Albareth Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 I'd be inclined to reply further - but sadly it's just same ol'shiznat to me, personally I'm just gonna say again it's foolish IMO to believe in something never even partially proved (documents say nothing - they exist to support most religions in some form and there can always have been nutcases around through history people believed in), and perfectly unneeded in any way since the principles of science explain the world well enough IMO. You can "act on faith" to believe in the tooth fairy, still doesn't make it any more real. Acting on faith is very much something the vikings did, slaughtering people to get glory and honour and die a valourous death to get to Valhalla... which they took on faith. IMO the same goes for christians and muslims, et cetera, doing more harm than good due to religious "partioning" of the world because of myths people are too busy trying to prove to look at disproving. Imo, trying to get the data to meet the result you've already come to is the wrong way, it seems that is a very popular thing to do among theists and atheists though, nothing to do about that I'm afraid. And no, I wasn't born atheist, I had the nerve to examine the results impartially and "signing out" (or however it's said in english) of the christian lutherian church. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Well, if there was no such thing as evolution, why do people of today not look like the earliest humans? Really?? I didn't know they obtained a photograph of an early human! <_< documents say nothing True, but when you have a certain amount of documents that all say almost the exact same thing written by very different people at very different times then I think its very safe to say that something significant happened wouldn't you...?? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Eltiraaz, why is it that with scientific data, you request absolute and undeniable proof of something, while with religious topics, you believe something just on faith, because it's in a book, or because a man in a dress told you so? Some people may consider that a double standard, or maybe even a wee bit hypocritical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Well, if there was no such thing as evolution, why do people of today not look like the earliest humans? Really?? I didn't know they obtained a photograph of an early human! <_< documents say nothing True, but when you have a certain amount of documents that all say almost the exact same thing written by very different people at very different times then I think its very safe to say that something significant happened wouldn't you...?? :rolleyes: Eltiraaz - compare skulls of early humans with those of today, and even you will have to admit that there is no way they could have looked the same - even with a ton of make-up! And no - when I see documents written by different people at different times saying the same thing my first thought would be that they the writers were very poor researchers, basing their document on older documents without quoting them as a reference, and without obtaining further evidence to corroborate the first document. Then I would ask myself for what purpose they wrote the same stuff again - perhaps to bring it into line with socio-political trends prevalent at the time of writing? Perhaps they were trying to ingratiate themselves with some faction or another? Perhaps they were trying to make a name for themselves? Perhaps they were simply employed by someone to spread propaganda? Just because there are lots of stories and movies about Santa Claus doesn't make them true stories. Regarding mass being destroyed in nuclear explosion - the accurate way of describing it would be that mass is converted into energy. Matter ceases to exist and becomes energy according to Einstein's mass-energy-equivalent equation. Also, matter and anti-matter can react in an annihilation event and become transformed into energy, and equally energy can become a particle/antiparticle pair. Also, it is not accurate that the mass of the sun is conserved. The sun fuses hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the mass of a helium nucleus is smaller than the sum of the masses of the hydrogen nuclei used to make the helium nucleus. The difference in mass is the energy produced in the fusion - energy in form of electromagnetic radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 But that energy has a mass equal to the difference in mass between two Hydrogen nuclei and one Helium nucleus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 But since this energy is radiated out into space it doesn't remain within the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Eltiraaz, why is it that with scientific data, you request absolute and undeniable proof of something, while with religious topics, you believe something just on faith, because it's in a book, or because a man in a dress told you so? Well, as I've said before it all comes down to you believe yes, or no. And since I find yes to be personally much more believable, then I don't need any proof to believe it. No on the other hand I find very sketchy, improbable, and even ridiculous (personally). Therefore I am much more skeptical about it. Call it one-sidedness if you want because that's exactly what it is. ;) BTW, its faith, its in The book, and I dont go to church, but even if I did it's a robe :rolleyes: . EDIT: Unacceptable language removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Er... Huh? You find, uh, yes.. Er, more favorable than no? Answering no to a question is ridiculous? Who, er... Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 No = No god, universe there to look purrty only. Yes = God, creation, light at the end of the tunnel, you get the picture. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Science is improbable and ridiculous? I'm an idiot for thinking that the risible nightgown a pastor wears is similar to a dress? If you're too biased and closed-minded to form any sort of appropriate argument supporting your beliefs, perhaps you should take your leave from this thread while you still have a shred of dignity left. EDIT: Unacceptable language removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.