Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Name the advancement of science which........

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

They have almost all strengthened by elief in God because they have almost all contributed to the fulfilment of Bible prophecy indirectly.

Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:53:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Riwaaz, I'd say that the whole of science undermines presuppositional faith and theocratic authority. It wouldn't be science if it didn't. And since all theological claims are built on one or the other, I don't see how science doesn't undermine the whole of theology.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.

As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.

On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

oh really?
I don't think you made that response, the computer made that response.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:33:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:24:14 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

oh really?
I don't think you made that response, the computer made that response.

Yes, really.
It's a free planet. You're free to believe whatever floats your boat.
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:01:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Which science are we talking about? different people(scientists) see the evidence quite differently and come to conclusions based, at least in part, on their biases.
Advancements in science have for the most part strengthened my belief in God. And, of course, God admonished us to do science.
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:06:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

The TOE has certainly caused a lot of people to doubt the gospel message but most people just accept what the Bible skeptics claim without giving it much thought.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:28:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Science has certainly helped erode my belief in god, however, it wasn't any particular advancement per say, but rather the scientific method itself. Science, as an epistemic method, stresses skepticism and demands very high standards of evidence. No religious claim meets these standards and a solid evidentiary foundation for god is simply not forthcoming. This relegates god to articles of faith, syllogisms with dubious premises and other mental gymnastics that characterize most theological pursuits. It all strikes me as a sophistic exercise in language, at best. Thus, if we hold the scientific method as a standard for what we tentatively consider to be true, god simply doesn't make the cut. In the words of Carl Sagan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:00:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.

As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.

On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.

I've seen you mention the Andromeda-Milky Way collision a couple of times and implied that it will be catastrophic. That is not my understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

It is a common misconception that this collision will disrupt the orbits of the planets in the Solar System. Although it is true that the gravity of passing stars can detach planets into interstellar space, distances between stars are so great that the likelihood of the Milky Way-Andromeda collision causing such disruption to any individual star system is negligible. Although the Solar System as a whole could be affected by these events, the Sun and planets are not expected to be disturbed.[127]
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:59:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:28:00 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Science has certainly helped erode my belief in god, however, it wasn't any particular advancement per say, but rather the scientific method itself. Science, as an epistemic method, stresses skepticism and demands very high standards of evidence. No religious claim meets these standards and a solid evidentiary foundation for god is simply not forthcoming. This relegates god to articles of faith, syllogisms with dubious premises and other mental gymnastics that characterize most theological pursuits. It all strikes me as a sophistic exercise in language, at best. Thus, if we hold the scientific method as a standard for what we tentatively consider to be true, god simply doesn't make the cut. In the words of Carl Sagan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Nice name lol.
Meh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:00:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.
As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.
On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.

I've seen you mention the Andromeda-Milky Way collision a couple of times and implied that it will be catastrophic.
Dee, firstly thanks for a great link!

My main reason for using the Milky Way-Andromeda collision in Religion is not to level a specific doomsday curse (since I don't know precisely what it'd be anyway), but to illustrate plainly and intuitively just how unstable our long-term environment is, and on scales humans would find unthinkably hard to engineer for. We are not as religious doctrine would have it, poor tenants of a stable environment custom-made for us, but newcomers struggling to adapt to an environment changing drastically, in unthinkable ways, and on a vast scale, using the smartest ideas we dare conceive and embrace.

Were our species to survive to see the death of this sun, we'd also have an immensely long time to engineer a solution for finding or constructing other suitable environments. But at the galactic scale, I cannot think what sort of engineering would mitigate any adverse impacts -- whatever they might be -- of a galactic collision.

Your cited argument that it's possibly okay for our solar system is a good one: galaxies are mostly empty, and maybe ours will (mostly) riffle together like a card deck. But please find right some pretty NASA/Hubble simulation video of the event -- occurring over as slow a time as it does -- and tell me you're confident that the modelling of a prediction confirmed only four years ago has the full spectrum of possible effects on our solar-system accurately and sensitively predicted. Moreover, had the human race left our solar system before this time (as you'd expect it might, had it survived four billion years without destroying itself or its extended habitat), how big an impact might this event have on extended human society?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:38:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Response: Science .....period....strengthens by belief in God because we cannot understand anything of science without having intellect first. We can't understand science without making a choice first. We can't use the scientific method without observation first. So science itself is proof of God because no one can perceive creation or design without observations making choices and using their intelligence, which is exactly the elements that come first in science.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:53:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:06:10 AM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

The TOE has certainly caused a lot of people to doubt the gospel message but most people just accept what the Bible skeptics claim without giving it much thought.

Please, present evidence that "most people just accept what the bible sceptics claim without giving it much thought".

And also do escort the above with evidence that most Christians reject bible sceptics only after close consideration.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:01:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.

As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.

On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.

You are assuming that Jehovah will allow it to die.

He created it, he can sustain it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:06:10 AM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

The TOE has certainly caused a lot of people to doubt the gospel message but most people just accept what the Bible skeptics claim without giving it much thought.

I do not accept anything anyone says without a great deal of thought and research, not even the Bible.

I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:17:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:06:10 AM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

The TOE has certainly caused a lot of people to doubt the gospel message but most people just accept what the Bible skeptics claim without giving it much thought.

I do not accept anything anyone says without a great deal of thought and research, not even the Bible.

I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.

Yes, those who know nothing about science often compare it to their religion, usually because they know very little about their religion, as well.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:32:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:06:10 AM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:45:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

Theory of Evolution is certainly fatal to Christianity.
It's a silver bullet from which there is no honest recovery.

The TOE has certainly caused a lot of people to doubt the gospel message but most people just accept what the Bible skeptics claim without giving it much thought.

I do not accept anything anyone says without a great deal of thought and research, not even the Bible.

I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact you've shown to know close to nothing about science and since you refuse to read anything that even lightly criticizes the Watchtower, you're also bound to know close to nothing about them.

So it's your ignorance on both that would allow you to compare them.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:39:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:01:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.

As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.

On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.

You are assuming that Jehovah will allow it to die.

He created it, he can sustain it.

Another glaring example of your inanity.

Who, supposedly, created the Universe and the laws that govern it and dictate its heat death, the solar collapse, the Milky way and Andromeda Collison?

God did it. He created the laws in the first place!
No one forced Him to have it this way. According to you, He chose to!
He designed the universe - supposedly - in such a way that it would eventually die off of heat death, so that the sun would burn out and Andromeda would colide with us, and eventually all life would be rendered impossible.

It's time you finally own up to your own premises.

Is it really the case you cannot write a single statement, a single statement, without incurring in some gross contradiction?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 2:27:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:20:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:00:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/4/2016 8:04:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:32:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Almost every advance however indirectly speeds up the destruction of this planet's ability to support life and the depletion of irreplaceable resources.
As it must -- and as life itself does -- due to the way thermodynamics works.
On the other hand, the sun's own existence is also doing that, and on a much bigger scale: the more it shines, the sooner it dies -- and its death won't be graceful. It will balloon, strip Earth's atmosphere and wipe out all life on Earth. It will certainly engulf Mercury and Venus, and may also chomp Earth itself. So while careful stewardship of terrestrial resources is a very good idea in plannable human time-frames, it won't really avail any species hoping to live on Earth in the very long term -- and don't mention the Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy due to happen even sooner than that.

I've seen you mention the Andromeda-Milky Way collision a couple of times and implied that it will be catastrophic.
Dee, firstly thanks for a great link!

My main reason for using the Milky Way-Andromeda collision in Religion is not to level a specific doomsday curse (since I don't know precisely what it'd be anyway), but to illustrate plainly and intuitively just how unstable our long-term environment is, and on scales humans would find unthinkably hard to engineer for. We are not as religious doctrine would have it, poor tenants of a stable environment custom-made for us, but newcomers struggling to adapt to an environment changing drastically, in unthinkable ways, and on a vast scale, using the smartest ideas we dare conceive and embrace.

Were our species to survive to see the death of this sun, we'd also have an immensely long time to engineer a solution for finding or constructing other suitable environments. But at the galactic scale, I cannot think what sort of engineering would mitigate any adverse impacts -- whatever they might be -- of a galactic collision.

Your cited argument that it's possibly okay for our solar system is a good one: galaxies are mostly empty, and maybe ours will (mostly) riffle together like a card deck. But please find right some pretty NASA/Hubble simulation video of the event -- occurring over as slow a time as it does -- and tell me you're confident that the modelling of a prediction confirmed only four years ago has the full spectrum of possible effects on our solar-system accurately and sensitively predicted. Moreover, had the human race left our solar system before this time (as you'd expect it might, had it survived four billion years without destroying itself or its extended habitat), how big an impact might this event have on extended human society?



Thanks for clarifying, Ruv. Yes, I'm familiar with that simulation. I was only commenting on our own solar system out here on the edge of the Milky Way and the low probability, though not negligible, of perturbation by other stars when the two galaxies begin their gravitational dance. The core of the galaxy where stars are jammed together more closely will certainly experience the worst of the disruption. If we have colonized that part of the galaxy in a few billion years, yes, it will certainly be a problem. No question.

An omnipotent God could have done so much better. Then again, if we accept theistic claims that the Earth and its human inhabitants are the pinnacle of God's creative power, then what need for the rest of the universe outside of our solar system? The enormous scale of the universe simply makes no sense from a religious point of view.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:45:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 2:27:19 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/5/2016 6:20:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Had the human race left our solar system before this time (as you'd expect it might, had it survived four billion years without destroying itself or its extended habitat), how big an impact might this event have on extended human society?
The core of the galaxy where stars are jammed together more closely will certainly experience the worst of the disruption. If we have colonized that part of the galaxy in a few billion years, yes, it will certainly be a problem. No question.

It's not a great choice either way, I think, Dee. Watching the 'dust' fly off through repeated collision, realising that it's all suns, most of them from the thin outer third of the galaxy where our sun resides, flung out into attenuated threads where lines of communication would be stretched, where it'd be increasingly difficult to star-hop, and hundreds of thousands of light-years from concentrations of resources anyway... well, that's not really good for a star-faring technological species either. (Not without some seriously game-changing travel and communications tech anyway. So get working, Warp Drive Engineers! You've only got four billion years to Save our Galactic Empire!)

The enormous scale of the universe simply makes no sense from a religious point of view.
Indeed. It's astounding that after grasping the sheer volume and complexity of space, anyone could still believe the political affairs of 50,000 xenophobic Iron Age hicks from a backwater culture on an obscure planet of a minor star justifies the entirety of the cosmos.

And not astounding in an 'aha' way. Astounding in a Douglas Adams bwahahahaha sort of way. :D
bulproof
Posts: 25,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.
How many legs did the talking snake have?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 7:35:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Re galactic collision, the simujlation makes it look very dramatic, but surely in terms of human time scales the effects would be very slow for most of the volume of stars. Stars are zipping around in our own galaxy with proper motions greater than the closing velocity of Andromeda and no one worries too much about - or even notices - that!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 11:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 7:35:13 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Re galactic collision, the simujlation makes it look very dramatic, but surely in terms of human time scales the effects would be very slow for most of the volume of stars.

Yes, Keith, it's very slow. We can detect movement already with the Hubble, but contact starts in about four billion years, and continues over another four billion. Meanwhile, the background extinction rate of species on Earth predicts an average species life of around half a million to a million years, so we'd have to survive 4,000-8,000 times the average species lifetime to even see the beginning of the collision. The oldest extant species I know of is the sea-sponge, at about 760 million years old. We'd have to do six times better than a passive, sessile, low-environmental-footprint sea-sponge to even get close to seeing it. :)

But if we did, then we'd already also have to start thinking about what to do about the imminent death of the sun, some billion years later. Else the entire scope of the Andromeda collision wouldn't be very meaningful. But assuming we responded to the sun's demise by relocating to another star -- or building a habitat out past Jupiter that could survive our sun becoming a red giant... then the unfolding Andromeda collision becomes significant to us, because our location in the galaxy affects our proximity to other stars, resources and potential habitats. On the one hand, it's safer to be out toward the galactic rim as we presently are, because of the lower likelihood of stellar system interactions. On the other hand, the rim gets shredded repeatedly by the collision, with stars flung hither and yon -- and we might prefer to survive the collision closer to the core.

But to become the sort of species that can out-live the oldest extant species on Earth, we'll need to think in galactic time-scales, not just generational scales as we presently do. The Andromeda collision is vastly slower than glaciation -- but glaciation changes biomes, climate and continents.

I don't see how we can become a species which thinks like that with a substantial proportion of our population still chanting after four billion migraine-filled years: "JeeSAHs... gonna be here sooon."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:20:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Quantum Mechanics has completely destroyed Materialism, and the overwhelming evidence we have that the universe is akin to a virtual reality (and by virtue of the Integrated Information Theory, a conscious state) implies a programmer.
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:25:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

All advancements of science strengthen my belief on Islam. There is no a single science advancement that diametrical with Islamic stuff.
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:44:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:40:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
weakened / strengthened your belief in god.

The inffectiveness of intercessory prayer.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 8:40:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:59:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.
How many legs did the talking snake have?

Presumably none. However scripture gives us no real clue to the form the serpent had before it was used by Satan as a ventriloquists dummy.

I cannot give you answers that do not come from the Bible either directly or by implication.
bulproof
Posts: 25,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 8:44:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 8:40:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2016 6:59:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:03:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have however found that the Bible stands up to every test you can put it to with honesty. It stands up alongside science when science is applied properly.
How many legs did the talking snake have?

Presumably none. However scripture gives us no real clue to the form the serpent had before it was used by Satan as a ventriloquists dummy.

I cannot give you answers that do not come from the Bible either directly or by implication.

You make sh*t up all the time that doesn't come from your bible.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin