quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He is referring to the questions science cannot answer. What happened before the Big Bang?

there was chuck norris

quote:

Originally posted by occrider When light is emitted from one galaxy and travels through space to another galaxy, during its trip through space it also will be stretched, causing it to have a longer wavelength and therefore causing its color to appear more towards the red end of the spectrum.

it can also be split and bent and make you think you see two stars or galaxies that are actually mirror objects of each other

quote:

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution. The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence. In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution. “They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God. “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“ His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design. Climate change Benedict is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life. A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued yesterday. “We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said. “We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the Pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria. World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change. The Pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.” “This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. "Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said. Last April the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that wilfully damaging the environment is sinful.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2359...0-13762,00.html

___________________

this guy is such an idiot. religion and science have nothing to do with one another.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

I have taken the position of writing off hardcore religious fanatics as idiots by default. Conversely, I respect those at the scientific extreme, as their argument is supported by more than mere hearsay. However, they are not correct yet either.

The wise position in such a debate is to be a fence sitter. I believe in something; it may be a god or it may be science, but it sure as heck is not this senile old fuck. I am a supporter of atheism purely due to the effect most religions have had upon the world. Christians are the worst example of theists blatantly violating their own implicit values and I have lost respect for them entirely. I'm not educated enough to state my oppinions of other religions.

I dislike the religion vs. darwinism debate, because it implies that we are limited to mans predefined interpretations of a divine creator. That is not to say I disregard either of the possibilities, I just believe religion (christianity in particular) is a complete load of horse shit. I support the fundamental concept of religion (god) just as much as I support science.

Last edited by echosystm on Jul-27-2007 at 14:53

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I have taken the position of writing off hardcore religious fanatics as idiots by default. Conversely, I respect those at the scientific extreme, as their argument is supported by more than mere hearsay. However, they are not correct yet either. The wise position in such a debate is to be a fence sitter. I believe in something; it may be a god or it may be science, but it sure as heck is not this senile old fuck. I am a supporter of atheism purely due to the effect most religions have had upon the world. Christians are the worst example of theists blatantly violating their own implicit values and I have lost respect for them entirely. I'm not educated enough to state my oppinions of other religions. I dislike the religion vs. darwinism debate, because it implies that we are limited to mans predefined interpretations of a divine creator. That is not to say I disregard either of the possibilities, I just believe religion (christianity in particular) is a complete load of horse shit. I support the fundamental concept of religion (god) just as much as I support science.

I read something interesting recently about the basic assumptions we form our beliefs around and the impossiblity of a 'theory of everything'. Also, any diety identified as 'Creator' could not be proven so from within the system we live in. In other words, it's pointless to try to detect 'god' or prove its existance with naturalistic laws..

Evidence of Purpose, Chapter 2, Pg. 43, p. 3

quote:

Each mathematical structure is built on a set of axioms (assumptions). The rest of the structure consists of theorems that can be derived from those axioms. From within the structure one can verify how the theorems logically and inevitably follow from the axioms. However, one cannot jusity the original choice of axioms. Not only that, but in 1931, the mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that it was impossible to prove from within the methods open to many important areas of mathematics (including elementary arithmetic) that the axioms are consistent - meaning that conclusions drawn from them could never lead to contradictions. Even if it were possible to prove consistency for a particular mathematical system, that same system would not be complete. In other words, from within the system it was impossible to prove the truth of all the true statements contained in that system. This inherent, unavoidable lack of completeness must reflect itself in whatever mathematical system models is the working of our universe. As creatures belonging to that physical world, we shall be included as part of that model. It follows that we shall never be able to justify the choice of axioms in the model - and consequently the physical laws to which those axioms correspond. Nor shall we be able to account for all the true statements that can be made about the universe. For these reasons the goal of a complete thery of everything is unattainble, and the claim to have disproved the need for a creating god is false."

I think the greatest axioms of the human race is that of, 'there is no Creator god', 'there is a Creator god'. Think about it, every belief-system stems from these two simple axioms. Within their system, they can't contradict, but when two systems holding each axiom respectively are placed side-by-side, we get evolution-creation debate, atheism-theism debate, etc.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Jul-27-2007 at 15:50