Reply With Quote
Lol lack of understanding
lol lack of understanding
Lol lack of understanding
for I Hustle from that Christian that wrote that:
Of course, the dude goes off further about not taking things literal which is just another way of saying that he prefers cherry picking the good parts of the religion and ignore the insane...... Science figured out something long ago that religion still struggles with. Built into the scientific method is the assumption that/ all hypotheses and theories should be held loosely, and ultimately, released in exchange for new ones when the evidence before us calls for it. Religion, on the other hand, tends to carve out a position and defend it tirelessly, from generation to generation, sometimes to the death.
Even Christian asshole/scammer Pat Robertson is telling Ham to STFU
This is the way it is right now.
Every belief in science is based on fragments to some degree.
We have no clear idea about the reason why masses attract each other... Gravity, curves space on and on... So how does mass curve space? So you want gravity out of physics?
And your missing link? What exactly are you talking about? We will never find one common ancestor, we will find numerous common ancestors that have many things in common with each other and then try to determine the relationships. Do you not believe we have not found skeletons that are human like, but are clearly NOT modern humans. You don't believe these exist? And you don't believe we have found many others that are even less like like modern humans? And you don't believe that we have found skeletons that are like apes, but are clearly not modern apes that have characters in common with modern humans but are very, very different than modern humans?
So you are expecting a perfect half man half ape fossil? Really? What do you expect to find to convince you?
And when new fossils are found new branches and pathways will be added. So until we find every possible fossil, evolution is a myth?
Bravo!
LOL
It was just an example. Do I believe that fossils have been found that are human like? Yes. Does that automatically mean that it wasn't just a species or type of animal that lived once and died out? Could it be someone that suffered from a deformity or arthritis? Are these things possible?
I am asking you seriously because parts of me want to believe that you are somewhat knowledgeable and not just a "LOL look at Psalms" guy like BLake.
Want to know what's hilarious? I actually believe in evolution up to a point. I believe that people and creatures have to adapt to surroundings.
I guess the big question is creation itself. Even if you believe in evolution completely you have to agree that it's pretty tough to break down because everything had to come from SOMETHING. Then what did that something come from? Which is why I believe that most people turn to religion to answer their question. I mean, you don't want to believe that *poof* humans appeared and that is perfectly reasonable but there had to be a poof moment right? I mean going ALL the way back.
What parts of you want to actually research the instead of relying on plausibility?
No parts.
Where did God come from? Your infinite regress seems plausible until you stop at a cherry picked location where you allow all the rules to conveniently change.
I'm not arguing for religion. I said that it why people have turned to religion. I didn't cherry pick any moment in time. My point was that you CAN'T pinpoint it. There fore it CAN'T be researched.
So then why does it matter what you believe? You're not interested in actually knowing, just in getting a thin surface level comfort about what you already believe to be true based on the plausibility of claims that you judge using illogical reasoning.
It doesn't have to be religion. Regardless what created everything, what created that? You're just hiding that little necessity in the fog of ignorance. Many things can be researched, and you should probably do that before you decide you cannot know. Your stance on it is part and parcel of a religious mindset of lazy thinking where people like Ken Ham can cause you to raise an eyebrow.
But it's not new. The age old retorts to scientific discovery from religious folk have been laced with these same fallacious thought processes that are easily debunked.
Again, I am not arguing for religion. I am just saying that you can't just be researched. You are lying to yourself if you think the beginning of OUR creation here can be researched. It can't. There are theories and beliefs but research can't be done. You are right, I am too lazy to build a time machine.
Why are you fighting me? I showed solidarity with you by posting a pic of my hand as well. I thought we were hand brothers.
How can you know? What is illogical about saying that there is absolutely NO WAY of knowing how we came about nor can it be researched?
Because it's a self defeating argument. How can you know that there is no way of knowing? Why can't it be researched? Or do you prescribe to the notion that nothing is truly knowable?
Why can't the beginning of time as we know it be researched? hhhhmmmmmmmmm
Here you accept creation without any evidence whatsoever. With that at ude, we'd not have any clue as to what happened prior to recorded history. Our models are fairly consistent with our findings and if findings suggest otherwise, our models change. We are learning our past prehistorically. We might not have all the pieces, but we are building the puzzle. You're saying there's no need to start building a puzzle because we'll never know. You'll never know if there's an afterlife while you're alive. Why assume there is? Why even posit it (hypothetically speaking)?
We are brothers of the hand. Hand on the run, as Paul would say.
Aren't there are lot of hypotheses involved in all of this ? I mean scientists cannot definitively tell us how big dinosaurs were or what they looked like. They just base that off bones.
You cannot be real. No one is that pathetic in real life and that stupid at the same time.
"as we know it"?
Listen, HANDsome how about the beginning of our existence? Since you don't like that word. I don't even mean human existence. I am talking about everything. I accept that we are here, I'll give you that.
our concept of time. Who knows how far everything actually goes back. Not just the earth but everything.
There are some problems with ability to conceptualize time. If time started with the Big Bang, then there was no time prior (and no such a prior) to that. However we can only conceptualize from a remote viewer standpoint so we have the tendency to look "before" that initial event (if it existed). That's flawed and cannot produce the truth. It's like saying "how could this board end here, what was before this?". There was something before it, but it wasn't wood. With time, the "before" depends on time itself, so we cannot apply "time before time", it's a paradox and paradoxes cannot exist in the universe. That's why people assign a prime mover into the equation, something that isn't restricted by the same rules of physics that all energy and matter are restricted to. That's the magical "get out of jail free" card. It doesn't answer the questions, it just makes a more complicated one by pushing the problem back one place (to the prime mover).
However, what if time has no beginning and no end? What if matter and energy always were (theoretically that's even true under the Big Bang since "always" infers "since the beginning of time"). But we can think in terms of always and overcome the need to apply a "time before time" marker to initial events. So a ring has no beginning and no end. Many things in the universe have a sinusoidal pattern to their movements. The universe could be the same way, rising and falling based on a cycle that's "always" been.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions