ok, thanx to the naysayers, good job guys
. really fun to talk about how, if you take what was said by someone 2500 years ago literally, word for word, and stand it next to what we have come up with today it doesn't fit like a freaking puzzle. i wasn't trying to say that the buddha literally said exactly what modern science says. only that the things he said are very similar and a heck of a lot closer to what we think/theorize today than a lot of other religions. also i'm pretty sure the buddha is talking about hundreds of thousands of alternate universes and if some of the stories he told sound like an image of earth i don't think it's to unlikely that there would be such planets in a few of the universes in such a huge multi-verse or that he was telling stories about other planets that were told to him without detail of landscape, buildings, etc. and was just associating them with his world for his followers to understand.
i do appreciate the enthusiasm though
. you sound very knowledgeable but to be fair i already know the things you're trying to school me on. i'm not some moron who gets all his info on science from ancient scriptures. the main thing to recognize here is that you are criticizing someone on a buddhist web-site for saying something the buddha said was somewhat accurate. if i was on here saying creationism is fact then by all means let me have it
but i'm starting to realize there's no point in debating things like this because if you want to enjoy a tradition and talk about the good things in it that are fun and applicable to our reality it's almost impossible to share this notion with people who want to defame things and pick them apart until it sounds like non-sense
. you can do this with anything in history. even most famous cartographers, astrologists, and scientists in the past have maaaaaaaaany errors when stood up against todays knowledge as will our present thinkers when compared with future thinkers. if you take the stuff said by aristotle that's still true today he sounds amazing but if you really look close, muuuuuuch of his ideas are wrong. it would be easy to just state that he was a guy who was wrong about a lot. it all depends on how you want to look at it.
guy a can say: aren't the similarities cool? and guy b can always say "there's more differences than similarities." personally i think there's more to talk about if you look at the similarities as, for example, if you just said aristotle was wrong about a lot and left it at that, it would be a pretty boring conversation
if you just pick out the errors, yeah, everyone sounds like they are fools.
although i will say it's very nice to hear people so knowledgeable on the subject! thanx for the posts!