warri0r45

So what's your suggestion for a better system. Care to explain/elaborate what I'm clearly not getting? So basically, you're saying "God did it, stop thinking, God just did it, he's supernatural so there's no point", rather than having us try and uncover the Truth of existence, am I correct? That's the vibe I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong. If so, then let me respond by saying this: God, if He exists, is infinite. We can never fully understand Him. But the more we learn about him, the closer we are to Him. Science, through it's analysis of what is and isn't Truth, theoretically brings us closer to knowing God, and as some religious guy would say it, "sharing in His glory". Science is on God's side. Dunno why some people seem to think otherwise. I can agree to some extent that science is bringing us closer to understand God's creation. However, science tends to fill gaps with theories that don't correspond with my world view such as neo-darwinism. Therefore I'm sceptic to the "science is aiming towards the truth all the time". Oh how rich. It upsets your beliefs. Let me tell you something, the same line of thinking that thought up evolution thought up how to succesfully farm and cultivate edible food. If you are so upset with some aspects of science, suggest to us a better objective way of uncovering truth and gaining knowlege. Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature: At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908 Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened! I think assassin linked this. You should read it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html "They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all." So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance. If it is totally out of context, then why do you have it there? For your own comfort? You see, science uses the same systems of inquiry whether they uncover gravity, microorganisms or evolution. If you don't like one, then it puzzles me why you would accept any. They all use the same system. If you don't like science, suggest to me a better system for uncovering truth and gaining knowlege objectively. As a conclusion note to anyone who wants to casually say 'god is the answer' and just walk away from the questioning, suggest to all of us, not just myself, what is you suggestion for an alternative system for uncovering truth and gaining knowlege which is objective i.e. that any human being can participate in using a trait we are all born with or develop over an education (for example logic, critical thinking, deducement, observation etc.) I'm not asking for an answer. Understand? I'm asking for a system which we can all use, together, to come to an answer.

Thanks for the responses so far, basically I have the same opinion of you three guys thus far. Just one minor point greenslime, of course, science has the potential to go too far, but that's mostly within the hands of the 'insert title here' engineers who use it. By science I'm specifically referring to the discovery or gaining of knowlege part, but yeah, I pretty much agree with your views on the issue.

The topic is centered around a question, and a subsequent explanation or alternate view that you have to present. Firstly, the question: Do you believe science is the most apt, accurate and valid system for uncovering truth objectively? If yes, explain why. If no, why and what would you suggest is an alternative apt, accurate and valid system of uncovering truth objectively? Lets see how the tip it community sees the validity of science.

Me?.....Is there anything wrong with that? Me too. :)

Putting Jesus first: Live for Jesus not yourself. Do his will not yours. I'm not saying I'm succeeding. I'm failing miserably, though I still believe I shouldn't give up as Jesus doesn't give up on me. Make his death worthwhile. I can't help quoting the Bible as it's the source of my views. I'd rather you listen to the Bible than my words, but of course I understand what you're saying, I'm not too thrilled about the may change so called scientific facts and evidence all the time either. What is that supposed to mean? Let's just say I prefer absolute truths. The thing is, korskin, you think the bible is the truth. You need faith to believe it. Science changes and is accountable for mistakes. The thing about science is that it tries to search for the absolute truth, which is unchanging, and has and will continue to make progress towards that goal. The bible is different. The absolute truth is there in front of you, supposedly, and all you need to do is believe in a mythical story which defies all god given enquiry and logic. That goal seems unachievable according to wikipedia: "Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth." More importantly science doesn't answer metaphysical questions that too me are more important. You missed the point. Science does not attempt to construct or formulate absolute truths, they are already there (if you subscribe to the idea). Science merely explains nature with enquiry and logic to try and coincide with or reveal the absolute truths already at work in the universe.

Putting Jesus first: Live for Jesus not yourself. Do his will not yours. I'm not saying I'm succeeding. I'm failing miserably, though I still believe I shouldn't give up as Jesus doesn't give up on me. Make his death worthwhile. I can't help quoting the Bible as it's the source of my views. I'd rather you listen to the Bible than my words, but of course I understand what you're saying, I'm not too thrilled about the may change so called scientific facts and evidence all the time either. What is that supposed to mean? Let's just say I prefer absolute truths. The thing is, korskin, you think the bible is the truth. You need faith to believe it. Science changes and is accountable for mistakes. The thing about science is that it tries to search for the absolute truth, which is unchanging, and has and will continue to make progress towards that goal. The bible is different. The absolute truth is there in front of you, supposedly, and all you need to do is believe in a mythical story which defies all god given enquiry and logic.

Putting Jesus first: Live for Jesus not yourself. Do his will not yours. I'm not saying I'm succeeding. I'm failing miserably, though I still believe I shouldn't give up as Jesus doesn't give up on me. Make his death worthwhile. I can't help quoting the Bible as it's the source of my views. I'd rather you listen to the Bible than my words, but of course I understand what you're saying, I'm not too thrilled about the may change so called scientific facts and evidence all the time either. What is that supposed to mean?

I'd definately agree with tigra on the fact that diluting an argument down to 'god can do anything' is pointless. If you espose such a view, there's no point in arguing about it. Poinless. Bleeping. Empty. Rhetoric. :wall:

We won? Cool. If anyone has the score for that match I would appreciate it. Smashed them by 5 wickets. :thumbsup: Shain Tait's pace is amazing :shock: Cool. :thumbsup:

We won? Cool. If anyone has the score for that match I would appreciate it.

Well thanks for not assuming it is actually naturally possible, at least. But anything is theoretically possible if you add the word 'miraculously' before it! Yeah. Thier incredibly educated and witty response to people saying it's not possible.

Well thanks for not assuming it is actually naturally possible, at least.

The wikipedia article says that my first theory "has been refuted." Sorry, it was like 12 A.M when I wrote that and I was very tired and on the verge of falling asleep in front of the computer. Anyway, what I was trying to say in my last post is that my second theory (time is defined differently for different species (when species A thinks a second has passed species B thinks that a minute has passed), and 6000 years for a creature we call "God" may seem like 4 billion years to us... I'm not going to look for any more proof for my first theory right now... Whenever your ready but I hardly see how you could prove the perception of god with science. :?

Well I'm convinced :uhh: Look it up. If you were to pump that much water into the earth, the earth would be Quick-Sand. Have fun. Lets see you build your way out of that one. Yup you are right, I just looked it up. Apparently the water has nowhere to go and the entire earth turns into sand and the volume of the water is enough to completely turn the sand into "quick sand". Amazing what you learn on the internet :-k Okay, I'll play 'smart-[wagon]' with you. It's a simple math problem. You take the volume of the entire inside of the Earth, and then the total amount of water you would need to flood the entire Earth to the height of the highest mountain. If the amoun of water = more than the Earth's volume could hold, then it obviously isn't possible. What do you guys think is in the Earth? There is dirt, rocks, metal, gems, oil...Stuff like that, and like, 1/4 of it is a giant molten rock core. There. Just. Isn't. Enough. Room. For. All. That. Water. So the water couldn't form hydrated crystals under all the heat and pressure? And how do you propose those masses of hydrated crystals let thier water seep to the surface without the salt following and the oceans of the world turning into a supersaturated brine? o_0 Good post lordkrohn, hopefully someone will listen.

I need the source of the information, thanks. The speed of light thing was on the wikipedia article about the theory of relativity a while ago... I've read a few articles about the possibility of the speed of light not being constant, but nowhere did it mention of the earths age. Can you please link me to those articles (already got wikipedia article)? And just because it doesn't mention the change of the length of time, it doesn't mean that that's not a possible outcome (If you look at the recent John Titor thread, someone posted a link to an article about how light moving in a circle can have strange effects on time (time travel)... Light slowing down or speeding up may affect time too... (Imagine an arrow (light) traveling through water (space-time continuum); when it slows down, the water moves slower around it, and when it speeds up the water moves faster around it... (not a good example...)) Edit: I guess that according to the last sentence (which might written by a(n) wikipedian that doesn't know physics/relativity) I'm wrong... Oh well, my second argument (which is way more confusing, hard to understand, and improbable (also how could we communicate with God if his biological time is about a million times faster than ours?)) still could be right (although it probably isn't in this time line)... But then again, there should be an infinite number of time lines, which means that in some weird time line one or both of my arguments are true... Thanks for trying I suppose. The wikipedia article extract you gave seems to suggest that the motivation of the science is to prove a religous view right. If you're still up to it, find me a source which I can view.

Cmon Ricky. 3 in a row! I'm guessing it won't be on channel nine, Aussies?

Interesting. I might dig around a bit. I think you'd still agree that the fundamental message behind global warming should still stand. That is that we should really try to find, exploit and enhance renewable energy sources. Even if it dosen't do anything warming wise, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and have to adjust accordingly. If we aren't prepared, major ecenomic crisis etc, etc. But as I say, i'll give it a look.

God made a mistake. So he fixed it. Everyone was slaughtered because of the way they were made. Here's an interesting question, did the people who died in the flood (i.e. humanity) end up in hell? I sure hope not, because they died by gods hands and didn't have a chance to repent. If we truly have free will, I'd bet at least a few would have and thus were wrongly accused to eternity imprisonment when they should be free. #-o And I'm still waiting for proof that there isn't a purple monkey in the middle of the sun, defender. God's biggest mistake... making humans. Yep :P I'd say god made us to be questioning and critical (if I were a theist) which gets me pretty annoyed when some people blindly accept faith and disregard science as the 'tool of the devil' or whatever.

It's interesting physics and all, but in the few articles that I have read about it, it never mentioned the age of the earth or evolution. Thanks for the bump by the way. :P

My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that he refuted your claim. other than the fact that you showed pure arrogance and ignorance thruought this thread, how about you learn to read before you open your pie hole ever again? Im quite sure he said (you even quoted him yourself) "the US has one of the highest if not the highest minimum wages in the world" is your iq that low? Second of all, all I have seen you do se far is talk about how not so good our government is, how big the divide between powerty and the rich is...ect, how the hell is it your business about the flaws in our economy, are you trying to tell me you dont have any of those problems in where you life? wake up, its world wide! I dont know what your problem is, either its jealousy, or youre trying to fit in, whatever, but it seems like youre trying to pick out every little flaw about one country just to bring it down for no reason. Ofcourse the US has limitless flaws, but gues what? its still one of the best countries in the world to live in, and please make sure you learn to read and dont pretend I said its the best. Why the hell would you attack me like that? I'm just curious, what's the motivation there or is it just because you wan't to stand up for the land of the free? Also, perhaps you could kindly point out to me where I was arrogant, ignorant, had a low iq, should shut my pie hole, etc, you know, just so we can all evolve and become better human beings and all. I think you need to learn to read, especially this crucial part you seem to have missed:

God made a mistake. So he fixed it. Everyone was slaughtered because of the way they were made. Here's an interesting question, did the people who died in the flood (i.e. humanity) end up in hell? I sure hope not, because they died by gods hands and didn't have a chance to repent. If we truly have free will, I'd bet at least a few would have and thus were wrongly accused to eternity imprisonment when they should be free. #-o And I'm still waiting for proof that there isn't a purple monkey in the middle of the sun, defender.

My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that he refuted your claim.

You don't understand it either. If they raise the minimum wage, people will lose jobs and product prices will increase. Fair call I suppose. I'm no economist. I'm just making the general point, capitalism reigns, the American economy is strong, and yet you still have an unacceptable poverty rate in my opinion. And @ Blue, I haven't done extensive research into it, but I'm sure people would argue that minimum wage in the U.S. is average at best and getting worse. And to answer your question, yes, I am of the opinion that governments need to tax ('steal from') billionaires more. :P http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/minimum_wage02.shtml

I think you missed the point. Your country is rich and you have people living in poverty. I'm not talking about crackheads or meth users, I'm talking single mothers et al here. I'm saying your minimum wage should be higher. At least enough to get people struggling above the poverty line and some kind of home above thier kids heads.

Why I hate America. Disclaimer: the things I am about to list are no way America specific and are not intended as generalisations about the entire population of the country. I do not feel an intense hate for your country as the word hate suggests. 1) Fundamental Christianity and Religion in Polotics, no matter what party. 2) Your current President and some former ones. Why do I hate Bush? He seems lacking in public relations skills and not a great figurehead for your country, which is much of what being a President is about. The President is someone who people tend to blindly admire (see point 3) and that type of figurehead dosen't cut it for me. 3) The lack of questioning of government. The images I tend to see from time to time of people who are and have been staunchly pro one political party with no apparant reason or questioning of thier leaders annoys me. 4) The fact that you are insanely rich yet you still have citizens below the poverty line. I once read somehwere the number of billionaires by country. (this is a rough recall) Second - China - 30. First - USA - 300. I suppose why I have posted this is that I have reasons for what I think where some people will just go along with vested and directed rhetoric. I admire people who can cut against the grain, what ever that grain may be, and think for themselves.