13 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodAs I said, you can do the math it does not mean that what you are telling
But there is plenty of observable physical evidence relating to the distant past, you can see it now. Plate tectonics,geological strata,fossil records,genealogy,patterns of life distribution across the planet.The list goes on and on ,what is more,the evidence comes from independent sources.
everyone is true. I would also point out to you, that you assume a great many
things going down the path you are on, one for example assuming that the
universe started the way you think it did. If it started as fully formed as we
see today, than many of the assumptions about distances and rates would
not matter now would they, the same thing is true with other patterns you are
refering to as well. Your assumptions about the past are matters of faith for
you, it isn't an old text, but it is being told you by the same source you claim
are in error about the old texts, the mind of man. At least with scripture there
is a witness to the event, which is God, with science's beliefs about how all
things started, well there really isn't one.
Kelly
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayActually ,using observation,experimentation and deductive reasoning,science suggests " possible" explanations for various phenomenon.These theories develop as more facts become available. You would be hard pushed to find a scientist who would claim they know all the facts about any subject. This process does not apply to religious thinking ,where at it's very heart there are held to be absolute truths. Science holds nothing as an absolute truth thereby ensuring it remains a progressive and dynamic process. You speak of "the mind of man" , you seem to be suggesting ideas emanating from that source are suspect,fair enough,but I would remind you the bible was written by men, men told us it was divinely inspired and men interpret it. At least with science there is physical evidence to back up it's theories.
As I said, you can do the math it does not mean that what you are telling
everyone is true. I would also point out to you, that you assume a great many
things going down the path you are on, one for example assuming that the
universe started the way you think it did. If it started as fully formed as we
see today, than many of the assumptions about dista ...[text shortened]... od, with science's beliefs about how all
things started, well there really isn't one.
Kelly
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodWhat about those that claim evil-lution is a fact and the earth came into existence 4.5 Billion years ago?
Actually ,using observation,experimentation and deductive reasoning,science suggests " possible" explanations for various phenomenon.These theories develop as more facts become available. You would be hard pushed to find a scientist who would claim they know all the facts about any subject. This process does not apply to religious thinking ,where at it's very ...[text shortened]... n interpret it. At least with science there is physical evidence to back up it's theories.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodYou use of the words over and over 'absolute truths' makes me wonder about
Actually ,using observation,experimentation and deductive reasoning,science suggests " possible" explanations for various phenomenon.These theories develop as more facts become available. You would be hard pushed to find a scientist who would claim they know all the facts about any subject. This process does not apply to religious thinking ,where at it's very ...[text shortened]... n interpret it. At least with science there is physical evidence to back up it's theories.
your thrust for knowledge since you seem quite taken against having any that
you can call valid. There are opinions, theories, facts, on a lot of topics and
getting at the bottom of anything is the desired goal, unless you think you've
reached it than it is to be opposed? We call the truth the truth, you can accept
it or reject it, but more times than not we also have to say when talking about
those things we have to take them upon faith.
Science is a world of shifting sand; you cannot really ever claim you've arrived
on any topic no matter what it is, due to the notion something new could come
up. Men are telling you what is true in science and religion, men use text
in one area and experience, science as you say men look at things than tell us
what we are to think about them as if they knew. You are still at the mercy of
men in all areas of belief systems.
Kelly
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree with you,science is a world of " shifting sands ", but this is a good thing. It prevents intellectual complacency and suggests an unknown future, I find this exciting and stimulating,what is the point of living a predictable, predetermined and limited life ?
You use of the words over and over 'absolute truths' makes me wonder about
your thrust for knowledge since you seem quite taken against having any that
you can call valid. There are opinions, theories, facts, on a lot of topics and
getting at the bottom of anything is the desired goal, unless you think you've
reached it than it is to be opposed? We call ...[text shortened]... m as if they knew. You are still at the mercy of
men in all areas of belief systems.
Kelly
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodIt also suggests it isn't a world that has a solid foundation too.
I agree with you,science is a world of " shifting sands ", but this is a good thing. It prevents intellectual complacency and suggests an unknown future, I find this exciting and stimulating,what is the point of living a predictable, predetermined and limited life ?
Kelly