Cheesey
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.