Carobit Philosophy and Reason Conversation: Pino check this out

Your Connection

guest
Log out
Log in or Sign Up

Site Navigation

Home
Forum Home
Closed Conversations

For Members

Support
Feedback
Member Search
Carobit Mail

Helpful Links

Smilies
Formatting
Preview

Originator:	trekie1	Printable Version
Title:	Pino check this out

Back to Philosophy and Reason

Attachments Add Attachment

History

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/17 21:25:13
ran across this site and thought you mite find it interesting www.drdino.com click on downloads and watch the first video....may seem boreing at first but give it a chance dude remember our little debate on EE a few years back concerning the bible? if this dont do the trick then you eather have a very thick skull or you didn't watch LOL just kiddin ofcourse but do give it a look see ....some of it may be bull however he does have some very interesting theorys James

From: muso	On: 2006/11/18 08:31:25
"Creation Science" - that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. This is what it's really all about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24&eurl=

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/18 10:11:56
LOL an expected responce ...so muso is placeing himself in the category of "my great great great great great great grandpa was a rock :) you posted too soon dude (those are long videos over 2 hrs each) ...you didn't give the video a fair shake ..watch with an open mind by the way..are you and sis still an item ?? haven't heard from her in a while

From: muso	On: 2006/11/18 11:07:40
> you didn't give the video a fair shake I'll have to admit, I've only watched 5 minutes of it. I'll report back when I've had enough time to make a more constructive (and less reactive, and sarcastic reaction) response to it. > by the way..are you and sis still an item ?? If you mean Sandi, then yes very much so thanks (we're engaged)

From: Huntress	On: 2006/11/18 11:42:42


From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/18 14:09:18
hi sis good to here ok now both of you go watch videos .... you have to watch a while before it gets interesting as you will see its not your typical Evangelism, save your soul kind of thing ...he's got a lot of theorys that after a while start makeing lots of sense ...especialy the holes he punches in the big bang theory and evolution now granted I may have found these videos so interesting because thats the way I believe however I think with an open mind anyone who has questions will also find them informative as well as interesting sis will testify I am no bible thumper..hell I an't been inside a church in years and i'm certainly not trying to save anybodys soul but the dude seems to have done his homework .. I watched all seven and thats a hell of a lot of watching videos but worth it me thinks :)

From: muso	On: 2006/11/18 16:45:23
> ok now both of you go watch videos Right. I actually watched the whole of the first video. Interesting. It's interesting that he starts off by stating the danger of mixing truth with lies, and that's exactly what he end up doing. You might feel that you have nothing to lose by believing in a god, but I need to know what I believe can be corroborated. He argues that scientists lie about findings to discredit the Bible (and are funded by the government), and this is then taught to kids in school. How can that be when America's own president is advised by the likes of the Christian evangalist Ted Haggard, and around two-thirds of Americans believe in god? If Kent Hovind can discredit these theories so easily, how come they have any credence in modern science? The trouble with lies is that they are so easy to expose. He talks about brainwashing, yet the example he gives is a riddle; a riddle that is missing specific details. Just like the examples that he uses for his arguments are carefully selected and worded to neatly link with his message. In fact the only bit of the sermon that isn't brainwashing was his example of brainwashing. He says that if you shout a lie loudly and often enough, sooner or later something will start to stick. Well, if you give lectures with no one to oppose your views you're in a good position to do just that. It's also a nice anecdote to use to say that one has never lost an argument, as Kent Hovind did at the start - but with no one to oppose that. He has all the hall-marks of a good confidence trickster. He also doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of women. I wonder whether Christianity appeals to him because it makes out that Eve was created of Adams rib - whereas science has it that man has an imperfect chromosome, XY, compared to XX of the female.

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/18 22:21:59
ok...I agree with you on several points...yes he does come across as a bit bias towards women :) a saleman for sure and several other things make him a bit hard to take...but he is a scientist/ teacher or so he says.. aside from all that I was refering to (being interesting) what he said and his theorys explained to where a dumbass country hick like myself could understand ...the first video is informative but the others go into more detail on each subject as you will see.. LOL..come on now watch the second one <grin> make him watch it sis and you too..as I recall your not much on Creation Science eather muso as far as I can tell and I think Kent Hovind said it...scientist cant disprove the bible nor can they or anyone else prove its authenticity...so...he's going at this with a different approach...he's attempting to prove with theorys that they (scientist) are wrong saying the age of the earth is 65 or so billion years old and that dinosaur's haven't been extinct for millions of years...pretty much covered in the later videos and covered quiet well I may add :) and so...if proved or enough doubt is cast..there goes the evolution theory or at least put creatisum and evolutisum back on equal footing as far as text books are concerned.. anyway it answered several questions I have wondered about for long time ..for example did you know why the word dinosaur isn't in the bible? only became a word in the 1800's (didn't know that) before they were refered to as Dragons...now then how did people thousands of years ago know about dragons if they became extinct millions of years ago (dont think there were any archeologist back then ) and enough sightings in later years suggest they may be still around..wouldn't know about that..never went dino hunting how did Noah fit all those animals into the ark?? he would have taken baby animals and only animals of its kind..not different species and yes I suspect he had baby dragons onboard <gulp> did I say that ?? sounds rather fantastic doen't it ..who knows?? dam i'm tired of typeing (two finger pickin) watch da movie

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/19 04:14:26
Hi trekie1 Sorry dude but I am not going to waste my time with yet another idiot. And yes, if you must you may call me "closed minded" or any such nonsense.

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/19 11:09:22
ok pino doesn't want to play....muso you said I need to know what I believe can be corroborated. could you elaborate a bit on this please (these dam big words are killin me :) pino you could have at least watched video 3 dinosaurs...speaks quiet a lot on your very own Nessy (is that a hoax too?) ah never mind..your much too busy believeing you dont believe in anything hummmmmmmmm believeing you dont believe in anything?? that kinda sounds like some form of religon in itself dont it I believe my great great great great great grandpa was a rock or soup that evolved over millions/billions of years ago because some very great/smart scientist's said so and they have rock solid proof/theorys...ofcourse the fact that a few of these great men changed their mind later on dont mean squat.....sounds convinceing enough to me ...hell I mite just have to change my way of thinking ??? did I mention its been proven that carbon dateing is even less reliable than lie detector test and therefore inadmissable as evidence...they just dont work one last thing...I am not trying to convert anybody..I simply like to elaborate with others on this subject..hopefully with smarter, better informed people than myself and thats not hard to do (backwoods Arkansas uneducated hillbilly) granted the dude in the video is a male chauvinist..a salesman..an egotistic ass thats trying to make money off others...however he does have some very scientific detailed theorys and evidence that I found very interesting ..ya just gots to look past the bullshit

From: muso	On: 2006/11/19 14:18:28
> ya just gots to look past the bullshit You really should read his biography here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind And a recent news story about him here: en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_faces_a_58-count_federal_indictment And also ask yourself why he is being criticised not only by evolutionists, but also by OTHER CREATIONISTS: <extract from en.wikipedia.org> Hovind has come into conflict with other young earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their cause. One in particular, Answers in Genesis, has publicly criticised him [59] after he had criticised AiG's article, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[60] In the letter Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati noted that some claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[59] He is also criticised by Creation Ministries International (formerly AiG Australia). Their article "Maintaining Creationist Integrity"[61] responds to Hovind's criticism of the original Answers in Genesis article. </extract from en.wikipedia.org> trekie1, you obviously are intelligent enough to realise that at least some of what Kent Hovind says is bullshit. What I hope you eventually realise is how damaging the work Kent does is; not to science, which continues to develop under constant scrutiny, but to the creationists that he claims to defend. If I was a Christian, I'd be ashamed of being associated with the same belief as a fraudster as Kent (even his qualifications are questionable - a Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, in "Christian education").

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/19 17:02:38
LOL so the dude has a few character flaws and dont like to pay taxes .....he may be a real fruitcake for all I know but another way one can look at all this attention he's getting is...when you step on the wrong toes the man is gona come down on you like a ton of bricks..Look what they did to Jesus Christ when he started steppin on the wrong toes ...religion is a touchy subject and some dont play fair when discredited,proved wrong, questioned in any way some people are imposiable to debate (I suspect he's one of them) answering questions with questions you know the type...I also suspect he's pissed off more than one heavyweight with his theorys and debates I'm not takeing up for this idiot however I do know how the system here in the states work...you go along and you can get along but ...step on the wrong toes and the powers who be can and will ruin you (that is no theory..its a fact) those other creationist that are pissed....I wouldn't pay no mind to that..all them ole boys are buddys..may not see eye to eye on all things/ideals but nevertheless buddys...its a big game and lots of money at stake and lets not forget the way the media takes things out of context..nuff said (what you want to bet they let him off...) his questionable qualifications ?? LOL all ya got to do is show up at any of the universitys now days to pass...that is unless you play basketball,football,pingpong,chess, ect education in the states is a joke (tell him sis) I hadn't read all about him before posting and prob wouldn't have posted if I had.....however...after thinking on it a bit I still like some if not most of his theorys better than the ones about my great great great great great great grandpa being a friggin rock/soup/nuthin thought ya had me didn't you <grin>

From: muso	On: 2006/11/20 00:28:11
> thought ya had me didn't you <grin> No, I just hope that you're careful what to believe, and what not to. I've deliberately skirted around the subjects that he brought up because there is a lot that he goes through, and most of it I've seen before. In short it's the same kind of drivel that creationists have come up with before to make the Bible seem scientific. The Bible isn't a book of science, it's full of parables that aren't supposed to be taken seriously. The flood, for example, and Noah's ark. Most of the main arguments he used have either been debunked before, or they are plain rubbish, or both. And to think that 4000 years ago we spread all around the world with so many languages and ancient cultures from just Noah and his family? ... Pure bollocks. If what Kent said was even slightly true, then no one would have any doubt about god. We would all know exactly how it happened, as it will only have been passed down for 6000 years.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/20 01:48:56
Check this timeline for documented civilizations dating back thousands of years: http://www.wwno...y/worldciv/referenc/wrldtime.htm Note that there are examples from all the continents. If everything with "a nostril" was taken onboard Noah's Ark 4000 years ago how would we have human settlements all around the world - each with their own culture and language. Adam and Eve only had ONE language - now we have something like 3000 - 8000 (that would be a new language a year - how many new languages have emerged, say, in the last 500 years?). If everything with "a nostril" was taken onboard Noah's Ark 4000 years ago then what did they live on? Probably around half of the animals would be carnivores, and if all the animals were all babies then they also would be vunerable to disease, starvation, exposure... You really don't need to dig deep to see serious flaws in this. Even using common sense - without even beginning to touch on anything vaguely scientific. More scientifically... maybe Pino can help out here, as there might be a small iota of truth in inacuracies of carbon dating, and optimistic conclusions that have been drawn. I found this link: http://contende...tries.org/evolution/carbon14.php Do you have a comment at this point, Pino?

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/20 02:10:20
Certainly, muso. Of course carbon dating is inaccurate. Its problems are well documented, and quantified. As a result, carbon dating is done with very large margins of error. But that is what those margins of error are about. Anybody presenting a carbon date without a margin of error is, by definition, lying. Once you take the margins of error into account though, you can draw valid conclusions. So if someone finds human remains that are carbon dated to 25,000 YA (years ago) with a margin of error of 4,000 years either side, you can rest assured that the remains are at least 20,000 years old, and certainly no more than 30,000 years. Precise it certainly is not. But it is clear that anybody presented with evidence like that who then blithely proceeds to claim that "creation" is 6,000 years old is a twittering imbecile.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/20 02:33:03
> trekie1, you obviously are intelligent enough to realise that at least some of what Kent Hovind says is bullshit. Thanks muso for confirming that it would have been a waste of my time watching those videos. If the man doesn't have the integrity to remove the bullshit from his so-called arguments in order to present only the valid ones, then I know he is clearly not working from the agenda of finding out what the truth is. Of course he is not. His agenda is to, after having decided for some unfathomable reason what he feels the truth should be, try and present evidence, and failing that, fabricate evidence or misrepresent evidence to make it appear to support his case. And, James, what is the point of posting a "video"? What has a "video" ever proved!? I could just as easily post a video in which Richard Dawkins wipes the floor with some moron asking him what about the exhibit in his excuse for a university showing dinosaur bones claiming they are "about 3,000 years old". But I won't bother. You can find it yourself on richarddawkins.net if you must. The only difference, of course, is that Professor Dawkins' assertions are backed up by proper peer-reviewed science that you can not only access if you wish, but that you are encouraged to try and find faults with. And that is exactly what scientists have been doing for the last 300 or so years when the evidence for an ancient earth first started emerging. If your beliefs are in blatant contradiction with established facts, your beliefs are wrong. If you can't accept that, it's your problem.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/20 03:10:31
btw: > the last 300 or so years Geological evidence for the ancient earth predates the theory of Evolution by a long time; that theory is about half that age. BTW: I would not be surprised if our addled friend from that video had brought up at some point that the theory of evolution as a scientific theory doesn't actually "predict" anything - one of the pre-requisites of a valid theory. Am I right? I dare say I am. And it's a lie. Darwin had never been exposed to the work of Mendel. In fact, Mendel's work, although it pre-dated Darwin's, was forgotten until the 20th century: http://en.wikip...l#Rediscovery_of_Mendel.27s_work So at Darwin's time nothing was known about the mechanism behind inheritance. The best suggestion people could make was based on confused observation. For example, it was often observed that children of black and white people tended to be "coffee coloured". So it was natural to presume that inheritance worked by a "blending" mechanism. The problem is that Evolution cannot work with blending inheritance. Darwin's theory of evolution, when investigated, predicts that the mechanism of inheritance must be based on discrete units of inheritance that either are or are not passed on, and either do or do not express themselves. This has obviously been borne out by the facts; genes were discovered about 100 years later. If ever there was a vindication of a theory, that must rank amongst the most likely candidates. But I know I could argue for years with you, James. It won't matter. Like your video guy, you aren't interested in finding out the truth. You want to convert others to what you think the truth should be. "Are you not exactly the same", you might argue, "after all, you're trying to push Evolution just like I'm trying to push the Bible". No. I don't care one iota for Evolution. If the evidence for a 6,000 year old earth was as incontrovertible as the evidence for Evolution clearly is, I would be here defending the "6,000 year old earth theory". But there is no evidence to support it, and the evidence for the earth being ancient, and life having evolved, is undeniable. And that is why I am on this side of the fence. You choose God. I choose reality. I prefer not to know something to deluding myself.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/20 06:09:39
Thanks Pino. For info (if anyone's interested): http://www.kent-hovind.com/

From: muso	On: 2006/11/20 08:37:05
Hallehluya! "Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison." http://www.pens...=/20061103/NEWS01/611030338/1006

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/20 14:54:31
when I ran across those videos I was actualy looking for some visual basic stuff and got sidetracted (happens on a regualer basis the closer I get to 60 years old...mind wonderes ..try to think and nuthin happens ) anyway note to self: check out sources before posting you guys nuked me on this one pino...let me save you the trouble 14 hrs spent watching videos countless hrs reading/typeing and going to dictionary to spell words watching trekie walk out the door with tail between his legs....priceless LMAO:)

From: Huntress	On: 2006/11/20 16:10:19
Don't feel so bad bro, I've seen them knock down the biggest and the baddest of them.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/21 02:20:45
In actual fact I don't care one bit about the man's criminial history. It's the intellectual dishonesty that I won't tolerate. Putting forward arguments that, considering he wants to portray himself as someone who knows what he is talking about, he must know have been debunked a long time. Including those in his arguments is inexcusable, and I would slam him for that. Him evading taxes is none of my business.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/21 02:38:36
> Him evading taxes is none of my business. I would normally agree, but there are many people who devote their lives to the type of lies that people like that come out with. All his dodgy dealings do, I hope, is highlight that he isn't a man who can be trusted, and that his credibility (in his followers) rightly suffers for it. I admire anyone who is genuine in their belief, and who aren't lying to themselves or others about that belief. To think that this guy uses lies to earn his money from honest people, and apparently even that wasn't enough, I find despicable. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'd feel better about the world if I thought that people could make informed choices about who they believe, and what not to. If his being sent to prison makes even one person think twice about believing the next gobshite that comes along then I'd be happy for that.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/21 02:51:02
That is true, of course. I hope James didn't come away from here thinking we like picking on James, or that I have issues with Christianity. The only thing I have issues with is reaching conclusions (any conclusions) from false premises or through incorrect reasoning. I certainly have in the past commented on false premises or mistaken lines of reasoning supporting evolution. Just because a mistake happens to lead to a correct conclusion doesn't make the mistake forgivable. Maybe there is a God. But none of the arguments I've ever seen presented as "proof" of this are valid arguments. Those arguments must then be discarded. It is the only honest way to proceed. If one is then left with no good reason to believe in God, then it is up to oneself to decide where to take this problem. Clinging on to the false arguments or the mistakes is not an option though.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/21 03:19:10
> come away from here thinking we like picking > on James, or that I have issues with Christianity. > The only thing I have issues with is reaching conclusions Likewise. There was a rather ironic analogy that Kent used in the first video about mixing lies with truth: rat poison (he says) is mostly food. Belief can be tenuous at the best of times, but when someone tries to use deceit to affirm the belief of others, then it's like building a house of cards; an infirm structure that threatens to undermine what good there was in the belief to begin with.

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/21 20:26:37
link supplied from muso a few post up http://contende...tries.org/evolution/carbon14.php down at the bottom of page (summary) The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that it was designed to support. hummmmmmmmmmm so how did they come to the scientific conclusion that early man is 100,000 - 1 million+ years old ...just a theory possiabley just gots to throw this in..dont take offence pino but that does appear to be a reliable read about carbon-14 testing Once you take the margins of error into account though, you can draw valid conclusions. So if someone finds human remains that are carbon dated to 25,000 YA (years ago) with a margin of error of 4,000 years either side, you can rest assured that the remains are at least 20,000 years old, and certainly no more than 30,000 years. Precise it certainly is not. But it is clear that anybody presented with evidence like that who then blithely proceeds to claim that "creation" is 6,000 years old is a twittering imbecile. one of my trucks is down and haven't had much time to read but I did take a look at Richard Dawkins ... after pickin myself off the floor from laughing so hard I desided my skin is certainly thick enough to take whatever comes from this post (just kiddin,be gentle guys) pino I really really hope you simply posted that link as some form of referance and dont actualy read that mess... in Hovines defence ...although it does appear the dude is a scoundrel of the first degree by what the media reports...let me point out a few thingys...first off most of the comments reportedly made by him that appear on your above links were taken out of context...he trys unsucessfully to mix dry humor with his speachs/sayings/theorys and taken out of context one would think he said one thing and he actualy said another (muso you watched the first would you not agree)....once again need I remind you what happens when someone of his status starts steppin on the wrong toes and bucking the system (lots of what he supposeable said about giveing up citisenship may also have been taken out of context...he was prob pissed at the time) and right at the end and throughout each video and on one of those links he does say and I quote....Hovines theorys...these are my theorys...this is the way I believe it happened nowhere does he say, this is the way it came down..he says this is my belief and my theory how it came down...and I still say a lots of his theorys deserve more study and most likely will be by some whos toes got stepped on and last but not least he said and I whole heartly agree...it seems in the last 20 or so years maybe more ....the more education one receives the more likely one tends to believe in evolution......after reading some of the crap posted on Richard Dawkins site and a few others I've seen I will for the rest of my life thank God every day for being an uneducated fool I mite add my own evualtion to this...the more education one receives and so called scientfic facts piled in the less room one has for common sense ...think i'll call that James's theory <grin> bring it on dudes LOL (glad theres a backdoor to this place)

From: muso	On: 2006/11/22 00:05:47
The trouble is in how Kent delivers his sermons. He has this way of stating something really obvious that he gets a five year old in the audience to answer, and he will go on to state something as "obvious" like stars can't be millions of miles away because you won't be able to see them. Oh, and he always puts a patronising "boys and girls" at the end even though the audience are mainly adults. He also makes claims that every time scientists use the words "millions of years" they are being deceitful, and he always says "millions" in a sarcastic way. All of this devisive, of course, to make it seem obvious to the audience. He claims that the universe isn't that old, and claims to be able to prove it with things like: the spiral galaxies would be more uneven the older they are; saturns rings are unstable and wouldn't be there; stars would be further away than they are (he claims they are closer than every cosmetologist would have it); something about the moon being closer to the earth, and effecting the tides much more; the (debunked) theory about water trapped under the earth, and in a frozen layer in the atmosphere to "prove" the flood; he claims dating ice by dark light patches being seasonal is wrong, and was proved when they extracted a lost plane from the ice, and applies that to layers of rock... In short, by exploiting a lack of general scientific knowledge, he leaves the audience convinced that nothing could be millions of years old.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/22 01:34:46
This is an interesting article on Hovind's theories, and carbon dating: http://www.talk...org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/22 01:53:20
> I will for the rest of my life thank God every day for being an uneducated fool Happy camping.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/22 02:09:18
One thing though, James, I find very peculiar. While you are under the delusion that you have scientific evidence supporting your pathetic creation myth you are quite happy to trot it out here in this thread. When you are labouring under the misconception that science supports your particular brand of drivelling insanity, your keen to post such "scientific" data here because you hope it will help convince some poor unfortunate dupe that there is anything remotely like merit in your crazy assertions. But the moment science is used to rip your idiocies to shreds, you suddenly declare that "[you] will for the rest of [your] life thank God every day for being an uneducated fool". Think of science what you will. But don't be a hypocrite. If you want to pooh pooh science, include the bits that you think "support" your case. If you are serious about posting scientific evidence though, you are obliged to address challenges to your position.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/22 03:03:03
trekie1, may I give you some advice? When I hear something new. It doesn't matter what it is, or how convincing, or even from what source, I won't take it from first appearance. Anything that is written pretty much has some bias. Scientific conclusions are less likely to have bias than anything else, because of the scrutiny that they go under, but they are not immune. So I will do some research of my own: looking at counter-arguments, counter-counter arguments, etc, and see what makes the most sense to me. The problem that I find with "creationist science" is that it all they want to do is to pick holes and debunk scientific theories. The good thing is that it makes people reassess the scientific findings under question, and often reinforces the original premise. The bad thing is that it isn't looking at science from a neutral, unbiased perspective. It's viewing science as a tool to prove - by whatever means - their own view of what the universe should be, and not what it actually is. This isn't science. Science is about observing and drawing conclusions whatever they may be. Frequently something has been observed that seems to have contradicted other theories, but we go back to those old theories, reassess, and assert new, better theories. What we don't do is use it to say "all science is lies." Millions of people devote their lives to the pursuit of science, and they don't do that to prove a point. They do it to try to improve the world in some way - be it by increasing our knowledge of the universe around us, or to make our lives better in some way. This can even be driven through selfish desires, but the results are the same, as are the motives. So, before you use something as an argument to "prove" the literal truth of the Bible, please first look at: 1. The motives of the argument you're putting forward 2. The credibility of that argument (most creationist arguments on the internet have been debunked years ago) 3. Why does that part of the Bible have to be literal? Can't it stand up better by being allegorical? Most stories in the Bible are excellent allegories, but they make little sense when applied to the real world. 4. (this is important) Not everything worth knowing in science is easy to understand. Our universe is highly complex, and the theories that seem the simplest aren't always the best. However, once you start understanding certain premises, then others start to fall in place. It does start to make more sense. Having said that, science and faith aren't necessarily irreconcilable. There is never likely to be proof that a god (in some form or other) doesn't exist. But don't expect science to someday prove that god exists either, because that isn't what science is for, and it's probably equally as unlikely.

From: Huntress	On: 2006/11/22 03:54:03
Very well said my love.

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/22 10:58:00
this is being posted before I read the last responces with the exception of pinos "happy camping" thanks dude..you put a smile on my old face that I hope I wear all day ...good one :) On the wall of Gargas Cave in the French Pyrenees are the outlined hands of Ice Age artists which date to at least 12,000 years. Magnificent prehistoric cave art, comparable to that of the world-famous caves of Altamira, Spain and Lascaux, France, was recently discovered in southern France, in the Ardeche River canyon area (Los Angeles Times; Pasadena Star-News January 19, 1995). Its 300 paintings of such animals as bison, reindeer, rhinoceros, woolly rhinoceros, a panther, an owl, a hyena, bears, lions, horses, wild oxen, mammoths, wild goats and other animals is estimated to be between 19,000-22,000 years old. Sorry, no dinosaur drawings were reported! In Europe, cave art was at its height around 20,000 years ago. Some examples probably go back 30,000 years! interesting how according to that time-line link man had just bearly started walking upright by this time but yet was able to draw quiet well...pic's of animals that apparanty had already done their so called evolveing.. haveing trouble figureing out that BCE date thingy....this timeline c.2000 Horse introduced to W. Asia is throwing me off..is that like 2000 BC ? assumeing so its rather odd that these cave dudes drew pics of horses 18000 years before their next door neighbors (w/ asia) had ever seen one...I suppose its explainable, no biggy the carbon14 test are so bias the way I see it that it cant be used in any form to make a judgement as to how old anything is..bias meaning it depends on the person running the test and his/her beliefs...the first link posted leaned toward the creatisum theory and the second towards evolution and no matter who writes this stuff they are bias...you lean one way or the other, theres no in between and no matter how many people/scientist are involved in an experment or test theres always somebody in charge and he/she's bias....fine, lets put 10 peeps on a test..5 creation peeps and 5 evolution...then your gona get two findings i'm gona have to take the scientfic approche to this dateing thing (not)...if it's not A and its not B then it must be X enough of me showing my ignorance on these subjects due to lack of education and killin to many brain cells in my youth lets put this all a little more on my level...a little less scientfic you mite say..I like to keep things simple lets use a little more common sense in this decussion vrs useing a bunch of links on the internet...every link posted has a different oppinion due to bias I dont have time right now to put any more into this (i've got to get that truck fixed) but I will be thinking on this one last thought before I get to work.....sis you and muso are getting married soon (by the way congrats and good luck) you must be in love right? Can eather one of you explain Love in scientfic terms or have any scientfic data concerning this mysterious feeling ? what about moral values? is this something that simply evolved along with us loseing our tails

From: muso	On: 2006/11/22 12:58:30
> Can eather one of you explain Love in scientfic > terms or have any scientfic data concerning this > mysterious feeling ? Funny you might say that. I have a test-tube containing a sample of my love for Sandi. Anyway, seriously... Yes, love can be explained scientifically, but it's one of those things that probably is best left unexplained (um... see above). Part of the depth of emotion is in the mystique and the excitement. It's like if you describe making love scientifically, it just doesn't do justice to the breadth and depth of the experience. > interesting how according to that time-line link > man had just bearly started walking upright by > this time but yet was able to draw quiet well I'm not sure which timeline you're refering to, but the one I linked to had this: "1.7 mya Homo erectus or erect man" That equates to 1,700,000 years ago, compared to the 30,000 of the earliest cave drawings. It also places Homo sapiens ("wise man") at over 100,000 years ago. > the carbon14 test are so bias the way I > see it that it cant be used in any form to > make a judgement as to how old anything is I know you don't like links, but I really hope you can spend some time reading through the last link I gave you as it goes into great detail, and I don't have the time to rewrite it - I certainly couldn't do a better job of writing about it than has already been done. If you seriously think that Carbon dating is biased then you better think again. Half the arguments put forward by creationists resulted in the figures being reassessed, and INCREASED the ages in some cases to account for errors. It is a fact that the earth is at LEAST four billion years old. > and no matter who writes this stuff they are bias First hand results can be biased towards expectations, but everything that is put forward in science is reviewed and scrutinised before it becomes accepted. What do you think science is biased towards anyway? > sis you and muso are getting married soon (by > the way congrats and good luck Not for a while yet, but thanks for the congratulations

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/22 14:21:45
> That equates to 1,700,000 years ago, compared to the 30,000 of the earliest cave drawings. It also places Homo sapiens ("wise man") at over 100,000 years ago. I dare say our friend trekie doesn't understand differences of orders of magnitude. He thinks 30,000 and 1,700,000 are both "a long time ago" so what's the difference? And 5 billion years? That, too, is "a long time ago". It's all the same.

From: trekie1	On: 2006/11/22 17:31:29
actualy I was refering to somewhere around this area the bearly walking upright was kinda like Hovin makeing a joke and not to be taken literly :) 100,000-40,000 Neanderthal Man, in Africa and Europe 100,000+ Homo sapiens, or wise man 10,000-6,000 Shift from Hunter Gatherer to food producer in some areas (West Asia initially, Egypt by 6,000) .....anyway with the margin of error carbon date ?? all hells bells whats the use ..I'm way over my head with you two guys...I'm trying to use totaly unfamualier theorys,scientfic so called facts that i've never even read about before and for sure never studyed...and call me closed minded if you will but I will never in this life time accept any theory that says I came from a rock/nuthin ...I mean for me to even consider it is just totaly wrong to me so lets just agree to disagree on this ok now inlighten me on a couple things i've wondered about do people that believe in evolution believe theres an afterlife?? and if so how does that fit in with evolution ?? seriously I want to know this.. secondly as I recall pino saying some time ago (may be wrong here) he doesn't believe in anything...is this true and if so how can one not believe in anything ?? when your dead your just dead ?? serious answer dude (by the way ..30,000 and 17 galzillion is a long time ago and all the same to me <grin>

From: muso	On: 2006/11/23 00:06:22
> do people that believe in evolution > believe theres an afterlife?? Fact: evolution exists whatever or not you choose to believe. It's more a matter of understanding, and that's entirely up to you if you intend pursuing that knowledge. Evolution doesn't have to conflict with notions of an afterlife, but I'd imagine a good proportion of evolutionists find it hard to believe in an afterlife. > and if so how does that fit in with evolution ?? That depends on the person. People believe all kinds of things, and some people can seem to reconcile spirituality or religion and evolution. I'd like to think of myself as a spiritual person, although I tend to go with the nihilist afterlife idea - I'm perfectly happy for my decaying body to provide energy to new life: worms, beetles, maggots that feed birds and animals, as is the cycle of life... > is this true and if so how can one not believe in anything ?? I agree with Pino on that. What I can't know I can't believe. I will not make up fairy stories, or believe in other's fairy tales, when it's something I can't understand or reconcile. What's the point? I'd rather die knowing I did my best to find truth, and not some bollocks some idiot told me to believe. > when your dead your just dead ?? Duh. Ask yourself: what were you, before you were born? Doesn't it make sense that if there was nothing before you were born, that it's the same nothing that you go back to after you die?

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/23 01:54:13
> lets just agree to disagree on this I'll be happy to agree that you don't know your arse from your elbow in this matter and you therefore are in no position to offer an opinion. Would that suit? > how can one not believe in anything ?? when your dead your just dead ?? I do believe in quite a few things. But not in fairytales. Give me a good argument supporting your beliefs and I'll treat it with respect. But if you can't be bothered to construct your arguments properly, I can only take the piss.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/23 04:32:28
> do people that believe in evolution believe theres an afterlife?? First thing to note is that rejecting evolution is like claiming the earth is flat. Or that the sun revolves around the earth. Secondly, what sort of a question is this? What has one thing got to do with the other? "Do people who believe in A believe in B?" Well, I'm sure there are people who believe in (A and B), some who believe in (Not (A) and B), some believe in (A and Not(B)) and some believe in (Not(A) and Not(B)) for any utterly unrelated statements A and B like that. There is a whole rake of possible alternatives to your set of beliefs that do not have to amount to despairing nihilism. Imagine, for example, a God who created a Universe in which evolution is as natural as gravity. Then God sits back and waits for a sufficiently advanced form of life to evolve. To that form of life God reveals Himself, and he creates a secondary Level Of Reality in which the information patterns emerging in the brains of these individuals can be perpetuated after their original material substrate (i.e. body) breaks down (dies). There you go. One possible set of beliefs that accepts the reality of Evolution and yet allows for the possibility of an Afterlife. You might even be able to elaborate on that to create a variation on Christianity, if you must. I wouldn't be bothered, because long before that you would have entered the realm of idle speculation that would be a bit of a waste of time. Is there an afterlife? If there is, I'll find out. If there isn't, I'll never know. In either case, there is nothing for me to worry about in that regard.

From: muso	On: 2006/11/23 05:05:17
> You might even be able to elaborate on that > to create a variation on Christianity, if you must. I find it hard to understand the mentality of those that bend the rules of a religion to fit what they subsequently find out. If I had to even consider bending the rules in something I believed to reconcile it, I'd have to question the entire belief. I guess it indicates the strength of faith, in that someone "finds" god then they must find a religion to validate that feeling. It's like a need in some people, and the more I think about it, the more I feel that religions are manufactured specifically to exploit those feelings. It's certainly a human trait to want to unite people against a common enemy, and religion seems perfect for that. It's also certainly dubious that it will help win "favour" with god by following a particular religion, because if you happen to pick the wrong one, and god exists, then that will only annoy him anyway.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2006/11/23 05:14:51
Certainly, muso, and I agree. But I think you need to look at this from trekie's perspective and it might just be too much of a leap. I'm trying to provide a few stepping stones....

Enter your comments here

As a guest you will only be able to see what a comment posted by you would look like by clicking the Preview button. You can't actually participate by posting comments to this conversation.

Number of viewers: 26