Believe:

[Kyuuketsuki]

To Kyu, welcome back. I am baffled as to where you got the impression that I thought the bible was the best thing since anything. I can repeat that I am very fond of theology and mythology, that I quite like doaism, chan buddhism irish paganism and gnosticism. None of those have much of anything to do with the official bible. I am more drawn to the similar books that were not made canonical. Please refrain from calling it 'my' bible, it is no such thing.

Fair enough, my apologies for that, I jumped the gun ... however it still leaves the open question of how you can decide which scriptures, which beliefs can be better? I know you said you use your mind but that's not really an answer is it? After all that just means you believe it is better, it's just your opinion.

I like to think that I am not hiding behind claims that are insupportable. You are the one adamantly telling me the way things happened 14 billion years ago. I think I am being the one mature enough to admit both of our positions are insupportable to one another. I am trying not to waste my time trying to support what I believe for someone to which it can't be validated. I am just politley and humbly saying what I know. You gonna have to take my word on it.

I never mentioned 14 billion years did I? No matter ... basic (very basic) big bang "theory" is simple enough. The universe is observed to be expanding and is doing so at what is understood to be a fairly constant speed. If that is true then at some point in the past the universe and all the objects within it were closer together. If we extrapolate back far enough we arrive at a point where everything in the universe exists at a single point and from there expanded to what we see today (it's worth noting that "the big bang" is actually a very poor name for what was actually an extremely rapid expansion). That's the basic model but based on that model thousands upon thousand of observations have been carried out, experiments have been made and it is now accepted by just about the entire scientific community that the universe is about 14 billion years old and started in a phase of rapid expansion referred to as "the big bang" ... the evidence is undeniable and although some aspects of interpretation of the evidence vary, it is validatable and only a fool would claim otherwise. OTOH, in support of your ideas, you have no validatable evidence whatsoever so, with respect, it doesn't matter a flying fig whether you regard the theory of the big bang as being unsupportable as it appears it happened and more to the point it appears that what you believe happened (whatever that might be and assuming it isn't something approaching mainstream science) ... well ... didn't!

You list of the sciences is shallow and strange. You seem to be very fond of modern science, modern allopathic medicine. Modern Newtonian physics. These are all schools of thought that have come under great strain recently.

Modern science ihas come "under strain recently"? Really? Well bugger me with a broomstick ... I wasn't aware of that and nor, apparently, are any scientific journals!!!! Care to offer a little evidential support?

FYI Newtonian physics is, strictly speaking, no longer applicable having been replaced by Einsteinien physics (there were a number of anomalies Newtonian physics couldn't account for that Einsteinien physics could) ... does that mean Newtonian physics is not taught in school? No it doesn't because for most normal concepts Newtonian physics continues to be as applicable to life as it always has been. So, again, I reject your assertion until such point as you offer some evidence to support it.

I was also not aware that conventional medicine was in any way under stress so again I ask you to supply some evidence to support your assertion.

Where we stand in our understanding of the world today is not the epitome of reality.

That sounds like vague rubbish but I'll ask anyway ... what is then?

To hear you say that those things, especially homeopathy and naturopathy are 'all for flakes' makes me cringe and laugh. All I can ask is that are we allowed to make up our own minds? If I choose homeopathy and naturopathy, my I live like that? Or would you call me a flake. Or would you kill or convert me? We need to become more natural as humans, if we have nay chance of surviving. What is old is not necessarily stupid, and what is new not necessarily right. Just silliness.

OK, to answer in sequence:

1. Does it? Why? The idea behind homeopathy is the very essence of stupidity and naturopathy isn't much better.
   
2. You are entitle to be as foolish as you wish.
   
3. See 2 above
   
4. Yes
   
5. No and if I could.
   
6. Based on what?
   
7. Agreed on both but the things mentioned are still for flakes because they are all, without exception, pseudosciences.
   
8. Yes what you have just said pretty much was.

.

that allows us to observe and determine the relationships between various life forms.

The relationships as they already existed before us, and exist solely outside of us. We can name and study the fantastic world of animals, but we did not make it. not at all.

Agreed the basic hierarchies and relationships existed but species are a purely human invention which aids our understanding of the bio-landscape.

Something did though.

Yes, evolution.

Kyu