Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[TD1]

Indeed. I could say that the sun is made of boiling cheese. General colour and heat emission supports this and it is a interpretation, just one which evidence and probability point against

[origamiscienceguy]

Plus there's the whole Scientific Method, where you make hypothesises and test them against observable evidence to see whether they work or not. 'God made it that way' is not testable, since there's no way to determine whether it's true or not (or people will move the goal posts and say that God made things that way too) and thus you can't use it as a theory/hypothesis since you can't predict or use it in any constructive way. 'There was a giant flood that made all of the fossils' is a better hypothesis since it is actually testable and provides a prediction about how the world works. The only problem is that that hypothesis doesn't fit in with established evidence. If a global flood did exist, then we should see a single band of fossils with all different types of animals mixed in it. Instead we have seperate bands of fossils enclosed in different types of rocks, and fossils are clearly seperated from each other by which band they appear in. Which means that either the global flood didn't happen, or the hypothesis needs to be changed to fit with what we observe.

What I'm trying to say is that different interpetations of evidence are fine, but if those interpetations don't match the evidence or can't be tested then they aren't following the scientific method and thus aren't acceptable as scientific theories. And if they aren't proper scientific theories then you can't use them to make predictions to learn more about thexworld around you, and instead just admire them from afar as pleasing but unapplyable theories.

True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[scrdest]

True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.

That's not how density works. Especially organ density. And no, untestable claims are pretty much by definition neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It's Not Even Wrong.

Your source does not mention intact DNA being found in the bones, and as for soft tissue, the impossibility of it surviving is a YEC claim.

[origamiscienceguy]

True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.

That's not how density works. Especially organ density. And no, untestable claims are pretty much by definition neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It's Not Even Wrong.

Your source does not mention intact DNA being found in the bones, and as for soft tissue, the impossibility of it surviving is a YEC claim.

I'm not the expert. I just heard that from somewhere and I probably messed it up.

[Orange Wizard]

Guys, we're doing that "dogpile on the guy with an unpopular opinion" thing again.

[TempAcc]

Should I open the fedora closet?

[Orange Wizard]

Pretty sure everyone who needs one already has one.

[TD1]

I don't.

Can I rent one?

[Orange Wizard]

Sure. 40 Euphoria dollars per month. Or, you can buy it outright for 144 000 ED.

[Teneb]

To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?

[origamiscienceguy]

To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?

I don't know much about those practices, but from what I know, I think that they are unnecessary. I believe that all you need to do to get to heaven is:
-admit your sin
-believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins
-accept the gift of forgiveness

I don't think anywhere in the bible speaks against saints and such, but to me, those practices are not required.

[origamiscienceguy]

Oops, I forgot the most important part.

-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.

Kinda important.

[Teneb]

Oops, I forgot the most important part.

-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.

Kinda important.

Still doesn't require actual worship, though. Which is pretty interesting.

[origamiscienceguy]

Oops, I forgot the most important part.

-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.

Kinda important.

Still doesn't require actual worship, though. Which is pretty interesting.

It is not a requirement so much as it is a side-effect. After you realize just how much God loves you and what he did for you, it just kind of happens.