It's not a matter of "if" but "when" earth will be struck by a really big asteroid. There could be one that'll hit next week, because we haven't tracked them all. Is this generally accepted science? I sure see it a lot. Well, that's an apocalypse story, right down to the fire and brimstone, no? This is beyond the meaningless AlGore.
why claim to know something you can't possibly know? you base your "ideology" on science in all areas with the exception of your relgious belief. only where it clashes with science. otherwise i don't really care what you believe. i do like to argue that faith is a waste of time, but that's more of a recreational activity. nite
based on the historical record it's 100% certain that the earth will be hit again multiple times over a time frame of tens or hundreds of millions of years. yeah if a scientist is saying something like "give me lots of money for research because there could be one next week" that's a little over the top, but it is actually a remote possibility.
"Out of context"? People make up shit all the time, and even believe it when they do. You could ask the same question about any religious martyr. You are aware there are other religions besides Christianity, right? And they have martyrs too? Ah, the old "appeal to popularity". So if/when Islam passes that number, it'll be more reliable? So if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb on the most populous Christian country, that would make Christianity less true, because it had fewer believers? Which events? You're not going to tell me that the Grand Canyon is evidence of The Flood are you? Please say you're not that nutty. The videos? Or the people in them? Actually, don't bother answering because I don't really care. What "seems" intellectually dishonest to you is (a) your business, and (b) a fact about your psychology, not something I'm concerned with. You quoted a lot of things. Did I say you didn't quote the Old Testament ever in your ramblings? You were talking about the so-called New Testament at the time. Exactly what counts as "forming my own opinion"? Given that I can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek (and neither can you) and I don't know which of the thousands of incompatible versions of the books of the Bible is the oldest or "purest", how am I going to do that? http://bible.cc/acts/1-18.htm Ah, presumably YOU wrote this, because otherwise you're not exactly forming your own opinion, are you? Perhaps you'd like to give me your opinion of it, because it seems frankly laughable to me (that's my opinion). We're asked to believe that the passage in Acts where it says Judas bought the field with the 30 pieces of silver (where elsewhere it says that the field belongs to other people, and that Judas cast aside the 30 pieces of silver) is actually compatible with the story in Matthew where he hangs himself. So... in Acts it just neglects to mention the part where he hangs himself. It doesn't think that's really important. He's walking around, apparently happy and content, and then suddenly he gets a fit of repentance and hangs himself, but that's not worth mentioning? And who owns this field anyway? Since I, unlike you, don't have a magic Truth-O-Meter, I am forced to rely on Evidence and The Scientific Method. Not as good, I understand, but I do what I can with what I've got. So you keep saying. Almost like a mantra. Like an article of faith, almost. So what, according to you, is a "species"? You don't seem to be getting the point of a ring species.
I think it is a fundamentalist/creationist's duty that, whenever he or she visits the Doctor, to ask, "are you using medicine that was developed in accordance with belief in the theory that evolution is a biological fact?" and if the Doctor says "Yes", to refuse the treatment. In fact, I think there should be separate hospitals: those that use medicine based on the assumption that Darwin got it basically right, and those based on the assumption that we were created about 4000 years ago and all humans are descendants of Noah, and there is no such thing as evolution. That would be an aid to evolution right there.
It is an interesting bit of hypocrisy that fundies simultaneously deride and benefit from scientific advancements. If for anything, those crackpot Christians in Oregon City who refuse medical treatment because they believe that prayer will cure everything deserve our respect for putting their lives (no matter how short) on the line for their beliefs. That they subject their kids, who CAN'T make the conscious decision to believe in such things, is the real crime.
There is a lot of money being spent on this research. They land probes on asteroids, design plans to deflect one should it be on collision path, etc. I'm fine with it. I wasn't "attacking" science for things like this, just pointing out it's a surrogate sort of religion. Science and Religion seem to be looking for the answers to the same questions.
Religion is looking to explain creation, the End, our role in things, and to drive our behavior. Science is looking to explain creation (big bang), the End (big rip, big crunch, etc.), our role in things, and to drive our behavior (curb CO2 emissions, etc.). In his book, "A Brief History of Time," Steven Hawking (the Pope!) wrote: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." Seems to me he's admitting that Science and Religion seek the same Truths. Or do tell me what it means to "know the mind of God."
To realize he's nothing more than a mythical character in early literature? I see no mention of religion in the quote. In fact, it appears he deliberately left it out.
Popular science writers (and TV guys like Carl Sagan) often dumb down their messages into common, trite phrases. That's how they get widely read.
religion isn't looking to explain anything about the physical universe. everything happened by magic. no need to look for explanations. individual scientists might attempt to use science to support their agenda, but unlike religion science itself has no agenda by definition. it's not a religion; it's just a tool. he's an atheist. obviously by knowing the mind of god he means we would have knowledge of how the physical universe works gained through science. religion isn't concerned with knowledge of how the physical universe works. you're trying too hard to make a parallel where there is none.
He may be an atheist, but he's DEFINING "God." I agree that at its core, science has no agenda. However, science is made up of scientists who are human and humans do have agendas. Intelligent design is at least wrapped in science. It IS an attempt to explain both why and how the physical universe works. Do I believe it? No But it is a hypothesis that can be tested for. Consider Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the proponents of panspermia (a very scientific pursuit/theory) said, "The odds…" he concluded were about the same as throwing a "sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice." He continued, "Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true."
so you agree science is just a tool, not a religion. no it's not, at least in any form any proponent of ID has presented to this point in history. all ID proponents have done is try to pawn off god-of-the-gaps arguments to people who don't understand how science works. you should study the dover trial. ID was found to not even qualify as a scientific theory by a court of law. = god of the gaps
no, he's just using an allegorical phrase to make science seem more profound and interesting to people who might think it isn't, in order to sell more books. he's just romanticising science.
Actually, I think he's mocking the notion that people still believe in one. In Swedish the word god means "self".
