When I say that logic of only our world, then how do I talk of things in the other universe must be unknown, it contradicts itself because I am using logic.
Unless,
1. I am not using logic. 2. By chance, even if I have no claims to say the other world is unknown, it is actually the truth 3. The answer is unknown.
I'm going with 3, the answer is unknown. Unknown can be anything, the thought is just not there.
Again referring to quantum physic, we think that there are an infinite number of other dimensions, each representing at least one change from out own. Some of these would be unidentifiable from our own universe (oh, you ad toast yesterday, I had eggs), while others would be unimaginably different, each one representing a distinct other possibility that could have occurred or ever fundamental changes to the laws of nature (crap, you mean all the light between 400 and 700 nm is gone, guess we never evolved). However, as I've told you before, we're not debating whether evolution is a fact in every single one of these universes, as there are by definition an infinite number where it would be incorrect, we are debating whether it is correct and applicable here in ours. In our universe, where our logic is at least mostly right, it has shown us that evolution is significantly closer to fact then YEC and therefore evolution and not YEC should be taught in schools because it is closer to fact. You can hide behind the defense that the other universes are different, but here, where it matters it's not, and thus we should be teaching evolution rather then YEC.
I think there is an implied part of any definition given of any word. It's sort of like adding "in bed" to the end of your fortune in your little fortune cookie, but this is the "in bed" of our entire existence. If we just add the enthymeme "according to our perception" to any definition, then it becomes a valid definition. The laws of physics might not even exist in this universe, but all of these definitions are functional ones that apply to our perceptions. Even in a nihilist sense, our perceptions "matter" because we care about them. Yes, it's a tautology, but it's one from which we can't escape unless we shut off our brains. Certainly we can't know the answer - but we can know the answer relative to our perceptions, and that's all we've got!
Well, yes evolution should be thought rather then religion, but really I just want want people to keep an open mind. Some people here posted things like "Evolution because it has more facts" and this is where my post comes in.
Religion was made up for a few to control large masses, its time to let go of it. Our minds shouldn't take science so strictly either.
But we CAN know, just relative to our perceptions. All the evidence for evolution is right there and completely works for our perceptions. Just like any other theory we have in Mathematics, Biology, or Physics it is entirely relative to our perception. We can know evolution is a fact in the same sense that we know everything else is a fact, and since that it the only way in which we can relate to even existing that will have to be our implied "metalanguage" of understanding.
I don't suppose you can PROVE gravity existed 5 billion years ago?
So you really cant prove it, but a strong theory works just as well for me. As of God, you can't find the answer. Even if evolution is true, a God can exist.
Trying to prove gravity and trying to prove god are two different things. Gravity has pretty much been proven be Sir Issac Newton with his experiments. You can't experiment on or with god, because he takes no effect on things. The whole idea with religion is to have faith and hope and stuff like that. Either way, even if you prove god, that is no significant proof of intelligent design. We could have been spawned/ created by aliens, or something else.
I don't suppose you can PROVE gravity existed 5 billion years ago?
You've taken the position that we can't prove anything, so any evidence I give you'll probably just throw out the window to further your own argument.
While we can't experiment to 'rove' the existence of of gravity we can observe stars from ~13.73 billion light years away (or light from ~13.73 billion years ago if you prefer). Since we see stars we know that gravity, or a force which is indistinguishable from gravity was present at that time, since gravity is one of the things which dictates the shape of a star. Ergo, as far as anyone who's taken the time to do the research is concerned, gravity has been in existence since slightly after the creation of the universe based on our observations.
First, my point of not being able to prove gravity is not revelent to the existence of God, or I didn't mean to make it to be, pyro.
God could of had created us all yesterday and gave us the thoughts to make us think we been there our own lives. You are no one to tell what the chances of that are. For one, god could of had put it there.
And Super, let me say this again, I'm not against evolution. Really I couldn't care less of how we came to be. It makes no difference at all.
And Super, let me say this again, I'm not against evolution. Really I couldn't care less of how we came to be. It makes no difference at all.
It actually makes quite a bit of difference. Because if we know how to alter the characteristics of organisms, and understand how they are altered naturally, we can make use of that to artificially create organisms which are beneficial to us. If we say that YEC is correct, then we then have to assume that we cannot alter other organisms to our own ends which would mean that many of the ways we cheaply produce drugs, change domesticated livestock to improve yields, or genetically alter other organisms for our own benefit. If you believe in YEC then none of these things could be possible, even though we know that they are, which is why it doesn't make any sense.
As I've tried to convey before, there's nothing wrong with believing that God started the universe. However, when you say that the how doesn't matter and take on beliefs that go directly against scientific knowledge, then demand that your beliefs be given equal weight as scientific 'fact', you are actively disrupting the scientific method and hurting countless people. That's what I have a problem with.
