BEAR on 5/4/2008 at 19:09
Quote Posted by paloalto90
People who bielieve that the universe is only 6000 years old cannot explain the span of the life and death cycle of stars.This is not the thorny area of evolution but basic physics.You have x amount of gas burning at rate x.
The outward pressure created by combustion is balanced by gravity.
Take a portion of the night sky and count the number of dead stars.
If the universe is only 6000 years old you should be able to come up with x amount of dead stars per six thousand years per given area. Track the amount of new dead stars for x amount of time. If the proportions don't match you have a problem.My bet would be that a stars life span is far longer than 6000 years.
I know, its like DUH! they're only stars am i rite?
Qooper on 5/4/2008 at 19:15
Quote Posted by The_Raven
EXCUSE ME!? Have you just said that computer science has no practical applications?
No, I haven't. You simply misread/misunderstood my post. :) Don't worry about it. I should have replaced "in the same sense as" with "unlike".
A reply to previous replies: This is all very interesting. I admit I spoke before giving it enough thought, but I'm not saying things based on nothing. There are people on both sides of the debate that have been taught to say certain things or think in a certain way, and that's sad. That doesn't really lead anywhere. But before I say anything further I think I'll do a bit of studying on the subject. Especially on the difference/non-difference between adaptation and evolution. It's a good thing to have knowledge, respect and humility before opening one's mouth.
One clarification I'd like to make, though.
Quote Posted by flexbuster
1) I'm not willing to fight to the death for evolution. I'm willing to fight for proper science and reasoning. Unlike some manners of religious people (like you, perhaps?), my logical priorities aren't totally ass-backward to the point where I try defending a conclusion blindly instead of the actual processes which lead to it.
We think much in the same way, in a way. I'm willing to fight for proper science and reasoning, too. One difference between you and me is that I have met God. Even though this sounds like madness to many, it doesn't prove that it's not true. I can't scientifically prove God's existence. I can only be honest and say that I have met God - it's up to you to either believe me or not. I'm not going to push my beliefs on anyone. But if we're being properly scientific, we are in no position to dismiss the existence of God, no matter how silly it sounds. Let scientists study evolution if they want, I'm not against that. I say let anyone, who is willing, to study ID or anything else they want, as long as they stick to the truth. The universe (means "one word" btw) can be only one way (i.e. it can't be both created and not created), so whatever the truth is, it will eventually speak for itself.
Also, I'm not a religious person: The God I know isn't my invention (neither mine nor anyone else's) that serves some purpose like making me feel better or giving me hope. So either I'm lying to you guys, or God really exists, but I'm not religious. At least not according to my definition of religion.
And last but not least, I don't follow anything or anyone blindly. I do study, observe and get to know before I take a step of faith. I would guess that the biggest difference between you and me is that I once opened my mind to the possibility that there might be a God, after which I wanted to explore whether there be any truth behind that door. It's what human science calls testing a hypothesis. But no, it's not scientific, unlike observing the characteristics of a MOSFET using accurate scientific equipment.
D'Juhn Keep on 5/4/2008 at 21:30
Some advice would be to read Richard Dawkin's <small>(lol I still have dick to the dork to the phd in my head)</small> The Blind Watchmaker. Hopefully this will clear everything up regarding evolution!
catbarf on 5/4/2008 at 23:43
Quote Posted by Qooper
We think much in the same way, in a way. I'm willing to fight for proper science and reasoning, too. One difference between you and me is that I have met God. Even though this sounds like madness to many, it doesn't prove that it's not true. I can't scientifically prove God's existence. I can only be honest and say that I have met God - it's up to you to either believe me or not. I'm not going to push my beliefs on anyone. But if we're being properly scientific, we are in no position to dismiss the existence of God, no matter how silly it sounds. Let scientists study evolution if they want, I'm not against that. I say let anyone, who is willing, to study ID or anything else they want, as long as they stick to the truth. The universe (means "one word" btw) can be only one way (i.e. it can't be both created and not created), so whatever the truth is, it will eventually speak for itself.
Also, I'm not a religious person: The God I know isn't my invention (neither mine nor anyone else's) that serves some purpose like making me feel better or giving me hope. So either I'm lying to you guys, or God really exists, but I'm not religious. At least not according to my definition of religion.
Two points in relation to this, which can be accurately summarized by Russel's Teapot:
Suppose I were to suggest that between Earth and Mars there is floating a teapot. I can also say that it is far too small for any instrument to measure. You then cannot disprove its existence.
Is it irrational to dismiss the notion that the teapot exists? You state that we are in no position to dismiss God. It lacks evidence, as does the teapot, as do hundreds of other theories I can make up on the spot that cannot be disproved. It is the
rational approach to dismiss it
entirely from a scientific perspective.
Then there's the other point. If I were to state that I think for
certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the teapot is real because I read about it in a book, and I were to state that because of that, you have no grounds to dismiss it in science- would you not think me perhaps a little bit unstable? Think on that.
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
lol I still have dick to the dork to the phd in my head
That's 'Dawk' :thumb:
paloalto90 on 5/4/2008 at 23:58
God and a teapot do not have the same reported qualities.
God being omniscient and omnipresent has the power to communicate with you.Since people have reported that they have personal experiences and thus first hand knowledge of God, this at least to them is evidence.A teapot at that distance would not have the same power.So while you can't prove it to others it can explain why the belief in God still exists and would never cease to exist.
D'Juhn Keep on 6/4/2008 at 00:28
Quote Posted by catbarf
That's 'Dawk' :thumb:
I actually think that's you missing the song's pun on his name and the word "dork". I could be listening too much into it though I guess!
catbarf on 6/4/2008 at 02:53
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
I actually think that's you missing the song's pun on his name and the word "dork".
Hence the wink smiley.
Quote Posted by paloalto90
God and a teapot do not have the same reported qualities.
God being omniscient and omnipresent has the power to communicate with you.Since people have reported that they have personal experiences and thus first hand knowledge of God, this at least to them is evidence.A teapot at that distance would not have the same power.So while you can't prove it to others it can explain why the belief in God still exists and would never cease to exist.
By the same token I can ascribe telepathy to the Teapot, and then use schizophrenics who hear it talking to them as evidence for the Teapot's existence. Willful or not, self-delusion is no evidence.
Pyrian on 6/4/2008 at 08:16
Quote Posted by paloalto90
...transmigration of species.
What does that even mean? :confused:
SD on 6/4/2008 at 09:42
It means he's an imbecile.
