General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

NOTE: I am always amazed by the programs on TV that bring dinosaurs to life (cool animations). Quite often in the explanations, it seems that the scientist was right there -- and knows exactly how things happened between the different creatures. Interesting stuff IMO, but still just theories and ideas.....and I cannot believe it is all true (scientifically or historically speaking).

Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.

Think of it like this. Two people are murdered, one of which is your recently ex-wife. Your blood is found at the scene, and their blood is found in your vehicle, your driveway, and your house which is about 2 miles away. You have a large gash on your middle finger which you freely admit you got the night of the murder but 'can't remember' how. Shoe prints are found at the scene of the crime from a very rare brand of shoes. There are pictures showing you wearing said shoes. You were well known to police during your relationship as a domestic abuser, and were known to have a jealous streak. The man killed along with your wife was an attractive and well built younger white man. When charged with their murder, you get a cheap disguise you purchased two weeks before their deaths and $15 000 in cash and your passport and lead police on a low-speed chase threatening to kill yourself.

A couple years later, you write a book called 'If I did it' in which you explain in detail how the murders would have happened if you had committed them.

Yes, you can't prove formally that you committed the crime but it's pretty goddamn sure that you did!

If the English word "Christ" comes from the greek word Christos, did the Greeks have this word specifically chosen for the eventual messiah or did the word have a use and function before being written in the Bible?

I'd be surprised if christos was used to describe a healer other than in the biblical context.

Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.

Damn! Like I said "the little kids start forming their belief systems". "It has to be true. It was on TV"
or "Someone ( not "sitting on the toilet") said it was true".

Dude, am probably the most neutral guy on this subject (at least I really try to be).
But you are very militant in your beliefs on this topic IMO. That makes me wary of that viewpoint.
Sorry. Not going to bite the bait, and go into the "You are wrong. I am right" thing you are doing with others.

My belief system is still open to both sides. My own doubts are about how each side argues for/against their strong beliefs. Not sure how to make that clear.

/me posting on this particular DC topic. LOL

Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.

Im guessing you are young. Actually sometimes that is the very thing that happens. No man is biased 100%. So no science is 100% perfect. Much of it is total crap. You ever watch TV? How many commercials you see in the USA? There are almost as many lawsuit commecials on past "approved" medicine as there are for new ones. Every wonder why that is? People who make the drugs- doctors(who are scientists in a sort) and Scientist want the stuff to sell so they work for a good company and can pay for little Sally and Bobby to go to a good school and they can have a nice retirement. This does not make for an unbiased man or woman. The scientist that get paid by BP isn't the best guy wo ask if the oil spill is going to have a negative impact or not. The scientist getting paid by some green group is not the best to ask where the line should be drawn on trying to keep the Earth livable and still meeting modern realities. Something to think about.

Another point is- Science has been wrong many many times and will be again many many times. So why say it is the truth somewhere on that time line? Seems like a bad bet.

Is anyone else getting tired of all this round and round we go discussion? Right, it's not perfect. But like Tex said, some people are just not going to believe until God comes back down and does parlor tricks. Because that's what he did when he sent Jesus. And instead of having bones to recreate muscular-skeletal forms, we have accounts/recollections of people that witnessed and experienced these parlor tricks with their own eyes. Some of us are able to believe these stories and some people need more information. Unfortunately, there's no other information that can be provided so I completely understand for one's contradictory belief.

Sigh. Yet again this thread has turned into a thinly veiled argument between the camps: 'We Christians' and 'We Atheists'.

In the first few pages there was some really golden posts that we thought provoking, yet not provocative. Now it's just like "LOL U CANT B SERIOUS: you're irrational, heres why - <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text>"

"NO, we are not irrational, heres why: <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text"

Who knew that a topic on Religon would end up in deadend replies, and more importantly, unresolved?

E: "GLUIPERIG" , didnt I read on the 5th page that you would stop posting?

But anyway, I really am done posting on this thread. I'll just keep reading everyone else's thoughts. I think there's only like 2-3 of us that actually believe in religion anyway so I'll let them post. Smile Cheers!

and the 10th..

Ok, I'm done with this thread. Cheers everyone.

yet here we are 13 pages later ?

The strength of science lies in how easy it is to disprove a theory. Take evolution for example. We have incredible amounts of evidence that supports the theory, but if we even had one little piece of evidence to disprove it, evolution as a theory would fall. You don't need more evidence against than for a theory to say the theory is wrong. All you need is one little piece of evidence, and it all comes tumbling down.

This is why it's reasonable to say that evolution is true, that we know, and that it's a fact. It's reasonable because we can be proven wrong. And this is why it's not reasonable to say that God is true, that you know he is, and that it's a fact. Because it could never be proven wrong.

Damn! Like I said "the little kids start forming their belief systems". "It has to be true. It was on TV"
or "Someone ( not "sitting on the toilet") said it was true".

Dude, am probably the most neutral guy on this subject (at least I really try to be).
But you are very militant in your beliefs on this topic IMO. That makes me very wary of that view.
Sorry. Not going to bite the bait, and go into the "You are wrong. I am right" thing you are doing with everyone.

My belief system is still open to both sides. My own doubts are about how each side argues for/against their strong beliefs. Not sure how to make that clear.

Sometimes I wonder if you are here just to arouse reactions and grab attention. ie: trolling

I really cannot understand how someone can claim that logic, reason and empiricism is a 'belief system.'

Im guessing you are young. Actually sometimes that is the very thing that happens. No man is biased 100%. So no science is 100% perfect. Much of it is total crap. You ever watch TV? How many commercials you see in the USA? There are almost as many lawsuit commecials on past "approved" medicine as there are for new ones. Every wonder why that is? People who make the drugs- doctors(who are scientists in a sort) and Scientist want the stuff to sell so they work for a good company and can pay for little Sally and Bobby to go to a good school and they can have a nice retirement. This does not make for an unbiased man or woman. The scientist that get paid by BP isn't the best guy wo ask if the oil spill is going to have a negative impact or not. The scientist getting paid by some green group is not the best to ask where the line should be drawn on trying to keep the Earth livable and still meeting modern realities. Something to think about.

Another point is- Science has been wrong many many times and will be again many many times. So why say it is the truth somewhere on that time line? Seems like a bad bet.

You clearly have absolutely no idea how science works, sir.

I guess I could tell you or try and reason with you but we've all seen how well that has worked so far so I'm not even going to bother.

Sigh. Yet again this thread has turned into a thinly veiled argument between the camps: 'We Christians' and 'We Atheists'.

In the first few pages there was some really golden posts that we thought provoking, yet not provocative. Now it's just like "LOL U CANT B SERIOUS: you're irrational, heres why - <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text>"

"NO, we are not irrational, heres why: <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text"

Who knew that a topic on Religon would end up in deadend replies, and more importantly, unresolved?

E: "GLUIPERIG" , didnt I read on the 5th page that you would stop posting?

and the 10th..


yet here we are 13 pages later ?

Guilty as charged. I think I've said that 2-3 times already...guess I just can't get enough ha ha ha

.......I really cannot understand how someone can claim that logic, reason and empiricism is a 'belief system.'

As you get older and see people go through the cycle of life.......you will realize what I am talking about. I have seen people gain a faith....and seen people more-or-less lose their faith.
A thinking person asks themselves each time, "Why?"

Respectfully, you cannot argue so strongly AGAINST someone else's belief system -- and then claim that you yourself do NOT have some sort of BIAS (belief system) for something else (right or wrong).

Take a step back, and digest what I have said. Nothing certain or bias has come from me on this topic.....except that most humans have their own belief-systems (religious or science-based). I am not sure why you would want to laugh or fight against me on that idea -- UNLESS you are trying to protect/defend your own beliefs.

/ Dear Lord, please stop making me respond to this guy. Just kidding.

This thread brought this hilarious movie to mind for some reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

"And may God have mercy on your soul" lol

A simple wrong would have worked

The strength of science lies in how easy it is to disprove a theory. Take evolution for example. We have incredible amounts of evidence that supports the theory, but if we even had one little piece of evidence to disprove it, evolution as a theory would fall. You don't need more evidence against than for a theory to say the theory is wrong. All you need is one little piece of evidence, and it all comes tumbling down.

This is why it's reasonable to say that evolution is true, that we know, and that it's a fact. It's reasonable because we can be proven wrong. And this is why it's not reasonable to say that God is true, that you know he is, and that it's a fact. Because it could never be proven wrong.

No man, don't you see what they're saying? Your belief just isn't the same as theirs. You believe in 'science' and they believe in God.


But that's ok cause you're probably young and naive and stuff.