Jump to content

Da Vinci Code


warwgn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what that know[n] fact is???

519796[/snapback]

 

fossil records, physics, history all of which is 99.999% fact for most people who forgo religon for common sence. Have we explained everything to 100% certinty, NO, you can argue anything if you really want to and still leave a doubt in there. But I'll take 99.999% fact over blind faith. You got to make up your own mind about everything and live your life accordingly, but for some it seems unless the bible says your right you better change you mind or go to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fossil records, physics, history all of which is 99.999% fact for most people who forgo religon for common sence. Have we explained everything to 100% certinty, NO, you can argue anything if you really want to and still leave a doubt in there. But I'll take 99.999% fact over blind faith. You got to make up your own mind about everything and live your life accordingly, but for some it seems unless the bible says your right you better change you mind or go to hell.

519802[/snapback]

Let me repost because apparently you don't read very well.

 

As Science Digest reported:

 

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop thinking like a typical american. you are not the center of the world. america, as great as it is,  has only a part of the worlds populus.

519810[/snapback]

only about 12% of the world's population isnt religious, and that number is said to be dropping.

 

:shrugani: sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a simplified version of the Galileo case: how an oppressive Church shamed and condemned the gallant, pioneering physicist for arguing that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

The truth, though not pretty, is somewhat more complex. While Galileo had considerable evidence to support his heliocentric theory -- for example, the phases of Venus and the existence of moons orbiting Jupiter -- he could not prove it.

 

As Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says in a recent article, "In the end the pope's conservative advisers won out, and Galileo... was forced to abjure a `vehement suspicion of heresy' and to recite a humiliating confession. In essence the verdict was imposed for disobeying orders, not heresy."

 

In October 1992, Pope John Paul II accepted the conclusions of commissions he had appointed to restudy the Galileo affair. Since the great physicist had never been charged with a sin, there was no question of forgiving him. The Holy Father admitted that the Church, in preferring an overly literal interpretation of Scripture to persuasive scientific evidence, had committed a serious error of judgment and justice. The pope said: "Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive [in the interpretation of Scripture] than the theologians who opposed him...."

 

Galileo's 1633 trial has come to symbolize conflict between science and established Christianity, a conflict marked by resistance to explanations of nature that threatened, more and more, to equate religion with magic and superstition. Organized religion's response to Charles Darwin 250 years later is only the most famous of the many skirmishes the two sides have fought since Galileo's day.

 

Broad historical currents have also played major parts in driving the religious and scientific communities apart. The naive optimism of 18th century Enlightenment philosophers that all of reality would yield its secrets to experiment and rational analysis undermined Christian claims to truth. Perhaps most importantly, the vicious Catholic-Protestant warfare of the post-Reformation period branded religion in many people's eyes as a dark and bloody force that must be eliminated for the sake of human harmony.

 

 

 

As I said eventualy science will prove to be correct!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guess what guys evolution is a religion!!!... not a science.it has no real facts and is mans way of pushing God out to make his own rules ,also i will ntoe that you need ot read between the lines in the bible as to whats a factual story and whats a teaching beifre yo ustart on about johnna and the whale and parting the seas .so many animals show us that they were formed through creationsim that is amzing that anyone even would consider evoution iMO,ive already pointed out the horses and whales and heres some reasons why a camel coulndt have evolved either

 

Camels are classified in the family Camelidae, along with the South American animals called llamas and alpacas, so they are all called

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a simplified version of the Galileo case: how an oppressive Church shamed and condemned the gallant, pioneering physicist for arguing that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

The truth, though not pretty, is somewhat more complex. While Galileo had considerable evidence to support his heliocentric theory -- for example, the phases of Venus and the existence of moons orbiting Jupiter -- he could not prove it.

 

As Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says in a recent article, "In the end the pope's conservative advisers won out, and Galileo... was forced to abjure a `vehement suspicion of heresy' and to recite a humiliating confession. In essence the verdict was imposed for disobeying orders, not heresy."

 

In October 1992, Pope John Paul II accepted the conclusions of commissions he had appointed to restudy the Galileo affair. Since the great physicist had never been charged with a sin, there was no question of forgiving him. The Holy Father admitted that the Church, in preferring an overly literal interpretation of Scripture to persuasive scientific evidence, had committed a serious error of judgment and justice. The pope said: "Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive [in the interpretation of Scripture] than the theologians who opposed him...."

 

Galileo's 1633 trial has come to symbolize conflict between science and established Christianity, a conflict marked by resistance to explanations of nature that threatened, more and more, to equate religion with magic and superstition. Organized religion's response to Charles Darwin 250 years later is only the most famous of the many skirmishes the two sides have fought since Galileo's day.

 

Broad historical currents have also played major parts in driving the religious and scientific communities apart. The naive optimism of 18th century Enlightenment philosophers that all of reality would yield its secrets to experiment and rational analysis undermined Christian claims to truth. Perhaps most importantly, the vicious Catholic-Protestant warfare of the post-Reformation period branded religion in many people's eyes as a dark and bloody force that must be eliminated for the sake of human harmony.

As I said eventualy science will prove to be correct!!

519815[/snapback]

The funny thing is I highly doubt anybody reading this thread has even the slightest incling that you actually wrote that all by yourself. Atleast quote it so we know the difference between your knowledge and your internet searching ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frogs and toads didnt evolve either :

 

 

Britannica admits there is great debate as to how frogs in particular should be classified, due to a lack of evolutionary evidence:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should we let them believe? its just wrong.

519798[/snapback]

 

Wow, man thats some commie facist shit right there. So, you've got it all figured out csrmel? That's scary stuff man. History has proven that you can't surpress the right to worship. If that's really what you think should happen, then science and facts are the way to prove your point.

 

I am not even close to being very educated in religion, so I want a rational, knowledgable person explain how you can take the bible seriously given all the translations, rewrittings, and versions it has been through? Honestly, Im not totally against believing in God. If God talked to me tomorrow, I would love for that to happen. To know. However, till that happens to me, or one of the handful of people I really trust, I gotta believe it's not true. How can any person expect more than that form somebody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crabs :

 

Hermit crabs have an amazing relationship with sea anemones. These invertebrates are covered with stinging cells which explode at the slightest touch. But hermit crabs regularly carry sea anemones around with them, stuck to their shells. In fact, they will often pick up sea anemones and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moles :

There are also other burrowing animals with similar physical characteristics to true moles, such as the Golden Mole of Africa and the marsupial mole of Australia. The Golden Mole, like a true mole, is (near) blind, stout-bodied and almost tailless (with a light-coloured fur giving it its name), but has four toes, two with pick-like claws.10 Marsupial moles are described by Encyclopaedia Britannica as being

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...