I do know but its completely confusing . okay when I asked my dad the difference he said the Christians branched out of the Catholics but there are many different kinds of Christians while there is only one kind of Catholics. That's what I got . maybe I should ask a priest....
Chrsitians all believe in Jesus. Catholics worship Jesus the way the Pope tells us to.
I seriously don't want to start a debate, but to quote Peter and John before the Sanhedrin, "Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him?" I'd like to see the Pope's reaction if someone asked him that.
(Again, I don't mean to insult Catholics or anything, I simply meant to point out something humorous. Please don't take this the wrong way.)
Well of course no one can 100% prove how old the Earth really is (until time travel is invented ). But due to what scientists know about how rocks change over time, we have a decent estimate. And I trust scientists, unlike some people. Let me guess, you don't believe in climate change either?
You'd think they'd be able to accurately place an age on the rocks, but many of the methods they use are not the best. Some paleontologists (in Australia, I believe) found some wood fossilized inside some basalt. They sent the basalt to a lab and got it tested. The folks at the lab said it was 45 million years old. Then they sent the wood, which was found inside the rock very far under the surface (sorry I don't remember how far down they had dug, but it was deep enough to find supposedly 45-mil-year-old rock, so that should say something), to the same lab and got it tested. The lab folks said it was 45,000 years old. That's a true story that clearly shows the dating systems are often quite inaccurate.
I believe in climate change, but I don't believe it's as serious as it's made out to be. The earth's climate has always changed, it's part of nature. Much of Antarctica is actually getting colder. Humans don't make nearly as much of a difference as we think we do.
Well of course some rocks and other objects will seem older or younger than they actually are occasionally, and this can be seen in things like humans as well. But for the most part, it's very consistent, as fossils belinging to the same species are typically found at similar depths and in similarly ages rocks. I'm not a geologist, so I can't explain exactly how the aging process works, but unlike some people, I trust scientists.
I think it's pretty serious... the past 6 years have had 5 of the hottest years on record I believe (something like that, I heard that a while back, the numbers could be wrong).
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.
Catholics are Christians. Catholics just sometimes say they aren't because they don't want to be associated with other Christians and vice versa.
I think it's often the other way around to be honest. My father and his family are all Catholics who consider themselves Christians. Though I have met quite a few Christians (mainly Protestants and Born Agains) who separate Catholicism and Christianity.
That's why I typed "or vice versa" at the end of that post...
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.
That is completely true. But through studying and using logic we can make very valid assumptions, such as evolution.
Well yeah, but I don't like to put my full faith in one bag. Science has told us some logical things and some wacky things over the years. I'm mean science told us that DDT was safe. That stuff is now linked to pretty much every issue we've ever faced. Just recently we've been told that triclosan, an ingredient in some hand sanitizers can cause superbugs.
Though I agree with some form of evolution, it like all other beliefs has its issues.
But that's exactly what super-religious people tend to do...
I'm pretty sure science is what told us DDT wasn't safe, unless you're referring to something before we had the technology to really find out. I couldn't find much online about the superbug thing, could you explain that more?
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.
Well yeah, but I don't like to put my full faith in one bag. Science has told us some logical things and some wacky things over the years. I'm mean science told us that DDT was safe. That stuff is now linked to pretty much every issue we've ever faced. Just recently we've been told that triclosan, an ingredient in some hand sanitizers can cause superbugs.
Though I agree with some form of evolution, it like all other beliefs has its issues.
But that's exactly what super-religious people tend to do...
I'm pretty sure science is what told us DDT wasn't safe, unless you're referring to something before we had the technology to really find out. I couldn't find much online about the superbug thing, could you explain that more?
Some atheist tend to do the same too. Science is always evolving, meaning it can often be wrong before it is right. Science created DDT. It isn't a naturally occurring compound. Scientists and doctors told us it wasn't safe after the damage was already done. Parts of the Global South is still using it. Same with asbestos really.
Well there have been multiple debates about sanitizer being better than soap as sanitizer kills bacteria while soaps just removes it. Though recently, doctors have discovered that an ingredient (tricolsan) in some sanitizers causes superbugs. They also discovered that soap is all 'round a better option anyway.
I think it's often the other way around to be honest. My father and his family are all Catholics who consider themselves Christians. Though I have met quite a few Christians (mainly Protestants and Born Agains) who separate Catholicism and Christianity.
That's why I typed "or vice versa" at the end of that post...
Just stated that I've on ever met Christians who separate the two.
You'd think they'd be able to accurately place an age on the rocks, but many of the methods they use are not the best. Some paleontologists (in Australia, I believe) found some wood fossilized inside some basalt. They sent the basalt to a lab and got it tested. The folks at the lab said it was 45 million years old. Then they sent the wood, which was found inside the rock very far under the surface (sorry I don't remember how far down they had dug, but it was deep enough to find supposedly 45-mil-year-old rock, so that should say something), to the same lab and got it tested. The lab folks said it was 45,000 years old. That's a true story that clearly shows the dating systems are often quite inaccurate.
I believe in climate change, but I don't believe it's as serious as it's made out to be. The earth's climate has always changed, it's part of nature. Much of Antarctica is actually getting colder. Humans don't make nearly as much of a difference as we think we do.
Well of course some rocks and other objects will seem older or younger than they actually are occasionally, and this can be seen in things like humans as well. But for the most part, it's very consistent, as fossils belinging to the same species are typically found at similar depths and in similarly ages rocks. I'm not a geologist, so I can't explain exactly how the aging process works, but unlike some people, I trust scientists.
I think it's pretty serious... the past 6 years have had 5 of the hottest years on record I believe (something like that, I heard that a while back, the numbers could be wrong).
It actually happens more frequently than you'd think. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80s, the lava cooled and became rock. Some of the new rock was sent to a lab and they aged it at 35,000 years old. The problem with these aging systems is that in order to trust their accuracy, you have to assume that the decay rate is constant and unchanged for millions of years. People have to remember that nature is never that predictable.
How long have they been recording it, though? That's the question.
How did a topic about the top 50 posters turn into a religion vs. science debate?
That can happen with pretty much anything. Just to be clear, though, I do believe in science (because duh), I just don't agree with most scientists on some issues.
But that's exactly what super-religious people tend to do...
I'm pretty sure science is what told us DDT wasn't safe, unless you're referring to something before we had the technology to really find out. I couldn't find much online about the superbug thing, could you explain that more?
Some atheist tend to do the same too. Science is always evolving, meaning it can often be wrong before it is right. Science created DDT. It isn't a naturally occurring compound. Scientists and doctors told us it wasn't safe after the damage was already done. Parts of the Global South is still using it. Same with asbestos really.
Well there have been multiple debates about sanitizer being better than soap as sanitizer kills bacteria while soaps just removes it. Though recently, doctors have discovered that an ingredient (tricolsan) in some sanitizers causes superbugs. They also discovered that soap is all 'round a better option anyway.
Your points about DDT and hand sanitizer weren't science being wrong, it was just science not discovering something yet. So we can thank science for discovering it instead of bashing science for not noticing it sooner.
And yes, blindly trusting anything is bad, even if it's science, but I personally think science is advanced enough by now to mostly trust it (as long as it comes from a reliable source). That doesn't mean I blindly trust it, just that I listen to the people who know what they're doing.
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.