How is that better? Some parts of evolutionary theory aren't as well fleshed out as they could be, which is why scientists are constantly working on them. The big bang is not yet a fact, but at this point in time, it is THE most likely option.And besides this, even if all these theories are wrong, that in no way lends credit to the idea of a god.
or more rationally, Dr james Trefil simply means our understanding so far doesn't explain why galaxies are there. You've got science a little topsy turvy. You make a theory based on observation. You don't assume god or whatever interfered with nature (according to your theory), to keep the theory alive. You accept there must be a problem with your theory and try to find how things you have observed occured. hence the frustration he expresses.
ok.earth = 6000 yearsjesus = 2000 yearssoon = ? "Jesus will return soon" - Bible.
Sorry, but at the moment I feel like I'm feeding the fish in the barrel to make them bigger targets, before i go get the gun.
the fact that there was a begging to the universe proves it had a cause.the universe is not self explanitory.
"Its like shooting monkey's in a barrel!" - Crazy IvanSeems someone needs a lesson in non-causal causality
No, it is Science vs Religion. , quantum mechanics, geology, biology, virology, etc. In fact evolution should not really be included at all because it's not testable and isn't really a very good theory. But then thats why it gets picked on isn't it, too easy to discredit.But, what about discrediting these:Cosmology: Light from 10 billion year old stars observedAll I can say is that at least scientists maintain a level of common sense, and try and explain what is seen - rather than blindly accepting what our ancient and primitive ancestors believed. Maybe one day, scientists will discover a proper religion.The figure shows two pulses, A and B, several microseconds wide and of nearly the same shape. Pulse B has traversed their cesium vapor cell, and pulse A has traversed the same distance (6 cm) in a vacuum, requiring the normal 0.2 nanoseconds to do so. Essentially every point of pulse B has arrived at the detector about 60 nanoseconds ‘earlier’ than the corresponding point of pulse A. The completeness of the advance of pulse B implies we could indeed use it to transmit information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Whatever the outcome, it is a handy reminder that we don’t know as much as we think we know about such things as how light really behaves or propagates in deep space, the nature of elementary particles, and so on, which is all very relevant to issues, such as starlight travel-time, radiometric ‘dating’ processes, etc. The dogmatic certainty with which many researchers and popularizers write about such things as this, and about an alleged ‘big bang’, for instance, is not warranted by the data. There are a number of physicists at the ‘cutting edge’ of such things who prefer a more humble approach.this is state of the art science that discredits bad theorys and doesnt discredit a god.
you bring another theory?
do you know how often asteriod hi the earth? no nether why bother asking stupid questions.
continental drift, is there proof that its a slow consistant movement ?
Though continental drift is constant, the rate of movement itself is not. It would far to an ordered world for that to be true. Most rates of movment expressed are averages of centuries ofgeological observation.
Thnx Arnifix my first pos rep!:bounce:
Excuse me, but isn't believing in something you can't see, feel or measure exactly what religion is? Both sides are as bad as each other, with neither side willing to concede points from the other.
Just as the simple things are always hard, but the hardest things are always simple. Applying scientific thought to matter, and knowing that we can't see something but can see its affect is different from saying a deity is responsible. We can't see wind, we can see it's affects. Because we can't see it, did god make it? or is it simply the result of barometric pressure.
Not exactly. Simply because scientists as yet have no way to measure dark energy, does not mean that they will never have a way to measure it. It is also a work in progress, as we understand more and more about the subject, we will be able to make far more precise calls regarding it.
The best thing about Finance Minister Bill English\'s latest Budget is that it does finally signal a much greater role for the private sector in the New Zealand economy. And another step along the way to extract this country from the political cul-de-sac in which Helen Clark\'s Labour Government parked us.
So what you're saying is..."The only constant is change, but it is the rate of change that is not constant"?The trouble with this whole argument is that those who believe in creationism will not believe what the scientists say as their methods (those of the scientists) are either flawed, invalid or simply wrong and are a test of faith.
My 2 cents worth, but now that we only have 10c coins, I guess it gets rounded down to zero.
Don't you think the same applies to religion? I have a theory that if we ever find "God" it will be as a result of human development. For instance, 3GHz was unheard of a few years ago, but it lets us communicate in ways that were dreamt of in Star Trek. Who's to say that we won't be able to "talk to God" on a 100GHz phone in the near future?
I would assume the other end of that line would be engaged
Better that than hearing, "Hello telecom, how can I help you?""WTF?, this is supposed to be God!""Well we do answer to that. After enough people started cursing their computers, "God why doth my internet connection suck ass?" Well, he asked us to take over seeing as we....well, we own this mo'fucking lines."
