03 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
That is wrong and I have proved it to you before. Admiting ignorance of the origin of the universe does not imply blind faith about everything else. I showed you before that this is not the case and you got so upset you called me a liar and refused to speak to me ever again. Interestingly you could not point out what you thought I lied about.
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI did a lot more than state my opinion. I showed that your argument was wrong. I also showed that you yourself were inconsistent in applying it.
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me.
You not knowing how something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they were facts and calling them so.
Kelly
But what I know nothing about (the cause of the big bang) is totally different from what is being discussed in this thread (the Grand Canyon). Your claim that because I don't know anything about the cause of the big bang I can know nothing about anything is not only illogical but you don't apply that claim consistently. You are quite ready to admit the Second World War took place and that I can know it took place despite not knowing the cause of the big bang. I spent a very long thread going into the details of this and in the end, you didn't even have the honesty to admit you were wrong, but instead called me a liar and decided never to speak to me again.
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by KellyJayhe did explain everything before. the problem is that you and others like you constantly ignore(or do not understand) any scientific explanation we show you. and then you act as if we are stating opinions just like you.
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly
in your mind i am sure you believe we are on the same level of debating. we are not. we proved our stance, you didn't.
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo for you 300 years of solid scientific and mathematical advances are now relegated to mere opinion?
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziYea, yea, yea...Like I said with you it is express your point of view and call
he did explain everything before. the problem is that you and others like you constantly ignore(or do not understand) any scientific explanation we show you. and then you act as if we are stating opinions just like you.
in your mind i am sure you believe we are on the same level of debating. we are not. we proved our stance, you didn't.
yourself the winner...what could go wrong there?
Kelly
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by KellyJayi am guessing you are complaining that i don't support my claims, to which i answer: logic doesn't work with you.
Yea, yea, yea...Like I said with you it is express your point of view and call
yourself the winner...what could go wrong there?
Kelly
you do not listen, you do not understand, you do not care. you have a world view set in stone and we tried in the past to alter it patiently through reason. and science. it did not work.
right now, i will merely point and laugh whenever you and others like you mumble something stupid. like a global flood, or a young earth.
if you genuinely wish to learn, you must let of go of the stupid notion that scientists everywhere are in a conspiracy to ... something. you must understand there is no secret society of scientists that wish to sell you big bang t-shirts. that i believe would be the first step. after that, the internet is yours to learn anything you wish.
step 2: knowledge doesn't make one a bad Christian.
03 Dec 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not making any assumptions. To date, every process ever examined by science has been shown to be mundane in the sense that no miracle or magic has been demonstrated to be in evidence. All supposedly miraculous or magical events or processes which have been subjected to rigorous examination have eventually been shown to be non-miraculous or non-magical. In the complete absence of evidence supporting the miraculous or magical, and the almost suffocating preponderance of evidence to the contrary, likelihood clearly favours the latter. One can only judge on the evidence - on the one hand we have a collection of ancient stories, allegedly inspired by god (according to the scriptures themselves) but written by people, edited by people, curated by people and translated by people. On the other hand there's all of the other evidence. The only way you can say that the scriptural explanation is more likely is by willfully ignoring everything else.
You are making a bold statement it is the most likely, you really don' t know
what is likely or not! So suggesting one is more likely is very close to you
having blind faith and just running with it. You don't know you assume, you
assume more than a few things with it comes to life from non life, you assume
a lot of things on how everything got here, an ...[text shortened]... ou assuming your beliefs about the past are true so you can
call them the most likely.
Kelly
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou are betting your soul on your belief that nothing Jesus is reported to have done is miraculous. It is true that many magic tricks could be done in the time of Moses. However, I am inclined to believe that what Moses and Jesus did were not merely magic tricks. I am still waiting for the scientific community to reproduce a Shroud of Turin with all the features it exhibits. Perhapes one day they will be able to, but I don't see why I should think scientist will ever be able to offer me eternal life. You can have your religion in science and technology, perhaps one day it may offer you salvation.
I'm not making any assumptions. To date, every process ever examined by science has been shown to be mundane in the sense that no miracle or magic has been demonstrated to be in evidence. All supposedly miraculous or magical events or processes which have been subjected to rigorous examination have eventually been shown to be non-miraculous or non-ma ...[text shortened]... n say that the scriptural explanation is more likely is by willfully ignoring everything else.
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by dunetwomaybe because humans are sentient curious beings who seek knowledge, not lumps of bacterias looking to eat and screw. that alone would be reason enough.
Why does it matter what the age of the grand canyon or the earth is?
to be more practical though: all knowledge will lead to some practical use in the near or distant future. we didn't have a use for chemistry when we first started dabbling in it, until we figured out how to make plastics and medicine and fuel. physics gave us airplanes and electricity. and so on. who knows what use we might get from understanding black holes for example. maybe a cheap, renewable energy source. maybe we would be able to save ourselves from a rogue black hole in the future.