Creationist: Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark

[Laivasse]

Read steven hawkings a breif history of time.
I've been reading it in bed for the past couple of days. Its wonderful.

I've tried and failed to read it twice. It starts out digestible but descends into mind-bendingness fairly quickly after a certain point.

And I think Stephen Hawking may have said something about the existence of god, or at least, the more scientists theorise about the nature and complexity of the universe, the less necessity there is for science and religion to clash. That's what I heard some physics expert saying on a late night BBC thing a while back.

 

[GhostBoi]

Raziaar, I don't think any theory could satisfy you. If you think about it for the minute you're wondering how could everything come of nothing? If everything didn't come from nothing then everything was there to begin with, which doesn't fit with human perception of the world. I have often wondered about this sort of thing to the point where I have almost given myself headaches.

I give this post my approval.

I mean seriously there is no other place for everything to have come from than nothing.

 

[Mr Stabby]

He doesn't say that.

which concludes my point, that is was confusing, that someone would base thier religious belief upon something which he did not say...

 

[Jintor]

I give this post my approval.

I mean seriously there is no other place for everything to have come from than nothing.

Technically, everything could've come from everything.

 

[Solaris]

Bing Bag theory doesn't mean that everything comes from nothing, if you take into account string theory and the whole mulitverse thing then our universe is one of infinate others all floting around in some 11 dimensional plane.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Everything started as thermal energy and will end up as thermal energy

 

[Sebastian]

We all came from an easter egg and that's a fact.

 

[AzzMan]

The problem is the science behind the creation of the universe etc. is far beyond what most people can even comprehend, let alone understand. The masses don't like that...

Exactly, people want the easy answer to everything... :|

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Bing Bag theory doesn't mean that everything comes from nothing, if you take into account string theory and the whole mulitverse thing then our universe is one of infinate others all floting around in some 11 dimensional plane.

Ooh eeh ooh ah ah
ting tang walla walla
bing bang theory?


---
Sorry. Absolutely could not resist.

omgroflq

 

[Apos]

Why do scorpions fluoresce? Noone knows... science can't even answer it

"Hasn't" isn't the same as "can't."

If science can't answer that, I don't see how it can answer the creation of the universe. <chuckles>

Unfortunately, this logic is wrong. It's often far easier to figure out macro-level questions than it is very specific very narrow questions. That's because a major event like, er, the universe, leaves a heck of a lot of evidence to go on. The exact evolutionary history of scorpions, however, is not necessarily something that is easy to suss out or for which there is a lot of evidence to work with. It's a lot harder to work on.

 

[Raziaar]

But who says we're taking that evidence and interpreting it correctly? We could be interpreting it entirely wrong.

 

[brink's]

But who says we're taking that evidence and interpreting it correctly? We could be interpreting it entirely wrong.

That's why its a theory.

 

[Cole]

Because a lot of the evidence we take in, we apply to every day things that have brought us to our current technological stage.

Science dosn't have all the answers right now. It may never, but the point of it is to find the answers. A side effect of this would be advancing technology. If something is interpreted wrong, eventually someone will wonder why there idea dosn't work when there are no flaws as long as everything works as it should. Then this will get bigger and scientists will challenge it and come up with some other idea which becomes a theory which we may then figure out and realize is a fact.

 

[Apos]

But who says we're taking that evidence and interpreting it correctly? We could be interpreting it entirely wrong.

That's true for anything. But once the evidence becomes overwhleming, the burden shifts: someone can't just come along and claim that we must be interpreting it incorrectly maybe: they have to explain why they have grounds to think so.

 

[Ome_Vince]

That guy is simply a "good" demagoge. Very skilled at filtering out information to fit this stuff.
Funny how he plays alot with the "rediculing approach" vs scientific theories.
Although i must say, that's often an atheists approach too..
hmm..similarities

 

[Jintor]

Hmm? Explain this 'ridiculing approach', please - i don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(mainly because i didn't see the thing)

 

[Gunner]

Hmm? Explain this 'ridiculing approach', please - i don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(mainly because i didn't see the thing)

I think he means the humoristic approach, the guy is a redneck douchebag who tosses in jokes here in there during his seminar: like why are so many american italians named Tony? because when their parents and grandparents first came to america they had To: NY written on their forehead... and people actually laughed. The whole thing is a bad joke, he's a joke, his beliefs are a joke too.