Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs?

[Damocles]

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.

What's your physics like?

Here's a good one for the scientifically inclined:

<a class="postlink" href="http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001</a>

and of course, Scholar is always a good finder:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...yhi=2010&as_sdt=1&as_subj=phy&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Here's something a bit less formal, so a bit weaker evidence wise:

<a class="postlink" href="http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/evidence-grows-for-multiverse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2 ... verse.html</a>

It's hard to really get into without a massive post about it, which I'm sure I've done before in a thread about Hawking.

 

[BulgarianPride]

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.

Depends in which scientific field and how current does need to be?

The prove we believe is correct today will be a laughing matter for future generations. It doesn't mean it's wrong either, it just one possibility based on evidence gathered with current methods and technology.

Just like technology, a scientific concept gets outdated and it gets rebuild based on new evidence. We don't have all the evidence. Everything we've gathered might suggest in a multiverse, but unless we gather everything it is not proven to exist.<br /><br />-- Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:06 pm --<br /><br />

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

What's your physics like?

Here's a good one for the scientifically inclined:

<a class="postlink" href="http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001</a>

and of course, Scholar is always a good finder:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...yhi=2010&as_sdt=1&as_subj=phy&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Here's something a bit less formal, so a bit weaker evidence wise:

<a class="postlink" href="http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/evidence-grows-for-multiverse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2 ... verse.html</a>

It's hard to really get into without a massive post about it, which I'm sure I've done before in a thread about Hawking.

Thanks for that.

 

[tonea2003]

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

What's your physics like?

Here's a good one for the scientifically inclined:

<a class="postlink" href="http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v78/i3/e035001</a>

and of course, Scholar is always a good finder:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...yhi=2010&as_sdt=1&as_subj=phy&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Here's something a bit less formal, so a bit weaker evidence wise:

<a class="postlink" href="http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/evidence-grows-for-multiverse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2 ... verse.html</a>

It's hard to really get into without a massive post about it, which I'm sure I've done before in a thread about Hawking.

cheers
i'll work my way through until i find my level

 

[philinho]

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.

You're clearly not prepared to discuss it because you've already resorted to name calling, and describing my opinion as fantasy

 

[Damocles]

Sorry, when I said "some twat" I wasn't referring to you, more a frustration at people who refuse to believe scientific evidence conducted by experts because it disagrees with their world view.

Also, I'm not calling your opinion a fantasy, I'm calling the beliefs of those people above a fantasy.

Think of it in terms of a court case. If the two sides went to court (lets say over the age of the Earth), which would you believe? The side who presents evidence based on technology and repeatable, observable evidence, or the side who just say "I'm correct because I think I am"?

 

[philinho]

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?

I think I would agree with you if the world started and ended with the physical, or the physical realm and spiritual realm could be completely seperated and operated completely independently. Emotion cannot really be tested but surely no one would argue that emotion doesn't exist because it can't be tested and therefore proven?

I'm sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but I don't believe I ever stated that anything was fact. I said it was my belief, that there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

 

[Fame Monster]

there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

Genesis is blown out of the water by science.

I was going to post a George Carlin clip about religion but it might be a little insensitive but it sums up my view on it.

 

[Bluemoon115]

there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

Genesis is blown out of the water by science.

I was going to post a George Carlin clip about religion but it might be a little insensitive but it sums up my view on it.

I think to post such a clip would be disrespectful and insulting to religious people.














Here we go:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/youtube]

 

[Damocles]

I think I would agree with you if the world started and ended with the physical, or the physical realm and spiritual realm could be completely seperated and operated completely independently. Emotion cannot really be tested but surely no one would argue that emotion doesn't exist because it can't be tested and therefore proven?

Bad example mate, emotions are a chemical reaction in the body and the brain, and can be somewhat tested. We don't know enough about complex emotions to really nail it down, but enough to see that it exists.

I don't see why the physical and spiritual realms cannot be separated. One deals within our perception of reality and one deals in the reasons why things are this way. Philosophy and spirituality is just as important to the development of humanity as hard science is, if we want to be well rounded and enlightened individuals.
No scientist will ever try to prove WHY the universe exists, just what created it. If the two could work in tandem, we'd have a better world. That's why I believe that those with faith should be on the forefront of science; not rejecting it. Religion presents a closed world view; one where the ultimate questions are already answered leaving no room for anything else. I don't like these types of systems, as we have seem over centuries that truth can be found when we take our knowledge and pass it on to the next generation, who can then test it again.
Science tells us that we are constantly learning. It is a humbling process where any theory, even the one that you hold most dear, can be ripped apart at any moment when new evidence presents itself. I'd like to say that every scientist would rejoice in the fact that they have found truth, but the reality doesn't always work that way.
Religion tells us that a particular text tells us everything that we need to know about the world around us, which I believe is arrogant and foolish. Surely, God didn't give us a brain capable of logic, reason, and experiment then want us to ignore these things?

I'm sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but I don't believe I ever stated that anything was fact. I said it was my belief, that there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

Some scientific evidence can be. I don't see this as a big issue. The bible is a huge book, which describes many different parts of the world in language that can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'd be absolutely shocked it if didn't get hits sometimes. Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day.

 

[philinho]

I think I would agree with you if the world started and ended with the physical, or the physical realm and spiritual realm could be completely seperated and operated completely independently. Emotion cannot really be tested but surely no one would argue that emotion doesn't exist because it can't be tested and therefore proven?

Bad example mate, emotions are a chemical reaction in the body and the brain, and can be somewhat tested. We don't know enough about complex emotions to really nail it down, but enough to see that it exists.

I don't see why the physical and spiritual realms cannot be separated. One deals within our perception of reality and one deals in the reasons why things are this way. Philosophy and spirituality is just as important to the development of humanity as hard science is, if we want to be well rounded and enlightened individuals.
No scientist will ever try to prove WHY the universe exists, just what created it. If the two could work in tandem, we'd have a better world. That's why I believe that those with faith should be on the forefront of science; not rejecting it. Religion presents a closed world view; one where the ultimate questions are already answered leaving no room for anything else. I don't like these types of systems, as we have seem over centuries that truth can be found when we take our knowledge and pass it on to the next generation, who can then test it again.
Science tells us that we are constantly learning. It is a humbling process where any theory, even the one that you hold most dear, can be ripped apart at any moment when new evidence presents itself. I'd like to say that every scientist would rejoice in the fact that they have found truth, but the reality doesn't always work that way.
Religion tells us that a particular text tells us everything that we need to know about the world around us, which I believe is arrogant and foolish. Surely, God didn't give us a brain capable of logic, reason, and experiment then want us to ignore these things?

I'm sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but I don't believe I ever stated that anything was fact. I said it was my belief, that there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

Some scientific evidence can be. I don't see this as a big issue. The bible is a huge book, which describes many different parts of the world in language that can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'd be absolutely shocked it if didn't get hits sometimes. Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day.

I agree that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and do enjoy science myself, I don't have the understanding or the depth that you clearly do which is why I've tried not to knock it.

I agree that mainstream religion is very closed minded but also think that science can be, you've said yourself that if something can't be tested then it doesn't exist. I personally think that religion has given God a very bad name, and if God created everything like I believe then science has to work in line with God (not necessarily religion as we know it though). I just think there has to be more to things than can be tested/proven/understood by humans.

Anyway, el clasico just kicked off so going to watch the footy :-)

God bless<br /><br />-- Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:03 pm --<br /><br />

I think I would agree with you if the world started and ended with the physical, or the physical realm and spiritual realm could be completely seperated and operated completely independently. Emotion cannot really be tested but surely no one would argue that emotion doesn't exist because it can't be tested and therefore proven?

Bad example mate, emotions are a chemical reaction in the body and the brain, and can be somewhat tested. We don't know enough about complex emotions to really nail it down, but enough to see that it exists.

I don't see why the physical and spiritual realms cannot be separated. One deals within our perception of reality and one deals in the reasons why things are this way. Philosophy and spirituality is just as important to the development of humanity as hard science is, if we want to be well rounded and enlightened individuals.
No scientist will ever try to prove WHY the universe exists, just what created it. If the two could work in tandem, we'd have a better world. That's why I believe that those with faith should be on the forefront of science; not rejecting it. Religion presents a closed world view; one where the ultimate questions are already answered leaving no room for anything else. I don't like these types of systems, as we have seem over centuries that truth can be found when we take our knowledge and pass it on to the next generation, who can then test it again.
Science tells us that we are constantly learning. It is a humbling process where any theory, even the one that you hold most dear, can be ripped apart at any moment when new evidence presents itself. I'd like to say that every scientist would rejoice in the fact that they have found truth, but the reality doesn't always work that way.
Religion tells us that a particular text tells us everything that we need to know about the world around us, which I believe is arrogant and foolish. Surely, God didn't give us a brain capable of logic, reason, and experiment then want us to ignore these things?

I'm sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but I don't believe I ever stated that anything was fact. I said it was my belief, that there is some scientific evidence that can be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with the biblical account of things.

Some scientific evidence can be. I don't see this as a big issue. The bible is a huge book, which describes many different parts of the world in language that can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'd be absolutely shocked it if didn't get hits sometimes. Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day.

One more thing I meant to say, the bible doesn't tell us everything about the world around us, as you implied God created us inquisitive and intelligent people, it doesn't even mention masturbation! What it does do though is tells us how to have a relationship with God.