The two aren't exclusive of each other. I have a physicist cousin who is devout... and I'm guessing he knows more about science and more about the bible than you and I combined.

maybe he does maybe he does not and maybe he is not that devout


whatever devout means:spin:

You know what devout means. And yes, he's completely devout. Of course you would question that because it doesn't fit in with your particular view. But it's possible to be both religious AND intelligent.

I tend to find that the intelligent ones just hide it better

I consider myself one of the intelligent ones and I don't feel the need to hide anything.

Like I've said lots of times before, I have no problem with your beliefs. I don't consider you stupid or less intelligent because you believe something different from me. So please, don't try to intimate that I'm less intelligent because I believe something different from you. Because it is simply not true.

I dont think I ever do but this thread is based on an anecdotal and fairly preposterous notion and as such it tends to lead itsself into the realms of hilarity. No one in all the pages has really came to any conclusion other than what GG said earlier.

You are being overly defensive where you dont need to be

With respect though that is only a book written by a man using his knowledge of science and a rather large dollop of imagination, it is just his little theory.

Not proof of anything.

Until mankind can explore the Cosmos and has developed far stronger theories of the universe, only then will we really be able to start really piecing the jigsaw together.

And I suspect that may be in more than a few centuries time.



.

No one said it was proof, but its out there to be dissected, tested and built upon or torn down

and so we learn and move forward. Like with the comet today.

Defensive? I don't feel I'm being defensive. I don't feel like I have to defend myself.

As for the thread of the thread (if you get what I mean...) some people will believe one thing, some people will believe another. If someone's been through some kind of trauma or loss, they may well have a very different perspective from those who haven't ever been through trauma or loss and they will never see each other's perspective. If this woman thinks she saw Jesus, who am I to tell her she didn't?

Devout religious physicists or biologists perplex me slightly.It makes me wonder.They can be writing a paper on the origins of the universe and the big bang theory and the origins of life,But secretly not believe a word of what they're writing and think the Earth is only 6000 years old and we came from Adam and Eve.It's as if they believe that their lifes work is a lie.

I'm saying nowt.... :laugh:

I'm of the feeling that there has been a visitation, and that it was that that was recorded at the time and we have in a chinese whispers way totally misinterpreted what was written, and worse manipulated it for money, power and control of the masses.

Many modern Rabbis don't uphold the contention that the world is 6000 years old, and personally I think you'd have to be blinkered at best to believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I'm sure religious physicists wouldn't uphold that suggestion either. Who's to say that if the world was created by the Big Bang that it wasn't caused by God? Aren't they looking for the "God Particle" at Cern? Although obviously I'm not suggesting that the discovery of that [Higgs boson] particle is evidence that God exists.

Yeah,The 6000 year old Earth theory is extreme and i doubt many if any scientists believe it.But,Many Christians for example believe in Adam and Eve and the world and life being created in seven days amongst many other things that gradually get disproven.I'm not saying categorically that a God did'nt create whatever caused the big bang,because,obviously,I don't know.I'm not a believer in the religious texts(although i find them fascinating) because i find that people tend to pick and choose which parts to believe and which parts to use as moral code and which parts to ignore.As more is discovered in science,More of these texts are cast aside as being false due to lack of understanding at the time the texts were written.It seems to me that religion and science are struggling more and more to work hand in hand the more that is disproven.I think eventually so much of the Torah,Bible and Quran will be at odds with science that it would be impossible to truly be devout to a religion and also work in the scientific fields.

You really should abandon your polemics and actually read the posts which you keep criticising. I never said that there has been 10,000 cases on TIBB - I actually said:

"Synchronicity - another thing LT won't accept even if faced by 10,000 cases of hard evidence from people on here or anywhere for that matter"


"Even if" -- not "When he has been".

If you're going to criticise at least have the good grace to read the subject matter.

Originally Posted by Livia:

"You know what devout means. And yes, he's completely devout. Of course you would question that because it doesn't fit in with your particular view. But it's possible to be both religious AND intelligent."

LT's response:

"I tend to find that the intelligent ones just hide it better"


:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:: joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

This coming from someone who pulls out Krauss's 'A Universe Out Of Nothing' (more from me later on this crap) and waves it in triumph as if it once and forever destroys all theism.

Once again LT you contradict yourself, because, on the one hand you decry Livia's quite rational statement, that; "it's possible to be both religious AND intelligent." and on the other you espouse Krauss's B.S. book, yet -- Krauss's totally illogical, scientifically impossible proposition is solely based on the 'Big Bang theory' (Yes - that's 'Theory' LT because that's all it is) and the said 'theory' was proposed by none other than Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre - a Belgian Catholic priest. :joker::joker::joker:

Lemaitre was not only a priest, he was an astronomer and professor of physics, and in addition to being the first to propose 'the Big Bang Theory', he was also the first to propose the theory of 'an expanding universe' - which he published two years before Hubble, although Hubble was accredited (probably because he was not a priest).

Lemaire also proposed what we now all call 'Hubble's law' and the 'Hubble Constant', which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble.

So much for your contention.:joker::joker::joker:

Leather Trumpet's Post:

"That is not true....

we have a very good idea how the universe was created and how with time, gravity and chemistry suns and planets are formed and cool and die and are reformed. This comet may explain why we have water on earth and that would be a huge breakthrough

we know how life started and evolved on earth

but to look for purpose is just leading down a blind alleyway we are the result of time and chance"

We know how life started and evolved on earth"?:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

Who knows? Please substantiate such a ludicrous statement. Once again, you are passing off theory as fact.

This response, is actually brilliant. It is the 64,000 dollar question avoided by all physicists who propose or follow the 'Big Bang Theory'. Krauss himself goes to great pains not to address this in his B.S. book, and when he is finally (in the last 20 odd pages) forced to address it, he takes tortuous, illogical, convoluted paths, to not answer it.

Totally offtopic but I do like how KL underlines words for maximum impact :laugh:

:joker:

Yes, Cherie, but I didn't take it off topic, and am just responding to already off topic posts.

I'm glad you like my underlining. :hehe: I am currently composing a rational critique of Krauss's BS book - quite lengthy by necessity and loaded with lovely underlings. :wavey:

His posts remind me of smallest LT boys Tom Gates books :joker:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z0cjujGn2l...131124_010.jpg

:laugh: No it was I who took it offtopic with my ramblings about your underlining :hehe:

:o Using my psychic ability I foresee a post with lots of underlining being written in response to this. :laugh:

at last a psychic i can believe in :joker:

In response to your reply to my post Kirk, for me the fact that there's a lot of evidence to suggest how we started and how life was actually created on Earth, dispels the notion of the "gods" presented to us through the religions, clearly we weren't made in anyone's image and space is so vast I doubt we were purposefully made either. Is there some higher power some where that created it all? I have no idea and I doubt I ever will

This thread will have no conclusion,but Kirk what a GREAT thread,the differing opinions are an interesting read,all I will say scientists are just 'men' prone to exaggeration,Chinese whispers ,mistakes and a few porkies so to me they are no more credible than the person/persons who wrote the Bible.

[QUOTE=LeatherTrumpet;7372708]His posts remind me of smallest LT boys Tom Gates books :joker:

Ahhh YAWN.... More attempts to conceal the fact that you have no relevant intelligent answer by trying to use ridicule to distract from the important issues at hand. :sleep::sleep:

You really have a lot to say when criticising earnest posts by others but never ever offer genuine reasons for your criticism nor ever offer anything relative by way of counter argument.

Before anyone reports me, I am merely offering a legitimate response to repeated ridicule by someone - and surely this is my right on a democratic forum?

If it isn't then why is the original groundless ridicule allowed to persist unchecked?

Humorous 'ribbing' as part of, or additional to, relevant and serious posts is always acceptable, but that is a far cry from mere ridicule for ridicule's sake in splendid isolation from any accompanying and worthwhile contribution to the subject under debate. Such inane tactics become tedious and intellectually wearing, and lead those who genuinely wish to discuss matters, to think; "Why bother", and this - surely - leads to an impoverished quality of discussion.

So LT, instead of your usual tactics (look back through this thread or any other if anyone does not believe me) keep your sense of humour by all means - it is admirable - but please try to envelope it with at least some type of relevant comment which contributes to the subject matter.