Yes I have. Amazing that galaxy formation would happen so quickly after "transparency"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
what the fuck man, did you even try reading my post?Stingray24 wrote:
The same applies on my part towards what "proves" evolutionary theory or similar schools of thought that exclude the divine from our origins.
well, religious loonies do beleave god cares about them understanding. so, to make it fair and for the sake of this... ehm... "argument", let's assume ET'es would care too. >.<Kmar wrote:
What is to say it is even within our capacity to understand it?
My first question would have to be what makes ET the creator and not part of the creation?Stingray24 wrote:
Proof of anything is in the eye of the beholder. What constitutes proof of God's existence to me is laughable to many here. The same applies on my part towards what "proves" evolutionary theory or similar schools of thought that exclude the divine from our origins. We can all poke holes in one another's point of view til we're at a loss for words. In the end they are theories, none of which are immune to a skeptic's question marks.
What I'm trying to do is raise the question of this thread on both sides of the equation. We've asked the question whether religious people would change or abandon their belief system when ET is discovered. I'd simply like to explore the other side. Will those who consider themselves followers of science and unbelievers in any creator abandon their explanation for the universe when ET shows up and declares us their masterpiece? Think outside the box people. If one of those ignorant religious people can do it, surely you can.
That doesn't have anything to do with specific religions like Christianity etc.. if Aliens came down here and said they were our creators that wouldn't fly/be compatible with any of the mainstream religions (or any religion, really).Stingray24 wrote:
Proof of anything is in the eye of the beholder. What constitutes proof of God's existence to me is laughable to many here. The same applies on my part towards what "proves" evolutionary theory or similar schools of thought that exclude the divine from our origins. We can all poke holes in one another's point of view til we're at a loss for words. In the end they are theories, none of which are immune to a skeptic's question marks.
What I'm trying to do is raise the question of this thread on both sides of the equation. We've asked the question whether religious people would change or abandon their belief system when ET is discovered. I'd simply like to explore the other side. Will those who consider themselves followers of science and unbelievers in any creator abandon their explanation for the universe when ET shows up and declares us their masterpiece? Think outside the box people. If one of those ignorant religious people can do it, surely you can.
Good point but even to a relatively primitive culture, this view didn't last long. I am not sure every last Aztec etc. bought into it either. A Solar Eclipse takes a long time. Did they have a warm up act or were the Natives just really patient ?Mekstizzle wrote:
" Hell, even when Europeans went to the Americas they used Astronomy/Science to fool the natives into thinking they're Gods. Once of the Conquistadors (Columbus, or one of them, I dunno) predicted an eclipse which left the natives in awe. It's nothing mind boggling, really ."
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-27 15:51:00)
Be nice to Uziuqe, The joke will sink in later.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
well I hear they're giving internet access at the state asylum these days
just say " i don't understand " I believe you. Im helping Uziuqe right now ( See edit )FatherTed wrote:
you lost me purely because i don't understand what point you're trying to convey. the content might be there idk but just spend a minute or two getting the wording/grammar right and people probably wouldn't call you out on it.
We've been asking that question ever since he made his presense known on this forum.FatherTed wrote:
really i'm not even trying to troll or being obtuse, but what?
obtuse, roflmaoFatherTed wrote:
really i'm not even trying to troll or being obtuse, but what?
He's legitimatly asking you to clarify what you're saying, so you don't even bother doing so.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
obtuse, roflmaoFatherTed wrote:
really i'm not even trying to troll or being obtuse, but what?
Right now Uziuqe needs help, so get in line.UnkleRukus wrote:
I'm one of those people who needs to be shown things. That's how I learn. I don't learn by having some bloke tell me to "go read this subject you know very little about and come back and make an opinion on it."
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-27 16:01:25)
It took 3 people to help me undersrtand it, but you still have yet to grasp the english language. Which far more than 3 people have tried to help you understand.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Go back to the post were three people are patiently trying to explain the Auto insurance concept to you.
Probably not the best comeback you could have used. I hope you ( undersrtand ) it better now. lolUnkleRukus wrote:
It took 3 people to help me undersrtand it, but you still have yet to grasp the english language. Which far more than 3 people have tried to help you understand.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Go back to the post were three people are patiently trying to explain the Auto insurance concept to you.
loaz liek u iz da funnies boi eva!Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Probably not the best comeback you could have used. I hope you ( undersrtand ) it better now. lolUnkleRukus wrote:
It took 3 people to help me undersrtand it, but you still have yet to grasp the english language. Which far more than 3 people have tried to help you understand.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Go back to the post were three people are patiently trying to explain the Auto insurance concept to you.