Quote by yothsothgothI am
a biologist/scientist and I believe that Jesus lived, but this is a personal belief as well as a scientific one. Not to
take sides, but I think kingray100 might've meant something like... there are scientists that believe in religious
texts as being a part of history because many texts like these were used as accurate portrayals of historical events and
people. Why scrutinize, omit, or discredit one text from all of the others of the same time, historically and
scientifically speaking? Especially when there are other texts from the same time period that coincide and back up the
same stories...
Yes, there are scientist who believe in jesus and such but I can't say that there is a lot since I don't go to
a science research facility. >.>
Quote by yothsothgothWell,
they do believe they've found the grave of Jesus, the Arc of the Covenant, you have the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(possibly) the Shroud of Turin, and there is the Qur'an. I guess what I'm trying to get at is there is no
convincing, undisputable evidence that proves any specific person has walked the earth unless we have their bones or
some kind of DNA sample... and then, you can't say that it was undisputable that it was that person anyways, unless
you have their geneology and other DNA from their family and lineage... since we didn't have DNA records back then,
we can't prove or disprove any person back in history unless we found their grave.
Which is what I tried to say that Jesus as a figure may have never exist and we have absolutely no evidence ever to be
able to. We don't have DNA samples back then, and a grave could be easily altered to anyone's fitting. Though
I don't think people would really like to alter graves, but some people still do...
Quote by yothsothgothHow
about King Tut or any of the pharoahs or other great historical figures? We can see that they have monuments and
hieroglyphics and whatnot, but unless we find their bodies we can't completely prove that they lived. This is what
I meant with the texts and historical documents being all that we have for many of the important people in our history
that we do not have their bodies/DNA evidence to collaborate the stories. Know what I mean? Its based on what evidence
we have. Science is based on an educated guess... not always on just the facts. :D
I don't believe in King Tut ! :P Personally I wouldn't care so much about history, why bother with the past
when you can focus more on your present.
merged: 08-18-2007 ~ 11:15am
Quote: You're assuming, or trusting, in the work and data of others.
This work, data, conclusions, and ideas MAY be accurate. It would seem it probably IS accurate. But science simply
doesn't tell you that it is neccessarily. And i never said the universe would move because of the book, you somehow
interpreted that from my example, i simply said the universe may have moved, for what reason? I didn't say. You
assume it was because of the book because of the event of seeing the book appear to fall at the same time as the
universe supposedly moving.
Well, if something doesn't move, something else has to if you're going to make it appear moving.
Quote: as for your list: 1: "that makes absolutely no sense." is
not a valid argument here. Alot of things don't seem to make sense that you would hold to be scientific, and some
simply make no sense because we don't have enough information about them to make sense of them yet. Gravity, in a
way, makes no sense. All particles in the universe are exacting a pull on EVERY other particle? and just about none of
these, if any, are actually touching each other? and its not a magnetic pull either? We're simply saying that
things pull upon each other for no reason other than that they have mass, and that they pull on
EVERYTHING?
Go grab a physics book and read it. Anyways, yes, everything has an attractiveness, the bigger the mass, the higher that
attractiveness is, but the thing is, we will attract to the thing that is of higher attractiveness, as that
"stronger is more dominant" part really does kick in, plus, the 1st one is just to say you're making no
sense...
Quote: 2: I know what gravity is, but you are assuming there is gravity,
and you are assuming it works that way because of the information and data so far and the interpretation and conclusions
from that data by yourself and others. There could be information and explination outside the scope of our ability to
record and sense, and there could be other conclusions we have not thought of. Is this likely? From what we've
seen, no. Possible? Highly, highly, highly improbable, but possible, we don't have anywhere near infinite knowledge
after all, or even complete finite knowledge.
Why not, as far as I see, if gravity isn't working, we will fly away. And what other explanation is there at the
moment? If there's something of that is not of our ability to comprehend that is always affecting us, that would
make no sense to the point where it's like I punch this person and the person can't comprehend what happens
(unless they really are mentally disabled or something).
Quote: 3: what is floating? floating in what way? you do realize we are, in
a way, floating in space, according to our scientific knowledge so far. we rest on a planet which could be understood as
"floating" in space, and thus you COULD say we are floating too. the air is floating as well, as is everything
else. But, then again, maybe theres some other explination we don't know about?
It appears that we're floating in space, but we aren't of the middle of the galaxy you do realize that right?
The chances are the sun is floating around something else and so on. There's also theorized that the center of a
galaxy is a black hole in which a black hole has a strong gravitational pull and therefore able to render this eliptical
galaxy rather than something like a cube or box thing. Also, please again, open a physics book and read it. The air
technically has weight and is light enough in which it stays in our atmosphere and appears "floating". Volume
of one item can't take up volume of another, that'd be overlapping.
Quote: There have been many, many, MANY things "proven" over and
over that later, by one small little disprove, turned out to not be such a "fact" after all. Spontanious
generation (in the sense that things such as flies and such would continualy spontanously form from inorganic and
nonbiological matter such as rocks, or generate from meat without any outside interaction) was supposedly proven over
and over for a while. Then it was later disproven. and interstingly enough it was supposedly "reproven" at
another point in time, and then again disproved. Relativity proved many equations and ideas to be inaccurate and
incorrect in some sense that had been held as absolute for centuries (although some things were still fairly usable for
most purposes).
Exactly where did you get this from? If something is inside an environment there will always be outside interactment.
Quote: And why do i need to explain to you why there is such thing as a
solar system? and who said there actually is anything more than a concept of a solar system which may or may not be
inaccurate? you're the one claiming its validity, you prove it as best you can. And if such a thing as gravity does
not exist, why should i know why we appear to fall? I never said it does not exist, i simply said that its possible it
doesn't or its inaccurate and we simply don't have enough information. If i had that extra information to say
otherwise, I might be rather famous now. but again, i'm not saying it doesn't, i just said that its possible
it does not, its POSSIBLE we don't have all the information. Thats science. Live with it. You can easily go about
your life believing that science is always correct, and on many things it might be and it wouldn't make a
difference to you, but its nature is not one to say for absolute certain that any conclusion is neccessarily correct.
And just look at how often medical science changes information, theres a reason for that.
Science is to understand the world around us, of course we can't always be dead on target. I mean, people believed
the world was flat a long time ago, but now apparently it's wrong. It's what we can percieve. Yes,
there's a chance that gravity might not exist, but then what else have is there? Something that effects us day in
and day out can't be explained is really really hard...
