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 (4h) : saw the tweet, he meant the city
Mucky Tundra (4h) : Was that for the team or the city?
Zero2Cool (4h) : Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter · 3m Draft grade is in: Green Bay gets an A. The people, the city, the venue were all superb. NFL Draft’s next
Zero2Cool (4h) : Matt LaFleur says Jaire Alexander is participating in #Packers offseason program, which has been conducted virtually during this first week
Zero2Cool (5h) : ✅ ...
buckeyepackfan (5h) : Check
Zero2Cool (7h) : Matthew Golden cahanged 81 to 22??
TheKanataThrilla (9h) : Sam Howell to Vikings...guess no Aaron
Martha Careful (15h) : 1 round 7 min, with one extra minute if there is a trade. 2nd round 4 minutes, 3rd -3, 2 thereafter IMO
Martha Careful (15h) : Agree
dfosterf (16h) : Great idea imo
dfosterf (16h) : 1st round to 7 minutes with one extension
dfosterf (16h) : NFL comissioner wants to shorten the 2st
Mucky Tundra (20h) : @jalenreagors They’re discussing if Sheduer can go back to college on NFL Network LMFAOOOOO
beast (22h) : Great point Martha
beast (22h) : Buddy Ryan used to say if a candy bar goes missing, there are two to blame, Rex and Rob 🤪 jk 😁
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Bum Phillips used to say there are two ways to get better. Get better players or get players to play better. We have a new DL coach
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Yes. Look at the losses last year. They can win.
beast (26-Apr) : Can Packers win with their current DL?
bboystyle (26-Apr) : waiting for a pass rusher.
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 5 minutes between picks in the 3rd
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 3rd. Hate this phone
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 4rd
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 5 minutes in the 4
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 7 minutes between picks in the 2nd round
Martha Careful (25-Apr) : Sorry to bitch, but the headline writers in that section absolutely mislead, or don't know how to read. It is maddening
Martha Careful (25-Apr) : No thanks. Not a dependable guy to be in the right place and run the right route. Dumb as a box of rocks.
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : Losing 2nd round pick for a one year rental, not ideal. Especially a headcase.
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Pickens for Jaire may be interesting. Definitely not sure we want Pickens long term.
dfosterf (25-Apr) : No.Absolutely not
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : NO NO NO NO NO NO!!1 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
dhazer (25-Apr) : scenario: Our main prospects are off the board when our pick comes around, do we just throw a 2nd round pick at Pittsburgh for Pickens
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Hopefully she had some comfort that her son will be live his dream when she passed away. Sad news.
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Damn that sucks
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : News about Derrick Harmon mom, saddening.
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : Mark Murphy: "I predict we will trade up once and down twice."
beast (25-Apr) : Rip the Packers and getting the fans yelling and booing him
beast (25-Apr) : Super competitive Bears fan and WWE "superstar" wrestler, Seth Rollins is supposed to announce a Bears pick and absolutely rip Packers
packerfanoutwest (25-Apr) : Golden
beast (25-Apr) : I want DT Derrick Harmon, Oregon
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : And I can't be looking at my phone
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Hey I'm at work lol
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : btw, new site chat won't delete auto like
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : because everyone left like wimps
TheKanataThrilla (24-Apr) : I am wondering if there is some type of autoclear when there isn't activity after a certain amount of time.
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : What happened in the chat? Me and Zero posted a few things earlier and they're all gone
dfosterf (24-Apr) : 10-15 min bs plus flyover
dfosterf (24-Apr) : Yes
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : 7pm is when this kicks off????
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : I told him. IT'S VONTE MACK , no matter what!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13h / Packers Draft Threads / earthquake

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

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