anonimu Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 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. 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... Losers...Are you blind or ignoring me on purpose?Even though I sometimes side with religious people in some debates, I no longer consider myself religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 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. 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. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonimu Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 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. 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. :? The fact that the speed of light is constant isn't proven yet. The law of conservation of matter/energy isn't either. Actually, none of the laws are. But we still accept them as the truth. Sorry for bumping this... Also sorry if this gets locked because a mod thinks this is a "religion/agnosticism is bunk thread." Losers...Are you blind or ignoring me on purpose?Even though I sometimes side with religious people in some debates, I no longer consider myself religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share Posted April 2, 2007 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. 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. :? The fact that the speed of light is constant isn't proven yet. The law of conservation of matter/energy isn't either. Actually, none of the laws are. But we still accept them as the truth. Sorry for bumping this... Also sorry if this gets locked because a mod thinks this is a "religion/agnosticism is bunk thread." So what's the point you're trying to make? Any human being wouldn't percieve billions of years to be 6000. Still no results from this little experiment of mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Eggz Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I believe in evolution and that the universe was from a Big Bang. Look, all of you Bible Believers - If we have all this proof (fossils, for example) that are millions of years old, how is the earth only 6k years old? It's just not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonimu Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 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. 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. :? The fact that the speed of light is constant isn't proven yet. The law of conservation of matter/energy isn't either. Actually, none of the laws are. But we still accept them as the truth. Sorry for bumping this... Also sorry if this gets locked because a mod thinks this is a "religion/agnosticism is bunk thread." So what's the point you're trying to make? Any human being wouldn't percieve billions of years to be 6000. Still no results from this little experiment of mine... Human being? I'm saying that "God" might be something (a small hippo-platypus (South Park, episode 316)) that perceives time differently than we do. It hasn't been proven yet, but the law of conservation of matter/energy hasn't either. (If you take the Bible literally, this might be why "God" didn't "send" "Jesus" sooner...) I believe in evolution and that the universe was from a Big Bang. Look, all of you Bible Believers - If we have all this proof (fossils, for example) that are millions of years old, how is the earth only 6k years old? It's just not possible. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang too... Read my posts on the previous pages (you might not understand some of them since I typed most of them at midnight or so...)... Losers...Are you blind or ignoring me on purpose?Even though I sometimes side with religious people in some debates, I no longer consider myself religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 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. 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. :? The fact that the speed of light is constant isn't proven yet. The law of conservation of matter/energy isn't either. Actually, none of the laws are. But we still accept them as the truth. Sorry for bumping this... Also sorry if this gets locked because a mod thinks this is a "religion/agnosticism is bunk thread." So what's the point you're trying to make? Any human being wouldn't percieve billions of years to be 6000. Still no results from this little experiment of mine... Human being? I'm saying that "God" might be something (a small hippo-platypus (South Park, episode 316)) that perceives time differently than we do. It hasn't been proven yet, but the law of conservation of matter/energy hasn't either. (If you take the Bible literally, this might be why "God" didn't "send" "Jesus" sooner...) I believe in evolution and that the universe was from a Big Bang. Look, all of you Bible Believers - If we have all this proof (fossils, for example) that are millions of years old, how is the earth only 6k years old? It's just not possible. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang too... Read my posts on the previous pages (you might not understand some of them since I typed most of them at midnight or so...)... like I said, I hardly see how it is remotely possible to prove a god's perception of time. It's just an idea, it's not even scientifically theoretical. I admire you for trying, but what do you think I'm looking for? Something with logic, proof and scientific reasoning, or ideas that god himself could percieve things differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terciopelo Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 William James, arguably. Scince truth is relative (according to James), and so long as an idea functions usefuly for someone it may be held to be "true", even if it conflicts with the "truth" of another, then seeing as for these "select few" the idea functions usefuly for them, it may be held to be true. But of course, seeing as it does not function usefuly for you, it may be held to be "untrue", whilst still being "true" for those others. Thus this concept suggests that it is both true and untrue at the same time. A good example is that of the "flat earth". When it was believed that the earth was flat, and that this was a useful concept, then it was indeed true that the earth was flat. Now it is not a usefuly functioning conceptual object to most people, thus it is now untrue. With respect- baloney. A statement cannot be both true and false. That or William James just wasn't/isn't a logician X) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now