dating, archeological discoveries, all that is universally accepted as artifacts of early life....how the heck can all that be set aside so to be able to adhere to some other preferred reality.
Just asking....6000 years? Sorry....doesn't comport with our god-given factual fundamentals.
Thanks, Chaz
I would simply suggest you look at what youe believe to be scientific fact...that isn't. Human endeavors are rife with error, yet the hubris with which many speak about science is startling.
Carbon dating...only, ONLY, can estimate dates up to about 80K years. If ever you read of a 14C dating that yields beyond that, it is completely unscientific.
Archeaology...at best has routine contradictions in evidence. What is a scientist to do when the rock layer they are working has an assumed age of 10Mil years old, and they test something in that layer (petrified wood, for example) and it yields something thousands of years old? What do you do with oceanic fossils...found at the upper parts of the Andes?
It is not quite as simple as some would have it. I was a zoologist and lost my religion, as it were, because what was being touted as science...what was being taught as known...wasn't.
I have the honesty to call what I believe, Faith. The religion of evolution, etc does not.
Chaz - before entering into debate with Streamy on this I'd suggest you have alook at the Largest Model of The Universe clip - read the threads therein and make your mind up about Streamlined's rational and scientific view... He's funny!
My lady and I were getting "intimate" last night and she kept exclaiming "OH SQUIRREL, OH SQUIRREL" Now it finally makes sense. Either that............or she's "nuts".
Streamlined - I think this has been around and around, but why not jump back in. It is ridiculous for you to compare the idea of religion, which you acknowledge is a matter of faith, with every scientific theory such as evolution. There is simply no comparison between the ideas that you have faith in, and the ideas of evolution. The idea of a god, or Jesus, or Thor, or whatever, that you believe in is supported only by faith. I understand that you accept that. But that does not mean that science, even if it does not present a complete picture, is based on faith or can be compared to religion. It is based on an incremental and methodical approach to trying to discover truth. It does not have all the answers, and clearly does not have enough to satisfy you, but it fundamentally differs from religion in that scientists are constantly striving for new data or information to try and provide answers. This is done in a way that is (supposed to be anyway) open and subject to scrutiny. Religion is only, and always will be, based on nothing more than belief, and is completely subjective.
Have all the fun you want trying to criticize certain scientific methods or discoveries or interpretations of data. But showing that certain scientific approaches are wrong does not devalue science to the equivalent of religion.
Wow...Billy Blanks turned gay, found god and started smoking crack. All at once, too. I guess all of those thai-bo jokes finally pushed him over the edge.
Comments (55)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.