So, you don't believe that nubula are the birth-place of stars?
Printable View
So, you don't believe that nubula are the birth-place of stars?
Never said that lol nice try though.
You're trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
lol no i want proof about that scientist/study about stars are being created as of now.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
What's hard about that? If you don't have it then admit it.
Who said nubula is a birth place of stars?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
come on i wanna learn.
Mark McCaughreanQuote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Solar Nebular Hypothesis
Thank you, but i still question this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I jumped the gun there. Mark McCaughrean is an astrophysicist and professor, and apparently a proponent of the Solar Nebular Hypothesis, but his name is mentioned in that article because he was partly responsible for the images. The Solar Nebular Hypothesis was first thought up in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg. It was developed from there by a lot of people, including Immanuel Kant. It was originally meant to explain only the origin of our solar system, but it is now used as a model for solar system development throughout the universe.
Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Scientific journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This has gone on long enough. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
hathor28,
I would have looked up the information, but I didn't want to indulge someone who won't indulge me in a realistic conversation. You argue against the contention that stars are born in nebula, but tell me that you never said you don't believe it. You play games. I decided to ask you questions to figure out who I am talking to because you appeared to be playing a game. I might play the game, but I wasn't prepared to play a ridiculous game by your rules.
Thankfully, others have chimed in before I had to research it.
No i'm not, i just got a different state of mind and question a lot of things in this world. If that's a crime?....then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Do you question the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
That's what science does, to an extreme degree. You'd know this if you'd clicked those links. Clearly you've chosen to remain misguided. So be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Yes sometimes, but i am not dumb to not see a few people here stand up more on science than anything else, i hate that. I got nothing more to say or it will turn ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
BTW i think this thread needs to move to "science and mathematics", mixing science and religion is a no-no, you "science fans" should know this already.
Everyone should be a science fan. You don't need to be a scientist, or an engineer, or have gone to school, or been taught by others, or be smart to be a fan of science. Science is for everyone.
sci·ence [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
To hate science is to hate knowledge. How can any one hate knowledge?
You have misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I said i hate people who put science above all else and are not open minded and closes doors on everything else and mocks other things.
If no one understands what i said in my previous post then it's not my problem. Make sure you/everyone else reads it thoroughly before assuming. Anyone else after this post who already or i already spoke to, i won't speak again because i know what is in play here in this thread and i won't be part of this debate because you simply can't mix science and religion and be one sided and not like people who question science. Then so be it.
Except being open minded to everything equally and only judging based on what we can observe is what science means.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Again... your misconceptions would have been rectified by now if you listened to anybody other than yourself.
First off hathor28, relax. If you believe in the bible, don't get so upset. Have a cup of Sanka.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Second, people here believe in science because it science brought you the internet, the letter W, and the number 3.
Really, airplanes fly because of science, not God.
So lets separate science and God. Both could exist, right? OK, so Science has given us novacane, the hubble telescope, television, baseball...you know, everything cool...except the atoms themselves. Where did those come from?
God could have made the atoms, and quarks, and ups and downs, and strongs and not strongs, wait, that's science again.
Lets just call it stuff. God, if there is a God, made all this stuff. I mean like dirt and stuff. Trees, water, snakes, kittens, you know--natural stuff. The only thing is, while we know that a boy drowned in the lake, we don't really know that God wiggled his nose and created it. It says he did in the bible, but you have to have faith to believe it. I don't have faith.
Now we know that science created rockets and other cool stuff, and boys and lakes are natural. We still haven't really pinned down the God thing. In fact, God requires that we not know him, for if we know him, we no longer have faith
I am going to plant a garden in half of my yard. I'm going to plant corn, beans, and squash. I'm also going to have a flower garden. They are already in the ground. I'll leave half un-planted. I want to see what happens with the half the lord is going to work alone.
You, my friend, have made more of an effort to have a relationship with me than has God. He is omnipotent and has never once gotten into my head and so much as said, "Hi."
I figure I'm doing his will. He wants me to live, and guess what...
Doesn't that say something about religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
There's something a little fishy about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
It's a test, silly! Standards were slipping recently so God decided to tune it up to hard-mode by filling the universe with evidence that he didn't oversee the creation life or anything else for that matter. That way only the fervently irrational would be allowed into paradise. Genius! What a guy!
>>Quote:
mixing science and religion is a no-no
>>>> Absolutely. We know science works, and science does not mix with religion. hathor said it, not me.By the way, the whole concept of life and consciousness is incredible enough for me. I don't really need to come up with something else incredible to explain that. I'm happy being bewildered about the whole "Life" thing. It's enough to make me high.Quote:
Doesn't that say something about religion?
I think the problem with western civilization is that you read genesis as straight up fact. While it is fact, if you read it in original text (Hebrew) it actually comes out sounding like poetry. In a nutshell, the same way we shorten stories to make it easier to spread around, that's what they did. They made the text flow-y.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
Also if any Christian says the universe was created in a literal seven day time period, ignore them. If you successfully read genesis, you'll quickly come to realize after each day in the story the text says, "and it was night and day the ___ day", but it never says it after the seventh day because God rested. This implies that we are still in the resting period which also implies that we are in God's seventh day. Connecting the dots and knowing that God's time perception is past, present and future simultaneously, a day for him could be thousands of years for us.
Also it's not that Satan is running the show. It's that we decided to give Satan the stage. As for your comment about God creating a world with people, imagine this.
You're a badass God, you can do everything and anything that your imagination can produce (even more so than our tiny imaginations can produce as humans) wouldn't you think it'd be neat to create people to share your creations with? It's actually almost like dreaming. Lucid Dreaming may not be nearly as fun if we couldn't interact with dream characters. I don't know that boredom would exist with God, I'm not an expert, but I do understand why he would create people to enjoy the earth and the wonders (while not giving us tooo much information, because that would spoil a lot of the fun in curiosity.)
Anyway, I'm a Christian and I think a lot of Christians give the entire body a bad name by the lack of understanding context, critical thinking, classical logic and of course common sense.
It doesn't matter how you read genesis, it is always going to be wrong. Even if you take the entire thing as metaphor, it is still off. No matter how much you try to twist it in the name of context, it is always going to be wrong, because the stuff just makes no sense at all. The creation story is just like all the other creation myths found all around the world, they were stories told by early man to try to explain their place on earth, and because they lacked knowledge their stories were wrong.
I'm sorry, I forgot you're so knowledegable of doctrines written thousands of years before your existence. And context/metaphors do matter. How can you even provide an intellectual debate with saying it doesn't matter? Here's two examples of how it matters. In Genesis God breathed life into dust creating man. Realize God is a scientist and this could be a less intelligent people describing evolution. Thought of that? Also in the bible (which has managed to survive thousands of years and convert most of the worlds population) there are several < several, more detailed creation accounts that actually align with what most scientists believe for the early days of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So let me close out of this endless circle of debate like this. If you're planning on writing off everything as myth you might do some real research before letting your brain describe how other people explained their existence because you can't yourself.
Also you may make sure that your so knowledgeable ASSUMPTIONS are 100% correct, make sure, research your heart out, because you're garunteed to die and eternity is a long time my friend.
Oh but good job ignoring everything else I spoke of :) great job. Real pro right thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Alric
For people who like science so much y'all really don't use logic nor research lmao
Right, it's all fact, just highly abstracted facts to the point that they forget to mention anything resembling little details like hydrogen and nuclear fusion and instead talks about a snake in a garden. Very enlightening. The truth is the average 3rd grader has a vastly more complete understanding of the origin and nature of the universe than anyone a thousand years ago did or would have had after reading the Bible. People were not stupider back then. Our brains are essentially biologically identical, the only thing they lacked back then was the framework of knowledge that makes it so comparatively easy for us to understand the cosmos today. In only a few hundred years we have taught ourselves so much about the origin of the cosmos, yet god's esoteric poems have failed to teach anyone anything real about the subject despite existing from [supposedly] the beginning of creation itself. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCamp
If Genesis was really meant to teach people about the origin of the universe it wouldn't be written as a bizarre and confusing poem that requires you work backwards [with no small amount of abstraction] from prior knowledge, stretching it until it tears to fit over the ridiculous story. I mean are there really any examples of anyone from any time in human history of someone reading Genesis and coming away with an at all complete or accurate understanding of the creation of the cosmos who didn't know beforehand? So, yeah, you're definitely right that no one should read Genesis as though it were fact. Better to just look at it as the irrelevant Christian myth that it is -- it and the rest of the Bible stories.
If that's what it's supposed to mean, why does it not just say that? Why would it not just explain god's perception of time and not use the word day, which has a very specific meaning? If it's a matter of understandability and summarization why not just say "a long time," "thousands of centuries," or something like that? Why the esoteric frippery? The fact that these stories fail to hold a consistently understandable meaning to humans is clearly evidenced by how even the various different Christian denominations can't agree what any of it means. Why is god such a shit writer and teacher? If it's because the Bible was written by humans, why did god not just write it himself if humans would inevitably profoundly fuck it up?Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCamp
And let's not forget all the backpedaling apologetics they so often perpetuate. Past a certain point it just becomes an embarrassment to ascribe any scientific value to the stories of the Bible. That tends to make them look bad, too. Seriously, the idea that Genesis is a poetic representation of the origin of the universe is tantamount to explaining how the internet works by writing a haiku about slipping on a banana peel.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCamp