damian Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Man, doesn't take much to start a conversation on this forum. Cool... .......... [lol] .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Hmmm.........Sometimes cute women discover that I have two globes in my pocket....... [flapper] .... I have three globes in mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannusguy2 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Man your brave, some organization killed Galileo for saying the same thing! they finally apologized a few years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I have three globes in mine. :blink: ...........Hmmm, that makes it easier to take her around the world over and over...... [lol] .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 it is also approximately 3.7 billion years old, not 10000 years!!! LOL (edit the gospel of Wilkapedia says 4.5 billion years old, so even older!) Jus sayin' Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 it is also approximately 13.7 billion years old, not 10000 years!!! LOL Jus sayin' Matt We can barely date a guitar, yet we think we can date the earth. Sure, we know quite a lot compared to what we knew 100 years ago, but what we DON'T know is really the most awesome. There are some really brilliant minds, but I think the most brilliant answer would be to admit that we don't really know, and not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Any estimate of the age of anything by scientists is never put forth as an absolute answer. They are fairly sure about maany things. They're pretty sure it is more than 10,000 years old. They are almost absolutely sure it is round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Sure, we know quite a lot compared to what we knew 100 years ago, but what we DON'T know is really the most awesome.There are some really brilliant minds, but I think the most brilliant answer would be to admit that we don't really know, and not even close. I agree "not even close" in the sense of it being a circa estimation - i.e it may be several thousands of years out, either way, but never the less; pretty damn close...and in comparison to the frankly absurd idea that the earth is 10000 years old, a blinding truth! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 13.7 billion??? WTF - hungover fingers....Matt drop the 1 (I know typical man, we always add numbers to estimations!!! ) Any estimate of the age of anything by scientists is never put forth as an absolute answer. They are fairly sure about many things. They're pretty sure it is more than 10,000 years old. They are almost absolutely sure it is round. cheers to that and you! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I agree "not even close" in the sense of it being a circa estimation - i.e it may be several thousands of years out, either way, but never the less; pretty damn close...and in comparison to the frankly absurd idea that the earth is 10000 years old, a blinding truth! Matt Keep in mind, this "estimation" is based in part on "theory" on how the Earth and our solar system was formed. It is not yet even a known fact how this occurred, although there are a lot of logical ideas and conclusions about these things. But, SCIENTIFICALLY we can not claim to have a complete and accurate picture of what exactly happened. We learn more all the time, and we get more theories all the time. Add to that, such things as carbon dating have proven to be a useful tool, but has also proven to be misleading and far from accurate by itself. And, as in everything, the more you demand of it, the more variables there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Ummm...............My girlfriend is older than me........that's a fact....... I call her my old lady.............just sayin'....... I also don't hear the moon singin' " It's Hip To Be Square "............also just sayin'....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I think as always, the people in the public eye who are arguing for or against the age of the earth have belief systems that seriously bias the sincerity of their answers they give. I do actually agree with much of what you have said Stein, but I think of the two sides, it is the scientific one that has credibility on it's side regarding the earths age. I say that as a believer in God and Jesus too. The word 'theory' in the scientific sense, means it is the best answer we have, using logic and intelligence in determining something at the present. It is very different to the non scientific theory which is more of like a hunch... I have a theory this thread will bd shut down. This isn't a hunch but because I have opened the flood gates in mentioning religion Lol...but oh well '**** happens' :) It has been fun while it lasted. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versatile Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Re Galileo.... It just goes to show how the world struggles with profound insight and originality (long potential list of cases in point) Re The World.... Mr Mercator had it sussed and lived to tell the tale.... V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannusguy2 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 And Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 And Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to church. LMAO!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMichaelG Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 they finally apologized a few years later. Yeah, the church is usually too late and too little on subjects that concern most of the earth's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMichaelG Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 And Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to church. Oh. My. God. Another misconception about the Bible...Adam and Eve only rode ONE dinosaur to church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I think sometimes religion gets a rough treatment. It's my observation that people do the best they can to explain what's going on around them with what it is they know at the time. The problem comes when "we" try to consider those folks either were "right" or "wrong" in terms of what we know now. Argument often comes because different groups of us "know" things differently. Frankly I think one reason such as Tao Te Ching, Aristotle and Plato, have so much value for us today is that they seem to me to recognize they're working with what they have and know. There's an entire region of philosophy known as epistemology that has to do with what we know or think we know, and how we come to believe that we know it. Music, in a sense, might be something of a parallel. How do we learn what is inside us in terms of music, and how do we then work with that? My experience is somewhat different from that of someone 50 years younger here on the board, so it may be inevitable that I will translate that knowledge through the way my own head works when I play with whatever skills and what small "talent" I may have. "Religion" is not entirely unlike that, if one considers it rather objectively. "We" have certain early training that affects our basic concepts just as all, at least most, of us here are used to a 12-tone scale usually converted into octaves within that scale. Why not a five-tone scale? Well, that's easier for some of us than others because of the basis of our "knowledge" of music. Frankly I think that as science gets into such new things as string theory and brane universes and such, it's a challenge to our more primitive personal perceptions of the world that have only five senses not entirely different from that of other animal entities. We lack telescopic eyes or ears to hear on the electromagnetic spectrum. Newtonian concepts of mass and motion are pretty easy to understand because we can see them in effect when we play at football or billiards. But once one begins to enter the nearly century-old Einsteinian concepts of physics, gravity, space, time, etc., we're entering a world one doesn't perceive that one might grasp as one does a guitar neck. To go beyond the apparent that affects our most primitive brain functions, cycles of light and darkness, apparent "rising" of the sun or moon, requires a degree literally of a leap of faith within our higher brain functions. If religion of all sorts has a message to what and how we know what we think we know, I'd say that it is that there is somehow an order to what we perceive as reality. I'd say it's that we can see that reality increasingly well as we grow in the tools we use to perceive it, and that the nature of whatever bought our being is that we are as a species strivers to learn more. That requires a "nature" that allows such a development. The message that nature does allow such development predates science, and we call it "religion" because it is an attempt to offer a world view that allows the apparently random to be seen as part of a larger whole that we have an avenue and opportunity to understand. Arguments about this specific or that specific within philosophy or religion essentially come from that common ground. Musical analogy? Consider that even the deaf appear to have an innate sense of rhythm. It's tonality that is comprehended among the deaf only through knowledge received from others. Plato's "parable of the cave" (Google it if you wish) actually was an argument in reference to politics rather than religion, but is in ways the beginning of epistemology as we know it today. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Oh. My. God. Another misconception about the Bible...Adam and Eve only rode ONE dinosaur to church. Of course. Their religion forbids women from driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Of course. Their religion forbids women from driving. A couple of weeks ago, after playing at the reception of my friend's wedding in France, I sat down and for the meal with my wife and six other people with name cards in front of their plate. At the table was a Spanish guy named Jesus - and my friend Nicola's old room mate Magdalene!!! As soon as I drunkenly said "ah interesting names!!!" my wife whispered "SHUT UP!!!" After more drinks were consumed and the waiter came and put some more red wine (and water) on the table I couldn't resist saying "Jesus cheers to you, you've done my favourite miracle again!!" Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Amazing how a simple statement of the obvious, incorrect as it is, can degenerate into religion bashing.... and the mods let it continue.... God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Amazing how a simple statement of the obvious, incorrect as it is, can degenerate into religion bashing.... and the mods let it continue.... God help us. The obvious is incorrect? As Groucho said "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Amazing how a simple statement of the obvious, incorrect as it is, can degenerate into religion bashing.... and the mods let it continue.... God help us. I didn't read any 'religion bashing' only good natured back an forths? Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C Clarke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.