Originally posted by DB7 2.0
and with scientific research done by many scientists in the past and current, the time allotted for a singe cell to evolve into a "creature" and then further evolve into what is now the current human beings and animals is supposed to require much more time than the age of the earth believed in the science books. and on the subject of the earth's age, science has changed the age of the earth several million years since i was 10yrs old and now 23. what gives?
In scientific circles the age of the Earth is understood to be about 4 billion years. Seems like plenty of time for an ameba to become an antelope if you ask me. The reason the age of the Earth keeps getting extended further back in time is that we don't know exactly how old the Earth is. 4 billion years is the current calculation, when the age was quoted as less that was the current calculation based on available evidence.
ok, i admit, maybe the whole "emotion" subject was not so fitting either. but how are humans different from all other animals? lets take the dog as the given example. dogs interact. yes. dogs can somewhat "feel" happy/sad/hunger/neglect. can dogs advance within the "dog society"? no. they are primal animals only doing the very basic necessities to survive. kiss up to the "human owner" to be fed? sure. be nice and learn commands to be in turn pampered? sure. but they cannot and will never advance any further in any stage. humans have, can, and will always be able to advance within not just our human society but in all aspects of this world as well. we have the capacity to think and create to help ourselves and to some extent, create luxury much more excessive than our basic needs. we educate and be educated. we dont just "exist", we live.
So dogs (and other animals) are more basic than us. No, there is no grand canine society that we don't know about. They're still self-aware. What exactly is the difference between existing and living? Is living just a refinement of existence? Oh crap, that's a huge philosophical debate...but I'm leaving it in the post just because it's at least worth mentioning.
i never said that just because "you" dont believe in what i believe, that, that is grounds for falsehood. i have brought up the issue of "souls" in an attempt to bring up maybe something that can spark another grounds of debate for both sides.
What I meant was that you use your faith as a premise in your logic. Faith isn't a universally accepted truth so that premise is automatically brought into doubt. That's all I meant, not that I believe one thing and you believe another. Just that faith is not a good thing to use in a logical argument where you're trying to prove something.