Thanks: 0
I don't think I am the person to be asking..lol..nor anyone else on Earth...unless you belong to a religious order, then you can ask the priest, or whatever. Of course, we may not be the only planet that has life on it..he may have created more than one planet with intelligent life.
~Kiva
*sighs* It is just impossible for you to comprehend the other viewpoint, and see how it is possible that you are WRONG.
~Kiva
Now you're just coming off as immature. We weren't disagreeing with proven facts, we were disagreeing that science is not the only form of knowledge, nor is it more valid than any other form of knowledge. And, as a "Scientist", you should know that proven facts don't exist, as anything can be possible, and knowledge can change daily.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As they say, "Can't argue with science!"! I don't understand why people disagree with proven facts and science in general ^_^ ...
Bud, you call yourself a scientist but that sentence probably made Einstein roll over in his grave. That's not what science is.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If something has been rigorously proven, it is true and its validity cannot be destroyed.
because most scientific facts are just man's ideas. It was "scientifically proven" that the world was flat, that is true today correct? It was "scientifically proven" that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that was correct again right? It was "scientifically proven" that making someone bleed would cure them of a disease and make them healthy, you should already know how many people died because of that and the fact that 0 were saved, it was "scientifically proven" that drilling a hole in your head would make a headache go away, of course George Washington was saved because of that, right? Must I go on?Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As they say, "Can't argue with science!"
Science, a hobby for man who knows "everything." A lot of "scientifically proven" things that proved the Bible were false were, well...proven to not be false and in the end only showed that the Bible was even more genuine than before man tried to make it a work of science fiction. The only facts that I believe in are in the Bible. No scientist can make me think differently. Like the one thread saying that the world is going to end on 6-6-06, I laugh at that, since after all it was "scientifically proven" by the "Bible code." I am quite sure that the Lord's second coming will either be before that date or right after but not on that day. Everyone will probably be panicking like on the whole millenium thing, but not me, I will be living life like every other day...that is if that day even comes. Take one day at a time and live it like it is your last, because it could very well be your last.
I facts here are that the bible has not been verified or condemned as false. People who do not believe will try and use science to their advantage, while people who do believe will try and use faith. Both are not accepted by the other, and neither will prove or disprove anything.
Although I am not a Christian, and I don't necessarily agree with Simba 04's point of view..it makes a lot more sense than the immature statement that science can prove anything...especially when the concept is SO simple. Christians confide in the Bible..something they believe to be true..and they apply it to the proper areas of their lives...just as science should be applied to proper areas. A Christian would not say that God is deciding the outcome of a football game..and that if you believe in the Lord your team will win. That has NOTHING to do with that. Faith can only be taken so far...and it applies to the soul, not physical things. You cannot make an engine run with faith...that DOES take science, etc. You cannot however, use science to disprove something that deals with the soul...nor is science completely concrete. StL, you definitely take your level of confidence to a new level, one that makes you sound immature and very naive.
~Kiva
First I want to say: PLEASE stop saying the word "rigorous"!
I think I am pretty much done with this convo because it is extremely hard for you to understand our point of view. I will go ahead and ask my physics teacher what she thinks about the situation and get back to you on it. Hopefully in the future you will find out that you are wrong before you commit too much of your life to a dead end, (well, that is only if you let yourself be consumed with this issue).
Your idea of "proof" is only valid if other areas we have studied at also "proven". So, if suddenly we discovered that the world, the universe and everything we knew was false...how would your rigorous proof hold up then? There are SO many possibilities to the world and the universe...but you tend to think in a very confined space. Things have been proven based on what we know and what we found out in the past. They are based on our perceptions and what we observe...but all that can change. Science is a great tool..one that is safe to use in proving things in the context we all know...but if that changes..then you are left with nothing. In fact, I believe there is a hint of that already, in that many of the laws of physics that work on certain scales, or certain areas of the universe, do not work in other situations and circumstances. This can happen on a larger scale..but I don't believe you can look that "deeply" into the subject.
~Kiva
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
Everyday new things are found out about the earth that replace old things that we used to know,Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
\
Pnt: I'm afraid science/mathematics at high levels is ENTIRELY based around proving things, or even educing new concepts and ideas, and proving them.
it was proven that the world was flat, because when people walked no one seemed to be turning upside down, until we hit space did we realize the earth is round,
earth was thought as the center of the universe because everything revolved around it like the suns and the planets, but later did we realize we revolve around the sun and not the other way around
we one also thought it was a proven fact that no man could go into space or could never go out of the atmosphere, and it was proven wrong.
There is no such thing really in my opinion, as a "fact" because though they may be true right now, they will probably be replaced by a new "Fact" that over writes that,
so thus, I see you wrong, again StL :E
as you say you like to debate with people, I wouldn't call it a debate, i'm sure everyone will agree with me, from reading this, It's like talking to a brick wall.
in a debate its an argument between two sides about a current event or past event possibly future, or thing, During the debate each side gives a case, and the point of that debate is 100% equal for each side to hear others stories, and not tell each other how stupid, nor wrong the other side may sound, its to debate(argue) the fact of their case, and hear the others out, and possibly changing your entire views based upon what others do
I've been told this time and time again in Speech and Debate, so don't tell me its not true =/
Science may be/seem right, but in reality its just what man thinks is right, It may not technically be right though
~KtL
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
I remember reading about Galileo(sp*), I believe, who came up with the theories that the Earth was round and it evolved around the sun...He had to be careful, because his theories led many to label him a heretic...or something...Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
it was proven that the world was flat, because when people walked no one seemed to be turning upside down, until we hit space did we realize the earth is round,
earth was thought as the center of the universe because everything revolved around it like the suns and the planets, but later did we realize we revolve around the sun and not the other way around
I suggest we leave this topic alone...as in..with StL..because that isn't going anywhere...and to be honest, if I see another one of his smart a** replies, I am going to snap..heh. That little bit added on his last post: "It sure is fun debating about these sorts of things though haha ^_~ !" Well, I'm either crazy or anyone here will tell me that wasn't a sincere statement at all..the arrogant attitude shines right through. So, to stop anymore of that, I believe that we should just leave StL alone.
~Kiva
ah ! again with the rigorously XD *pokes your nose 5000000000 times*Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Kovu, those things were never rigorously proven... something that has been rigorously proven can never possibly then be wrong somehow. I feel the same as you with the brick wall analogy...
Ok, well, I'm not going to change the way I think about this topic, and it seems futile to carry on trying to make you see how I am thinking. Hence, I don't see much point in carrying on this debate.
Kovu: Feel free to talk to me on MSN about this if you like ^_^ , you're lots of fun to debate with hehe =)...
perhaps we should just sit down and play chess instead :E
okay well, heres something I can agree upon, I can think to your standards and to your approaches, and I've thought about them, but I'd just rather believe things happen in a bibliographical(sp? or i dont even know lmao) matter than in science, because really both sides are kinda, boom there
if everything was created by the big bang, and nothing was here, what caused the reaction for the big bang to happen, if god was here, and nothing was here, how could he possible create something out of nothing,
though the god thing is sorta answered in 1st corinthians, saying "The almight and powerful god" how humans will never be able to comphrehend the majisty and power of God himself, so I'd guess the bible parts true on that, but in a science way I really don't see it happening :E
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
I absolutely agree with you roog, well, Einstein, and I think it is dangerous to say with certainty that creation is science or religion, purely.Originally posted by lion_roog
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
Religion should pay attention to advances in the scientific world, and one of these discoveries has been the idea of creation, well, at least of the Big Bang theory and what happens right after the start of time.
I remember reading in a National Geographic special on this topic that a scientist has said that mathematical formulae and equations break down at the closest possible instant after the bang. I think that this illustrates the point perfectly. As our scientific knowledge expands exponentially, it keeps getting closer and closer to solving questions that are perhaps just beyond its reach, on the metaphysical plane instead of the physical one. The beginning is where the physical and the metaphysical come in contact, where physical substance crosses paths with emotional intent. It is up to the onlooker to see if proper explanation can be rendered with a religious explanation, a scientific one, or a blending of the two.
I would tend to choose the last. Because I think the instant of creation is still mixed in with spirituality and I think that all points following have been purely scientific - including the creation of life, I choose to blend the two viewpoints.
However, I do believe, without reasonable doubt, that Earth and the life on it have risen naturally, our civilization being only one of many in the galaxy and the wider universe.
Sorry to go off-topic, but could you PLEASE stop making random (and double btw) posts, Timon Wifey? This is not the Elephant Graveyard, y'know?
I've sorted it now.Originally posted by Neola
Sorry to go off-topic, but could you PLEASE stop making random (and double btw) posts, Timon Wifey? This is not the Elephant Graveyard, y'know?
First of all, the debate is not "God vs. Big Bang." The Big Bang is far from being the only scientific theory on creation. And the scientific community has most certainly not decided unquestionably on that as the answer. Many scientists outright dismiss the Big Bang theory. The current scientific stance on how the universe was created is "We don't know."
Heck, we're not even entirely sure how our own moon was created yet.
That's the answer I side with as well. I think it's a bit absurd to assume that we could actually know and understand how everything was first created. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold and some people think we can know for a fact how existence sprang into being? We simply don't have the scientific knowledge...or knowledge in general...to know something like that right now. We may never know. In fact we'll probably never know. The universe is an extremely complex place. The human mind cannot conceive of the simple concept of infinity or absolute nothing so how can we visualize how nothing became something infinite?
I don't personally believe in God, but with the limited knowledge we have of the universe, I think "Everything was created by God" is just as plausible a theory as anything else at this point.
I cannot, however, believe in the literal description of creation in Genesis. For one thing, there are two versions of creation, right after one another, in which things occur in different orders. Obviously they both can't be true. That's not even a scientific impossibility...it's a simple logical impossibility. I hear so may people say that they feel everything in the Bible is literal and true...if that's the case, do you also believe creation happened twice...in different orders...at the same time? That passage alone suggests that a literal interpretation may not be the best one. I feel there are more important elements of the Bible and Christianity in general than whether or not Genesis is literal and true. It being a mythological story to convey a general idea does not in any way devalue the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.
Plus there are quite a number of things discussed in Genesis and Creation that have been outright scientifically disproven. Any archaeologist, geologist, or paleontologist can tell you that.
And...men don't have fewer ribs than women, so....
And a few specific points I want to address:
Evolution does not describe how life/the universe was created. It only describes how life changed once it was already there. So it is perfectly possible to believe God created life and in evolution.
Not even close to true. There are a lot of other religions out there so this is a pretty bold claim to make. Islam, for example, is extremely similar to Christianity. Both it and Judaism contain instances of prophets through which God speaks to his people. Greek religion was already mentioned. Norse religion is another example. Do a little research into other world religions of both past and present and you will found countless references of God or Gods coming into contact with their/his/her people/guiding them/etc.Originally posted by Krypto
You?re absolutely right. But there is one religion which is different. All of the religions except one are about followers who attempt to do enough stuff that is ?right? in order to get a reward. The only religion which has followers who have a god who has descended to Earth and is there for them is Christianity.
Obviously it seems more true to you than other religions because it's your own religion. But other people view Christianity the same way you view Greek mythology. I personally view all religions as mythology so looking at this from an objective point of view, you really can't factually state that your religion must be the correct one because a dozen other people with different views and just as much proof are going to say the same thing about their own religions.
Their minds were no less "advanced" than ours. Having inferior technology does not make a culture "simple-minded." It simply means the technology hasn't been discovered/invented yet. The reason we are able to make as many of the discoveries as we do in modern times is because we are building on the knowledge of past generations. Scientific progress spans generations. Many of the concepts of modern medicine (i.e. our current understanding of the circulatory system) were original proposed by Greek scientists and doctors.Originally posted by Krypto
They did have simpler minds in the way that they considered things and worked with things. I mean, if they were as advanced as we are, they?d have built all of the thing which we?ve built because they?d have been able to figure it out. Remember, going along with what you?ve said, all of the material was here when they were, too, right? So, if they weren?t simpler, then we?d have Egyptian skyscrapers-not pyramids.
And Egyptian skyscrapers? They're called pyraminds. The design of the pyramind was extremely advanced and ingenoius for its time. The Egyptians are not an ancient culture I would call "simple-minded." Most archaeologists say the opposite.
Several hundred years from now, there will probably be a few people like you who look back at this time period and think, "Wow, they were so simple-minded!"
Also, last I checked, Christianity originated around your labelled "simple-minded" time period. If we're to operate under your theory that all ancient cultures=simple-minded, then the people who started your religion fall into that category as well.
Not the way most Christians interpret them though. The Flood for example: Geological evidence shows that sea levels rose dramatically around the time period this story is believed to have originated. The "birthplace of civilization" (i.e. the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) would have been flooded during these sea level changes. To any civilization living in that area, it would indeed seem like the entire world had flooded.Originally posted by lion_roog
Well, I know that several Bible stories (couldn't tell you which ones off hand) have been proven as actual events by archeologists...
By the way, SimbaTheLion, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is not possible to prove that God does not exist with science or math. Many scientists and mathematicians are atheists because their findings and studies have caused them to question religious faith, but as a fellow atheist and someone who keeps up-to-date on scientific knowledge I can garuntee you the scientific community has not found a way to disprove the existence of God.
No offense, but you have a very flawed understanding of science.
That, for example. Scientific and mathematical theories that were once considered "proven" have been disproven in the past. I agree with Pnt, Einstein would shudder at the sound of that statement. You are essentially treating science like a religion and when you start doing that, you become a hypocrite. Science is not about unquestionable faith. It is about discovery, experimentation, trial and error, etc. It is about finding the best way to explain things based on the available evidence. Evidence changes. New things are discovered. Therefore scientific theory must also change.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If something has been rigorously proven, it is true and its validity cannot be destroyed.
Any scientist who approaches life under the assumption that all his or her beliefs are irrefutable is a pretty poor scientist.
You say you've not had any university education yet. I have. And before that I went to a college prep private high school with an extremely good math and science program. I was raised in a family very interested in science with a brother who is a genius at math. I grew up reading science news and trying to learn everything I possibly could about the universe. And I have never come across any irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Believe me, as an atheist, I would love it if such a thing existed because I would have some solid validity for my beliefs. But it doesn't. Sorry.
Aaaand, this is also a very flawed understanding of science. You're saying science proved that the world was supposed to end that day? By the Bible code? You're confusing science and paranoia now. Just because something disagrees with the Bible, does not make it "science." And last I checked, the idea of 666 being an evil number was supposed to be a religious idea, not a scientific one. Time is a human construct, and I garuntee you all scientists know this.Originally posted by Simba_2004
Like the one thread saying that the world is going to end on 6-6-06, I laugh at that, since after all it was "scientifically proven" by the "Bible code."
I can see your point. I wasn't even aware of that example. I was thinking back to an article I read where archeologists found evidence that some trek from Babylon to Isreal took place along the same course and time mentioned in the bible or something to that effect. Don't quote me on that, I need to find that article again someday...Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Not the way most Christians interpret them though. The Flood for example: Geological evidence shows that sea levels rose dramatically around the time period this story is believed to have originated. The "birthplace of civilization" (i.e. the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) would have been flooded during these sea level changes. To any civilization living in that area, it would indeed seem like the entire world had flooded.
Yes, anyone who feels the Bible is -entirely- erroneous and contains not a sliver of fact is just plain naive. Even if I consider the Bible a mythology...all mythologies are ultimately rooted in some fact. I'll definitely agree with you there.
Ok, so I am plain naive, because I don't believe in any sort of religion.
You can't force people to believe, so I don't think you can call everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible naive.
It's people's own choice if they believe or not.
Lea Members I've met...
LKD 1x, Sharifu 2x, STM 2x, This Land 8x, Lucy 11x, Amy 1x, LKS 2x, KanuTGL 1x, Dani 2x, Dan 2x
Shadow 1x, King Simba 2x, Nephilim 1x, Naline 1x, jazzybbunny 3x, cleargreenwater 1x, HasiraKali 1x, Vidan 1x
avater = Sharifu
Posting Permissions
