Religion anyone?
-
Solo,
That video-clip didn’t start. It looks like a square white spot, but without a link…!
Can you give me the path of it?
Sorry for this inconvenient!
Cornel -
@unknownuser said:
I’m not so religious to believe every ideea, even it is written in ‘uppercase’ or trumpeted in the name of Science
This is some seriously warped rhetorics. You're not religous enough to believe every idea that's 'trumpeted' in the name of science. What does that mean?
-
Sure thing.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw
-
Stinkie,
To believefor example in those millions y. or billions y., you have to have a HUGE FAITH.
Can you verify them? Which Laboratory will take that responsibility?!
Besides that, almost all theories were continuously changeable…!Do you know a verse like Luke 19:40?:
“And he (Jesus) answered and said, I tell you that, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.”
“Stones” (the Archeology, for example) are more eloquent than ‘words’!Cornel
-
Its not a belief that the universe started billions of years ago. It is an idea. Science has nothing to do with faith.
-
@unknownuser said:
Stinkie,
To believefor example in those millions y. or billions y., you have to have a HUGE FAITH.
Can you verify them? Which Laboratory will take that responsibility?!
Besides that, almost all theories were continuously changeable…!Let's get a couple of things straight. There's no 'believing' involved here, at least not on my part. I don't 'believe' in the theories that scientists propose - I merely deem them less implausible than the idea of a supreme being.
Why? Well, precisely because "almost all theories were continuously changeable". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
-
I see Solo that 'I believe..' thread made you nervous. So did your find to me.
Probably you have read why I believe and what I believe in. The author of the clip stretched the facts far too much. I have spent enough time on the internet to find out that several things are simply not true. Especially those regarding the date of 25th of December. Obviously I do not deny there are similarities in several cases.You 'have spent a lot of time examining Christianity' as I understood.
You see, it is not a matter of trying to verify if the 'Good News' is true, checking historical sources.
It is a matter of opening your heart to the message.
If I would tell you that you can meet the One I believe in .. just by asking him to come.. would you be brave enough to do it and be serious in it. Not just for a fun.
I know you are ultra sceptic in this matter.
Do you believe in love? Is it only a bio-chemical process inside us? If you follow this path you will understand more.
The essence is to experience love. To let it work. You will find a lot of bad 'Christians' too, but it doesn't mean what we live is illusion. -
Remus wrote:
“Its not a belief that the universe started billions of years ago. It is an idea. Science has nothing to do with faith.”This implicates that ‘Evolution Theory’ is an imaginated story… Only "it is an idea" !
Cornel
-
Oi! Be
@unknownuser said:Remus wrote:
“Its not a belief that the universe started billions of years ago. It is an idea. Science has nothing to do with faith.”This implicates that ‘Evolution Theory’ is an imaginated story… "It is an idea."
Cornel
Sigh. I am no scientist, but even I understand the core concepts of scientific thinking. Either you don't, or you're deliberately persisting in some sort of ludicrous obscurantism.
-
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
It's not even as if it is just one science that points towards a date of about 4.5 billion years...they all do...geology, geomorphology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics....the list goes on.
It's also worth considering that no other religion has a problem with that...not even mainstream Christianity...just the lunatic fringes of it.
You can't pick and choose which bits of science fit in wih your own religious beliefs. This is exactly the same science that keeps aircraft aloft makes nuclear power stations work or carries traffic across rivers on webs of steel. None of these are imaginary or just "ideas",
-
Cornel,
Science is all about testing theories to see if theyre right. Theories dont just pop out of thin air, everything starts of as an idea, although it is initially imagined that doesnt mean it will turn out to be wrong.
p.s. i get the distinct feeling we've done all this before.
-
This one is for Stinkie and the other Dutch speaking forum members (I wish it was in English...
Hans Teeuwen has a somewhat distorted but funny approach on Da Bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY3g8_BFAPs
[flash=425,344:3155fh6t]http://www.youtube.com/v/uY3g8_BFAPs&hl=en&fs=1[/flash:3155fh6t] -
a) Could anyone with a better understanding of the philosophy of science (I hope this is the correct translation of the Dutch "kennistheorie") explain to our friend Cornel what the difference between "an idea" and "a story" is? I'd want to myself, but I'm afraid I'd leave him too much room to wedge in some scripture quote. Yeah, I did skip class a lot.
b) Thanks, Kwist!
-
Tomasz
What you are talking about is faith, not logical faith like driving over a bridge and believing it will keep standing until you get past it based on your knowledge that the engineers are trained, the builders are inspected and that your chances of making it are pretty good. You require blind faith based on a book that has similar stories that many earlier religions had, yet it dismisses them as false and it the only truth.
Do I believe in love? Yes I do it is an emotion, it also has a chemical explanation re: dopamine. Then there are many forms of love, the Greeks have great examples of such like Agape love, Eros love, etc. Lets not get love and blind devotion mixed now.
Kids are expected to believe in Santa Clause the jolly red giver, they love him, trust him, believe in the whole naughty and nice crap, yet he does not exist …. Sound familiar? Get rid of dude in red suit, put in (deity of choice) add a few stories and warnings of damnation and we have …… you guessed it.
-
Ok,
I’m “persisting in some sort of ludicrous obscurantism”…
Remus wrote: “Science is all about testing theories to see if they’re right.”
Can you, guys, verify for example Alan’s “4.5 billion years”?!!
Cornel
-
You can observe with your eyes the Light coming from the Sun and question with your Mind that it is impossible to Create first the Light and then the Sun.
But one does not have to forget that besides the Eyes and the Mind there is the Heart, that counts as well.
Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, has a beautiful song called GOD IS THE LIGHT
http://www.yusufislam.com/songs-a-z/a14053453e0c6baea40d90726d65aca9For all of you who like Science and Investigation here is a link to a book that I am reading, though I find it hard to understand, about how Creation was done under a Jewish point of view.
http://www.jewishbohemian.com/danceof.htm -
Cornel, that figure has already been verified countless times...in laboratories...with equipment rather more sophisticated than any of the guys you are addressing are likely to possess. And as I've already pointed out, it's verifiable from many different directions in many different disciplines, so it's not a case of one person's belief or one scientist getting his figures wrong.
Can you verify that I'm communicating with you from the UK and not the planet Zog?
-
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, that figure has already been verified countless times...in laboratories...with equipment rather more sophisticated than any of the guys you are addressing are likely to possess.
I'd much prefer it if you wouldn't diss my equipment.
@alan fraser said:
Can you verify that I'm communicating with you from the UK and not the planet Zog?
lol!
-
Cornel asked:
@unknownuser said:
Can you, guys, verify for example Alan’s “4.5 billion years”?!!
Here is some simple evidence that I will put before you:
There are 81 stable elements, with, between them, just under 300 stable
isotopes.
Every one of these stable isotopes has been found on earth.
Several radioactive isotopes are also found on earth. They fall into three
categories:
(1) Very long-lived isotopes, for example Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Thorium-
232, Potassium-40.
(2) Short-lived isotopes that are produced via the decay of these long-lived
isotopes, for example Uranium-234, Radium-226, Radon-222.
(3) Short-lived isotopes of light elements that are produced in nuclear
reactions between high energy particles from the sun and the atmosphere, for
example Carbon-14, Hydrogen-3, Beryllium-10.There is no ongoing source of heavier elements, either stable or
radioactive. It is currently believed that they were produced in a
supernova, which also scattered them as the dust which formed part of the
early solar system. So any of the isotopes of category (1) that are present
on earth today are remnant fractions of what was present when the earth
formed.Now any radioactive isotope decays with a fixed half-life. If it has a half
life of 1 day, then at this time tomorrow only half of it will be left, only
one quarter the next day, and so on. After 10 days there will only be one
thousandth of the original amount, one millionth after 20 days, one
billionth after 30 days, and after 50 days, you can forget it!Here are some category 1 isotopes that are abundantly present on earth:
uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.51 billion years
uranium-235 has a half-life of 0.71 billion years
thorium-232 has a half-life of 14.1 billion years
potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.28 billion years
There are about 6 or 8 others, all with half-lives greater than that of U-
235.Here are some isotopes, potentially category 1, that are not found on earth.
I mention mainly those that are the most stable isotope of their respective
elements, because these would be the easiest to find if, indeed, they were
present:plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80 million years
uranium-236 has a half-life of 23.9 million years (and would be a product of
any plutonium decay!)
curium-247 has a half-life of 16 million years
neptunium-237 has a half-life of 2.14 million years
technetium-99 has a half-life of 0.212 million yearsThere are about a dozen other radioactive isotopes known to have half-lives
greater than 1 million years but less than 50 million years, which are not
found naturally on Earth. All short-lived radioactive isotopes that are
found naturally on earth clearly fall into categories (2) and (3).
Radioactive isotopes can usually be identified by their radiation signature
in amounts much less than you would need for chemical analysis.The absence of plutonium from the natural rocks of the earth indicates that
the earth has been around for at least 30 half-lives of plutonium-244, which
is 2.4 billion years. If its age were any less, we might have expected to
detect the 1 part in 1 billion or more that would remain of any original
plutonium that may have been present.The presence of uranium-235 at a level of just under 1% of all uranium
indicates that the earth has been around for less than 20 half-lives,
which is 14.2 billion years, in the absence of any other evidence. But the
amount of its final decay product, lead-207, in natural lead limits the age
to about 6 billion years maximum. If there had been U-235 decaying for
longer than that, there would have to be a lot more lead-207 around.There is a lot of other evidence and more complicated analysis that makes
geologists and geochemists very confident that the age of the earth is very
close to 4.5 billion years.By Andrew karem.
-
Advertisement