Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Evolution vs. Creationism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEvolution vs. Creationism
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 29>
Poll Question: What represents your opinion best?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [3.23%]
3 [4.84%]
12 [19.35%]
45 [72.58%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:39
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries?  What's wrong with that?  Wink


Spoken like a true snakeWink. For one, evolution is neither opinion nor belief. It is a theory. Which is again an ambiguous word, as explained by Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of the book I linked to. And while it is true that scientific theories sometimes need to be amended as new discoveries are made, evolution as a theory has not been changed since the days of Darwin.


Wait, so if I failed to understand something (even something as pedantic as saying "opinion" instead of "theory,") it's okay to recommend me a book?  I'll do you one better.  Here's two:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Exodus-Scientists-Discovery-Extraordinary/dp/0060582731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259436957&sr=1-1



'opinion' and 'theory' are two different things, Robert, especially when speaking in scientific terms. Theory can be supported through scientific equations and studies; opinion can't be proven nor disproven since it requires neither to take place in order to hold its name.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.


If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news.

Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative.  Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious

BTW: I thought the bible was more than just a "piece of writing"?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/red+herring

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/


I created this thread, and the topic is creationism versus evolution. It is you who started to ridicule things, and drawing specious analogies. I referred to a book about evolution and the evidence that supports it - I can't make heads or tales of the two books you linked to. Are they in any way related to the topic?
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world. Disapprove

Are you for real?

What makes you think I'm not? Confused

Because you just said science doesn't support science. Confused You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.


Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:44
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:43
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.

This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.

Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.

Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!

Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.

See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.


But you see Micah, people go about things backwards.  I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.  Wink

The Bible is Middle Eastern literature.  As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc.  EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages).  But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.

Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him LOL).

I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles.  If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.

Sadly, that's what most folks do.

From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that.  I have not spent much time studying the subject.  I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars."  I have a few books these people should read.  Smile

And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries?  What's wrong with that?  Wink

Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification.

I'll be damned.


I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:46
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.

This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.

Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.

Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!

Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.

See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.


But you see Micah, people go about things backwards.  I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.  Wink

The Bible is Middle Eastern literature.  As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc.  EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages).  But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.

Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him LOL).

I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles.  If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.

Sadly, that's what most folks do.

From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that.  I have not spent much time studying the subject.  I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars."  I have a few books these people should read.  Smile

And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries?  What's wrong with that?  Wink

Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification.

I'll be damned.


I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.  Wink

But He didn't, did He? So we'll never know.

Honestly, if you were going to share the answer to life with somebody, would you write a book full of riddles and symbolism? Or would you tell people straight out what happened?


Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:49
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:49
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.

This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.

Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
LOL and Satan - a rebellious angel is not a problem?
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." - Modern measurement units equate this to 133m x 22m x 13.4m - a total volume of around 39,000m³. Or 1.3mm³ for each species alive today (about this >•< much), or 1.3µm³ for each species that ever existed - which is more than enough room if they were "stored" as DNA. Wink
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
"Reed" and "Red" are English (near) homophones - it is very unlikely that they would be mistranslated from Hebrew or Greek like that, but you could be on the right track.
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal. Tongue
(Probably for the first time) I agree with Rob here - in there is an issue of interpreting the scriptures too deeply, or in reading any level of allegorical or idiomatically meaning into the text, probably as much as an issue with taking the words as literal, especially from a Western 21st Century perspective. They are bronze age documents describing the world in bronze age terminology from a bronze age perspective - I do not doubt that to a bronze age Israelite the meanings of every phrase was obvious, but after 3000+ years whatever the original meaning was has become buried and obfuscated.
 
However, that does not mean that I am willing to take at face-value any interpretation made by scholars on this subject, because no matter how well educated they are on the subject, or how well versed they are in the ancient Hebrew language, they are still do not have the complete picture, and can never have because the source of their knowledge is the very documents they purport to be interpreting.
 


Edited by Dean - November 28 2009 at 13:50
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:51
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.


If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news.

Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative.  Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious

BTW: I thought the bible was more than just a "piece of writing"?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/red+herring

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/


I created this thread, and the topic is creationism versus evolution. It is you who started to ridicule things, and drawing specious analogies. I referred to a book about evolution and the evidence that supports it - I can't make heads or tales of the two books you linked to. Are they in any way related to the topic?


All I said initially was something to Micah about biblical idiom, and it was really an aside.  What, Mike, did I "ridicule?"  As the thread shows, you felt the need to initiate dialogue with me.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.


That, Mike, is a specious statement, one which ridicules biblical narrative.

If you wanted a thread where the biblical narrative (including that of creation) can be bashed without rebuttal, why didn't you just say so?  I'll leave you to it.



Edited by Epignosis - November 28 2009 at 13:52
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.

This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.

Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
LOL and Satan - a rebellious angel is not a problem?
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." - Modern measurement units equate this to 133m x 22m x 13.4m - a total volume of around 39,000m³. Or 1.3mm³ for each species alive today (about this >•< much), or 1.3µm³ for each species that ever existed - which is more than enough room if they were "stored" as DNA. Wink
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
"Reed" and "Red" are English (near) homophones - it is very unlikely that they would be mistranslated from Hebrew or Greek like that, but you could be on the right track.
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal. Tongue
(Probably for the first time) I agree with Rob here - in there is an issue of interpreting the scriptures too deeply, or in reading any level of allegorical or idiomatically meaning into the text, probably as much as an issue with taking the words as literal, especially from a Western 21st Century perspective. They are bronze age documents describing the world in bronze age terminology from a bronze age perspective - I do not doubt that to a bronze age Israelite the meanings of every phrase was obvious, but after 3000+ years whatever the original meaning was has become buried and obfuscated.
 
However, that does not mean that I am willing to take at face-value any interpretation made by scholars on this subject, because no matter how well educated they are on the subject, or how well versed they are in the ancient Hebrew language, they are still do not have the complete picture, and can never have because the source of their knowledge is the very documents they purport to be interpreting.
 

You're f**king with me, right? You knew I was being sarcasting in my post as well, while trying to make a point, correct?

If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you completely.

Except for, y'know . . . the whole agreeing with Rob thing. LOL

(Love ya, Rob. Mean it! Tongue)


Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:53
Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world. Disapprove

Are you for real?

What makes you think I'm not? Confused

Because you just said science doesn't support science. Confused You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.

I'm just saying that science as I understand it should evaluate observations and experimental results without ruling out a great deal of possible explanations in advance and without any sensible reason. Isn't that what the scientific method is all about?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:54
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.  Wink


I simply reject things that are disproved by this world we live in.
Back to Top
zappaholic View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by Hemispheres Hemispheres wrote:

Your all a bunch of communist liberals, with all your socialism!!!!!! Not too mention you are destroying the world.Wink

 
Remember, Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat Atheists use to keep God out of their brainwaves!  LOL
 
 
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:59
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world. Disapprove

Are you for real?

What makes you think I'm not? Confused

Because you just said science doesn't support science. Confused You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.

I'm just saying that science as I understand it should evaluate observations and experimental results without ruling out a great deal of possible explanations in advance and without any sensible reason. Isn't that what the scientific method is all about?

When have scientists EVER ruled out something without exploring it first? Give me one recorded account of this happening.

The reason why Scientists have not tested creationism (or 'intelligent design') is because there is nothing there to test! Intelligent design is NOT scientific! Do you not understand that? How is a scientist supposed to even attempt to prove something that doesn't have any scientific basis whatsoever? They can't snatch the equation out of thin air!

If one day 'intelligent design' ends up being discovered as a scientific theory, then of course scientists would study it further. But how are you supposed to prove something that has yet to be discovered through actual science? It's like asking them to find an equation for the Berenstein Bears, or something! Where is this equation supposed to come from? The ink in the pages?


Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 14:02
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:03
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


You're f**king with me, right? You knew I was being sarcasting in my post as well, while trying to make a point, correct?

If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you completely.

Except for, y'know . . . the whole agreeing with Rob thing. LOL

(Love ya, Rob. Mean it! Tongue)
I think there are enough LOL and Wink in my reply to indicate where I am coming from. Tongue
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:06
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.  Wink


I simply reject things that are disproved by this world we live in.
I think that just emphasises the fact that the problems we have in reading the scriptures today were just as problematic 2000 years ago as they were already ancient and archaic even then.
What?
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:08
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


You're f**king with me, right? You knew I was being sarcasting in my post as well, while trying to make a point, correct?

If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you completely.

Except for, y'know . . . the whole agreeing with Rob thing. LOL

(Love ya, Rob. Mean it! Tongue)
I think there are enough LOL and Wink in my reply to indicate where I am coming from. Tongue

Actually, there was only one of each, but alright, alright. I was just making sure we were on the same page, here. Smile
Back to Top
Proletariat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:11
wheres the option for "who cares how stuff got here"

Edited by Proletariat - November 28 2009 at 14:12
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:13
I think all the theories (because let's face it, they are THEORIES as no-one actually KNOWS) are pretty much bullsh*t. Man isn't intelligent enough to work out the answers to these questions, and probably never will be. In fact, I find someone who thinks he knows the answers to be quite pompous, because let's face it: compared to the Earth and all its inhabitants (discovered and undiscovered), any number of people is pretty insignificant and small.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:13
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

wheres the option for "who cares how stuff got here"

That's in the ''sit on our ass and smoke pot'' thread. Go find it. Hurry, hurry.
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:17
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I think all the theories (because let's face it, they are THEORIES as no-one actually KNOWS) are pretty much bullsh*t. Man isn't intelligent enough to work out the answers to these questions, and probably never will be. In fact, I find someone who thinks he knows the answers to be quite pompous, because let's face it: compared to the Earth and all its inhabitants (discovered and undiscovered), any number of people is pretty insignificant and small.

Well, I already addressed the difference between opinion and scientific theory, Alex.

And I hope you aren't saying us sciance lovers are 'pompous', because science can be proven. If you're gonna call evolutionists pompous, might as well go ahead and deny every scientific theory there is, including the earth being flat and the planets spinning around the sun.

Science never claims to know all the snawers, anyway; it's just trying to explain as much as we can, and it is always open for re-evaluating and new discoveries. Creationists, on the other hand, claim to know it all right off the bat, and that nothing will chaneg their position, despite their position being disproven time and time again.


Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 14:19
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:19
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I think all the theories (because let's face it, they are THEORIES as no-one actually KNOWS) are pretty much bullsh*t. Man isn't intelligent enough to work out the answers to these questions, and probably never will be. In fact, I find someone who thinks he knows the answers to be quite pompous, because let's face it: compared to the Earth and all its inhabitants (discovered and undiscovered), any number of people is pretty insignificant and small.
AaarrrrGGH!!
 
Alex - there is a world of difference between a Scientific Theory and a general theory, please do not confuse the two.
 
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 29>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.367 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.