Originally posted by TheSkipperHave not forgotten this. I'm going to put something together for you
I hear you loud and clear sonhouse. However, KellyJay, to his credit, has alread admitted that he cannot prove his claims...all I asked him to do is demonstrate to me the evidence he used to come to the conclusion(s) he has.
Let's give him a chance to do so. I mean, obviously, his evidence is not going to convince me to go against every respectable s ...[text shortened]... understanding we get is that KellyJay is deluding himself...well, that is valuable too.
soon.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnaswww.qwantz.com
KellyJay has promised to show evidence of that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans. He is too stubborn to admit that this is pure fantasies that KellyJay believe in.
Is it okay to be untruthful when you are christian?
Are there more christians who share KellyJays belifs, or is he unique? If so, why isn't there any other christians who defend him ...[text shortened]... art of science, therefore I want to discuss this religious matter her in the Spiritual Forum.
If you look carefully at the fourth panel (reading left-to-right and top-to-bottom), you'll see a dinosaur stepping on a person. That's enough proof for me.
1 edit
Originally posted by RBHILLIt is impossible for me to believe that people once lived with living dinosaurs -- I live in the rational, fact-based world in which the dinosaurs were all extinct millions of years before the first human being arrived on the scene.
Why is it so hard to believe that people once lived with Dinosaurs?
I set my watch by the reason why I cannot believe your idea. Do you know what the Atomic Clock is? Look it up on the web. On what is that clock based? Why is it relied upon as an accurate way to measure time and by whom? NASA wants its space going truck to make a delivery starting tonight -- they have the take off and arrival time calculated to a small fraction of a second. How can they do that?
Tonight the US Space Shuttle will launch, weather permitting. It is to deliver some very expensive solar panels to the International Space Station in low Earth orbit. You can watch the launch and the rendevous live on your PC.
Can you calculate the trajectory the shuttle must describe and the thrust it must put out to describe that trajectory so it intersects with the space station? Do we do that by the seat of our pants?
Or do we do that sort of thing using what is called Rocket Science? And what is that? An advanced form of what I used to do with a pencil and a pad of paper when I was a Field Artillery Officer in the US Army, before we had computers to do the targeting calculations for us.
It is soooo hard to believe that people once lived with Dinosaurs because I am no longer 6 years old -- I'm more than 10 times that, now. I've learned not only how to fire cannons and hit what I want to, even on the back side of a hill, but I've learned how to time the blast so it hits at the same instant shells from widely scattered howitzers hit the same spot - within 5 meters, give or take. And I can do that with just trigonometry, a pencil, a pad of paper, a map, and a compass.
In sort, I have lived and still live in the real world, on this planet -- not in a fantasy world that does not exist save between the ears of folks who so want to make the unreal real, it fills me with pity and sadness for them.
I work a block away from the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum. I've been an amateur palentologist all my life, as was my father before me, a PhD head of all organic chemical research for an international conglomerated chemical company. I learned from him about the basic atomic and subatomic nature of reality -- and what we have come to know about our physical universe. Know, not merely wish for or choose to believe quite against the evidence, that some supernatural cause is responsible for everything one sees in nature and not nature itself.
Let me put to you some questions:
do you understand what is meant by the term "radioactive decay" or "half-life"?
do you know what "carbon dating" is?
do you know how long it takes for layers of certain sedimentary rocks to form from silt, sediment, or sand?
Also, have you taken a good look at the skeletons of dinosaurs, in person? Have you dug them up, felt them? They are stone, not bone.
How long does it take for a bone to turn to stone, yet still retain every intricate inner structural detail, a sort of photograph at the cellular level in stone?
How long would you survive alongside even the most recent dinosaurs, a quarter your size?
I'm talking Cretatious Park here: T Rex was from that period --
You see, I can quite probably date any remains of a human being the same way we can date stones, by analyzing the radioactive decay of certain atoms in the remains.
None of this denies the possibility that a great, omniscient Creator set everything up and this is how the system put in motion worked itself out.
but if you cannot be convinced by the evidence found in stone and in its constituent elemental atoms, then we'll have to date you the old fashion way: cut off one of your legs and count the rings.
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyOh, my god! I didn't know this! I was wrong all the time, and worse, KJ was right all the time!
www.qwantz.com
If you look carefully at the fourth panel (reading left-to-right and top-to-bottom), you'll see a dinosaur stepping on a person. That's enough proof for me.
This is the proof KellyJay had in mind!
Gosh...
Originally posted by FabianFnasit ain't a matter of proof.
Agreed.
I often say this, and I'm nearly equally often disputed of this.
one thing you can prove as a matter of empirically derived fact, and the other you can't prove at all, merely opine about.
you get to choose which way makes more sense to you.
if you choose the latter over the former, good luck with that.
Originally posted by ScriabinYou say that religion can be proven scientifically?
it ain't a matter of proof.
one thing you can prove as a matter of empirically derived fact, and the other you can't prove at all, merely opine about.
you get to choose which way makes more sense to you.
if you choose the latter over the former, good luck with that.
Well, show me!
Prove me scientifically that god exist? Show me an experiment that can show the existance of god?
Do you agree with KellyJay that there were dinosaurs onboard of the ark? To think so it takes a whole lot of religious beliefs.
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou apparently have an English language problem.
You say that religion can be proven scientifically?
Well, show me!
Prove me scientifically that god exist? Show me an experiment that can show the existance of god?
Do you agree with KellyJay that there were dinosaurs onboard of the ark? To think so it takes a whole lot of religious beliefs.
of course I did not say religion can be proved scientifically -- everything I've posted says the opposite.
as for proving the existence of God? what do you mean by that word, "God"?
maybe I can, depending on what you mean.
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinYes, I have problems with every language that is not my own native one. Can we switch to Swedish for a while so you can understand me perfectly? No? You ignorant little being ... 😛
you apparently have an English language problem.
of course I did not say religion can be proved scientifically -- everything I've posted says the opposite.
as for proving the existence of God? what do you mean by that word, "God"?
maybe I can, depending on what you mean.
As I said, and I say it again - it's not possible to mix science with religion. Give it a thought and tell me the result.
And this time use your English properly. Start every sentence with a capital letter. You ignorant little being ... 😛
Originally posted by FabianFnasno, I won't use caps unless I feel like it.
Yes, I have problems with every language that is not my own native one. Can we switch to Swedish for a while so you can understand me perfectly? No? You ignorant little being ... 😛
As I said, and I say it again - it's not possible to mix science with religion. Give it a thought and tell me the result.
And this time use your English properly. Start every sentence with a capital letter. You ignorant little being ... 😛
I see you cannot explain what you mean by the word "God" like någon person från ett sinnesjukhus.
So, you cannot make sense, that much we know.
Nedkastad i en hink bildar ni tillsammans ingenting annat en än grön sörja, som klibbar och kladdar och ställer till problem😛
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt should only be impossible if you assume that the religion is false. It clearly doesn't make sense to do an experiment to determine the validity of a claim you already hold to be false.
As I said, and I say it again - it's not possible to mix science with religion.
However I am sure that many claims made by theists can be examined using science.
Originally posted by Scriabin"ingenting annat en än grön sörja" Hehe, watch you Swedish, dear one" 😀
no, I won't use caps unless I feel like it.
I see you cannot explain what you mean by the word "God" like någon person från ett sinnesjukhus.
So, you cannot make sense, that much we know.
Nedkastad i en hink bildar ni tillsammans ingenting annat en än grön sörja, som klibbar och kladdar och ställer till problem😛
And who do you refer by "ni"? Me and god? Hehe, yes, he would like that! 😀
Never mind. You learnt how to use your shift key on your keyboard, that's a progress. Keep on with it.
You show you have hmour, I like that!
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, religion is not false only because it is religion, only that religion cannot by any way be treated as any other scientific discipline.
It should only be impossible if you assume that the religion is false. It clearly doesn't make sense to do an experiment to determine the validity of a claim you already hold to be false.
However I am sure that many claims made by theists can be examined using science.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree it is not a scientific discipline, but to say 'they cannot mix' to me implies you should forget about science when talking religion and vice versa. I disagree. I think all religious people should take science into account and apply some of its methods to their claims.
No, religion is not false only because it is religion, only that religion cannot by any way be treated as any other scientific discipline.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe cannot use any science to explain miracles, and we cannot change the outcome of an experiment by religious methods.
I agree it is not a scientific discipline, but to say 'they cannot mix' to me implies you should forget about science when talking religion and vice versa. I disagree. I think all religious people should take science into account and apply some of its methods to their claims.
But you can always religiously wonder of the grandeur of natural phenomena, noone stops you. But this is not mixing.
Astrologists have tried to use scientific methods to prove that astrology works, they have always failed. Homeopaths have tried to use scientific methods to prove that homeopathy works, they have always failed. Creationists have tried to use scientific methods to prove that Intelligent Design works, they have always failed. Result: Don't use science in religious matters, they will always fail. If it doesn't, then its' not a part of the religion.