Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs?

[philinho]

Probably, but aren't you doing the same with the multiverse theory?

I'm just stating what I believe, that's why I used the term could, rather than is.

No, I'm stating the generally accepted scientific consensus of the state of existence, backed up by data from empirical and observational sources, tested through experimentation by many different, objective people.

It isn't the same thing at all.

There are millions of people who believe similar things to me too, many of which are well respected scientists... or so I'm told

 

[Bluemoon115]

Question. Why do people pray to God for his help, or intervention (Which is in other words, to change the way things are)?

The Christian God, from he get go, has had a divine plan. He has one for all of us, and shows us the way forward. Therefore, surely asking for something by prayer is doubting his plan, and ignoring his direction. In addition, it's extremely selfish to expect him to change his grad plan, and subsequent plans, all to accommodate your somewhat inferior needs.

Also, why do people say these prayers/make these requests on a Sunday, ie his DAY OFF!

 

[Damocles]

I agree that there is no need for there to be competition, but it seems to me there is a much stronger drive within science to disprove God, than there is amongst Christians to disprove science.

Absolutely true. This is because a scientist dedicates his whole life for truth, and the understanding of the world around us. There are very real methods that have been refined, updated and perfected over the course of millenias that we use to determine how we can find truth. They study their field constantly, for example, a good cosmologist will know everything from hardcore maths, to hardcore physics to hardcore chemistry to bits and pieces of other fields. They will then use this information to hypothesise theories based on the data they receive, which is another process that has been refined over thousands of years, to present experimentation and check their original hypothesis.
If the data accurately represents their conclusions , they then throw it out to the scientific community, who have also all spent numerous years studying numerous fields to determine whether they can recreate it.

Eventually, once this merry go round has happened numerous times, they get to a point where it is considered proven.

Then some twat comes along, who knows nothing about the subject, and declares that everybody is wrong because he read it in a highly edited book that was politically created 1500 years ago.

I have no problem with religious people who want to talk about religion, but keep your fantasies outside of science where it has to be treated like any other theory, which means that it is found to have little to no merit and dismissed.

 

[philinho]

Question. Why do people pray to God for his help, or intervention (Which is in other words, to change the way things are)?

The Christian God, from he get go, has had a divine plan. He has one for all of us, and shows us the way forward. Therefore, surely asking for something by prayer is doubting his plan, and ignoring his direction. In addition, it's extremely selfish to expect him to change his grad plan, and subsequent plans, all to accommodate your somewhat inferior needs.

Also, why do people say these prayers/make these requests on a Sunday, ie his DAY OFF!

Good points, and also a little funny!

He has a divine plan but he's not a dictator, He likes to do things in a kind of partnership with us...

And the bible teaches us to pray all the time

 

[Damocles]

No, I'm stating the generally accepted scientific consensus of the state of existence, backed up by data from empirical and observational sources, tested through experimentation by many different, objective people.

It isn't the same thing at all.

There are millions of people who believe similar things to me too, many of which are well respected scientists... or so I'm told

Isaac Newton believed in alchemy; that isn't true either.

Having lots of people, or respected people believe in something doesn't make it true. Being able to prove things under scientific standards makes it true.

EDIT: I've just re-read the last few posts and they come across as brash. I'm sorry, but this is something that really, really annoys me. Religion as a spiritual pursuit is fine and dandy; hell, knock yourselves out. When it tries to claim scientific truth though, that's when I get annoyed. You can claim spirituality, the existence of the afterlife, the creator God, all these types of things, without a problem. However, when you start dealing in systems such as the creation of things, the age of the Earth, the mechanisms of evolution, etc, you can be proven to be talking rubbish and despite knowing this, you continue to talk about it as a fact.

We already have pretty good methods of determining the reality around us, without the interjection of faith, which is the nemesis of logic and reason. Why not let the people who actually test things determine the nature of reality and the people who are spiritual work out the reasons for it? Wouldn't that just be a better system all around?

 

[malg]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo[/youtube]

Bill Hicks legend

Well done Dan. I've only just logged onto this thread, and was going to post the same, but thought it best to check out the other replies just in case. Shame for the guy, as I would have loved to have seen his take on the Iraq war and the occupation of Afghan....Christ only knows what he would have made of the greedy fucking bankers!

 

[BulgarianPride]

There are millions of people who believe similar things to me too, many of which are well respected scientists... or so I'm told

Isaac Newton believed in alchemy; that isn't true either.

Having lots of people, or respected people believe in something doesn't make it true. Being able to prove things under scientific standards makes it true.

EDIT: I've just re-read the last few posts and they come across as brash. I'm sorry, but this is something that really, really annoys me. Religion as a spiritual pursuit is fine and dandy; hell, knock yourselves out. When it tries to claim scientific truth though, that's when I get annoyed. You can claim spirituality, the existence of the afterlife, the creator God, all these types of things, without a problem. However, when you start dealing in systems such as the creation of things, the age of the Earth, the mechanisms of evolution, etc, you can be proven to be talking rubbish and despite knowing this, you continue to talk about it as a fact.

We already have pretty good methods of determining the reality around us, without the interjection of faith, which is the nemesis of logic and reason. Why not let the people who actually test things determine the nature of reality and the people who are spiritual work out the reasons for it? Wouldn't that just be a better system all around?

Just because a scientific concepts suggest something that does not mean it exists. I mean look at how many things should exist but have yet been found. Science tries to put a gigantic puzzle together. When the piece are not found, they make them or put the pieces that look like the best fit. Other than that i agree.

Age of our earth = 4-4.5 billion years old ( scientifically tested with evidence that does not lie)
A giant fish fossil on a mountain = mountain was a sea floor when that fish was alive. ( most probable conclusion)

 

[Damocles]

Just because a scientific concepts suggest something that does not mean it exists. I mean look at how many things should exist but have yet been found. Science tries to put a gigantic puzzle together. When the piece are not found, they make them or put the pieces that look like the best fit. Other than that i agree.

Age of our earth = 4-4.5 billion years old ( scientifically tested with evidence that does not lie)
A giant fish fossil on a mountain = mountain was a sea floor when that fish was alive. ( most probable conclusion)

Examples?

And the multiverse theory has now gotten to the point that the evidence has become overwhelming. It isn't about what suggest what, it is about what can be proven.

 

[tonea2003]

Just because a scientific concepts suggest something that does not mean it exists. I mean look at how many things should exist but have yet been found. Science tries to put a gigantic puzzle together. When the piece are not found, they make them or put the pieces that look like the best fit. Other than that i agree.

Age of our earth = 4-4.5 billion years old ( scientifically tested with evidence that does not lie)
A giant fish fossil on a mountain = mountain was a sea floor when that fish was alive. ( most probable conclusion)

Examples?

And the multiverse theory has now gotten to the point that the evidence has become overwhelming. It isn't about what suggest what, it is about what can be proven.

have you a good link to the multiverse evidence please damocles.
think it might be a good read.

 

[Bluemoon115]

Examples?

And the multiverse theory has now gotten to the point that the evidence has become overwhelming. It isn't about what suggest what, it is about what can be proven.

have you a good link to the multiverse evidence please damocles.
think it might be a good read.

He'll have to find a simple version, because honest to God, Damo can understand some extremely deep scientific documents.