Originally posted by GJPinks
All things tend towards entropy.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Akasirus
Fair enough, and I agree.
I just wanted to make it clear that the two things, at core, are not mutually exclusive, or needn't be.
In my view, American Christendom is about as helpful to the cause of increasing our understanding and awareness of ourselves and the world around us as is the secular atheism held by most Europians.
Science, as it's concieved today in terms of the scientific method, also has it's limitations, wherein every new "truth" generates an infinite bifurcation of hypothesis - that some work well in manipulating matter, or in predicting the effects from causes, doesn't mean that we are any closer to understanding the truth in terms of our true nature, and the very purpose and meaning of life.
Enter consciousness, within a quantum physical framework, and the deeper issues and metaphysical implications becomes the new pursuit of science within a new scientific paradigm and in that regard both science and religion are now on intersecting, not divergent paths.
Literalist fundamentalist conservative American Christendom however, in rejecting evolutionary theory, represents a step back, for all involved, and doesn't even serve the cause of God as presented through the person of Jesus, imho.
Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by manontrial
reply to post by humphreysjim
He is a young earth creationist, yes? Of course his views are tainted by his religious beliefs. No sane person supports a young Earth without a major religious bias.
Sanity is a statistic. I remember when there were a few insane doctors who once believed in little invisible monsters called germs, and tried to spread their insanity by advising their peers of these invisible tiny monsters by telling them to wash before surgery, etc.
to quote someone dead, and famous, "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted"
I like intelligent insanity, makes the world worth living in with boring dolts like...well, anyway, like some folks who's only contribution to a thread, to society, to the universe, is a mere reflection of a shallow soul's textual diarrhea retching forth a bit of bitter copy and paste thinking.
Is there anywhere besides in person, where a debate on a subject can take place without ad hominem?
Holographic Universe Theory makes any "young-earth, dinosaurs and cavemen, space aliens living in your bloodstream as nanobots disguised as organic flu viruses, etc" look pretty sane, and one I currently subscribe to.
It has no religious basis, and WAY more absurd, abstract, and difficult to grasp than ANY religious versions of the universe, but you don't see anyone attacking those threads, those thoughts, those theories.
Looks like a few of you are mad at God...even if he doesn't exist
Originally posted by zombiemonkfish
reply to post by nyk537
this kind of thread is ridiculous, carbon dating alone disproves this entire argument
its not a theory, its scientific fact.
a cave drawing which 'you think looks a bit like a dinosaur' does not stand up to decades of the tested and proven theory which is evolution.
Originally posted by jpb0801
I've been browsing the threads here for some time and decided to create an account to post on this topic.
Anyways to my point... I'm an undergraduate physics major and recent scientific findings say that radioactive decay is unreliable, now the reason I bring this up is because us scientist use Carbon 14 dating to date things by the "amount" of decay over given time which gives a rough yet what is thought to be accurate dating process.
Read this- Might give some credence to the OP