The Bible is "there" is it fact as well?
straight forward no it isn't fact. it cannot be fact because it automatically is disproven when it says "the earth is 4000 years old"
My point was that just because you know certain facts, doesn't mean you can draw random conclusions from them.
science doesn't do that, it makes conclusions based on how the data corresponds. to say that the conclusion is random is like saying that the bible has an actual way to prove itself.
Says the one who believes we evolved from bananas.
(was I like this? if so, I'm glad I'm no longer that) no we evolved from monkeys, which holds more merit seeing as how we share more than 97% of our DNA with them.
First law of thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created or destroyed. Where did the universe come from?
we don't have all the answers, which is why science is able to adapt. so we can find the answers. if I were to guess, the particle probably had an ultra-density, something that has more mass in it than anything currently around today. if mass can become energy, and then mass again, why couldn't this be false?
Bacteria merely alters its cell walls to prevent harmful particles from entering. They do not alter their DNA.
it does by altering the next generation's DNA through mitosis.
Sometimes people can misinterpret the Bible's teachings.
it's easy to misinterpret what isn't true.
So I read what wikipedia had to say and it's all just technical gibberish to me. Except for the part about the universe expanding. I thought the universe was already infinite. How can it be expanding?
again, we don't know, which is why science can adapt, so we can learn more. if science couldn't adapt, we'd still be using lead as seasoning like the romans did.
What is there = the conclusion, explanation = facts
that's how it is for religion, for science it's better described as:
fact+fact+confirming data=conclusion.
Wow. It's a good thing that that's not what you find with religion. So you basically just said that with science you can never be 100% sure of anything? In that case, I like Christianity because it never changes and I can be sure of what happens.
yes, the hundreds of religions that completely disagree with eachother are absolutely sure as to what happens in the end. now read this statement again, and tell me I'm not stating fact.
Yup. People once thought that the earth was flat.
we would still, if it wasn't for science disproving that later.
That nails it. If science always changes, you can't be sure that the science we have now, is 100% accurate.
so what, if it is 75% accurate, it is still 75% more accurate than religion.
What if science does improve and finds proof of the Bible? But by then it might be too late. You may have died while believing in false science.
but we've already found hundreds of pieces that prove it's fake. sure we could go deeper, and some are, but that would only give us a thousand points that proves that book is wrong.
You can't literally look into the past, smart one. And does the first law of thermodynamics mean nothing to you?
what he means is that since the spped of light is rather slow when you put it in terms of light-years, and that the edges of the universe are billiions of light-years away, we can look at how the universe was billions of years ago, if we have a good enough telescope.
As far as science goes, I would like there to be complete proof of something, rather than progression. I don't want to put my faith in constantly changing science.
the keyword that makes your entire statement a failure is "faith". with science, there is no such thing, there is only fact, and reasoning based off of
FACT, not blind belief.
as we all know, ignorance is bliss, but there comes a time when you need to face the facts.
-Blade
