| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 55906 | 2005-03-22 07:44:00 | Big thread, big topic --- EVOLUTION THEORY | Renmoo (66) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 336811 | 2005-03-23 19:35:00 | Yup, he believes that th earth started 5000 years ago. But I tell him he might be mistaken. If he says that civilisation started 5000 years ago, that I would at least believe him. CheersAsking that someone else's personal religious belief be debated and proved wrong in this chat forum, is both insensitive and in bad taste as a topic. This sort of topic, due to it's personal nature, only causes threads to get ugly, feelings hurt, and heated words posted; because they are deeply personal. People should not have to defend their personal stance, whatever it is. It is like posting a thread saying "Intel is the best and people who choose to use AMD are wrong unless you can tell me otherwise." I doubt the thread would last an hour before going down in flames. There is a very good reason for the saying that "Politics and Religion should never be discussed at a dinner party." Everyone is entitled to their opinion, belief's, choice of CPU's, browsers etc so lets leave it at that. Go back to discussing the rules of physics. :) |
Jen (38) | ||
| 336812 | 2005-03-23 22:29:00 | How is nuclear physics involved? :D If you read Terry's input on the first page, you would see how it is involved. You don't get strong repulsive/attractive forces until you descend to the atomic level. HTH. :) |
user (1404) | ||
| 336813 | 2005-03-23 22:35:00 | Existence as we know it was created by me. End of thread. | Growly (6) | ||
| 336814 | 2005-03-23 23:11:00 | Here's an idea for the next science fiction film: "Black Hole Meets Dark Matter" |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 336815 | 2005-03-24 00:30:00 | I think Jen is right. Religious arguments are impossible to resolve unless all parties have open minds. Typically this isn't the case. I don't have a problem with the concept of God and the Big Bang. If there is a Creator, then he created the Omega Point. We don't have any other explanation. But creation of the Earth and the Universe 5000 years ago is illogical and unnecessary for religious belief. We know there are rules governing atoms and particles. These rules tell us how atoms interact and decay. Often this takes millions of years. Why would God put such rules in place if everything just popped into place ready-made 5000 years ago? It is unnecessary and illogical. Quite why Creationists insist on this argument to bolster their faith is beyond me. Christianity turns upon the life and death of Jesus Christ and doesn't need this red herring. I've no idea what Buddists and Hindus have to say but their views should also be considered on this topic. The agnostics and atheists already have a fair hold on the arguments. :D |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 336816 | 2005-03-24 00:52:00 | Yay, Another pointless post that will no doubt incite more meaningless arguments. As already stated by posters, this thread will not resolve your argument with your friend. How about you make a mature decision and decide for yourself! Asking that someone else's personal religious belief be debated and proved wrong in this chat forum, is both insensitive and in bad taste as a topic. This sort of topic, due to it's personal nature, only causes threads to get ugly, feelings hurt, and heated words posted; because they are deeply personal. People should not have to defend their personal stance, whatever it is. It is like posting a thread saying "Intel is the best and people who choose to use AMD are wrong unless you can tell me otherwise." I doubt the thread would last an hour before going down in flames. Maybe so, but if you have a page dedicated to OT issues then no doubt you will have posts like this! If it worries you that much change the forum back to computers only! Has nobody here got anything better to do? |
Veale (536) | ||
| 336817 | 2005-03-24 01:09:00 | I think Jen is right . Religious arguments are impossible to resolve unless all parties have open minds . Typically this isn't the case . I don't think it is only a question of having "open minds", more that the "rules of engagement" between scientific and religious debate are in different 'universes' , and so are doomed to be never ending and unresolvable . Science has a well defined procedure for "Proof" . Religion has belief as "Proof" . Never shall the twain meet . When belief and the scientific method get intermingled, as it is bound to do, because belief and the need to believe arose when 'man' first aquired so-called rational thought processess, then we often see scientific fraud perpetrated, arising from a need to believe, or perhaps self glorification . The Piltdown Man, Eddington's selective fudging of eclipse results to support bending of light predictions, Jacques Benveniste's dilute solutions fraud, George W Bush's weapons of mass destruction :) and a host of other deceptions . (Even Millikan was accused of fraud and selection of results that fitted, but if you have ever repeated Millikans experiment, that is the way is has to be, statistical rejection of results that obviously aren't a whole number of electronic charges, for what ever reason) . I like to think most scientists are trained to have an 'open mind', and can put irrational belief to one side until evidence can be produced for them to accept an hypothesis . However rationality and irrationality are not absolutes, it depends on which side of the fence one is standing, one man's rationality is anothers madness :eek: |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 336818 | 2005-03-24 01:17:00 | I am not reloigous no do i believe in evelution but, i think something still has tob e said. This to different ideas/faiths will never come together and "bond Hands" but what you have to relize is the people of the church do not want people to believe in evelution because that is many that something is better than there god, and the sciencetists that form the theorys dont want you to believe in a "faith" because that means that science is unstable and some"thing" has control of everything that happens to nature. so the sciencetists and the priests will never want to take eachothers aspects in because that would be giving up and letting the other win, although, with all of this said i do not think that this topic should be on a PC World forum because if a new user walked up that didnt believe in either of this (like me) would they think that this forum isnt about pc's at all and this is a Forum against certain peoples believes???? i do not fill this way but i think that this could possible hurt PC world in the long run because people will discuss it and if they are offended others will not want to come here.. TINY |
TINY (7596) | ||
| 336819 | 2005-03-24 02:04:00 | Has nobody here got anything better to do? Well, in those now distant days when I was actually at work, we used to resolve the worlds problems in the cafeteria every day over a cup of coffee . Since I retired, the world has obviously gone to pot, with not being there in the caf . every day . So this forum is the next best thing :stare: TINY, as long as the debates are impersonable and general, and dont attack another person or their beliefs, then I can't see any harm done . But, topics can slide into territory that will be controversial, quite easily, especially religion and politics as Jen advised above . It is difficult at times to bite ones tongue instead of saying "what a load of twaddle" . We all utter twaddle, 'one mans twaddle is another mans wisdom' . |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 336820 | 2005-03-24 02:54:00 | Tiny - it is healthy to argue different ideas, provided we don't get into personal insults. Plenty of scientists, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindus etc believe in God. After all, there is nothing in science which absolutely forbids the possibility of a higher being. Science can answer "How" (to a fair extent - there are still many mysteries) but not "Why". |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||