Cheesey
10 years ago
Yes, there were dinosaurs. Fact is, they were
here with humans at the same time. Not "millions
of years" before man. Did you read about
"Behemoth" in the Bible? It's the perfect description
of a dinosaur. So "science" isn't always scientific.

I don't mind if they teach evolution to kids in school, if they take out all the lies and stuff
they just make up and try to pass off as
"Fact".
Of course that would make the theory of
evolution down to one page in a science
book.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Yes, there were dinosaurs. Fact is, they were
here with humans at the same time. Not "millions
of years" before man. Did you read about
"Behemoth" in the Bible? It's the perfect description
of a dinosaur. So "science" isn't always scientific.

I don't mind if they teach evolution to kids in school, if they take out all the lies and stuff
they just make up and try to pass off as
"Fact".
Of course that would make the theory of
evolution down to one page in a science
book.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



I agree with everything you say about the Theory of Evolution - the religion of atheism.

I checked out Job Chapter 40, though, and the behemoth there, as God tells Job, was created with man. It is a herbivore, and generally believed to be a hippopotamus, but it does kinda sound like a brontosaurus or something - with the big tail. Who knows hahahaha.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Laser Gunns
10 years ago
you are all wrong.

our galaxy just goes through cycles of extinction via giant robot space squids who harvest all organic life every X amount of time.

they come down, wipe out everybody, keep some as slaves (sexual?) and leave.

you have been warned.

MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Rockmolder
10 years ago
The arcticle states that there's no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Nowhere does it say that there was no God involved, no divine intervention or whatever you're looking for, so why this had to be turned into a religious threat, yet again, is beyond me.

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it" - Neil Degrasse Tyson. God has no place in science, until there's definite proof that he has. Science is fact based, religion is far from it. And that's not a knock on religion or religious people by any means.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

you are all wrong.

our galaxy just goes through cycles of extinction via giant robot space squids who harvest all organic life every X amount of time.

they come down, wipe out everybody, keep some as slaves (sexual?) and leave.

you have been warned.

Originally Posted by: Laser Gunns 



+1

Though I thought it was feral ball point pens, not robot space squids.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

The arcticle states that there's no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Nowhere does it say that there was no God involved, no divine intervention or whatever you're looking for, so why this had to be turned into a religious threat, yet again, is beyond me.

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it" - Neil Degrasse Tyson. God has no place in science, until there's definite proof that he has. Science is fact based, religion is far from it. And that's not a knock on religion or religious people by any means.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



With due repect to Mister Tyson, no.

The universe is true. Science (when done well) is only a particularly rigorous approach to interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is a human construct. Unless one believes that humans can "know" truth, that is all it can be.

Any scientist who insists on a priori "proof" of God misunderstands the reality of the inductive method that science is. Science can persuade, can provide better (or worse) reasons for believing in a proposition, but it cannot prove that proposition. At best, it can disprove a proposition. (And while I am open to "scientific" proof that God does not exist, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I don't have that kind of hubristic pride in the scientific method.)

If a "scientist" demands proof of God before admitting that God might play a role in the story, he is selectively practicing the rules (and ignoring the liimitations) of his own method. See, e.g., Karl Popper.

Mr. Tyson may feel it an appropriate division of labor to not bother about God as an explanation, but his justification is not grounded in truth but in his belief about the relative power of inductive methods of "science" and inductive methods of "religion", in the same way that I might believe that the inductive methods of "economics" and "history" are superior to the inductive methods of "political science" or "literary criticism."
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Zero2Cool
10 years ago
The Bibles was written about 100 or years after the death of Christ, right? Why did it take so long?

Random thought. A little experiment I always found interesting. Get a line of 10 people together. Write down two sentences. Tell the person on one end the two sentences and then tell them to pass it to the next person. It's quite amazing how those two sentences get transformed from one end to the other.

I can't help but think of this when thinking about the Bible and it's many variations. And how can each variation and each God and each religion be the "right" one? I do think religion can be a great thing.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

The Bibles was written about 100 or years after the death of Christ, right? Why did it take so long?

Random thought. A little experiment I always found interesting. Get a line of 10 people together. Write down two sentences. Tell the person on one end the two sentences and then tell them to pass it to the next person. It's quite amazing how those two sentences get transformed from one end to the other.

I can't help but think of this when thinking about the Bible and it's many variations. And how can each variation and each God and each religion be the "right" one? I do think religion can be a great thing.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



The early part of the Old Testament is attributed to Moses - written approximately 4,000 years ago, I think. Most of the rest was written by the prophets, etc. whose name the books are titled, and was written over various periods B.C. The Old Testament was already compiled long before the time of Christ on scrolls in the temple for anybody to read. The New Testament mostly has the author's names attached to the books, and was written within 100 years of Christ because the authors were all dead by then. It may have been compiled by the early church a hundred or so years later. None of this is relevant, really, if you believe it was inspired by God.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
DoddPower
10 years ago

With due repect to Mister Tyson, no.

The universe is true. Science (when done well) is only a particularly rigorous approach to interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is a human construct. Unless one believes that humans can "know" truth, that is all it can be.

Any scientist who insists on a priori "proof" of God misunderstands the reality of the inductive method that science is. Science can persuade, can provide better (or worse) reasons for believing in a proposition, but it cannot prove that proposition. At best, it can disprove a proposition. (And while I am open to "scientific" proof that God does not exist, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I don't have that kind of hubristic pride in the scientific method.)

If a "scientist" demands proof of God before admitting that God might play a role in the story, he is selectively practicing the rules (and ignoring the liimitations) of his own method. See, e.g., Karl Popper.

Mr. Tyson may feel it an appropriate division of labor to not bother about God as an explanation, but his justification is not grounded in truth but in his belief about the relative power of inductive methods of "science" and inductive methods of "religion", in the same way that I might believe that the inductive methods of "economics" and "history" are superior to the inductive methods of "political science" or "literary criticism."

Originally Posted by: Wade 




Science is about as "true" as it gets. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it's as good as we currently have because it's repeatable. As an earth scientist, I accept many "truths" about the natural world, because many experiments have been completed and repeated over and over again, and the same or similar results have been achieved. Therefore, it's essentially a "truth," at least until it can be disproved. I can try to grow a plant in an isolated soil medium but add no water, and it will not grow. I add water (while controlling for other variables such as nutrients, diseases, pests, etc.), and it likely grows. Therefore, it's safe to accept as an "absolute truth" that plants need water. The same is true for fertilizer studies, or any other true scientific study (which all "science" is definitely not). These are obviously very simplistic examples, but the same logic applies to any other good science that produces repeatable results using the scientific method.

The only "absolute" truth that can exist on humans level of perception is that which is consistently repeatable. That's what "good science" offers. Anything else is just faith, which is fine, but requires just that: faith. Repeatable science doesn't require faith at all, because it's simple enough to "prove" it. Any good scientist understands that we don't know it all. In fact, we only know a fraction of what there is to know, and even less about the why. However, we do have a body of results that are reproduceable, and they are the closets thing to absolute truth that we have . . . other than, you know, faith based religions and thoughts. The body of science knowledge increases daily and builds off of itself. Hypotheses are disproven, others are reaffirmed. That working body of knowledge is perceived as truth because it's the best we have at this time. As soon as we have or know better, we adjust accordingly (as more or better "facts" are available).

As for the evolution vs. creationist debate, I've never understood that. When I first learned about evolution, I couldn't help but think about how it makes the creationist viewpoint even more amazing and beautiful. They are not mutually exclusive, imo.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

The arcticle states that there's no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Nowhere does it say that there was no God involved, no divine intervention or whatever you're looking for, so why this had to be turned into a religious threat, yet again, is beyond me.

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it" - Neil Degrasse Tyson. God has no place in science, until there's definite proof that he has. Science is fact based, religion is far from it. And that's not a knock on religion or religious people by any means.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



So are you saying if it's called science, it is automatically true? Most of what I would have said, Wade already said eloquently. As for science being "fact based", yeah, if it is proveable or measureable. If it is THEORY - like the Big Bang THEORY, Darwin's THEORY of evolution, or Hutton's uniformitarian THEORY of geology, then it is faith-based, just like most of religion.

To some of us, the Big Bang Theory is NOT a "threat" or controversy or whatever, as the first verse of the Bible, as I have said, tells us who and what, but not when and how - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (5h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (12h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (13h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (14h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (17h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (19h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (19h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (19h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (19h) : Against tbd
dfosterf (19h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (19h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (19h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (19h) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (19h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (20h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (20h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (20h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (20h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.