Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Relugious nuttery from dusty old books is a matter of subjective belief.
New theories from contemporary scientists is also subjective.
Where you put your belief, and why is a personal decision.
The religious nuttery is literally set in stone, so is very easy to debunk. But the scientific (latest) theory, is ever changing and a harder to pin down. When you do, the theory changes in response.
New theories from contemporary scientists is also subjective.
Where you put your belief, and why is a personal decision.
The religious nuttery is literally set in stone, so is very easy to debunk. But the scientific (latest) theory, is ever changing and a harder to pin down. When you do, the theory changes in response.
@divebuddy
Thanks for that link.
Meanwhile...
-----------
naomi24
Mikey, are you as well informed in ancient literature as he is?
18:44 Tue 20th Oct 2015
mikey4444
Naomi...most of us know exactly what he is talking about, and its drivel !
18:44 Tue 20th Oct 2015
-----
@mikey4444
Is that a perfect non sequitur or are you saying that ancient literature (any/all/just the ones EvD quotes) is... drivel?
Skepticism requires point-by-point dismantling of what you believe to be not true; not sticking your nose in the air and refusing to deal with it.
Thanks for that link.
Meanwhile...
-----------
naomi24
Mikey, are you as well informed in ancient literature as he is?
18:44 Tue 20th Oct 2015
mikey4444
Naomi...most of us know exactly what he is talking about, and its drivel !
18:44 Tue 20th Oct 2015
-----
@mikey4444
Is that a perfect non sequitur or are you saying that ancient literature (any/all/just the ones EvD quotes) is... drivel?
Skepticism requires point-by-point dismantling of what you believe to be not true; not sticking your nose in the air and refusing to deal with it.
@naomi24
Me: //a professional writer (mikey described himself as such, once).//
Really? I must have missed that.
16:47 Tue 20th Oct 2015
I can see myself having to retract that, at some point. I forget the exact thread but everyone (from the retired/housebound set) was wondering about his ability to pump out thousands of words per day and still, somehow make a living as a self-employed something-or-other.
I'm sure andy_hughes was subjected to similar curiosity, the other day but he assured us that his employer was both fully aware and tolerant of how much keyboard time he puts into AB, daily, during office hours. He stopped short of saying that he's paid to write here but it would make so much sense.
Hypognosis...How clever of you to remember back so far !
I have been, indeed, a professional writer in the past, but my earnings wouldn't have kept Willy in dogfood ! As regards my ability to work full time and work "as a self-employed something-or-other"...
well, lets put this down to hard work and the ability to multi-task shall we !
I have been, indeed, a professional writer in the past, but my earnings wouldn't have kept Willy in dogfood ! As regards my ability to work full time and work "as a self-employed something-or-other"...
well, lets put this down to hard work and the ability to multi-task shall we !
divebuddy, // He has been proved to have had artefacts made specially for him to use as "evidence".//
and Jom….. //Quite simply anybody who demonstrates systemic dishonesty of evd has the credibility of a 9bob note.//
It really doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. Think ….and get past it. Think beyond it. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that he is so passionate about his subject he will do and say anything to promote his theory (and having read his later works, which I don’t agree with at all, I think that assumption, in that instance, is reasonably justified). The fact remains that, given the age of other areas of the universe compared to the age of our solar system, his initial premise is undeniably viable . If, in an effort to seek the truth, we’re investigating his fundamental theory, then that is where our focus should lie. Examine what we have from the past and in the light of current knowledge ask, “Is it possible that ‘God’ was an astronaut? I think it likely.
Hypognosis, I know what I think. :o)
and Jom….. //Quite simply anybody who demonstrates systemic dishonesty of evd has the credibility of a 9bob note.//
It really doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. Think ….and get past it. Think beyond it. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that he is so passionate about his subject he will do and say anything to promote his theory (and having read his later works, which I don’t agree with at all, I think that assumption, in that instance, is reasonably justified). The fact remains that, given the age of other areas of the universe compared to the age of our solar system, his initial premise is undeniably viable . If, in an effort to seek the truth, we’re investigating his fundamental theory, then that is where our focus should lie. Examine what we have from the past and in the light of current knowledge ask, “Is it possible that ‘God’ was an astronaut? I think it likely.
Hypognosis, I know what I think. :o)
@naomi
// Hypognosis, I know what I think. :o) //
Yes, we noticed. But what is that the riposte to?
Or is it the answer to the question after next?*
* A Two Ronnies reference.
// The fact remains that, given the age of other areas of the universe compared to the age of our solar system, his initial premise is undeniably viable .//
Have you spoken to jim about first and second generation stars, at some stage? That would save me some typing.
Does EvD discuss supernovae, time taken for heavy elements to arise in the universe?
The window of opportunity for other star systems to nurture a species up to spacefaring levels, ahead of ours might be narrower than he imagined.
Also, if you saw the "Cosmic Dawn" episode of the recent Horizon series, you'll know by now that the first billion years of the 13.8 was relatively uneventful i.e. it took a long time to light up any stars at all, let alone go bang and trigger gas cloud collapses elsewhere. No planets in the early universe, of course, because the elements required to make rocky minerals aren't made until the initial wave of stars have died.
The argument is valid but perspective like this needs to be taken into account.
// Hypognosis, I know what I think. :o) //
Yes, we noticed. But what is that the riposte to?
Or is it the answer to the question after next?*
* A Two Ronnies reference.
// The fact remains that, given the age of other areas of the universe compared to the age of our solar system, his initial premise is undeniably viable .//
Have you spoken to jim about first and second generation stars, at some stage? That would save me some typing.
Does EvD discuss supernovae, time taken for heavy elements to arise in the universe?
The window of opportunity for other star systems to nurture a species up to spacefaring levels, ahead of ours might be narrower than he imagined.
Also, if you saw the "Cosmic Dawn" episode of the recent Horizon series, you'll know by now that the first billion years of the 13.8 was relatively uneventful i.e. it took a long time to light up any stars at all, let alone go bang and trigger gas cloud collapses elsewhere. No planets in the early universe, of course, because the elements required to make rocky minerals aren't made until the initial wave of stars have died.
The argument is valid but perspective like this needs to be taken into account.
@mikey4444
//well, lets put this down to hard work and the ability to multi-task shall we !//
Well there are also jobs which involve regular bursts of earning enough money to make the day worthwhile but interspersed with lots of waiting around, "on the plot".
There is work which is hard on the body, work which is hard on the mind, work which is hard on the lifestyle and work which is hard on the family.
My former job was the hard on the mind variety and I certainly would not have been able to perform at my peak if I'd spent hours of the day on internet forums. If other people are judging you, it's only because their own job is the only yardstick they have.
Whatever it is you do, don't let other people find out, or they'll all get in on the act.
//well, lets put this down to hard work and the ability to multi-task shall we !//
Well there are also jobs which involve regular bursts of earning enough money to make the day worthwhile but interspersed with lots of waiting around, "on the plot".
There is work which is hard on the body, work which is hard on the mind, work which is hard on the lifestyle and work which is hard on the family.
My former job was the hard on the mind variety and I certainly would not have been able to perform at my peak if I'd spent hours of the day on internet forums. If other people are judging you, it's only because their own job is the only yardstick they have.
Whatever it is you do, don't let other people find out, or they'll all get in on the act.
Hypognosis, //Have you spoken to jim about first and second generation stars, at some stage? That would save me some typing. //
Your question is both presumptuous and patronising. If I seek to extend my education in this or in any other area I consult experts, so please don’t trouble yourself – or Jim. Stephen Hawking says, “The necessary planetary conditions for our form of life may have existed from about four billion years after the Big Bang”. That’s clear enough.
My Ronnie Barker answer referred to your comments about ‘writers’. Apologies for the confusion.
Your question is both presumptuous and patronising. If I seek to extend my education in this or in any other area I consult experts, so please don’t trouble yourself – or Jim. Stephen Hawking says, “The necessary planetary conditions for our form of life may have existed from about four billion years after the Big Bang”. That’s clear enough.
My Ronnie Barker answer referred to your comments about ‘writers’. Apologies for the confusion.
/Why should someone who has been accused of alleged dishonesty at some time (haven't we all?) be dismissed as being 100% wrong on every theory they have proposed? /
An accusation is one thing, clear proof of dishonesty is another.
EVD is the antithesis of the scientific approach, he starts with a conclusion and if his reasoning doesn't convince people he manufactures 'evidence'. He seems to be so inherently dishonest that he beleves his own lies.
An accusation is one thing, clear proof of dishonesty is another.
EVD is the antithesis of the scientific approach, he starts with a conclusion and if his reasoning doesn't convince people he manufactures 'evidence'. He seems to be so inherently dishonest that he beleves his own lies.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago