coldel

Some horses run faster than others, same with dogs racing? Pro footballers need elite training over the young years of their life - some countries do it better than others (look at teenage brazilian, argentinian, german players vs young English players in terms of the last 30 years) - its clear youth development in the UK is not as good as elsewhere for reasons that are not divine, they are manufactured as horrible as it sounds. There are probably hundreds of people out there that could be as good as Messi if they had the opportunity, training and commitment but they chose to do something else - hell some of them may have never kicked a ball in their life. Its interesting though sport, Messi makes other players look normal, but you have to put it into a relative spectrum - margins in pro sport are tiny, and even a tiny advantage can turn you from a great player to the best player. Think about the 100m sprint, being 0.01 second faster than the man next to you separates you from being the best vs not being the best. And better training facilities and understanding of the body has enabled us to go faster, higher, further than ever (Russian doping aside!) - pretty much every athletic world record has been set in the last 5-10 years.

See I would have to disagree here, the bible is full of theory filling gaps. God is a theory (as no one has ever proved he exists) and fills the gaps in a similar way Hawking might theorise around black holes using mathematics and extrapolated modelling and the like. In terms of the Ark, I think that given many writings around the globe at the same time make no mention of the world flooding, that the likely scenario was a combination of a big localised flooding event, a guy with a boat, a few local large farmlands with animals and someone documenting it in a way that made it sound a lot more exciting than it actually was.

Sporty turbo'd Toyota putting out around 280bhp, sounds like the perfect car to me

Dude, fix that signature!

I think it would have ended up a free for all, Lions eating smaller herbivores etc. Would have been a case of natural selection as to what got off lol I guess this is the defining line, whereas common logic would say its impossible, thats where 'god' steps in as a solution and probably how he came about when people writing the book didnt know any better and gods/groups of gods were springing up all across the globe at that point in time. We are all scientists, except that one group accepts gaps in knowledge and looks to fill it with something earthly, the other accepts the gaps as being filled by a mystical entity. But, both groups are actually a lot closer in what they believe than you might think? I call it coldel theorem(c)350z-uk.com...

What did the animals eat and drink for the 100 days or so it was afloat? For two elephants that would equate to around 90 tonnes of fresh veggies over say 100 days. How did they stop the veggies going off?

The turbo should be a factory optional extra

BMW V8 transplant into a Subaru BRZ?

I think that video (it was funny watching!) actually though I think proves evolution and disproves god. That the book written by some 'scientists' called the bible attempted to make sense of the world through the idea of a god explaining things that happened because they couldn't using very basic evidence that was put before them (the behemoth could be an elephant, the great flood could have been localised flooding of the nile etc. must be a divine being?). Then other scientists come along and challenge it and attempt to update the thinking using evidence put before them using the better technology at their disposal and a greater level of evidence they have now accumulated. And so on and so forth. So I say to you, that religion and science are distant cousins, evolving from one into the other? You read it here first

Looks like they have faded, a no from me. You do realise that now you have one purple pipe in there, you got to do all of them

We never actually used any sort of monitor but I have seen (I think) ones which just link to your phone which seemed like a good idea?

This is harder than politics! Great thread, I am doing some reading up on this as certainly no expert, and the only webpages are either creationists or the direct opposite, one writing quite fanciful vague things interpreting some vague text as a definitive answer, whilst the other writes something verging on aggressive anger. The Ark debate is a good one online though, some students at Leicester Uni worked it out that if the ark was built as described, yes it would float, but the estimated number of species in that day would need to be in cages that literally would fit their size and no more, all the animals could fit without it sinking (assume an average weight level). Of course if you put on a days worth of food for all the animals they would have sunk by some margin but it was an interesting study. An interesting point from one of the 'angry ones' Noah and his three sons built the ark, which given boat building practices that would have been in play would have meant 80-90 years to build it (ignoring the fact they would have died of old age), which would have meant they would never have finished it as the wood would have started rotting away well before they finished it.

Sounds like an Elephant? Actually throws up an interesting point though, fossils haven't just been discovered in the last 200 years, I wonder what people in Roman times made of finding these things when excavating ground? I wonder if their interpretation of it might have been the above, finding monsters and behemoths? On the Ark, interestingly there is no evidence of it being the first ship ever built - its impossible to know by all accounts (thanks Google) as all we know as evidence is the oldest ship ever found. Seems many historians put ship building as far back as 2500BC or older.

So how long is it you think?

I could be wrong but converting that scale puts the earth at 6000 years old.

So when it rains, we have found out how that works. There are non man made things that we know truth of. The Pyramids there are 3 or 4 solutions to how it could have been done, but the lack of evidence shows its not clear how it was done. What is clear is that its most likely that one of those solutions is more likely to be the solution than a divine being intervening. One thing that is interesting, is carbon dating - again proven to be highly accurate, and pretty much proves that nature, animals and people were around well before the claimed date of the arrival of the week a god made the world? How is that explained in religious terms?

Good spot, just checked and yes mine wont open.

Exactly, there are 'barriers' which we strive to break, but when you prove that simple things occur where there is no theoretical or assumed variable then that has to be the truth? We know how glass is made using super heated sand, because we make it, that's a scientific truth of how glass is made. You might in the future find another way of doing it but that does not change what came before it as a truth - so its not a lack of progression, its an acceptance that its truth that's how glass is made and an open mind that there may be in future another way of doing it.

There are levels though right? Sure our understanding of the cosmos is much more improved than it was 50 years ago and we are still learning. But our understanding of why a spark appears when we strike flint against steel is pretty definitive i.e. iron particles combine with oxygen particles thus igniting and give off heat as they oxidise. I cannot imagine suddenly in the future there will be an alternate scientific truth to that.

I imagine religion can give people focus - plenty of people I am sure drift through life with questionable morals (the ten commandments are not something to be disproved but in-fact are a way of living for instance) maybe some people feel they need a guidebook to life?

Makes sense. No point being left behind, you got to have one finger in the pie. Great story on PH yesterday about cars that people wouldnt mind going EV - such as smart cars and the like

I guess my point was not a science vs religion argument, but I find it fascinating how people (in their billions) hold such a strong belief in the face of ever increasing evidence that in fact its a belief in something that is in all likelihood not real. The word Belief in itself by definition means that someone would believe something to be fact or true - as humans learn more religious truths are chipped away - for example we know why rain falls from the sky, in fact its possible to artificially make it rain now, its not because of a all powerful being deciding that it will rain to feed the earth.

In the 90s there were living witnesses, video evidence, the actual car running that speed at different locations across the world and proven engineering showing it happen and how it could have happened, other vehicles that are close to running that speed, even more than many people own running not far behind it. So yes that's not really a belief, as more an observation of something that has happened and is proven to have happened. So science is the truth, and religion is a belief, as I read it?

Buyer scenario number 3 here http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/My-item-has-not-been-delivered-or-received-What-to-do-/10000000002072890/g.html I think you have to continue with the courier, even if they have closed it you go higher up the organisation. I always find that a nice negative complaint about the courier drivers likelihood to be ripping off people hastagged into Twitter tends to get the attention of companies!

Funny thing is that when I googled the above the answer is apparently that God is not a caused being therefore does not have to have been created. Which seems a bit of a cop out if ever there was one. When it comes to religion, religions say prove us wrong. When it comes to science, religious people say prove yourself right. What is always missing, is religion proving itself right.