Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



LPF's Religion

BobMc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
3,807
Points
113
They tried finding useful DNA in a very well preserved thawing Mammoth, but the DNA was too damaged. Theoretically they could just engineer one out of an elephant.

At least it doesn't matter for our salvation what we believe regarding the age of the earth. I have often had a feeling that the age scientists put on things is too old, not that the earth isn't millions/billions of years old (I don't know, it would be interesting to find out, but I'm not in a hurry), but mainly on human life and some other things such as people existing 10k,20k, to even 1-2M years ago.They can certainly make mistakes, it is certainly possible for them to be deceitful, but I'm sure they have some pretty good resoning and methods to support their findings. The most truth will be found in research as it requires truth to discover truth. Flawed methods will not find truth.

I think human life on earth is extremely recent, but there's no reason why the whole universe had to be created in 6 earth days because that, even if it might be possible for God, isn't natural to our universe, and is unnecessary. We know how slowly things happen in space like the time it would take a planet to form, just considering the time it takes distant asteroids to orbit the sun. More glory to God for patiently investing billions of years to let every beautiful detail of existence lead to the next even if it's purpose were to eventually hold mankind for a relative blip in its time line. All things are for God's glory anyway, and that's how it should be.

So true about our salvation not depending on what we believe about the age of the earth. Well said.

Here’s a video you might you might enjoy, a bit long, but I found the content interesting. :)

https://youtu.be/Gr8Az3QQZdI

I don't know where you got your information from, but I have researched Mary Higby Schweitzer's life and can find nothing concerning her firing for bringing this new information to light. She has three children, was recently divorced, there are reams of documents about her research, but being fired? nothing.
Curious, I just google “Mary Schweitzer fired” and came up with a couple.

Edit; they all seem to be talking about another scientist that got fired for the same thing. I’ll see if I can find where a heard it.

Edit2; you might be right, I searched and could not find a confirmation on her firing either. Heard it from a couple of seminars on you tube, but couldnt find an article confirming it. Did find an article that said she was let go at the end of her research grant but thats not the same thing. I will continue to look now I’m curious too.
 
Last edited:



paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
I am right, Bob. Know why? Because I actually read the stuff; you just glance at some headline and make assumptions. The only report of a researcher being fired is by the christain broadcast network and the anti-Darwin club. But, it is still about someone named Mark Armitage.

I wouldn't believe those sources for a second, but I did read all of it first. Try research, Bob. You'll be surprised by what you can learn.
 

BobMc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
3,807
Points
113
 
Last edited:

Nutball

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
291
Points
28
I'll pass on videos most of the time, It runs up the internet bill.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
Like I said, Bob, you were the one who claimed Mary Schweitzer had been fired for claiming dinosaurs are recent creatures and not 65 million years old. Did I read everything they had to say about Mark Armatige? No, it was a side issue. Do I care if he won a law suit? Of course, not. It is a side issue. Did I read the report from the christian broadcast network and the anti-Darwin club? Yes. It was hilarious and very entertaining.
 

BobMc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
3,807
Points
113
Let’s quote Paul;

“The only report of a researcher being fired is by the christain broadcast network and the anti-Darwin club.”

So I’m guessing that’s not quite the truth.

But the saying

“left wingers are notorious for blaming other people for being guilty of that which they do.”

Is proven to be true.

Please find the quote where I said Mrs Schweitzer was fired for saying dinosaurs are a recent creatures and not 65 million years old. This has got to be good! :crackup:

Because that’s not what I said but it’s what you assumed I said. :crackup:

What I said was

“she was fired for bringing forth the data” (which I found amazing because she’s a evolutionist)

Which is what I’ve heard multiple times just can’t find any confirmation of it right now.
 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
I’m going to have to change my position.
After having spent the last 2-3 months listen to the creation/evolution debates, also the young earth vs the old earth debates. Having listened to probably close to a hundred, in the last couple of months. Going to have the plant my flag with those of the “young earth”. After having listened to the evidence from both sides. ( both sides use the same evidence it’s just how that evidence is interpreted ) To any that are open and want a very interesting study. There are a whole bunch on YouTube videos, pro and cons, where you can check out the evidence for yourself.

Ps; check out the YouTube videos of where they found soft tissue and blood cells in the bone marrow of hundreds of dinosaurs bones. Find it curious that the _lady_ that found them got fired from her position. Been quite an interesting couple of months. Enjoy and stay safe. :)
Here you go Bob. By planting your so called flag with the "young earthers" and recommending the YouTube video that stated exactly that Mary Schweitzer was fired for saying this, you have in fact, said it also. Even Ms, Schweitzer has said that these people have twisted her words and misrepresented her data to try to prove a point that is plain false. There weren't hundreds of dinosaur bones, she, in fact, has said quite the opposite of what you claim, and your tacit agreement with everything they have said it tantamount to agreeing with all of their claims.
 
Last edited:

BobMc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
3,807
Points
113
Still waiting for you to find where I said “Mrs Schweitzer was fired for saying dinosaurs are recent creatures and not 65 million years old.

Not that I said this, but I meant that. (in your opinion). Come on Paul, grow up and quit making stuff up.



Edit@ Nutball, it’s quite an entertaining and informative video, you might want to check it out when your board and on WiFi. Enjoy. :)
 
Last edited:

BobMc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
3,807
Points
113
Read your edit;

Now your saying I said Mrs Schweitzer said it was hundred of bones. That’s not what I said, what I said was;

“Check out the you tube videos where they found soft tissue and bloond cells in the bone marrow of hundreds of dinosaurs bones. Find it curious that the lady that found them got fired from her position.”

I said to check out the “videos”
(plural) because it was more than one. I said hundred of bones because lab after lab has tested bone after bone and all have come up with the same finding. So the statement “hundred of bones” is a correct statement to use. But I never said Mrs Schweitzer said it. Once again your are accusing me of something I didn’t say. (please quit making stuff up)

I’m am aware that she says people are taking her find out of the context she wants them kept in. But data is data and facts are facts. And to say I don’t like the way your inturpting my data is your right. But it not very “scientific”. One scientist bring forth this truth and another brings forth that truth, that’s how people grow and learn.

But seeing I never spoke to any of this. Once again you are accusing me of something I never said.

(pretty please, stop making stuff up to fit your narrative and accusing people falsely)
.
 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
Bob, you may be a lot of things, but a scientist? No way. You are a fundamental evangelical christian looking for ways to make a case for what you already believe. That is not the way science is done. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of a god. It will never show that the earth is only thousands of years old because in so very many fields of science the earth has been shown to have existed for 4.54 billion years. Now, it may come to light that that number is off by maybe as much as 25%, but I doubt it. It will never show what you want it to show. Coming into a question with less than an open mind is not science. :na:
 

Nutball

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
291
Points
28
Science will never prove or disprove the existence of a god.
I don't know if that's true, but I think logic, if not science, based on true facts we can be certain of can. I'm pretty sure it has been done many times over, I just couldn't tell you where without researching it, but I'm sure Thomas Aquinas has done it.
 

TheDukeAnumber1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
2,064
Points
63
Science will never prove or disprove the existence of a god.
Can you elaborate a bit?

As science expands our understanding of humanity and the universe I don't see why the evidence couldn't heap on one side enough to call it conclusive or proven.
 

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,190
Points
113
I think the problem of proving if there is a God or not won't be answered like that because the problem in answering that question is in the concept of a God, as most people think of it, the concept of God varies too much among us to have a yes no answer to such a question. Get that settled first, or evolved, and we probably can. Until then, I don't think so. From my perspective, God isn't what religions can teach, maybe human beings will never be able to get a good handle on it. If I am right, that we cannot have a reasonable understanding of it due to what we as human beings are, how can you possibly settle the question if we don't, or can't really understand what it is? Regardless, a failure of the proper question shouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water either, so to speak, I'm not arguing for that.

I do think there is something intelligent which is responsible for reality to have come into being, which of course could exist without our understanding it now or ever as human beings, but we surely can't ask if it exists if we don't have a better defined set of parameters. Without being able to fame the question to greater detail, me thinks, that there is no yes-no answer to a question to whether the three letter word so many of us cannot agree upon what it is, exists or not, especially if it is far beyond our understanding which I think most already agree that would be the reality for such a thing. However, there is a substitute for knowing yes or no, you can always have faith one way or the other and it can be just fine to have such opinions of faith, as long as we are ethical and kind to one another regardless of opposing viewpoints and not using them as an excuse or validation for doing bad, or judging others who do not have that faith. Whether religious or atheist, I think both use faith in their beliefs, because neither really know. Although those who have deeply unusual spiritual experiences may claim otherwise (I count myself among those), they are inexplicable experiences which lead to belief, not proof in themselves.

If all of these problems in the question are understood, we can however make an inductive leap of logic and say yes or no regarding the "God" question, from our own intuition or perspective, but you won't be able to define it and in that case, there can never be a proof for what we cannot define a question for. Die and go to the light, or have a spiritual experience and you can answer the question for yourself, but that is no proof for the rest us here, only for yourself. I do believe intuition can somehow be a bridge to things beyond the purley logical functions of our brains, but intuition is no proof either.

Going a bit off topic, I have a suspicion that intuition somehow ties into a deeper level, possibly through a loose quantum interface to the base levels of all that is. Study Stuart Hameroff's theory on microtubules which are in the brain cell walls and how they might be a warm temperature quantum interface to that level to see how. This might be the physical medium we use to have a sense of spirituality and much more as the key to how consciousness works. The more I learn, if you want to see where the real power is behind matter as well as consciousness, go to the micro levels.
 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
Can you elaborate a bit?

As science expands our understanding of humanity and the universe I don't see why the evidence couldn't heap on one side enough to call it conclusive or proven.
Rather than try to explain this, I think I would rather use Mary Schweitzer's own thoughts on this as an evangelical christian herself. Mary believes that the existence of a god is a matter of faith, and as such, can never be proven. Her reasoning is that god made it that way. My reasoning is that one could never prove the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, creator who doesn't want to be found. I seriously doubt the existence of such a being, so if I am right....game over. If there is such a being that is seen by so many religions as completely different in what it wants or expects, it still seems like this god wants people to believe without evidence, that it does exist and to be able to prove it would be counter to its wishes.
 

Nutball

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
291
Points
28
I think there's no harm in trying to define an idea of God, then proving one way or another according to that version of God. Now this definition of God should at the same time be a serious attempt to determine the truest definition of what God, if he exists, is. This could involve still more than one definition of God, but really digging deep into the truth of the matter with fact and logic, thinking both inside and outside of the box, all with the intention of finding the best most reasonable definition according to the research without bias should really narrow down the number of definitions of a god. Then proof behind the various definitions could be given.

I think it a good place to start both from scratch, and from a reasonably credible source (the bible) which says God said Himself that He is existence, and see if both starting points reach the same conclusion. We know what exists exists, and what doesn't doesn't, but what is God? Is he simply existence, or more? Existence covers a lot of stuff from the visible universe to pure logic, to anything that exists, that we can't detect with our senses - that's the difficult part.

Couldn't you say before the visible universe existed, logic already did...extending back to a beginning where it always was in its simplest of forms and continued from there? Certain principles exist that God can't go against because they are part of his nature. We could try to find these to draw conclusions from them. For example 1+2 can't ever =4

I'm getting in over my head
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,321
Points
113
Before there was space/time it's difficult to say that anything existed. Without time, we cannot exist, the matter around us can't, and as far as logic goes, it is doubtful that would either, since it is a way we codify the things we see, feel, hear, smell, taste and so on. So, logic is a man made invention to make sense out of things that, otherwise, wouldn't.
 




Top