Apple;1792661 wrote:How can we "believe" that it is warming when there are scientists who say it is actually cooling? Believers need to get their story strait!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-freezing-a-mini-ice-age-is-on-the-way-by-2030-scientists-say-2015-07-13

Meh, if people want to "believe" in their little gods, they can "believe" in all sorts of things.

sleeper;1792643 wrote:I agree it's humbling to admit we don't have the answers. This is the stance science takes as it tries to understand how we got here as well as many other areas of research. It's not arrogant to think we can find things out; its optimistic but not arrogant.

I agree that we can find things out, I don't believe science will ever be able to tell/show us how old the earth is and how life came to exist. Call me a pessimist, but having a 50,000,000 variation isn't even close to "accurate" or "close" to giving any answers.

OSH;1792664 wrote:I agree that we can find things out, I don't believe science will ever be able to tell/show us how old the earth is and how life came to exist. Call me a pessimist, but having a 50,000,000 variation isn't even close to "accurate" or "close" to giving any answers.

Who said it was? It's a good estimate based on the best data we have available now.

I'm sorry you don't have faith in the best and brightest working to provide answers to life's biggest questions. I guess we should just stop scientific research all together and rely entirely on a book that scholars need 1,000 of years to discover what is real and what is a parable.

Apple;1792652 wrote:Kind of like the mini ice age in medieval times and subsequent warming periods that followed? Not a whole lot of SUVs and coal fired power plants around back then.

There aren't many scientists who will deny cycles of temperatures now and in the past. That isn't the issue. It's the rate at which climate change is happening and the variations that are present that they have correlated with human activity.

Heretic;1792662 wrote:Meh, if people want to "believe" in their little gods, they can "believe" in all sorts of things.

Unfortunately the religion of Earth Worship is now trumping all religions, and since it is the religion of BIG government, well, you can see where this is going ..............

sleeper;1792673 wrote:Who said it was? It's a good estimate based on the best data we have available now.

I'm sorry you don't have faith in the best and brightest working to provide answers to life's biggest questions. I guess we should just stop scientific research all together and rely entirely on a book that scholars need 1,000 of years to discover what is real and what is a parable.

A good estimate?! That's baffling to me. A variance of 100,000,000 years (50,000,000 years either way) is not a "good estimate" in my eyes/mind.

And, never did say that scientific research should stop. I support it. But, I believe they should be focusing on things that matter...not something we'll never know (age of earth and/or how life came to exist). Focus on curing cancer. Focus on curing headaches (these things are awful). Focus on things that matter...and those things that will actually have an impact on how life is lived NOW and in the future.

The age of the earth isn't important. What's it do for us? The debate on how life came to exist will ALWAYS be present because no one will provide ANY answers. No scientists will ever agree on either of these issues, it'll forever be "researched." And...no one will ever "prove" anything.

I would consider a 1.1% margin of error to be a pretty good estimate.

OSH;1792697 wrote:A good estimate?! That's baffling to me. A variance of 100,000,000 years (50,000,000 years either way) is not a "good estimate" in my eyes/mind.

And, never did say that scientific research should stop. I support it. But, I believe they should be focusing on things that matter...not something we'll never know (age of earth and/or how life came to exist). Focus on curing cancer. Focus on curing headaches (these things are awful). Focus on things that matter...and those things that will actually have an impact on how life is lived NOW and in the future.

The age of the earth isn't important. What's it do for us? The debate on how life came to exist will ALWAYS be present because no one will provide ANY answers. No scientists will ever agree on either of these issues, it'll forever be "researched." And...no one will ever "prove" anything.

Yes it is a good estimate based on the available technology and the available data. Sorry it's not perfect enough for you.

Also, learning and exploring things that don't seem useful at first is how many technological advancements come about. Again, I could see how someone with a belief in a god wants to keep knowledge about the actual existence of the universe from ever being discovered. Pretty sad that the more knowledge that is gained by humans the less relevant god is.

Mulva;1792699 wrote:I would consider a 1.1% margin of error to be a pretty good estimate.

It needs to be exactly on. We also need more god in our lives, particularly the god I believe in because the other ones are wrong.

I do really enjoy when religious believers criticize science though. Now only if they would take to time to examine the logic and support that establishes their lifelong belief system. LOL

sleeper;1792702 wrote:I do really enjoy when religious believers criticize science though. Now only if they would take to time to examine the logic and support that establishes their lifelong belief system. LOL

I am fascinated by science and the enormous array of discoveries, advances and innovation we have achieved. It is truly remarkable; God certainly blessed us with inquisitive and creative minds enabling us to explore, learn, and use science and technology to help our fellow beings.

QuakerOats;1792704 wrote:I am fascinated by science and the enormous array of discoveries, advances and innovation we have achieved. It is truly remarkable; God certainly blessed us with inquisitive and creative minds enabling us to explore, learn, and use science and technology to help our fellow beings.

Can god create a rock that he himself cannot destroy?

sleeper;1792705 wrote:Can god create a rock that he himself cannot destroy?

He'll get back to you in 1,000 years after the subject has been properly researched.

Mulva;1792699 wrote:I would consider a 1.1% margin of error to be a pretty good estimate.

Except there's no way to "prove" that it's actually a 1.1% margin of error. Sure, a 1.1% margin of error is good -- if there's a way to actually prove the initial age is accurate. I posted earlier to the different theories on the "age of the earth." How many "scientific discoveries" proven "wrong" does there need to be in order to say, "you know, maybe we won't determine the age of the earth."

The "age" is said to be 4.54 billion years old -- plus or minus a few million years. Who's to say THAT "age" is accurate? Especially since "science" has said so many different ages throughout the years (and will continue to give different ages).

sleeper;1792700 wrote:Yes it is a good estimate based on the available technology and the available data. Sorry it's not perfect enough for you.

Also, learning and exploring things that don't seem useful at first is how many technological advancements come about. Again, I could see how someone with a belief in a god wants to keep knowledge about the actual existence of the universe from ever being discovered. Pretty sad that the more knowledge that is gained by humans the less relevant god is.

We'll never know. Doesn't matter how good technology or data is. Unless someone actually travels back in time, we'll never truly know how old the earth is OR how life was created. Once we travel back in time to the point of each happening, that's the proof. Heck, even if it was a day after...that works.

It's also crazy how science is "accurate" in a span of 4.54 billion years, but yet, accounts that are verified within 30 years (and eye-witness accounts) of Jesus' life are negated instantly because it has ANYTHING to do with a book where people believe in a Supreme Being.

There's a slew of literature out there on why scientists think the age of the Earth is ~4.5B years and evidence to support that conclusion. Feel free to read it if you are truly interested in the scientific process. It's very hard to "prove" anything but what you can do is continue to pile on evidence until the conclusion is so well supported it can be seen as equal to "proven" as possible.

Your question as to accounts of Jesus are negated instantly because of eye witness accounts is quite simple. Very few people disagree that Jesus existed but there is zero evidence, including anecdotal, outside of the Bible of anything magical or relevant that Jesus did. There is no accounts outside the Bible that Noah put two animals on a boat during a gigantic flood, Jonah living inside of a whale, the Virgin birth, or really any story that the Bible has written. That's why its instantly diminished. This would be like using Harry Potter books to prove that Hogwarts exist. The logic doesn't follow.

I am curious why you rightfully hold science up to a high standard of proof but don't hold your fundamental belief system to the same. Why is your religion "right" and all others are wrong? The reality is, you believe in what you believe because you were born into a family who believed it and passed it along. You never really took time to critically examine each religion for proof and validity and yet you want to pretend a scientific consensus with a 1% margin of error isn't good enough for proof.

Please.

BOOYA! Sleeper just Phi Slamma Jamma'd the Christian Terrorists in the crowd.

if we evolved from apes, then how are there still apes?

checkmate.

sleeper;1792716 wrote:There's a slew of literature out there on why scientists think the age of the Earth is ~4.5B years and evidence to support that conclusion. Feel free to read it if you are truly interested in the scientific process. It's very hard to "prove" anything but what you can do is continue to pile on evidence until the conclusion is so well supported it can be seen as equal to "proven" as possible.

Your question as to accounts of Jesus are negated instantly because of eye witness accounts is quite simple. Very few people disagree that Jesus existed but there is zero evidence, including anecdotal, outside of the Bible of anything magical or relevant that Jesus did. There is no accounts outside the Bible that Noah put two animals on a boat during a gigantic flood, Jonah living inside of a whale, the Virgin birth, or really any story that the Bible has written. That's why its instantly diminished. This would be like using Harry Potter books to prove that Hogwarts exist. The logic doesn't follow.

I am curious why you rightfully hold science up to a high standard of proof but don't hold your fundamental belief system to the same. Why is your religion "right" and all others are wrong? The reality is, you believe in what you believe because you were born into a family who believed it and passed it along. You never really took time to critically examine each religion for proof and validity and yet you want to pretend a scientific consensus with a 1% margin of error isn't good enough for proof.

Please.

None of this is true. So, until you get those preconceived notions out of your mind, there's no sense in talking about "my side."

OSH;1792750 wrote:None of this is true. So, until you get those preconceived notions out of your mind, there's no sense in talking about "my side."

SO what made you chose your current beliefs over the numerous other beliefs out there?

Why is Islam wrong? What makes that religion invalid?

I also find it interesting that's what you singled out of my entire post.

MontyBrunswick;1792747 wrote:if we evolved from apes, then how are there still apes?

checkmate.

I read this as "I don't understand evolution".

Interesting article today, "Earth Day", from the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/

sleeper;1792754 wrote:Why is Islam wrong? What makes that religion invalid?

Not sure about Islam, but science has repeatedly been wrong on many fronts for centuries, and will continue to be wrong in perpetuity. The more we discover the more we realize how wrong we got it previously. Right?

sleeper;1792754 wrote:SO what made you chose your current beliefs over the numerous other beliefs out there?

Why is Islam wrong? What makes that religion invalid?

I also find it interesting that's what you singled out of my entire post.

I "singled" it out because that is the crux of much of your discussion about science/religion with most people. It was with me, so why continue to discuss what I believe, think, study, and feel if you continue to have a wrong preconceived notion about me? Defeats the purpose of a discussion if you continue to retort back to "The reality is, you believe in what you believe because you were born into a family who believed it and passed it along. You never really took time to critically examine each religion for proof and validity and yet you want to pretend a scientific consensus with a 1% margin of error isn't good enough for proof."

QuakerOats;1792789 wrote:Not sure about Islam, but science has repeatedly been wrong on many fronts for centuries, and will continue to be wrong in perpetuity. The more we discover the more we realize how wrong we got it previously. Right?

Meanwhile, through history, there have been countless religions, each with their own pantheon, illustrating that religion has repeatedly been wrong on many fronts for centuries and will continue to be wrong in perpetuity.

sleeper;1792755 wrote:I read this as "I don't understand evolution".

I read Monty's response as sarcasm since that is an argument used by many Christians who have no idea how evolution actually works. They just assume its wrong without knowing anything about it. So, they use the "if we evolved from apes why do apes still exist" argument.

If I am wrong and Monty was being serious then you and I agree, he doesn't understand evolution.