The Great Debate (religion) |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 32 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this, Ok so far. though, just as with Gary's simulator thought experiment, it is possible (though outside scientific consideration) that the Universe was created a fraction of a second ago with all the elements set up to make it appear it's age coincides with the best approximation of science. Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely. | |
| ID: 1222273 · | |
random mutations Hawkings, yes. If you believe in chance. I do not. In part an answer to this question... Anyone know this man? | |
| ID: 1222274 · | |
Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this, Agreed and agreed, and yes, sometimes it's best to leve them to find their own answer or how someone else thinks. | |
| ID: 1222275 · | |
Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this, I wouldn't argue that the "simulator" view as a credible possibility, just that there are limits to what can be proved if supernatural entities are [ETA]not[/ETA] off the agenda. [ETA] apologies, missed an important word. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1222277 · | |
Isn't that a random deviance from it is all designed? What is beauty? ;-] | |
| ID: 1222278 · | |
*snip* It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality. ____________ Janice | |
| ID: 1222281 · | |
If you believe in chance. I do not. Thus you reject the current best approximation science provides for the Universe in which we find ourselves. I suspect we are done. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1222299 · | |
random mutations Let's not beat around the bush. A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple. If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile] On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis. | |
| ID: 1222300 · | |
Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? The list of why's is very long if we say who is correct... Man? No one has called String Theory correct. Not anyone that knows even a little about it. The TV character "Leonard" got it right, "It's just a beautiful internally consistent theory" that has not been proven yet by any means. Via Leonard, even non-science people will have some inkling of where things stand on string theory so far. | |
| ID: 1222301 · | |
random mutations Gary believes his argument means, with no chance, God decides all, so you have no freewill. Re-read what he said. He said nothing one way or the other about belief in a soul. | |
| ID: 1222302 · | |
quick note on evolution (darwin as prophet is not in the curriculum) Social Darwinism and other misinterpretations to outright deliberate misconstruations have nothing to do with the part about random selection. | |
| ID: 1222303 · | |
|
Actually, I don't think that we operate the same as the earth.
| |
| ID: 1222308 · | |
|
And there you go -- you don't believe in chance. It is, as you are saying, a belief.
| |
| ID: 1222311 · | |
Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? The list of why's is very long if we say who is correct... Man? @I.D. Hence why it's called String "THEORY". ____________ -Dave #2 | |
| ID: 1222319 · | |
*snip* Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick. God does not make junk. | |
| ID: 1222327 · | |
|
There you go, world looking very nailish indeed.
| |
| ID: 1222331 · | |
If you believe in chance. I do not. Not at all. Hawkings thinks that just 5 balls need to be removed for gravity to ACT over TIME to form what we see. Who removed 5 atoms? Soooooo, what if an odd number of H atoms where made and along with that a few atoms of (Li). Would not either or account? | |
| ID: 1222333 · | |
Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this, It's Gary's limb. Gary stated a hypothetical situation. Bobby simply said something along the lines of, "Now, if instead, reality really fits Gary's hypothetical situation, then ...". And I do not think Gary nor Bobby believes the hypothesis, but they are saying we have no way of testing it, to prove or refute it. | |
| ID: 1222337 · | |
Who removed 5 atoms? What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools. | |
| ID: 1222338 · | |
*snip* Appendix, anyone? | |
| ID: 1222340 · | |
Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |