Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by what4:
I have no issue with the age of our universe or of the earth being in question, because to me it has no relevance as to how it was created. There is no conflict in time estimates, as far as I understand it, with the scientific estimation of time against the light the bible sheds on the matter.



Then you are completely and utterly contrary to your faith. The Bible is very clear that the Earth and the rest of the universe are exactly the same age: 6000 years old.

Again I ask: What single piece of evidence best supports your theory that all we see was poofed into existence by an omnipotent space alien? Come now, you speak as if you understand the science behind all this. You must have a piece of evidence that you have deemed as incontrovertible. What is it?
Last edited by Guffaw
quote:
Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
I spent my life being the best person I could be. I have tried to love everyone as myself. I have truly been a moral person. I have been a good husband and father. I have helped the needy and just genuinely loved people.


Then you and I have much in common.

quote:
What happens when I die but nothing. I return to the earth as fertilizer. I cease to exist. No harm, no foul. BUT, what if I am right? Where does that leave you?


Let's assume we both lead moral lives as we both say we have done. Where do you think that leaves me?
You asked: Let's assume we both lead moral lives as we both say we have done. Where do you think that leaves me?

Assuming you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, as all Christians have, then you my friend will be in heaven. We can't get there by just being good people. In my last post I thought it was understood of me already having been a believer. That's my bad. I should've been clearer.
of course, joy.

The world is a collection of fortunate chemicals that came together as the universe became more ordered than the original chaos of the Big Bang.

Of the billions of planets that exist, we are the only one we recognize as having the elements that make life,as we know it, possible. But, among all those planets, this fortunate circumstance is almost inevitable!

Lucky us! But of course, we take it for granted.

DF
I lean more towards the Gap Creationism, or the concept of it.

DF, do you like the nebular hypothesis theory? I'm just curious on your thoughts of various things like heat death or the steady state theory. Have you ever believed in God or a god? If I'm being intrusive, please don't answer and I'm sorry. I'm just curious about the belief of a nonexistence god and/or possibly those who believe in empiricism. I guess what I'm really wondering is most Christians, those born again, come to a point where they accept Jesus as their saviour; when do atheist come to the point where they accept their beliefs? Does that make sense?
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
I think I'm experiencing the same stunned wonder that you may have experienced when I told you what I believed...lol. Dude, it takes way more faith to believe what you believe than what I believe, but that's just my opinion. You'd probably say the same about me. Smiler


I kinda had that same experience when I discovered that little people actually don't live inside the television set (which really destroyed my life-long fantasy or marrying Penelope Pitstop but that's another story).

Believe it or not, those little people are generated by some miraculous mixture of phosphorus, cathode rays and magnets.

Smiler
Jim, don't go tempting me to dig in my t.v. again! LOL <See "Something I Just Found Out" thread in Feedback Forum>

I looked at the website you posted. Thank you. This is probably what GoFish was referring to.

I really do not know if the 7 days of creation were literally 7 24-hour days or not. Second Peter 2:8 says "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Also, I'm not so sure that the word "day" as we refer to it was the actual meaning in this verse. When you look at the Greek/Hebrew lexicon, it gives the following meaning for the word translated to English as day.


1. day, time year
a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)
1. As defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. As a division of time
c. a working day, a day’s journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow


So, I guess we just don't know for sure.

<edit - well, for some reason I can't get that definition to reformat - hope you can make sense of it>
Last edited by _Joy_
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
Jim, don't go tempting me to dig in my t.v. again! LOL <See "Something I Just Found Out" thread in Feedback Forum>

I looked at the website you posted. Thank you. This is probably what GoFish was referring to.

I really do not know if the 7 days of creation were literally 7 24-hour days or not. You know there's that verse that says something like "to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day".

Also, I'm not so sure that the word "day" as we refer to it was the actual meaning in this verse. When you look at the Greek/Hebrew lexicon, it gives the following meaning for the word translated to English as day.

1. day, time, year
a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)
1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b
c. a working day, a day's journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow


So, I guess we just don't know for sure.

With God,..... time means nothing. To man a day means 24 hours..... it could have taken God 4 million years to complete the first week. Ive always thought that it wasnt 24 hours per day that first week...... till man was formed. This would explain why the beasts of the fields roamed before man... ie dinosaurs. But eventually it all comes down to faith or lack of it. If you believe, you do, if you dont, aint nothing im gonna say gonna change that. I also think the flood seperated the land mass..... i look at how S. America can fit into Africa...... like a puzzle...... ok, laugh,.... lol..... its all good.... but its just somethings ive thought about.
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
1. day, time, year
a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)
1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b
c. a working day, a day's journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow


So, I guess we just don't know for sure.


As usual, your response sounds reasonable. However, your contemporaries and cohorts staunchly believe in a LITERAL interpretation which means 6000 years ago and everything created in 6 LITERAL days.

The 20 million dollar Creation Museum you defended some moons ago is built around that exact premise.

So, again, your beliefs are completely at odds with your own camp. How do you reconcile that?
Easy. I'm right and they are wrong...haha. Just kidding of course.

I defended the Creation Museum's right to put on display their ideas of Bible and Science walking hand in hand. Since I have never been there, I cannot say whether I agree with their ideas or not. I am quite curious; I would love to see it. I'll have to talk hubby into a road trip. Smiler

I actually think that there are more Christians that would agree with my interpretation of scripture than you think. We don't all agree with the extremists quoted in the news. The very fact that they were quoted in the news should make you hesitant to believe they represent all Christians.
I do admit that I'm kind of an oddball Christian in a way (tread carefully, Buster...haha). I don't agree with any one denomination's doctrine of belief to the letter. However, since I am certain without a doubt that God could care less what denomination I belong to anyway, I'm okay with that.

I have to wonder if this is not another characteristic true of more Christians than we'd think.
Quote from GoFish:
Then you are completely and utterly contrary to your faith. The Bible is very clear that the Earth and the rest of the universe are exactly the same age: 6000 years old.
________________________________________________________________________


My reply:

I just told you that there are two problems with getting the age of the universe from the bible. I’ll start with the first problem once more. Don’t you recall that the sun, moon, and stars as we know it did not give light to the earth until day 4. God created the heavens and the earth, and then after that, He said let there be light. He referred to the light and darkness that He called into existence as day and night, well before the sun and moon ever had been made to shine upon the earth from its surrounding heavens. What gave light and how long each day and night were before the 4th day of creation is not identified. Also, keep in mind that the heavens and the earth were created before God even said, “Let there be light.” There would have been no day before light came into existence. We know for a fact that the earth was dark and void when it was first created, because God said it was so. So light did not exist the same time the earth was created. How can anybody know how long the earth existed in that dark state? It was only after God called light into existence that the day and night began to be a dividing line between each of God’s interventions in His creation. How, can you assume, given the word of God in Genesis, that the earth was only 5 - 24 hr. days old before Adam was formed from its dust. How can anybody derive from the word of God the age of the universe, unless they choose to ignore exactly what the scripture says? I look at Genesis and get a lot of information, but I do not get the age of the earth or of the universe. I tend to believe that the earth and the universe are the same age, because God said in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth. But how old they are, I have no idea by reading the bible. God clearly identified the progressive stages of His creation until He got to man. Only on the 4th day, can we feel reasonable that 24 hr. days might have begun. Much of these stages are captured in man’s theory of evolution, as if Charles Darwin was the first to figure this progression out. God gave us the order of His creation in Genesis, long before Charles Darwin was ever born. I can see from Genesis and on throughout the bible, that mankind is the most precious thing to God out of all His creation. I see how man was created from the dust of the earth, and I see the reason that we all must die and return again to dust. God gives us a record in His word of the individual phases of how the world and life came into existence, and the order that things were created, but He gives us no record of the actual age of the earth or of its surrounding universe. I believe too often people read the bible with preconceived ideas, and they never really pay close attention to what it actually says.

I don’t believe God gave us the revelation in Genesis of His creation as a means of determining the age of the universe. It was only intended to let us know that He created it and the order that all was created. However, the 2nd reason I gave you is further evidence that we can’t use the bible as a source of determining the earth’s age. There is a clear problem in trying to calculate the age of the earth by going back through each generation of man from Adam, and calculating an approximate age of the earth by the record of how long each generation lived. I strongly believe that Adam’s age given would not have been a record of how long he lived from the day that he was first created, because there would have been no reason to keep up with his age until the countdown till death became an issue for him. I strongly believe Adam’s age is a record of how long he lived after he first sinned, because that is the first time the remaining days of his life would have had any reason to be numbered. Adam would not have died had he not sinned. Who cares how old you are if you are going to live forever? Look at the following first mention of age given to Adam.

Ge 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Now, if you start counting the age of Adam from the day that He was created and not from the day that he first sinned, then you are going to have to make Adam’s fall and awfully quick thing. He wouldn’t have much more been in the world until he sinned and was cursed to die if that was the case. Adam walked with God and talked with Him on a daily basis. God brought all the animals that He created to Adam to see what he would name them. At some point in time, God took one of Adam’s ribs and created a woman as a companion for Adam, because He said that it was not good for man to be alone. To say that Adam lived only one hundred and thirty years from the day he was first created, until the day that Eve was made, and until the day they sinned and were cast out of the garden, and finally until the day that Eve had her first child by Adam, is making everything happen pretty doggone fast. If that was the case, Eve got in an awful rush to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree and get things topsy-turvy for poor ole Adam and herself. I strongly believe that the age given to Adam at the time his first son was born would have been the years he had lived from the day that he and Eve had first sinned, and not from the day that he was created. Only after his sin, would his remaining days have any reason to be numbered. It wouldn’t surprise me if Adam and Eve lived a million years or longer before Satan set things in motion to make them doubt God’s word. If Adam’s age is from the day he sinned, and not from the day that he was created, and if the earth was created before light was in existence and it was not until later that the sun, moon and stars were in its heavens, then how can we determine that the earth was only created 5 – 24 hr. days longer than the given age of Adam?

You might consider this verse also:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If the age of the universe is all that you have as proof that evolution is true, and that God doesn’t exist, then you have nothing. I’m getting my information directly from the bible. Where are you getting yours?

My friend, just because somebody tells you something that the bible says is so, doesn’t make it so. The pope in the day of Columbus said the earth was flat. The bible does not say that. I have learned a long time ago not to believe everything I hear. I put my trust in the bible as the final authority on what God has to say about a matter, and I thank God that I can read and study it for myself, and not have to depend on what others tell me it says. I suggest you read it for yourself sometime. You might be surprised what you will discover.
[Just saying,

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html

This would seem to imply that the nebulous hypothesis is more philosophical than scientific. Not a bad effort for the time, but probably insufficient these days.

As for the steady state theory of cosmology, it doesn't seem to have held up well after the discovery of the background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory. I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation at hand, but it seems to be inconsistent with contemporary measurements.

And as for heat death, it seems to be a possibility. We don't know if the universe will continue to expand into infinity, in which case heat death is a likely end. If, however, the universe eventually re contracts, due to dark matter, etc. then heat death will not occur. We don't really know yet. Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" gives both scenarios. I wish I understood it better.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Fisher:
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
GoFish, you said "The Bible is very clear that the Earth and the rest of the universe are exactly the same age: 6000 years old." Could you expound on that please? Where does it say that?


Hello,

If you don't mind me stepping in here: Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism.


Jim Fisher, my friend, you are always welcome anywhere! Seen Spunk lately?
quote:
Originally posted by what4:
We know for a fact that the earth was dark and void when it was first created, because God said it was so. So light did not exist the same time the earth was created.


Wow.

Did you ever read a science book while in school? Did you even go to school?

This one single point invalidates your entire, rambling point. Do you have any idea that astronomers have discovered 236 planets outside our solar system so far?

Do you have any idea that planets are created only after a sun forms?

Did you know that the universe filled with light-giving stars and galaxies 10 billion years before our entire solar system was even a sparkle in Someone's eye?

No, I suppose you don't. Your self delusion is far too ingrained for you to ever be able to make sense of these kinds of things.
Quote:
Do you have any idea that planets are created only after a sun forms?
________________________________________________________________________

My friend, if this is still all you have, I'm still not impressed. Could it be possible that scientists don't even take notice of a galaxy until a bright star gets their attention? And if what you say is true, is it not possible that the earth could have been hid from the sun behind a massive body in space, or that space could have been filled with so much debris that the sun's rays could not reach the earth? All I know is that at some point God said let there be light, and at that time light appeared on the earth in a continual day and night manner. I didn't say that the sun had not already been created. I only said that the sun, moon and stars did not light up the earth’s sky in the beginning, and that in the beginning the earth was dark. How can you be so omnipotent to say that no planet could exist for a time without a star in its heavens being a source of light to it? Since you know so much, then what is it that makes a star appear out of nowhere? I have no problem with the earth being dark and empty in the beginning like you might. Besides, I’m not trying to give you exactly every detail that happened, because God’s word only gives a brief and very generalized overview of how the universe, earth, and life, came into existence. All I’m saying is that there can be no conclusion drawn concerning how old the earth is from the record given in Genesis.

If you want to spend your life believing in random happenings that result in wondrously complicated endings that would by all probabilities be impossible, then that is up to you. Again it comes down to what you want to believe in. You can state your life on the word of scientists if you want, but I state my eternal soul on the word of God.

Have you ever wondered why accidental evolution steered everything in a forward progression from a miraculous transformation of raw materials to life, on to extremely complicated forms of life, without regressing backward and dieing out again? How could any life accidentally come into existence in the first place, much less survive? Could the chaotic environment that once existed have so many odds in its favor that we who were once only raw materials, have become so complex that we can’t begin to comprehend all the complexities of which we are made? What ever happened to Murphy’s Law? Have you ever wondered why an accidental bang in the sky, and the random chaotic chance of evolution can accidentally produce life, and accidentally progress through all the wondrously complicated and various stages of life, but not be able to accidentally bring us to the point that we get past dieing? How is it that the accidents that so miraculously got us to where we are, all of a sudden fizzled out in the end? Why is it that not even one person has evolved to live forever, or even past 200 years? Wouldn’t it seem unlikely that evolution could get us so far, but would not have worked this little minor thing out yet? You continue to believe what you want, but don’t expect me to have the faith it takes to accept your theory of accidental elusion.
quote:
Originally posted by what4:
Wouldn’t it seem unlikely that evolution could get us so far, but would not have worked this little minor thing out yet? You continue to believe what you want, but don’t expect me to have the faith it takes to accept your theory of accidental elusion.


No, I don't suppose you will ever understand or accept any of it. Your religion has lost souls. Mine has lost minds.

There is so very much that you do not understand about science that I am challenged to know where to begin. You have such an utter lack of knowledge concerning very basic fundamentals of the physical world. If you would have stayed awake in chemistry class, you would understand how very easy it is for chemicals to spontaneously combine to form new chemicals and gain complexity. If you had just opened the first few pages of a third grade astronomy guide, you would know just enough to see how utterly ignorant so many of your statements are.

I guess I know what it feels like when you religious folks come across one who is so very lost that there is no hope for their soul.

With all sincerity, if I were capable of it, I would pray for your lost mind as fervently as you might pray for my lost soul. Such profound ignorance and self-delusion is so very sad.
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
quote:

Assuming you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, as all Christians have, then you my friend will be in heaven.


Would an evil believer be more likely to get to heaven than a moral, fine unbeliever?

DF


I would consider "evil believer" to be an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Good try.
Quote from GoFish:
If you would have stayed awake in chemistry class, you would understand how very easy it is for chemicals to spontaneously combine to form new chemicals and gain complexity.
________________________________________________________________________

What I hope to be my final answer:

Any 10 year old knows that chemicals will combine with other chemicals and the compounds they form will change in its properties and complexity. However, name any group of chemicals that have combined in complexity and came to life, and I will consider your theory. If you can’t prove that to me, then please don’t bother trying to impress me with all the other nonsense that is built around this impossibility. I’ve got better things to do than to spend my time discussing or reading science fiction when I can simply wait for the next Star Trek movie to come out. You can take all the raw materials you want and they will not come to life, no matter what chemicals you mix them with, what temperature you bring them to, or what catalyst you introduce into the reaction. It seems that most people are not looking for the truth, but rather they are just looking to prove what they already believe. I hope we can both agree on that issue and let things end with that.
NOPE, we won't.

The chemicals that combined to form life existed in primitive earth. Carbon, Iron, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, you name it, the chemicals of life exist on earth.

Over a billion years, with gazillions of opportunities to combine, they eventually did. Chemists say it's pretty much inevitable, considering the circumstances.

Biology is reducible to chemistry. Why do you ignore this?

DF
quote:
Biology is reducible to chemistry. Why do you ignore this?

_______________________________________________

Again, back up your claim with proof. I ignore it because it is baloney, and you have given me no proof or evidence. Chemists are chemists, they are nothing more. In case you don't know it, Frakenstein was just a movie.
quote:
Originally posted by what4:
name any group of chemicals that have combined in complexity and came to life, and I will consider your theory. If you can’t prove that to me, then please don’t bother trying to impress me with all the other nonsense that is built around this impossibility.


You know what? I can't do that. I'm not smart enough to do that and you aren't equipped to understated it even if I could.

But I'll tell you this: (drum roll please . . . .) We don't know how it happened.

That's right, we don't know. Science doesn't have the answer. Yet. Hypothesis abound in scientific circles. The chances of the right types of chemicals coming together in the right mixture and forming self replicating molecules is astoundingly minimal. One Nobel PRize winning scientists put the odds of it happening at 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40,000 zeros).

In short, there is almost no chance that life would happen. Almost.

But give "Almost" an unimaginably long period of time -- a few thousands-million years, perhaps -- and "Almost" becomes probable.

The fact is this: You and I are here. Therefore it happened.

So, there. There is your proof.

Really,What4, science has come a long way since you slept through all your science classes a hundred years ago. We have gone from a wacky hypothesis that all animals evolved from lower life forms to discovering DNA to sequencing the entire human genome. Our understanding of how we got here is increasing at an accelerating pace. Science is getting closer and closer to fully understanding how we came to be and it excites me to think that we may have the answer before I power-down.

Before I became a full-blown atheist, I used to consider the thought that science is a means to understand the mind of God. There is still the the slightest possibility that science could find the signature of your God buried within the code. How cool would THAT be?

Too bad you can't be a part of that search.
quote:
Again, back up your claim with proof. I ignore it because it is baloney, and you have given me no proof or evidence.


Ever read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan? Pulitzer Prize winner, it is. Read the chapter on how the chemicals of the early Earth combined to form amino acids. A similar environment can be duplicated in a laboratory. Good stuff.

DF
Quote:

Read the chapter on how the chemicals of the early Earth combined to form amino acids. A similar environment can be duplicated in a laboratory. Good stuff.

Quote:

Really,What4, science has come a long way since you slept through all your science classes a hundred years ago.


My reply:

I ask for proof or evidence of raw materials being made to come to life, and you point me to the ability we have of making amino acids from chemicals and to the progress of science. We have been able to make nitric, sulfuric, and phosphoric acid, and now we have progressed to being able to make amino acids. Give the man a hand that was able to make them. Give him a Pulitzer Prize! Now let him make a living organism. As impressive as man’s ability seems to you, and as complicated as an amino acid might be, it is still an impossible leap from acids to the simplest living organism. We can analyze the chemicals that make up a living organism, but name me any time we have come close to making a living organism from chemicals. If man cannot do the impossible, then why do you believe that a coincidental accident of nature can? Amino acids are a far cry from a living organism. I bet we could make sugar if we tried hard. You keep missing the point. Just because the same chemicals that make up an organism can be found in the natural environment, it doesn’t mean that the organism can be made from chemicals by mere coincidental chance. Even if the simplest dead organism had a chance of 1 in 1 billion with the billionth power of being formed by an accidental spontaneous combustion with all the right ingredients being together at just the right time and in just the right proportion, what are the odds of that simple organic matter then coming to life, and then surviving long enough to advance to the next stage? I don’t doubt that every chemical that makes up a human being can be found in the natural environment, because my most reliable source of information tells me that the human being was made from the earth. Our body can be analyzed to determine the elements and compounds that make it up. That means nothing. The body is impossible to be made by an accident of nature, and the more we learn about it the more illogical this premise becomes. But beyond that, tell me what elements makes up the soul or the spirit. What raw materials can produce the life that drives the body into action? Aren’t life and the body separate? What is life and where does it come from? The body is lifeless without the soul and spirit. The brain is of no use on its own, without the driving force of life behind it. Doesn’t a lifeless body have the same chemical makeup that a living body has? What chemical can restore life to a dead body?

We can analyze the material that makes up the building blocks used to make the pyramids in Egypt, yet why do we always assume that the pyramids were made by an intelligent being rather than existing by mere coincidental chance? How much more are the complicated makings of a simple one celled organism than that of a pyramid, never mind the mind blowing complicated makings of a human being? Can emotions, intelligence, and the sense of touch and sight be made from chemicals? Which is the most complicated… a computer or the human brain? Which would be easiest to happen by mere accident? The computer as we know it today is a much more advanced accomplishment than producing a simple amino acid, but there was no Pulitzer Prize given for that. Those who believe in the theory of evolution will applaud and award the simplest of findings, because their impossible leap of faith is going to take every ounce of help it can get. I know how much you want to believe in your theory. But I believe you should get real and face the facts. What you believe in is impossible beyond imagination.

Science may have come a long way, but those pursuing a course in life to prove their favorite theory will tend to be biased, and will overlook the obvious when it destroys their credibility. Logic is logic no matter who presents it. Logic that is built on an illogical premise will remain illogical no matter who presents it or no matter how many Pulitzer Prizes are given by others who share their same persuasion. Mankind will continue to learn and impress himself as time goes on. There will continue to be educated fools in our society, no matter how educated they become. Those who want to prove what they believe will gather all the evidence that helps their cause and will ignore all the rest. Those who desire to know the truth will accept it, even when it destroys their life’s work and personal ambition. The truth is not always easy to swallow. The educated and proud often have the most difficulty in swallowing it.
quote:
Originally posted by what4:
Give the man a hand that was able to make them. Give him a Pulitzer Prize! Now let him make a living organism. As impressive as man’s ability seems to you, and as complicated as an amino acid might be, it is still an impossible leap from acids to the simplest living organism.


Ahem: http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070607_mycoplasma.htm

God has some competition!
I have sit & read this topic for the last few days. I have not posted or given my opinion but a couple of times & once was in response to Joy about her sister. I replied to her because I felt her concern for her sister & wanted to encourage her to just be there for her sister without mentioning God & possibly pushing her away, which she doesn't want to do.
I am now going to respond to the rest of you. Where is all this getting you? You are argueing
between yourself's like you're going to get somewhere. You won't! The one's like DeepFat & a couple of other's do not believe, in fact, DeepFat has constantly mocked those of you that are trying to put your beliefs off on him. Hey, guys?? It's not working!!! He's making light of it & trying to make you look like fools. Joy is the only one I've seen that makes any sense and she's not preaching. Why don't you guy's stop this? Could you not be spending time with your kids or family instead of argueing with a fool that is not listening to you????
Tac, if you believe in a sky god who breathed life into a pile of dirt, rather than sound science, then I am hardly the "fool" in this conversation.


I'm sorry if science challenges your religion. I know you have invested your sense of reality into it for a long time, and any challenge to that is a challenge to your sensibilities. It would take a big person to come to a conclusion that reality is not what one envisioned, what one has always accepted it to be, and there are very few Big People.

Human progress is seldom made by common opinion, but by a small committee of Big People.

DF

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×