Have you ever stared at the sun, and felt a sudden fear that it might turn red and burn everything from here to jupiter back to the drawing board. Last I heard, Scientists say that we have about another five-billion years before something like that should happen, but how do they know?
I'm not talking about the scientific mumbo-jumbo about the chemical compositions and the course of the life of a star, I wouldn't understand if you tried to give me all that.
What I'm saying is that we havn't even had advanced enough science to study this kind of stuff for thousands of years, let alone million, let alone billions. how can they possibly imagine they have an acurate life span for a star. Hell, stars could get desises and die early for all I'm convinced we "know".
Maybe that's a little extream.
I believe that science is for the most part right. I think we take alot of things that they give us as facts and assume thats all there is to know. It seems people think that the people doing these experiments aren't as new to the discoveries as man was to fire when lightning first hit a tree.
Take gravity for example. This extream force that has no particular physical form, so far as I know. Yet this "force" connects everything in the universe. From what I remember of science class, every act exerts some grvitational force and that force effects everything in the universe, even if in humans case it doesn't impact much in a significant way.
I know I sound terribly uneducated but I really feel that there is to much left unexplained to be so sure of what we know. we may know alot about our planet, even a far amount about our galaxy. Only, a fair amount for us is compared to knowing nothing. Who knows how primative we'll look to people in two-thousand years. For me, christians(though really only the radicals) trust to much in what people tell them about god and not enough about what they feel about it.
Yes, thats right, I'm gonna say it.
Science is like believeing in god. There is a lot of evidence for it.
There is also a lot of oppisition to it by people who believe they have a better answer. The only differance, and it is a HUGE differance, is that while science is governed only by facts, by things that can be verified and within the understanding of the scientific community, religion is soley based on faith that what is said is true, basicly. There is a lot of evidence, in conparison to what we know about god( which is just about nothing), proving that the bible, the "word of god" is true, but it is not undeniable by skeptics.
The other thing about science is that it relys conpletly on the scientific method to be used in every fact. I'm sure there are acceptions and variations, but it must fall in the realm of our understanding and therefore cannot be influenced by what is outside our understanding.
It makes us so we cannot accept that what we know could be completly wrong, and dont even attempt to acknowledge the impossible as partially possible just because there is not enough evidence that nothing is impossible. So as far as im concerned, gods a broomstick and the universe is just a toilet bowl slowly filling untill someone flushes it.
I hope this ridiculusly outrageous blog ammuses you. I'll try to come back and revise it but i must get back to work.
locke
This was an awesome blog. I loved when you were talking about the differences between science and the bible. Also about how "the "word of god" is true, but it is not undeniable by skeptics". I dont know how many times I have discussed issues such as this with friends. Its nice to see someone else tripping up on it also.
Always remeber to Live Long and Laugh Hard
It was an interesting blog and you made it better by including your own thoughts and feelings.
However, going back to revise is a good idea. Actually, if you begin by typing your blog in Word or some other program, you won't have such typos as "extream" or "conplety" or "desises". Just a suggestion.
I know I'm sorry about those. I blog at word and we have know word processing programs other than note pad so it is better to do it myself. Unfortunatly I'm usually rushed to finish before I get off work, so there is virtually no time to revise. I do try to make a note at the end of my blogs mentioning how poor the content will be. It's good of you to notice and I will try better.
Great post. It was fair to science and religion.
It amuses me, but I've seen only thin amounts of evidence to support the purports of religion. The only evidence comes from religious texts and those are up for debate because it's hearsay and word of mouth written down so it is open to interpretation and political agendas of the writers.
Actually, I have seen quite a few places that are fairly unbiased show alot of "proof" that the bible is, for the most part, acurate. The history channel has a video on the ten plagues and the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. It provides a pretty convincing argument for the possibility that the plagues could have happened and even explained the parting of the red sea. I felt the explanation worked for both science and religion.
It proves that it happened, yet if you notice, there are no historical records of a Moses. Second, I believe the plagues and exodus to be true but the evidence shows it happened, not that God did it.
The main flaw is that there is no Moses.
Wow! The events are true? Isn't that missing the main point: an invisible man lives in the sky that hands commandments down to his followers? I can believe a flood. I can believe it rained frogs. Hell, I could probably believe it rained giraffes once. That's mostly because both giraffes and rain exist. But an invisible presence that isn't my own 'inner voice', conscience, or ego? That seems to be the real issue.
I don't think most radicals kill over the existence of a flood myth/fact in someone's theology. It's the presence of that invisible man. (and, yes, he's a man... women could barely be trusted to do house chores in Biblical times, much less preside over a UNIVERSE)
It is definatly an it because man and woman dont apply as it doesn't have a counterpart, if the bible is to be believed.
Being the fan of integration I am, I'm proposing that we refer to whatever God is as 'shit'... that way we can combine 'she', 'he', and 'it'... everyone wins! :?!)
Agreed, I'll submit it to the Vatican for ratification.
Brilliant. :?!)