Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Thats What I Said.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phillip Martin on January 5, 2003 05:22:40 UTC

"It is really just a matter of genetics, just lengthen the ends of the DNA (forgive me I forget what they are called) and a person can live a really long time."

Why just a few people? Why doesn't this happen anymore? Several people living to such old ages, then nothing?

About the rest of your post (minus parts 14.6.4 through 14.7.5):

That is not exactly what I meant, but it is exactly what I said. Its not really a typo, either. I guess it was a combination of bad wording and lacking explaination. I was very short on my time when I posted that.

By scientists I meant archeologists, and the like. The people who date, classify, and organise all of the data. They determine if the events recorded in historical documents happened, and what exactly happened (judging by the evidence they find). Religions depict things in unique ways, for various reasons. They try to explain everything all at once, with just a few basic principles. The scientists must go through a process to verify their findings. They know more than I do, I probably don't know enough to begin to challenge something they publish. The ones with falacious findings will be stripped of their reliability, maybe not literally, but in the eyes of other scientists surely. I do what I can with what I (think I) know and understand. I use that to critique what I read and hear about, but if nothing conflicts it or jumps out, I assume it is valid until it is deemed not so. That is what I meant.

Parts 14.6.4 through 14.6.8 ("I do not wish to offend you by saying these things and if I have I apologize.")

You did not offend me, your post was a valid and justified reply. I welcome those.

Parts 14.6.9 through 14.7.3 ("However, I must makes this point: if you heard something like the Girl did, but the person used a refrence you trusted completly would you not do the same thing?")

Yes, of course I would. But I dougt that answers your question. I will believe anything if it came from a source I completely trusted, although there is no source I completely trust. To completely trust something is what I meant by blind, or an example of what I meant anyway.

Warm regards,

Phillip Martin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins