There is something to explain the science and bible thing about how old earth is. Doing more search on it still.
Haha@ Moose, junk science would not include Either of the examples you chose. I am going to go with you're trolling and hope you're not that uneducated on science because I've seen you post relatively educated threads in the past discussing science.
@care to elaborate then? Matter can be created spontaneously if there is energy. And energy is something after all.
No, science cannot disprove God. Common sense already disproves God. Can science rule out the possibility of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, science cannot do either of these things.
Homedawg, don't you see how you sound exactly like a religious person? So many Christians say that they don't understand now, but they will eventually. They also say that the greatness of God is unfathomable. Also they argue that all will be revealed eventually during the second coming. All I gotta do is replace science with God in your statements..
But i have to disagree with moose on one thing. Natural selection seems like a great theory. Even nowadays species are constantly dying out and interbreeding (creating hybrids) to survive. Humans are evolving, in a sense too. Not physically but people are now gaining a genetic resistance to viruses in africa. Some Asians have epitheleal folds over their eyes to protect them from heavy snowfall. Darker skinned people live in places near the equator. Given millions of years i believe it is entirely possible for genetic mutations to drastically change the appearance and functionality of organisms to better suit changing environments.
Exactly Orpheus. Also, the earth has been dated to about 4.56 billion years old, though the accuracy may not be great (it's still a lot older than originally thought) the "facts" in the bible were true 2000 years ago. Something is true so long as everyone agrees on it, meaning that truth is fluid. It can change over time, based on what is accepted by the public. Also, humans are way older than 12,000 years also, regardless of whether they made 1 mistake dating a tooth.
Yellow - The idea of something lasting for indefinatly is not a paradox. For something to start and not end is nothing of a hard concept. Something that has an end is required to have a beginning, something that has a start is not neccisarily required to have an end. It's simple conceptual thinking, a skill you should have developed in basic highschool physics; that is, if you've taken that class yet
@natural selection no longer holds true for humanoids. People of all races, gender, height, ect still breed even with their disadvantages. An ugly dude might not get much ponaynay, but many of them sill have wives and children.
Poison - I love that point. An accusation is only perseved as a truth if the majority of a persons surroundings believe in said accusation. Simply: society controls the truth; not what we perseve as "facts". Jac, I'm sure you know alot on that subject haha
Yellow - The "imperfections" and "disadvantages" you speak of are completely a matter of personal opinion. You cannot base your evidence to disprove natural selection on the purely opinionated desires of suitable mates, that's just childish.
That is utter ********. Firstly, physics classes in Highschool generally do not delve into those matters. Secondly, you are completely off point. For something to have been around forever with no beginning is impossible. What you are engaging in is called a fallacy. It's just like asking " where does negative infinity start?"
God will exist as long as people need hope. People will always need hope to survive dark times and hardships. Therefore, God will always exist. No science can destroy religion as long as one person believes.
Yellow - The term "humanoid" isn't used for a reason. It implies a being or creature of some sort that resembles the basic form of the human race, not the human race itself. A humanoid would be a forgein being outside of the human race. Please use proper terms and vocabulary.
moose on evolution It's an antiquated school of thought from the 1800s and although it makes sense small scale to show how animals ADAPT, it is woefully inadequate to describe the origins of life. Sorry. A new scientific theory needs to be developed for that, and there is a shelf full of Nobel prizes for the brilliant mind that can shake this antique way of thinking and offer new and better insights into where we came from (biologically and scientifically speaking) Newtonian physics is the same as evolution. It is anantique mode of science with limited use; Einstein and hawking, Oppenheimer, Plank, and Bohr were required to give us deeper understandings of the universe. How foolish would we be if we never thought to challenge newton? Moose on global warming I am sorry but as a person who loves science, this debate pains me. 1. How does one accurately measure the temperature of an entire plannet. 2. How do we know what the ideal temperature is? 3. Our data pool is to limited. We can only measure temperature with decent accuracy for the last 60 years, so we don't have enough data points 4. al Gore shoves this theory down our throats. Last I checked, he is a politician, NOT a scientist 5. There is no consensus in the scientific community on global warming. The dissent from this theory among professionals is loud 6. Global warming is pushed by the American media. The media in England and in Germany have left this theory in the dust, but europe has struck me as being more open minded on a good many issues. Anyhow, those are it the musings of an idle moose
No it's not. Keep in mind the earliest bipedal humanoids. Many of the weak, ugly (ugliness can signify bad health and genes) died off due to predators, lack of food, and inter species competition. In the modern era we have none of those things to eliminate the weak. Now, people who have worse genes tend to mate with those with worse genes as well. This will not make our species evolve. This is not an opinion, just take a look at all the parents you see.
Yellowhart you must be a genius; oh wait; Einstein proved that through e=mc^2 70 years ago. Oh, did you not know what that equation meant? And okay cool well dark matter is not spontaneously created matter through energy. But still; I'm not even freaking talking about dark matter lmao. Don't pretend like you're cool because you think you know what dark matter is. It's like I'm having an srgument about Elephants and you start talking about squirrels. Idgaf. I'm not talking about dark matter
Yellow - There is no way to know that. For you to say something had to have started for it to last for an infinite amount of time, you would have to be able to prove (or observe) the start of that something. You have no way of proving there ever was a start.