1500 Year old Bible confirms Jesus was not crucified.

Thizzle.If you studied science past the 6th grade when they teach the scientific method you would know that a true scientist conducting a true experiment is not seeking to PROVE anything... they have a hypothesis about what they think COULD happen, and then they conduct the experiment, and analyze the results. If it disproves their initial hypothesis then so be it, then they create a new hypothesis based on the information gained and eventually when they get enough quantifiable data they can form a theory of how or what or why something occurred. It would be a really shitty scientist that conducts experiments to only try to prove that his initial hypothesis was correct.

Easy now. Yes true scientist strive to be as unbiased as possible, but all scientists are human. The fact that there are so many different theories, especially when it comes to a subject as vague as 'how the universe was created', I would definitely argue that bias plays a role. There's a reason why there are different theories, and it all comes from a lack of proof and different outlooks on the topic, otherwise known as bias.

I'm not confusing this with proven science like Newton's 'laws of gravity' or Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' discoveries, those all have been proven and (for the most part) accepted as factual. All I'm saying is that when the process hasn't moved past the theorizing stages, there's no way you can say bias does not play play a role.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

DiabeetoAll I'm saying is that when the process hasn't moved past the theorizing stages, there's no way you can say bias does not play play a role.

Bias is a strong word. I'd say 'building off previous findings' would be more accurate. That may look like methodology bias to an observer, but really it's just the logical next step. Additionally, is it not the end result that matters?

las.Additionally, is it not the end result that matters?

Boom, this is what I was trying to get at. Theories are just theories until proven otherwise.

Milkman, listen to the newest Joe Rogan Podcast (ads end in the 6th minute). The guest is all about hard evidence and what he talks about is mind blowing.

[video]

Phil-X-Just gonna hop in here and ask why both are not possible?


Say god(s) did in fact create everything, why or how does modern science disprove that fact? Ancient texts are stories of teaching, they dont and shouldnt have to be taken 100% literally.

-If I made "X", I can 100% forsure say "I made X". This would make me the only all knowing of X.

-But if you dont know me and never have the opportunity to know me, and have no familiarity of X, you have no idea what or who or how created X.

--Maybe some of your fellow people will start to consider that "X was created by someone somehow" but who really knows?

-Now you start studying X and it components. You learn about its dating, creation etc, you can start quantifying "facts" about X

-those "facts" are technically creations of your own. Like "time" is just a human created concept

-This is X.
-It is made of ceramic. -It was made 4 years ago. -It has a defined volume. -It has a defined mass etc etc

-No matter how hard you study or learn about X, you'll still never identify its creator unless its specified in some way. You can create infinite ways to objectify, quantify and study X. You will create new units of measurements and theories about X, but youre still just studying a pre-made X of unknown origin.

-As time goes on you'll endlessly gain more understanding and knowledge about X, however I am still unknown to you


because we didnt create particles, the universe, dimensions etc why say "Oh that just happened" ?
Its an endless cycle really, were never going to get to the end of it because we'll continue to discover new things and go deeper and deeper

People say "God doesnt exist cause big bang"

Is it that crazy to believe a higher being initiated that or something?

It funny because you ask someone who says "there is 100% no chance of god" what first initiated the big bang and its always "idk. No one knows"

.... ok well no one knows what started it, no one knows if there is a god, why do those 2 have to object each other? Modern science is the observation of the environment we didnt choose.


idk, I hear people use modern theories and facts to disprove the possibility of God and it doesnt really make sense to me.

someonerespondpls

http://youtu.be/R31SXuFeX0Ahttp://youtu.be/R31SXuFeX0A

louie.miragsMilkman, listen to the newest Joe Rogan Podcast (ads end in the 6th minute). The guest is all about hard evidence and what he talks about is mind blowing.

[video]

I swear when I previewed this post it showed the video..



http://youtu.be/R31SXuFeX0A

Phil-X-someonerespondpls

"Say god(s) did in fact create everything, why or how does modern science disprove that fact?"

- The burden of proof lies with those who propose the theory.

"because we didnt create particles, the universe, dimensions etc why say "Oh that just happened" ?
Its an endless cycle really, were never going to get to the end of it because we'll continue to discover new things and go deeper and deeper"

- It's likely both sides will never completely understand or uncover the means of our origins and be able to say "oh that just happened" with certainty, but we can try and get somewhat of an understanding of it, and so far science is well and truly ahead in that department.

And you're right; we are discovering new things, and now we're actually becoming more ignorant in regards to the universe simply because we are now discovering it is far, far more complex than we ever could have imagined, which is really very exciting considering we now have even more amazing things to explore and decipher.

If religion wants to sit on it's ass and proclaim to have knowledge it doesn't have, that's fine; but it should keep it to itself and not try to infect curious and innocent young minds with its garbage. Meanwhile, science is searching for the actual truth, and it's journey so far has been fascinating.

"... ok well no one knows what started it, no one knows if there is a god, why do those 2 have to object each other? Modern science is the observation of the environment we didnt choose."

- The evolutionary theory and creationism just simply aren't compatible from a rational, scientific standpoint. And in the end, science will always beat pseudoscience.

Phil-X-Just gonna hop in here and ask why both are not possible?


Say god(s) did in fact create everything, why or how does modern science disprove that fact? Ancient texts are stories of teaching, they dont and shouldnt have to be taken 100% literally.

-If I made "X", I can 100% forsure say "I made X". This would make me the only all knowing of X.

-But if you dont know me and never have the opportunity to know me, and have no familiarity of X, you have no idea what or who or how created X.

--Maybe some of your fellow people will start to consider that "X was created by someone somehow" but who really knows?

-Now you start studying X and it components. You learn about its dating, creation etc, you can start quantifying "facts" about X

-those "facts" are technically creations of your own. Like "time" is just a human created concept

-This is X.
-It is made of ceramic. -It was made 4 years ago. -It has a defined volume. -It has a defined mass etc etc

-No matter how hard you study or learn about X, you'll still never identify its creator unless its specified in some way. You can create infinite ways to objectify, quantify and study X. You will create new units of measurements and theories about X, but youre still just studying a pre-made X of unknown origin.

-As time goes on you'll endlessly gain more understanding and knowledge about X, however I am still unknown to you


because we didnt create particles, the universe, dimensions etc why say "Oh that just happened" ?
Its an endless cycle really, were never going to get to the end of it because we'll continue to discover new things and go deeper and deeper

People say "God doesnt exist cause big bang"

Is it that crazy to believe a higher being initiated that or something?

It funny because you ask someone who says "there is 100% no chance of god" what first initiated the big bang and its always "idk. No one knows"

.... ok well no one knows what started it, no one knows if there is a god, why do those 2 have to object each other? Modern science is the observation of the environment we didnt choose.


idk, I hear people use modern theories and facts to disprove the possibility of God and it doesnt really make sense to me.

So basically what you are saying is that no matter how hard we study something or what we gain in terms of knowledge we can never know how or who created it since we never met the creator? That seems silly. Through the studying of "X" we may never actually see the creating process, but if you study something long enough you can tell a lot about how it was made, why, etc.. Through the studying of X we may discern that it was created at a certain time in a certain fashion.. And then by using that knowledge of how it was created we can create theories as to what or who created it. I don't really follow your point. It seems to me that you're just saying since we can never actually see the mechanism that created the world we will never be able to know. You do realize that in archaeology they study past artifacts and through doing that gain knowledge of who created it, and why, and what for? So maybe they won't know the exact person who created it but we could narrow it down to that it was created by a human in this fashion for this reason.

Also, you're going off of the premise that there was in fact a creator. Your whole scenario is based off of you creating X. Let's say that X was created via some natural mechanism. Through the studying of X we may determine the process that led to the creation of X, and in turn make conjectures as to what created it. Your scenario only holds true if in fact it was created by a person and even then it doesn't make sense. "No matter how hard you study or learn about X, you'll still never identify its creator unless its specified in some way. You can create infinite ways to objectify, quantify and study X. You will create new units of measurements and theories about X, but youre still just studying a pre-made X of unknown origin" that is just silly to assume that through the studying of "X" we cannot determine the origin of it's creation.


ALSO, time is not "made up" ... mathematics and numbers are not "made up" but rather they are objective non-material things in the universe that would exist without humans. The pythagorean theorem would still hold true even if Pyhagoras never discovered it. Time is real just like space and matter are real. We measure time with a "made up" , if you will, system so that we can keep track of it. But just like mathematics, time would exist without people there to measure it.

hehe

I don't believe this bible or anything that doesn't agree with my religion.

Forgot all about this thread. Still waiting for a reply about the world being a ceramic bowl thing.

^ humans have only been around for I think .001% of our universe existence, it's silly to think everything was made for a bunch of carbon based lifeforms.