We all love watching broken people, watch me tell you you're broken!

@ sundialsvcs - While I fully support your right to remain skeptical at the very least on some issues I would like to attempt to convince you of one key thing. Science never concluded that the Earth was flat since there was never any supporting objective evidence.

Flat Earth was entirely the province of Myth, Religion, Poets, and less than a handful of philosophers. Shortly after 700 BC scientists, those men employing objectively observable (repeatable) evidence knew the Earth was essentially a sphere. It took millennia for this knowledge to "trickle down" since so few could read or "do cipher", mathematics. However even a few commoners such as the crew on naval vessels understood what approaching land where eyesight proceeds from the top, down, understood this concept since they also knew that "water seeks it's own level" even if unable to articulate it. So please don't pass on the FUD that Science ever held such a ridiculous conclusion. It just isn't so, and therefore either demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the scientific method entails or is an outright lie. Neither position has good prospects.

Yes, you are correct. "Flat Earth" in-context is really just a metaphor for "dogma." Someone, at some time, believed that the Earth was a disk that sat on the shell of a turtle. Plenty of other people looked thoughtfully at the shape(!) of the Moon.

In the context of a Faith and Religion mega-thread, however, I actually intended my comments to be more metaphorical than perhaps you took them to be.

When people start slinging-about "billions and billions" of (anything ...), based on their supposed-understanding of the Carbon-14 isotope or what-have-you, I personally reach for my bag(!) of salt when contemplating whatever they have to say. Why? Because I'm not as "dead-set convinced" of what they're saying, as they are.

Mind you, I do not from that position "step forward and challenge them." (Neither am I challenging you!) But ... "I am not quite so sure."

When I listen patiently to these "scientific" arguments, I personally see in them a helluva lot of ... faith.

... and, actually, I don't(!) mean that in any sort of 'negative' nor 'perjorative' way! :eek:

We are human beings, and we are driven to "understand," even though we never will. Therefore, I find that there is a lot of "potential common-ground" between "science" and "non-science." And (separately ...) between "science," "philosophy," and "religion."

I'm just not willing to "slam the door shut in the face of 'two out of these three.'" I do not share any sort of "Harry Potter perspective" that "neither can live while the other survives ..." I see all of them as equally-valid perspectives with no intrinsic mutual-exclusion.

... but, I'm also not going to directly confront anyone (e.g. you ...) whose position differs markedly from my own. I'll express my different opinion, while acknowledging yours. All over this marvelous digital water-cooler. :cool:

There's learning the wrong way and it's fairy tail, agnostic is quite simply evolution at play IMHO.

@ sundialsvcs - While I actually do understand and respect your POV, let alone your inalienable right to have one, I must ask you to attempt to clarify "billions and billions of anything" since I assume you realize that "billions and billions" of many things exists right before our eyes if we have the means to look. The number of grains of sand in just one large desert or long beachline surely are one obvious example. It is only one small step to being able to see the world's population of insects, and a slight more to molecules and bacteria. I don't see why billions and billions is such a negative trigger for you. Please explain.

Maybe preaching to the choir here but Mr. Robot S2E3 was quite good, a little glass half empty just the rest would cost you (besides it's the same. ;))

Religion is like yin&yang.
It can help you if you understand it or it break you and used by people who understand more.:(

http://dudeism.com/ :D
[screencast]pWdd6_ZxX8c[/screencast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/origtime.htm

I feel if evolutions shown us anything we will and can remove all negativity like "devils." ;)

jamison20000e - Are you equating "evolution" with "selective breeding"?

Not a bad concept but who decides?

More selective ideas (would be nice;) f the crap ones, like needing to say f the crap ones! ;)

My point is that evolution is not goal-oriented but random and sometimes... shoot! even often!.. results in dead ends. Example - large size has distinct advantages in warding off predators or becoming a more successful one, but comes at a dangerous cost if such things as climate change or drought (or meteorites) occur.

Selective breeding is much more complex since it assumes the "selectors", most commonly homo sapiens, comprehend all of the ramifications of such selection. A case in point here is the "Killer Bees" syndrome in which the goal of increased honey production did occur but was all but negated by the massive increase in aggression. Then of course there is the fictional but pointed occurrence of the branch of human "perfection" capable of driving cool-headed Anthropologists to betray her Captain leading him to scream "KHANNNNnnnn!!!"

Actually a better science fictional example of how eugenics can go horribly wrong was explored in th full-length movie follow up to "Firefly", Serenity. The most accurate I've ever seen which does not rely on a sort of extreme "reductio ad absurdum" premise is the brilliant A Perfect 46 truly a must-see for serious Sci Fi fans who require more than "Cowboys and Monsters in Space".