|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wait ... they didn't? You mean there's actual physically documented proof that God visited abraham??? What is it a video? A screenshot perhaps? Fossilized foot print? I must see this convincing evidence! |
show me the proof of the big bang theory, perhaps the string theory as well :D? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Religion is one of the strongest influences in any culture, Intelligence has nothing to do with religousness. They aren't even directly related. While it is true that it's illogical, the idea of a god is far too powerful to reduce to simple logic. |
one of the only interesting things i've read in this thread so far. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
show me the proof of the big bang theory, perhaps the string theory as well :D? |
The big bang theory is deducted by observing the movements and decay of all objects in space. Assuming that these objects are subjected to the same laws of physics, then retracing their paths and speeds indicate that they're debris resulting from a large explosion at a given centerpoint. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
The big bang theory is deducted by observing the movements and decay of all objects in space. Assuming that these objects are subjected to the same laws of physics, then retracing their paths and speeds indicate that they're debris resulting from a large explosion at a given centerpoint. |
i know what the big bang theory is. I also know that nowdays it isn't as popular as it was a few decades ago. Assumptions aren't too swell to make. This is irrelevant to the thread though. As other people have said you cannot link intelligence to religion. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
i know what the big bang theory is. I also know that nowdays it isn't as popular as it was a few decades ago. Assumptions aren't too swell to make. |
There are no absolute facts in science. Every single thing that you know has been derived by the means of assumptions. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
There are no absolute facts in science. Every single thing that you know has been derived by the means of assumptions. |
i've already said this, mate. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| So did you have a point to begin with? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
So did you have a point to begin with? |
did you? or anyone else who's going to discredit religion because it makes people "dumb" :rolleyes:
EDIT: This is just a back and forth with no real point to it. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| I did, and I just explained it several times over. Did you not understand any of it? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
I did, and I just explained it several times over. Did you not understand any of it? |
you've convinced me :p |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
show me the proof of the big bang theory, perhaps the string theory as well :D? |
There is no "proof" of the big bang theory, there are many pieces of observastional data that are consistent with the big bang theory. FYI, scientific theories are not proven as evidenced by the inconsistencies and uncertainties with various aspects of the theory of gravity. Yet we accept these theories as fact given that they have sufficient evidence supporting them that have withstood scientific testing and falsifiability. There is a substantial amount of evidence, but to name a few:
Olbers' paradox
Linear distance vs. redshift law
Homogeneity
Isotropy
Time dilation in supernova light curves
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux
Blackbody CMBs
Variation of Tcmb with redshift
Deuterium, 3^HE, 4^HE, and 7^LI abundances
Angular power spectrum of the CMB anistropy
http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...tic_000628.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/pub...e_big_bang.html
etc., etc., etc.
Of course .... I don't know how all this verifiable and testable evidence stands up against a book whose contents were subject to editorial discretion, have no scientific basis whatsoever, and written over 2000 years ago by a variety of authors so you tell me. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | | Originally posted by occrider Of course .... I don't know how all this verifiable and testable evidence stands up against a book whose contents were subject to editorial discretion and written over 2000 years ago by a variety of authors so you tell me. |
You forgot the part where the book claims itself to be true. You can't argue with something like that! |
|
|
|
|
