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
dfosterf (3h) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (4h) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (4h) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (4h) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (4h) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (5h) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (5h) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (5h) : *years
Mucky Tundra (5h) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (5h) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (5h) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (5h) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (5h) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (5h) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (6h) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (8h) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (8h) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (9h) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
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
5h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

20h / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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