Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#13301 11/16/05 01:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
I have to know; how many people here believe it is possible to make something out of nothing?

ps. You can't post polls around here.

.
#13302 11/16/05 05:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Rob,

You seem to have an obsession about nothing smile

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13303 11/16/05 05:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Rob,

And regards Genesis not being possible - if you mean the Biblical account of creation, many Christians accept that it is a story designed to communicate truths about creation and our relationship to it - and not a scientific account of how it happened.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13304 11/16/05 07:13 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Blacknad,
The situation is much different in the USA. Just the other day I was accosted on the street by a man who said he was the pastor of a fundamentalist church in the local area that teaches "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible". Needless to say I turned down his invitation to pay his church a visit. But his attitude is typical of the highly fundamentalist attitudes of certain people here. It is this which we are at odds with. These people would have Genesis taught at science classes and given equal time with evolution or instead (which they would really prefer). It is this type of religious fervor which many of us cope with on a daily basis here. Is it any wonder the forum gets edgy when it sticks its head in the door and shouts?

#13305 11/16/05 08:57 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5
You can make something out of nothing if you swipe one of a pair of virtual photons and let the other one go....i.e. hawkings radiation arises from quantum fluctuations of the "nothingness", were one gets "eaten" by a black hole.

#13306 11/16/05 09:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Nothing, is the absence of something, therefore it must be possible to make something from nothing. If it were not possible then how do we exist. Our physical being must not be compared to God, for God is not at all like us.

#13307 11/16/05 09:24 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5
"Our physical being must not be compared to God, for God does not like us at all." - Philege

wow! must be that OT god.

#13308 11/16/05 09:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Amaranth,

I would want them to explain how God created Night and Day in Genesis Ch 3 and then a few days later on created the Sun and Moon - Ch 16.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13309 11/16/05 09:42 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Blacknad, I will answer that one for you. To undertsand what night and day means in the Biblical context, then you must refer to John Chapter one, where light and darkness are discussed. (i.e. day and night) When God said let there be light, that was not the light from the sun, that was the light of the world i.e. Jesus being created. Also read the final Chapter of Revelation for clarification of the same night and day. For night will no longer exist i.e. the devil

#13310 11/17/05 12:09 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Thanks Philege,

I think many Christians would not agree that Jesus was created in any sense like that. But I am speaking from ignorance - I have not looked at Genesis in the Hebrew for a good while.

My point remains that Genesis doesn't claim to be a science textbook and we do ourselves no favours when we use it to try and argue against evolution.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13311 11/17/05 09:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
There are many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand, however as I said before the Bible is spiritually discerned. I'll give an example, you know in Genesis Adam and Eve and their descendants lived up to eight or nine hundred years of age. Now this may not make sense to most people until you realise that according to ancient scriptures, the earth was once much nearer to the sun. It therefore stands to reason that the earth went around the sun much faster, therefore the years were much shorter, therefore mankind appeared to live longer. Another clue that the earth was once nearer to the sun is actually in the Bible itself. If one reads Genesis, you will read that in those days there was no rain, there was only a mist which rose from the ground. Also plant life thrived because of the conditions. The closeness of the earth to the sun disabled the process of rain. In Genesis we also read about giant animals roaming the earth. There is also a psalm which talks about the 'circle of the earth' proclaiming the earth to be round long before man realised this. So I disagree with you that we cannot learn evolution from the Bible. The bible is actually a history book, of the Jewish people and traces their development from the time of Abraham until the distant future. Everything that happened to the Jews was predicted in the Bible, some events are still unfolding today. The secret is, buy a Bible, pray to God for understanding before you start reading and you will be amazed to see the reasoning unfolding before your eyes. Try it, and see.

#13312 11/18/05 08:29 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
How close to the sun would the earth have to be to decrease the length of a year by a factor of ten?

Regards,

Blacknad.

#13313 11/21/05 08:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
no, no, no. Nothing biblical. I thought the definition of genisis was 'to make something out of nothing,.

#13314 11/21/05 08:35 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Philege, shut up.

#13315 11/21/05 08:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Here's a good question; assuming that outside the universe there is nothing (don't THINK so, but anyway...) does nothing inhabit infinity or does infinity inhabit nothingness? hmmm...

#13316 11/21/05 11:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Rob, how do you manage to hang on to three stars, I am certain you have multiple registerings to keep giving yourself five stars!

#13317 11/21/05 11:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Rob by the way, there are other universes outside our universe. Check out Space.com so there is something not nothing.

#13318 11/21/05 11:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
For this discussion I will play the adversaries part.

You think that Genesis is impossible, and I think that you think that, because you do not understand what you think you are reading. When the Bible recites that in ?the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth? that is not saying that it was created from nothing. If I tell you I made a chair would you think that I made it out of thin air ? nothing? There is nothing as deeply mysterious as you all seem to think. When the Bible recites that God created light and may later refer to the Sun that is intended to acknowledge that light existed before our Sun was created (the Universe with lots of light) and the Sun was created specifically for the Earth. Before you dump something you should try to interpret what is being offered. Actually, if you substitute Gravitation for God in Genesis you will do well until you get to the creation of life forms.

Some people read the Bible and revere every word as the word of God. It is clear that the Bible did not intend that result for if it was intended there was no need for God, The Lord and The Lord God as used through out the book. Words are very valuable assets to be used and understood for specific meanings and the Bible, somewhat like Shakespeare did in his time, was very careful with much of the wording. I spent many hours reading the bible in an effort to decipher some of the content that I felt had special meaning. This has nothing to do with the ?Bible Code? as more recently touted and it had/has nothing to do with any religious dependence the Bible was intended to satisfy. There are some basic life guidelines of merit and some horror stories as well.

I am in the desert now and do not have any of my notes on the Bible content that I felt was of interest. If I think of it I will bring some along here next time we make the round trip to the beach area.
jjw

#13319 11/22/05 10:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
"there are other universes outside our universe"

I know that, well, i strongly believe that, but no-one else here seems to. Anyhow it's a fun question to think about.

#13320 11/22/05 10:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 26
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 26
But then Rob does this not make you realize just how magnificently immense God is?

#13321 11/24/05 01:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
R
Ric Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
Rob by the way, there are other universes outside our universe. Check out Space.com so there is something not nothing.
You have conclusive proof of this? Show me where it is written for a fact that there are definaltey other universes outside our own.


"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
#13322 11/24/05 10:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Originally posted by Philege:
Rob by the way, there are other universes outside our universe. Check out Space.com so there is something not nothing.

Can't you read Space.com

#13323 11/24/05 10:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Sorry that was for Ric

#13324 11/27/05 12:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Blacknad
Member
Member # 352

Posted November 18, 2005

How close to the sun would the earth have to be to decrease the length of a year by a factor of ten?

Regards,

Blacknad.

This is interesting because I have read stuff suggesting that the explanation for the extreme life lines expressed in Genesis was due to a different location of the Earth in orbit around the sun and/or that they were calculating the year by the Moon?s orbit. Neither idea will suffice to give us any result that would account for the numbers if we assume that man?s years ?will number 72? or if we assume that the 930 years for Adam can be divided by 10 to be rational. I have, in the distant past, worked over all of the life lines shown quite a bit and I am still ignorant of a reasonable numerical interpretation. For our discussion we could start by giving Adam 930 ?real? years in comparison to what we have now and suggest that implies a year of 36.525 days. The planets orbits do show some straight line simplistic reduction and in this instance Earth would require an orbit average of about 9,300,486.3 miles radius to produce an orbital velocity of 58.5 miles per second sufficient to give Earth a year of 36.525 days. The curious part being that the new orbit is the current orbit divided by about 10. Working the numbers with the Moon as the measure will not work either. It goes with out need for elaboration that all other factors being equal Earth would be less than a third of the distance from the Sun that Mercury currently enjoys and hot, hot, hot. This area of the numbers is still of interest to me when free time permits.

If any of you are interested you can work some interest into the numbers by such as the following: For Earth day comparisons with other planets,

The difference in the orbit velocity of Earth divided by the planets orbital velocity cubed, will give you a number that represents the difference in Earth days in the other planet?s orbit.
Jupiter is 4337/365.25 = 11.87. 18.5/8.11 (ov) = 2.2811 mps ^3 = 11.87.

jjw

#13325 11/27/05 03:03 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Sorry members:

I made an error in my offer of the required orbit for Earth to have 36.525 days in it. I have been called to dinner so correction must wait.
jjw

#13326 11/27/05 01:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
P
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
hi guys
I have to say something regarding evolution and intelligent design. I think evolution could itself be a part of the intelligent design and we need not disregard any of the two. Consider a computer generated programme where characters are programmed to evolve with time, it incorporates both design and evolution.
Also consider that we percieve a limited time-space, and that time is not absolute.It started with big bang (if there was one)and will cease to exist with the universe. Evolution belongs to our space-time ofcourse but a large portion of the bigger design could well be outside its purview. So, we can't just put aside Genesis and intelligent design.


physic
#13327 12/03/05 05:17 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
I believe it's possible to make something out of nothing, especially if that is done by intelligence higher than ours. For our limited understanding of something and nothing can in no way set rules or boundaries about what is possible or impossible.

The main reason I found this thread, was a post above where someone mentioned that Genesis 2 declares there was no rain.

I studied that section back in the 1980s, and realized that Genesis 2 is talking about something different altogether. It's explaining exactly how it rained within it's own vocabulary. The terminology is consistent with other verses.

Feel free to read the notes on this page:

SCROLL DOWN A WAYS ON THIS PAGE FOR THE RAIN AND MIST IN GENESIS PART

You should see an earth .gif image or even animated if your browser has that enabled. It's most of the way down the page.


mdvaden
To contact - frame my signature with www. and .com
#13328 12/18/05 09:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
mdvaden states:

?I believe it's possible to make something out of nothing, especially if that is done by intelligence higher than ours. For our limited understanding of something and nothing can in no way set rules or boundaries about what is possible or impossible?

jjw rep: This statement implies that the only reason we can not make something out of nothing is that we are not intelligent enough. Are you substituting intelligence for the required raw material? If so, will you be a little less intelligent after we make something that used this extra intelligence you had. You must be thinking in terms of faith. Even Jesus Christ and other Prophets normally had some thing to start with. Make a lot of fish from a few. Make a lot of wine from a little bit of wine, and so on. I do not agree with the feats but I gave them credit for being aware of the requirements of physics.

Your other point as to whether a ?Mist? is the equivalent of rain is noted. Why do so many Bible believers want to change the wording or the meaning of the wording from what is written in the Bible?
jjw

#13329 12/25/05 06:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
?I believe it's possible to make something out of nothing, especially if that is done by intelligence higher than ours. For our limited understanding of something and nothing can in no way set rules or boundaries about what is possible or impossible?

Limited understanding? What's to understand? Something is the presence of something, no matter how big or small; nothing is the abscence of anything. Just because we can't visualise nothing, or everything, it doesn't mean we have a limited understanding of it. We understand what it is, that's what's important.

#13330 03/10/06 10:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
I
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
I wouldnt rule it out, I mean all that stuff about aborigonies acheiving a state of mind where they visualise the stoping of time and visualise life being created, and then wake up and a low and behold a thousand years later the animals they visualised appear, through evolutionary change because the vibration of their thaughts effected the genetics and molecules and spiritually guided evolution. they say the earth was created in a dream, its possible, if you imagine the vibrations of energy created from the thaughts expanding through the universe and bouncing back to manifest them selves in physical forms. the universe is only a small part , time declares that there are an infinate number of univervses, without time it is finate, the whole thing is called the infiniverse or "omega" which is all that is light, it is also a spirit in its self, but it does not serve a purpose for living other than life its self in total blackness next to the alpha, and other elements for life to exist but on a super large scale, in a black nothing. god himself does beleive in evolution, he just modifies it, with his vibrational thaughts. you can exist out side your body, a spirit is like all your electrons in your body leaving the dead flesh, but never forgeting their identity. the reason god says that we shouldnt eat pork is because of genetic transmition, it will effect our evolution. In the begining all men were black and there was a land that is now sunken below sea level called lemeuria, mu and other names, over the years the tide covered it gradually all you sea of it it now is the philopines and madagascar. when the black man moved to the north west, he ate the pork and over thousands of years there was a genetic tranmision that turned his skin to the same colour of the pigs, ever hear the phrase you are what you eat. the difrent races evolved from the genetic transmition from the food they were eating. Aparently during the dreamtime before time its self was allowed to begin some of the animals started to dispease the gods and change their forms, such as the platypus, and the bat who was a rat and wanted wings and changed himself quickly before the gods started time. as for your question rob, I know you think my ideas are far fetched, but I do think that ifinity only exists if time exists, because it takes time to think of the eternal you will never acheive you conciousness to becaume focused on it. Science is very rational and acheives the answer halfway, but still leaves questions unanswered. the religion is very unrational but answers the remaining questions. but remember were talking about the rationalities of an inferior species, "man", even einstein himself beleived in god, even charles darwin, knew deep down there was something we couldnt see guiding it. because it would ake alot more than mere chance for simple worm like microorganism to eventually evolve into something as deliberatley beutiful as say a macaw, a dinosaur. if you ask me the question I think that everybody is wrong and the aboriginies created the dream and the evolution took place because of mental will, of the dreamers, as their thaughts vibrated through the universe while speaking in tongues and playing the didgerie doo and bounced from the edge back again the thaughts built more and more energy and became into existance at a later time. God did not start out as a superior being, he himself started as a man, and the alpha and omega and everything else are a microcosm of something else, maybe there are many infiniverses, like electrons in a biger soul a level up, maybe in each elecotron within us is a solar sytem, and maybe it all never ends. because for matter to exist it must be made of particals, and for them to exist there are mico particals that we can't see with an electron microscope because those particals are microcosms of electrons, and so on, we could keep going and shifing our focus onto microcosms of microcosms of microcosms and wed find the pattern repeats, and we would find our infiniverses in each subatomic partical, and find out the largest living matter in the universe we know is just an electron in another being who doesnt even know we exist. I beleive science identifies the problem, but god can help it, no scientist in the world is capable of wishing the clouds away, unless he creats a gianourmous jet engine with inbuilt dynamo and electric sparks to destroy it, with fission, or maybe he could fission the ice caps, ot the waters to rise the sunken lands if you really wanna save the world ask god, because he can dream up the future and make it a reality, the real problem is attracting gods attention, its a bit like an electron in your finger trying to tell you theres **** goin on in your planet, but of course you dont even know that the elctron even exists, thats what god is, hes capable but its not like he can shrink himself to becaume smaller than the electron in his hand and sort that electron out, its impossible, thats why its hard for god.

paul

#13331 03/10/06 11:25 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Maytey wrote:
"I wouldnt rule it out, I mean all that stuff about aborigonies acheiving a state of mind where they visualise the stoping of time and visualise life being created, and then wake up and a low and behold a thousand years later the animals they visualised appear, through evolutionary change because the vibration of their thaughts effected the genetics and molecules and spiritually guided evolution."

You've really got to stop smokin' crack: It messes with your brain.

If you attended school, even grades K-6, and came away with the above understanding of reality I suggest you march back into the principal's office and demand the education you were cheated out of.
If, on the other hand the rest of the students who attended are not similarly lacking in the ability to put one thought in front of another perhaps you should learn to say "Do you want fries with that."


DA Morgan
#13332 03/11/06 10:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
I
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
whats the point in reciving an education bye man when you can get one from god, you know can't couldnt returne here and do miracles if he wanted to because it would mean his powers would be taken away by the vibrational eneries of ever skeptic on earth. hed create a bird and as soon as he turned his eye it would dissapear, why can't ya listen to the aborigonies and all the other acient cultures for a change, if they can can produce maps of tropical antartica, and of sunken lands, and they get proven because there are monuments under the sea bed. why can't you guys possible accept the idea of another dimention where there are spirits??? who have influence, I mean why do you guys have to force your backward veiws on the whole planet, and fill it with skeptasism, it hasnt got us very far has it. its a **** hole and with out gods help its going to die, and everyone knows it, when will god return, it be better if he take the body of an intelligent monkey because monkeys dont ask questions, why dont he just get all his angels to possess new born babies, and fill the planet with men who master. why doesnt he use mind control over the great satans, the leaders of the countries, why doesnt he cause a flood, and let the nature loving indians rule the planet, that is full of all the extinct species, why doesnt he get rid of all evil thaugh in the eyes of man, why doesnt he expand his conciousness to fill up the earth and everthing in it, and let the tides fall, the ice caps freeze, the ozone seal, let the arragant civilisation be destroyed by earth quakes, he wont destroy man because hes too good, but everyone knows man is the adopted child of lucifer, the liar. everyone knows that man wont beleive anything not even god. even if it means the good ones dying it would still be worth it, I'd rather sacrifise the whole of man, on this planet for his destruction and leave only a few good ones behind, guide all the animals to the mountain tops, and have a flood, than let this corrupted, aragant, disbeleiving, self pleasuring, blind man that laughs at the idea of the creator rule the earth, man is discusting, hes becaume like lucifer was, okay so have I but I was mentally controlled, but thats diffrent. I hope the sun is healed up, and that he forgives me, I love the sun, but when I went off focus the demonic energy took over me, I hear it say you will give your power to satan, and that the crow will kill the doves, and it drives me to think it. If I knew what I was doing and had power oer it, and cut off myy soul tie too it, I wouldnt do it. I took the shape of a easter island rock man and ate the sun like and orange, I hope hes alrighte. tell him to forgive me, I love him, I know hes not permamently damaged, hes a spirit, but I wouldnt want to go through that much pain, give him a treat and make him feel good, to compensate the suffering. I'm so sorry, I'm new to this, being a new size and all, but I will get there, it will never happen again, I'd rather be controlled by god the almighty, and have him work through me, and control my thaughts os they becaume good. next time in the revelations maybe the pig can have armour around it, so it can be uneatable and let him have bigger teeth, and stronger legs, and maybe, dovenburds lory , the brown and yellow one could have nicer plumage, the dodo be bigger and stronger and more intelligent as a reward. the great and sacred rain forrests be protected by rocky mountainous walls, with lions living on to guard it, the tree of knowlege of good and evil be placed on a small island sorrounded by rocky shallows so no boat can reach it. place a punishemnt on the murderers and disbeleivers that the lions eat them, tell man that if he ever kill a lion in his punishment, he will be reincarnated as a new creature a smaller kind of lion, with a red mark to mark the blood of the dead lion and to be attracted to preadators, and call it redemention cat, let the redemtion cat have to survive where the lions live, when the the redemtion cat dies lt him be a man again, born into his origonal tribe, just as he would of been, remove his judgement. place marks on the earth to remind man of yourself, and the scriptures, show man how he came to be, and teach him the lessons of the "sickness time" during the industrial revolution, teach him the lessons of the smoky black country, that was once lush green feilds, give man photos of the "sickness time", the hollocaust the nuclear energy, the pollution. let man learn how his world became restored, give me a name like, paul the messenger, he was a music spirit with good and bad in him, who lived in the black (dead) country, who was good and bad black and white, a ying yang spirit. who tried to take over the omega because of his compulsive flaws, and was blinded by satan and saw the sun as an orange and ate of it, but paul had his good points, he invented a machine for evil spirits, and ruined spirits to be recreated and he also invented imunity to a satanic desease. paul was helper of music of the soul. Paul was redemptius and remorseful, In the new world let there be a huge limestone where my house was, let it be sorrounded by glorius jungles. let the rock be known as paul the messenger let it represent a man who was split in two, good and evil, let me be a symbol of the corruptness of the end time of old man, but also the phase of the calling of the almighty creator, master of worlds. let my story be a lesson in the history of creation. also let me be spiritually worked on so I am incapable of evil and let me be apointed as an angel, and call me just paul the messenger, the caller, and let me be in charge of the destruction of sinful knowlege and let me be also known as the caller of tallent, the gateway between good and evil, he he, know but it would be a great Idea!!!!!

Paul

#13333 03/12/06 02:14 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Maytey asks:
"why can't ya listen to the aborigonies and all the other acient cultures for a change"

Oh I don't know. Maybe just some strange desire to live my own life without being prosletyzed by Christians, Do-Gooders, Feeble Minded Fluffniks, and the rest of those that don't have a life of their own.

Here's my suggestion: Give away everything you own, buy a round-trip ticket to some primitive region of the planet. No doubt you can find what you are looking for somewhere in Brazil, the Kalahari, Malaysia, or the Australian outback.

Then live the life you are trying to sell to others for one year without deviation. Then come back and tell us about why we should listen to them.

BTW: Try not to get even the slightest infection. We want you to live long enough to return with your report.

To sell to others what you have never experienced is hypocrisy.

Note: Yes I have lived in a third-world country for a year. So I'm not asking you to do something I've not already done myself.


DA Morgan
#13334 03/12/06 02:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
Thank you Amaranth. for pointing out something that posters from other countries may not be aware of. I am aware that news coverage in other countries is much more accurate than the USA's but I wanted to point out why some of us logic based types go into hysterics when religion is brought up.

We have school districts that have legislated the teaching of creation theory as science, we have an administration that when all else fails relies on religios zealots to push their twisted and sociopathic agenda.

I cannot speak for others here but I know that it scares and sickens me to see our current and future education system being sacrificed for the viewpoint of a few.

Hence, although I really have no issue with the message of Christ and I fully commend and respect the groups of nuns and priests who have done more good than harm; I will forever despise organized religion. It always has been and always will become a tool for perverted politicians.

#13335 03/12/06 12:50 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Maytey:
Please limit yourself to comments with some discernible scientific content. This is not "ramble-on-a-go-go" and if you post any more long winding stream of consciousness posts I will censor you as Moderator. Get with the science or go play somewhere else.

Amaranth Rose
Moderator

#13336 03/12/06 07:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Lillith wrote:
"I cannot speak for others here but I know that it scares and sickens me to see our current and future education system being sacrificed for the viewpoint of a few."

It sickens me too. And to the point of just wanting to give up and get out. I continue to teach at the university but must acknowledge that a large percentage of my students are not US citizens. Rather they are citizens of other countries that have a far greater appreciation of the value of education. I fear my country is well on its way to a decline based primarily upon an ignorance of the lessons of history and a culture that values neither education nor a sense of history.

Lillith wrote:
"I will forever despise organized religion. It always has been and always will become a tool for perverted politicians."

Organized religion is nothing but a tool of the rich and powerful used to control the masses. It has been that way at least since Sumeria and certainly continues to this day with poignant examples too numerous to recount.

Those that buy Jesus Christ or the Mohammed in the shrink-wrapped container are the same people that think a BMW is a luxury car and that Tide makes your clothes whiter and brighter.

PS: Go Rose ... go go go!


DA Morgan
#13337 03/12/06 11:06 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Thank you, Dan. Now that I'm back with a working computer I'll try to stay more on top of things. Meanwhile I'm working on a bad case of computer withdrawal. Got any single malt left?

#13338 03/12/06 11:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
A wonderful bottle of Abelour.

But fear not. I am heading back to the Cotswolds and Wales in May and no doubt will find a duty-free shop or a side-trip to Scotland somewhere.


DA Morgan
#13339 03/13/06 12:06 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Dan,

I live next door to the Cotswolds. A beautiful place.

I'd ask to meet up for a drink, but then I'm sure you couldn't imagine anything less inviting smile

Anyway, enjoy your time here.

Blacknad.

#13340 03/13/06 05:09 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Actually I might just take you up on it as long as we don't have to drink that rot you call beer.

I will be in Burford and Great Barrington beginning the night of the 17th. Are you anywhere in the environs? I'll be taking the train down from the West Midlands.

And just to shake you up a bit ... plan to move to the area in 2007. Possibly Stow.

But to get back on topic ... you would fit in really well in an American red-state which from my perspective you should find quite insulting. ;-) Yep you'd make a right regular American with attitudes such as yours. I thought the British education system more capable.


DA Morgan
#13341 03/13/06 10:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
But to get back on topic ... you would fit in really well in an American red-state which from my perspective you should find quite insulting. ;-) Yep you'd make a right regular American with attitudes such as yours. I thought the British education system more capable.
There are degrees of redness. I live in a very red state right now, but will be moving to a less red one, soon. I don't think Blacknad would like the very reddest states. My fellow citizens of South Carolina would prefer to wallow in their own excrement than pay taxes that might benefit a person of the wrong color.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#13342 03/14/06 12:06 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Dan, I'll mail my mobile number to your University email address. Give me a bell when you get into the country and we'll arrange to meet up.

And I wouldn't dream of making you drink that stuff we call beer. Name your poison and I'll happily get the round in.

Soilguy, thanks for the small vote of confidence. I consider myself to be very liberal and this is totally consistent with Christ's teaching. We don't live in the same type of world to the one the old testament decrees were made in. It is very clear that Christ ushered in an age of grace where mercy is to be a prime characteristic of the religious. When the church has deviated from this they deviate from him. DA forgets that I dislike organized religion as much as he does, if not more, because I end up getting painted with the same brush.

To say I would ever harm anyone indulging in occult practices completely misrepresents me.

I am commanded to do no less than extend grace to all people regardless of behaviour, sexual orientation, creed or race - I take this seriously.

I would be lynched for blasphemy in one of your red states.

Blacknad.

#13343 03/14/06 03:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"It is very clear that Christ ushered in an age of grace where mercy is to be a prime characteristic of the religious."

I thought you lived in Britain not on another planet. When you look around this place ... Africa for example (Libya? Egypt? Nigeria? Sierra Leone? Ethiopia? Zimbabwe?) ou seen grace and mercy? Oh but that is Africa. How about Asia then? Laos? Myanmar? No that's Asia. Perhaps you mean in Latin America ... Guatemala? Columbia? No that's not where you live. Central Asia then perhaps? all of the stans like Pakistan? Afghanistan? No those won't do. How about further west the grace and mercy that is Iran? Iraq? Syria? Lebanon? No those won't do. What you mean is The US (and I don't see either grace or mercy), Canada ... Ok but then it has always been a decent place ... Western Europe? Well only if you ignore everything that happened before 1945 and everything happening in the Basque country and everything happening in Northern Ireland and everything that happened last fall in France and .... What planet do you live on again Blacknad? Grace and mercy my ....

Blacknad wrote:
"To say I would ever harm anyone indulging in occult practices completely misrepresents me."

Ok then represent yourself. What would you do if god, or one of his self-annointed representatives on earth told you to kill the infidel?

Now that you've indicated that there is a line that you won't cross for your god ... where is that line?


DA Morgan
#13344 03/14/06 03:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Does DA stand for Devil's Advocate? wink


~Justine~
#13345 03/14/06 05:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Actually first initial of first name, first initial of middle name. But I like it. Thanks.


DA Morgan
#13346 03/14/06 06:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Welcome, thought you would.


~Justine~
#13347 03/14/06 08:52 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
And it is true ... the devil could use a good advocate. He keeps getting called names by people who claim to be righteous ... and clearly are not.

I've no doubt that the so-called disagreement between a "god" and the "devil" is precisely the same as that between Catholic and Protestant, Cain and Abel, Shiite and Suni, Hutu and Tutsi. The closer they are to being the same ... the more they claim the other guy is the bad one. Look at the right-wing fanatic Christian zealots going after the right-wing fanatic Islamic zealots. I can't tell the apart. And if they switched clothes neither could anyone else.

If one looks at all of the evil perpetrated on this planet by the worshipers of god. And puts it on a scale weighing it against all of the evil perpetrated by worshipers of satan. There can be no doubt, in a rational mind, who is the source of the most wickedness and evil. In fact one might premably give one brownie point to the devil for not being a hyporite and a liar.


DA Morgan
#13348 03/15/06 03:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
"If you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. This last example of atheist-led atrocities by itself resulted in the deaths of more people than those who were killed by 2000 years of "Christian" atrocities."

"Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?"

- No, of course not. But despite the fact that there are presently about 2 billion Christians, most of whom quietly go about their business trying to live a good life, you seem to think you can paint us as insane, blood-thirsty savages. Sorry, but it doesn't stack up. Despite the periods you point to where the Church has disgraced itself, Christianity is overwhelmingly peaceful and positive.

Sorry that you have more than your fair share of ignorant religious nutters in America, but don't let that blind you to the real picture.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and agreeing that the religious are more likely to commit atrocities - do you really think that if there was no religion people wouldn't find other excuses to war with each other? Land, resources, ideology, race - take your pick.

Blacknad.

#13349 03/15/06 04:12 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Blacknad wrote:
"It is very clear that Christ ushered in an age of grace where mercy is to be a prime characteristic of the religious."

Dan replied:
?I thought you lived in Britain not on another planet. When you look around this place ... Africa for example (Libya? Egypt? Nigeria? Sierra Leone? Ethiopia? Zimbabwe?) ou seen grace and mercy? Oh but that is Africa. How about Asia then? Laos? Myanmar? No that's Asia. Perhaps you mean in Latin America ... Guatemala? Columbia? No that's not where you live. Central Asia then perhaps? all of the stans like Pakistan? Afghanistan? No those won't do. How about further west the grace and mercy that is Iran? Iraq? Syria? Lebanon? No those won't do. What you mean is The US (and I don't see either grace or mercy), Canada ... Ok but then it has always been a decent place ... Western Europe? Well only if you ignore everything that happened before 1945 and everything happening in the Basque country and everything happening in Northern Ireland and everything that happened last fall in France and .... What planet do you live on again Blacknad? Grace and mercy my ....?

REP: I was specifically talking about Christianity. Because people enlist Christ on their side, time and time again, whilst they commit damnable acts does not have any impact whatsoever on the veracity or good sense of his teachings.

You would not allow me to damn atheism because of all of the secular wars that have been fought. The same applies to Christ ? if people choose to ignore the basis of his message to ?love one another? ? ?love your enemies? ? ?serve one another as I have served you? ? ?go the extra mile for your neighbour? ? ?forgive others unconditionally? and let?s not forget about the good Samaritan, a man who went out of his way and paid from his own pocket to look after a wounded enemy.

It is not contestable ? the message of Christianity is one of mercy and grace to all, and the vast majority of the two billion people who call themselves Christians today devote themselves to displaying those characteristics in their lives.

Blacknad.

#13350 03/15/06 12:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct"

Well I never thought I'd see the day when I defended Joseph Stalin ... and I'm not doing so today either. But what you've written is nonsense. Lets expose why.

Blacknad wrote:
"Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?"

Good try but it falls flat on its face. My statement said nothing about atheists. I said and I quote:

"If one looks at all of the evil perpetrated on this planet by the worshipers of god. And puts it on a scale weighing it against all of the evil perpetrated by worshipers of satan."

Do you see the word "atheist" in there? If so please point it out to me.

But attacking atheists is a cheap shot. Atheism is NOT a religion. It makes no claims. It does not claim to be good, or kind, or loving, or acting at the direction of any superior being.

Your statement is, at best, misdirection. The target is over there ... on our right.

Blacknad wrote:
"you seem to think you can paint us as insane, blood-thirsty savages."

I do not. My statement is that more than 1,750 years of insane blood-thirsty acts have been committed by self-identified Christians with the active support of Christian churches and theologians in the last 2000 years. And you really don't want to debate that point with me as you will not prevail.

Blacknad asks:
"do you really think that if there was no religion people wouldn't find other excuses to war with each other?"

No I expect humans would keep right on doing precisely what they've been doing with no difference whatsoever. That they would substitute nationalism or some other "ism" for their religion to justify their attrocities. And then I'd attack those isms. The one difference that would take place though is the end of a gross hypocrisy: That god supports the good guys: us.


DA Morgan
#13351 03/15/06 12:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"Because people enlist Christ on their side, time and time again, whilst they commit damnable acts does not have any impact whatsoever on the veracity or good sense of his teachings."

Wait a minute. If the teachings are ignored they are worthless. If the teachings have not noticeably changed the world for the better they are worthless.

Surely god, the creator of the universe is smart enough to figure out how to effectively communicate with us. Give me a cattle prod and I guarantee you I could communicate clearly and unambiguously with any person on the planet. Are you saying your god is less powerful than a cattle prod? It appears so.

Blacknad wrote:
"You would not allow me to damn atheism because of all of the secular wars that have been fought."

Sure I would: Go for it. But you'll not find any ordained atheists with degrees in atheism justifying the attrocities. Want to weigh the War of the Roses against Korea? Have at it.

Blacknad wrote:
"It is not contestable ? the message of Christianity is one of mercy and grace to all,"

I'll stipulate to that. Great. You've got a good message. Maybe even a great campaign slogan. Now walk outside and observe what those Christians are actually doing. Look at the reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

The world is exactly the same as it would be if all of the Christians and their message became Jews, or Buddhists, or atheists, or Liberals, or Austrians.

Christianity is not the probem. It is equally not part of the solution. It is just an excuse for good people to do nothing and to absolve themselves of any sense of responsibility.


DA Morgan
#13352 03/16/06 12:17 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 25
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 25
Something out of nothing? Even the Bible says that something was before creation. If you look at Genesis 1:1 the earth was "Void and without Form" which is directly translated from hebrew as "ruin and desolation" meaning the earth was before "creation" according to the Bible.

If there is something from nothing then there could be NO GOD. Because even the idea of God is something.

If the God of the Bible is Real, then his commandments should be followed.
Matthew 6:33 (kjv) "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Rightiousness."
If you refuse to seek, you never know if you got it right or wrong until...whatever.
On a purely scientific level. Looking at the chemistry of some solution, all the atoms you put into the substance are accounted for no matter how they are arranged.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123

#13353 03/16/06 12:35 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 25
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 25
Dear DA

You say: "I'll stipulate to that. Great. You've got a good message. Maybe even a great campaign slogan. Now walk outside and observe what those Christians are actually doing. Look at the reality."

What are you angry at this time? Perhaps you should try understanding Christianity instead of boldly stating that "christians" do.

"My statement is that more than 1,750 years of insane blood-thirsty acts have been committed by self-identified Christians with the active support of Christian churches and theologians in the last 2000 years. And you really don't want to debate that point with me as you will not prevail."

John Huss was a Christian killed by "christians". If you, perhaps, took some time to look, you would find quite a few Christians who were killed by "christians".

I think to much I think.
rlb60123

#13354 03/19/06 01:16 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA attacks Christians while defending atheists as follows:

DA: ?But attacking atheists is a cheap shot. Atheism is NOT a religion. It makes no claims. It does not claim to be good, or kind, or loving, or acting at the direction of any superior being.?

I see the superior being in this comparison as the atheist. If he is not hypocritical and Christians are then he is ?superior?. If Christians claim to be good by comparison to atheists and are not then atheists are following a superior belief. How can these views be argued without the obvious conviction that atheists claim to be, do CLAIM (by some), their own superior being, namely themselves. The discussion that puts down one view automatically desires to inflate the opposite view. Atheists are good!

#13355 03/19/06 04:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
rlb wrote:
"What are you angry at this time? Perhaps you should try understanding Christianity instead of boldly stating that "christians" do."

What makes you think I don't understand Christianity better than you do? The fact that I think it, as did the founding fathers of my country:

"most bloody religion that ever existed."
~ President Samuel Adams


DA Morgan
#13356 03/19/06 06:33 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
DA,

Have you read any of the works of Anton Lavey, mainly the beginnings of the Satanic Bible? He states exactly what you do about the devil honestly representing himself, but I AM WAY off topic.

Blacknad,

In your desire to defend your beliefs you and my mother a German Catholic have the same arguments. My mother states, look at what the nuns have done and all the good works etc. that people have done to couter my arguments about the hypocrisy and evil of organized religions. What both of you fail to do is realize that people like DA and I are not stating that the message of Christ is wrong (if I am assuming too much DA let me know). The problems we have is with the human ability to corrupt that message.

All religions have the power to motivate people to do great good or great evil. What I see is that more often then not when it comes to the grander scheme of effects on nations, history and societies in general; religion has been a hindrance not a help. I could list all the examples that we have given here already and more but the reality of the situation is this. Any belief system which encourages it's followers to believe that their god, morality or way of life is the divinely chosen one has already taken the long step down the road of inevitable corruption and destruction of innocents whose only crime is that they do not believe the same thing. All -isms whether it is nationalism or any other of the long list leads people into the same trap. This is why I am not passionately loyal to my country as I see it simply as a piece of land which I currently reside in or my religious beliefs which I feel should be my own and I should not have to deal with other's telling my I am going to hell because I think differently than they do.

Religion, all religions are just another way for humans to divide themselves into comforming cliques and decide who is not one of the "in" crowd.

#13357 03/19/06 07:08 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Your presumptions are correct Lillith. I have no problem with Jesus Christ and his message. Just with the evil done in his name. With the grossest of hypocrisies committed under the cloak of this or that quotation from scripture twisted on the rack to conform with a preconceived prejudice.

What rlb and others don't understand is that the only reason this discussion is about Christianity is that they are incapable of thinking past their own personal mindset. Were one of them a Jew I would apply my knowledge of their religion to point out why and how it fails the test of reality. Same would go for Hinduism, Islam, Satanism, Voodoo, animism, nationalism, cronyism, communism, etc.

Mine is not a dislike or hatred of their specific religion but of all modes of human thinking that are manipulative nonsense and which are passed on by brain-washing children and those with personal weaknesses.

jjw004 ... I don't defend atheists and I don't attack Christians: Just lies and hypocrisy. When I catch an atheist spouting mumbo-jumbo and woo-woo nonsense I jump on them with both feet too. I am an equal opportunity warrior against wilfull ignorance.

And for those who are too young to know them. Here are some lyrics to brighten your day.

With God On Our Side

My name it means nothing, my age it means less.
And the country I come from is called the Midwest.
Was brought up there and taught there the law to abide,
And that the land that I live in has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it, they tell it so well.
The cavalries charged, the Indians fell.
The cavalries charged, the Indians died.
Oh the country was young with God on its side.

The Spanish American War had its day.
And the Civil War too was soon laid away.
And the names of the heroes I was taught to memorize.
With their guns in their hands and God on their sides.

World War I, it came and it went.
The reason for fighting, I never did get.
But I learned to accept it and accept it with pride.
For you don't count the dead when God's on your side.

When the second World War, boys, it came to an end,
We forgave the Germans, and called them our friends.
Though they killed six million, in the ovens they fried.
The Germans now too have God on their side.

Oh, I learned to hate Russians all through my whole life.
If another war starts, it's them we must fight.
To hate them and fear them to run and to hide,
And accept it all bravely with God on our side.

And now we got weapons of the chemical dust.
If fire them we're forced to, then fire them we must.
One push of the button, we'd shock the world wide.
And you never ask questions when God's on your side.

For many long years I've thought about this.
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss.
I can't think for you, you've got to decide,
Whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side.

So now as I'm leaving, I'm weary as hell.
The confusion I'm feeling no tongue can tell.
The words fill my head, and they fall to the floor,
If God is on our side, he'll stop the next war.
~ Bob Dylan

And my thoughts exactly


DA Morgan
#13358 03/23/06 05:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
"When I catch an atheist spouting mumbo-jumbo and woo-woo nonsense I jump on them with both feet too. I am an equal opportunity warrior against wilfull ignorance."

Well seeing what statements I made in the other posts on this forum, I am expecting a full on pummeling.

smile

#13359 03/23/06 05:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I do recall hitting a bit hard on some new-age stuff a few weeks back.


DA Morgan
#13360 04/03/06 02:49 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA I enjoyed your poem.

It sems to me to be telling us about people, weak people, that want to thing they have a god on their side to justify their errors. You want to interpret "we had god on our side" as some kind of confirmation that a god had a hand in the horrors. There is a word I learned to discribe this style of argument but it escapes me at the moment. Is it sofestry or some such?

Factual thought demonstrate that if it is not posible to prove the existence of a god it is equally impossible to prove he/she has done anythin, good or bad.
Does not that fit your basic premise?
jjw

#13361 04/03/06 06:30 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 wrote:
"You want to interpret "we had god on our side" as some kind of confirmation that a god had a hand in the horrors."

No. The bible is full of accounts of god taking a hand in the horrors. Would you like me to point them out to you? Well just one for now.

Joshua 6:
2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

And all done with god on their side.

This is your belief system: Embrace it.


DA Morgan
#13362 04/03/06 05:18 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
It is not my belief system.
I try to discuss the issue objectively.

You are in a strange position because you deny the entire belief system and any documents that pertain there to but you single out references that you feel support your arguments.

If the Bible and all it contains is a fairy tale to you then what does it matter what it contains? The Hebrew god of the Bible may not have been a god at all, just another man that had some unique advantage to do harm.
jjw

#13363 04/03/06 06:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 wrote:
"You are in a strange position because you deny the entire belief system and any documents that pertain there to but you single out references that you feel support your arguments."

Not strange at all. If you are going to say as you have: "You want to interpret "we had god on our side" as some kind of confirmation that a god had a hand in the horrors." Then I, being a good researcher, go to the source of your statement to determine whether it passes muster.

What I find is a bloody awful lot of genocide performed, according to the sole source of information, with not just your god's acquiescence but active assistance.

What I especially love about Joshua is:
"both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

A celebration of murdering children and the elderly. How inspiring.

jw004 wrote:
"If the Bible and all it contains is a fairy tale to you then what does it matter what it contains?

It matters as if it is not true then all of Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam is false.

jw004 wrote:
The Hebrew god of the Bible may not have been a god at all, just another man that had some unique advantage to do harm."

I agree completely. But if you consider that Jesus Christ was Jewish and Christianity springs from the faith of Abramham in the same way that Islam springs from the faith of Mohammed which begins with Ibrahim (same person) you end up with all three religions being false. Are you prepared to accept this? Surely Jesus can not say "father" and not be referring to the deity of the Old Testament. The very same father that actively supported the slaughter of children referenced above.

And I'm not trying to spin things. If there is evidence that Jesus was not referring to the deity of the Old Testament then I am left wondering who he was referring to and why Christianity begins scripture with the five Mosaic books.

I just don't think you can have it one way when it is most convenient and another way when it is not.


DA Morgan
#13364 04/04/06 01:12 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
So we seem to come down to the question of the
morality, or by extention, the nature, of God.
That leads to the question:
"Does the yeast comprehend the baker?"
While belief is a matter of choice, expecting to
comprehend a being who by definition created the
universe that we still fail to understand, and
therefore must be larger than his creation, has
got to be foolish in the extreme.
Pragmatist
"Some days it's just not worth chewing
through the Restraints."

#13365 04/04/06 02:31 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Pragmatist asks:
"Does the yeast comprehend the baker?"

And of course we all answer "No!"

But the analogy is only valid if there is a yeast-priest (nice rhyme) running around with the "Baker's Book" telling other yeast that he has it direct from the baker how to behave."

I am more than willing to accept a deity beyond human comprehension. What I am not willing to accept is a rabbi, imam, priest, pope, or shaman telling me that the deity is beyond MY comprehension but he knows what I should do to behave according to the diety's wishes.

I've no objection to philosophy ... just hypocrisy.


DA Morgan
#13366 04/21/06 10:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Robert Miller wrote
I have to know; how many people here believe it is possible to make something out of nothing?

if you think that its impossible to make something out of nothing, youve never had an arguement with some of the posters in this forum. laugh

on the other hand i dont believe the earth was created created out of nothing in 7 days. nor do i believe that they earth was created some 5 thousand years ago.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13367 06/19/06 09:01 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
E
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Hey, Rob,
Genisis is also the Big Bang, and it's been proven, so why not?
Besides, how do you know it is really "nothingness"? Has it been proven? Maybe there was something at first, how would you ever know?
But if there wasn't, it sounds so...weird! create something out of nothingness? Yeah right. They say two particles crashed. Uh huh, but that's not exactly "nothingness", right?
Two particles are something. But what particles?

#13368 06/19/06 09:05 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
E
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Robert Miller says:Here's a good question; assuming that outside the universe there is nothing (don't THINK so, but anyway...) does nothing inhabit infinity or does infinity inhabit nothingness? hmmm...

It's really hard to imagine the universe being everything. I mean, I just can't picture the universe taking up all the space.
I always see the universe in a small box, in a large white room with nothing in it except the box. Geddit?
Any one share my views?

#13369 06/19/06 09:06 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
E
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Hey, anyone thinks that another universe is possible?

#13370 06/19/06 02:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by evil star genius:
Hey, Rob,
Genisis is also the Big Bang, and it's been proven, so why not?
Besides, how do you know it is really "nothingness"? Has it been proven? Maybe there was something at first, how would you ever know?
But if there wasn't, it sounds so...weird! create something out of nothingness? Yeah right. They say two particles crashed. Uh huh, but that's not exactly "nothingness", right?
Two particles are something. But what particles?
the most common accepted theory is that all matter and energy were there, in some form we dont know now. all in some form of black hole or other simular tiny space.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13371 06/19/06 02:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by evil star genius:
Robert Miller says:Here's a good question; assuming that outside the universe there is nothing (don't THINK so, but anyway...) does nothing inhabit infinity or does infinity inhabit nothingness? hmmm...

It's really hard to imagine the universe being everything. I mean, I just can't picture the universe taking up all the space.
I always see the universe in a small box, in a large white room with nothing in it except the box. Geddit?
Any one share my views?
a scifi writer posutlated that the universe is created as matter and energy push out into the barrenness of nothing.

another theory suggested that the reason that the galazies are accelerating is that the matter tries to fill a vaccum and the matter behind the fartherest galazies are pushing them outwords into the vaccum. it suggested that you imagine a balloon in a vaccum. the skin is strong but eventually burst, spreading the gas into the vaccume. the gas in the center would push the gas on the outer edge away faster.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13372 06/19/06 02:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by evil star genius:
Hey, anyone thinks that another universe is possible?
that would be called a multiverse. you should google it. lots of scientist believe in them.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13373 06/24/06 10:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
i do...

if by "nothing" you mean nothing material/physical, then i will take a stand with your statement

however, god, being self extant, not bound by the law of cause and effect (but rather the creator of it, the first cause, the uncaused cause), eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent...is "something"

being spirit and omnipotent (all powerful), he was able to create from himself, out of his own existence and power, the material universe and all material things in it

therefore, the material universe was created out of nothing (material)...but not out of nothing at all :-)

#13374 06/24/06 11:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Sombody, I think it was a Mr. Rob, started this topic with the statement "Genisis is NOT possible". He was speaking of the Biblical stuff.

We are now concerned with the prospect of whether there are other Universes to be found outside the Universe wherein we reside. "anyman" may think so and if so he may wonder why that was not discussed in Genisis, a point of note?

When science gets a grip on our own Universe it may justify efforts to look for more of them.
jjw

#13375 06/25/06 01:32 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
i thought to address the issue of multiverse above (as well as how omniscience fits into the mix), but didn't want to get into a long blah blah blah in my first post in years

i probably should have quoted RM from the beginning of the thread, but i'm a little out of practice and still unfamiliar with the new forum format (i liked the old one much better, this would have gone directly under his post then, but some of the new bells and whistles are probably a plus if i can figure them out :-)

no, i don't buy into the multiverse concept

i'm familiar with it along with, m-branes, string fantasy, etc

just no support for any of it yet

the universe is all there is (material)...and it was all made for us

we are the reason, that the universe was created and continues to exist (by his power, but for us)

#13376 06/25/06 01:46 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
yes, she did bring out a lot of thing for us.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13377 06/25/06 11:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi anyman:
Never mind me. I should have continued dozing.
jjw

#13378 07/26/06 09:43 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
Something out of nothing

It works for the big bang theory. John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England. In The Origins of the Universe (1994), Barrow observes that the no-boundary condition of Hawking's quantum cosmology has become increasingly attractive because it "avoids the necessity for . . . a cataclysmic beginning." Barrow thinks that the traditional Big Bang picture, with its initial singularity of infinite density "is, strictly speaking, . . . creation out of absolutely nothing."(31)

Genesis in the bible makes as much sense as the big bang does, perhaps more. A close look at the big bang theory will show that it is almost impossible without a "God" to tweak the chances in favor of a universe with life.

#13379 07/26/06 09:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Aireal:

Genesis in the bible makes as much sense as the big bang does, perhaps more. A close look at the big bang theory will show that it is almost impossible without a "God" to tweak the chances in favor of a universe with life.
Genesis only makes sense if you believe in magic. Not knowing the origin of the universe is no reason to assume some magic sky-daddy was responsible.

As one scientist put it, all the blather about how the universe/earth, or what have you, being perfectly tuned for life is like a puddle remarking on how the depression in which it sits was perfectly tuned for it.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#13380 07/26/06 09:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Aireal if John Barrow wrote that he is either very ill-informed or a fool.

There is nothing about the big bang with inflation that equates with creating something from nothing. What there is is a change in the space-time metric.

How much space does all of the matter in the universe actually require? None. There is no theory of which I am aware that requires space to have matter.


DA Morgan
#13381 07/26/06 10:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Aireal, matter and energy came from something, it just that what it was is beyond the ability of present day physics to explain what it was. apparently (at least from my understanding of it), it was a basic building block much smaller than any thing our understanding can explain. for that reason it was much more compatible than even quarks and things of that nature or energy.

there is a saying about infinity being the time that is required for any and all possibilities to happening. it would not matter how little possible life is, it is possible, so it would have to happen sometime.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13382 07/27/06 06:52 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
DA Morgan

You said in your post "How much space does all of the matter in the universe actually require? None. There is no theory of which I am aware that requires space to have matter." I am not sure what you are talking about, or how you got that from my post. Sorry, I should have went into greater detail.

As for John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England, he is one of the more prolific writers on current cosmology, so he is not ill-informed. As for being a fool, I don't have a clue, never meet the man.

So here is my point.

No theory of science, at this point in time, is able to explain the origins of the universe well enough to exclude God. Genisis or any number of other creation myths can be inseted into the gaps, or taken as a metaphore.
Therefore it is a waste of time to try and "prove" genisis is NOT possible.

#13383 07/27/06 07:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
genisis claimed the world was created in 7 days. that is something that science can disprove.

genisis claimed that man was not connected in any fassion to any older animal. science has proved there is a connection.

genisis claimed that only the animals that were needed at the time man came forth were made. science has proven a solid link between the first protocell, though the one cell ameba, though multicell simple plants, to higher level animals and plants.

genisis claimed that the original humans were two single people called adam and eve. it can easily be proven that there had to be more people than them, just by the fact that their child cain, was able to find a mate. he could not have done so with primates or any nonhuman creature. in addition there would have been more mates needed for any other children and their children.

therefore any claim that genisis cant be disproven is not valid. you have to have belief in the bible to accept it as gospel. Its possible, without that belief, to accept it as a parable, something to teach and explain things to those who cant understand the reality due to lack of scientific knowedge.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13384 07/27/06 09:18 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Aireal:
So here is my point.

No theory of science, at this point in time, is able to explain the origins of the universe well enough to exclude God. Genisis or any number of other creation myths can be inseted into the gaps, or taken as a metaphore.
Therefore it is a waste of time to try and "prove" genisis is NOT possible.
No theory of science can INclude God. Science is about studying the physical universe -- stuff we can weigh, sense or otherwise measure, either directly or indirectly.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#13385 07/28/06 06:05 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Aireal wrote:
"No theory of science, at this point in time, is able to explain the origins of the universe well enough to exclude God."

And you are an expert on astrophysics and quantum mechanics and are speaking to this as a subject matter expert? Where can I find you in the citation index? Or perhaps you are just a very well read person and can provide a citation to an article that says what you wrote above. Didn't think so. You are just trolling for god ... and that's good because he needs sales and marketing support given his track record of failure.

The truth is that science can, by using Boolean logic, exclude god. Simply put there is nothing in the entire universe that has proven beyond the ability of science to explain. There is no problem that existed 1000 years ago that has not been solved. Unless you expect instant satisfaction then history clearly demonstrates that within a few hundred years, at most, all currently known issues will similarly be resolved.

God is logically impossible. Who created god? Oh god has always existed. Who created the universe? Oh you can't say it too has always existed as that would be blasphemy.


DA Morgan
#13386 07/28/06 07:48 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
First off, I am not some religious nut "trolling for God" nor am I trying to prove God in any way, nor am I suggesting that science take God into account. Gee, one mention of religion and everyone flies of the handle. If you people really want to waste your time bebunking the bible, I suggest you learn it first, than bebunk it. Your "proof" would not sway anyone, and is a waste of your time and talents. You could be doing something productive.

soilguy

You said. "No theory of science can INclude God. I never said it should, only that you can not keep religious people from sticking god in the cracks.

dehammer

Should someone bother to read a a theory and try to understand it before they debunk it? Yes, of course. Yet you try to bebunk the bible without any understanding of it. Any student of theology could run circles around your "dis-proof" of genisis, if you let them. As for my not listing refrences in my post. I gave author, book title, and page number for the qoute used. Thats more than I have seen from a lot of other posts.

1. 7 days, by whose reckoning. The bible also says that a thousand years is but a blink in the eye of God. It takes about 3/1000 of a second to blink. How many years would a day be to God. How many years in the "7" days it took God in genisis for creation.

2 & 3. Genisis claimed man was not connected in any fashion to any other animial. Only animals that were needed were made. It makes no such claims, have you even read it. If you have, you are making wild assumptions in the process.

4. Adam, Eve, and Cain Genitic evidence points to a common male ancester only 60,000 years in the past. Simular results for a common female ancsester. The human population went through a severe bottelneck starting 5,000 to 15,000 years before that. This makes it nearly impossable to disprove the Adam Eve thing. As for Cain, bible scholars have a number of theories to explain that, so I will only list one. If you notice the are two locations in genisis relates the creation of man. One speaks in the plural, and is commonly overlooked. The other is the Adam account. Some scholars belive God created an early version of man in the first one, and a perfected Adam in the second. Cain interbreed with the first version.

I could go on, but I am not trying to prove God or the bible in any way. I mearly believed trying to debunk the bible is a waste of time that could better spent. Nor will I waste any more time trying to show that your attempts to do so are feeble at best, and will not sway anyones opinion.

#13387 07/28/06 08:57 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
sorry, good try, but not that good.

according to most believers the 7 days is an actual earth week. not thousands of years, let alone billions.

im not sure what bible youve read, but the one in the household i was raised in said that adam was created in the sixth day, and there was no mention of any man created before. Adam was created in gods image, while all the other creations were not. Even if cain had been able to breed with the "first man" (notice also that woman was a after thought, according to the bible, made just to keep adam company) where did his children find their mates.

yes there was a bottle neck from which all people are derived. It had something in the neighborhood of 1000 women (its not possible to determine the number of males that survived) any of which could have been eve. the thing is they were all human already. according to the bible, (espicially when read by the people that claim the earth is about 5000 years old) adam was created from dust, not from other animals.

oh, and i have read genisis, something that was required in bible school, and yes it did claim that all the animals had been created in a few days, not millions of years.

ive heard these arguements many times. the thing is, either the bible is a teaching guide and not to be taken litterally, or its litteral and its claim that the earth was made in 7 days has to be taken as it is. creationist will tell you that it took god less than a week to create the heavens and the earth. these people have no problem using all the technology science has to offer, but refuse to accept the history of the world that science has proven.

ive stated that genisis could be a parable, but not reality. you turn around and attack it claiming in essesance that it is both.

in case you had not noticed, when you regestered in that everyone else was wrong, this thread had already died by a month and a day. we were not wasting any time with it.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13388 07/28/06 01:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Aireal wrote:
"Gee, one mention of religion and everyone flies of the handle"

Not everyone ... just me. ;-)
This is a science forum. Try resisting the urge to be orthogonal.

But you continue on with:
"I mearly believed trying to debunk the bible is a waste of time that could better spent." which is quite easy to challenge.

You say "bible" as though it is one thing ... it is not. There are multiple versions, almost all admittedly altered after the fact. All but one not in its original language. All authorless. And all, 100% of them, with easily proved errors of fact.
Where is the value in reading such a book other than to study the weakness of the human mind and to learn why so many pepole are willing to follow dictators, kings, and other self-annointed despots?


DA Morgan
#13389 07/28/06 03:34 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Aireal:
First off, I am not some religious nut "trolling for God" nor am I trying to prove God in any way, nor am I suggesting that science take God into account. Gee, one mention of religion and everyone flies of the handle. If you people really want to waste your time bebunking the bible, I suggest you learn it first, than bebunk it. Your "proof" would not sway anyone, and is a waste of your time and talents. You could be doing something productive.

soilguy

You said. "No theory of science can INclude God. I never said it should, only that you can not keep religious people from sticking god in the cracks.
I have no interest in debunking the Bible. I have little interest in the Bible, period. The only reason I get involved in discussions about Genesis is that in the US, Genesis literalists are either trying to change science so that it can back up their beliefs, or water down the teaching of science so that no student is aware that science cannot back up these literalist beliefs.

To me, this is an important issue, because the US is falling behind the rest of the modern world in science education. I don't care what people believe, as long as they don't demand that science back up those beliefs, and use political action to dumb down science education any further.

I have zero interest in keeping people from spackling god into the gaps of human knowledge. That's none of my business. People should understand the danger of such God of the Gaps thinking -- that they will either have to fight the increase in human knowledge to defend their beliefs, or risk having the rug pulled from under their understanding of the universe whenever a gap is closed.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#13390 07/28/06 10:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Soilguy wrote:
"I have zero interest in keeping people from spackling god into the gaps of human knowledge."

I would too were it not for the fact that people who don't think for themselves. Those willing to follow self-annointed rulers and authorless books. Have been proven, by history, equally willing to burn people at the stake.


DA Morgan
#13391 07/28/06 10:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Where is the value in reading such a book other than to study the weakness of the human mind and to learn why so many pepole are willing to follow dictators, kings, and other self-annointed despots?
there are a few good lessons, IF one can stay awake listening to all the self-grandalizations (sorry if i totally messed up the spelling or actually created a word, but it gets the message) to reach them.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13392 07/28/06 10:58 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Did you mean "self-agrandizment"?

#13393 07/28/06 11:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
It is like listening to another Texan ... George W. Bush.


DA Morgan
#13394 07/28/06 11:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
Did you mean "self-agrandizment"?
yes, i tried repeatedly to come up with the proper spelling, but could not. thanks.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13395 07/29/06 12:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134

#13396 07/29/06 01:45 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
thanks, that looks like it could be very usefull.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13397 08/16/06 09:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
The Book of Genesis is scientifically correct. The earth is about 6,000 years old. Evolutionists find it hard to answer that how did the earth and the universe come out of nothing. In fact, C.S. Lewis said, ?Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning..? C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:
?If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists? and astronomers? as well as for anyone else?s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.?
Created is the only way to describe the universe. For more information, go to my website at www.freewebs.com/biblicalcreation

#13398 08/16/06 10:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"Evolutionists find it hard to answer that how did the earth and the universe come out of nothing."

No we don't. How do you answer the quesion where did god come from? When you have that answer ... you have the answer. But thank you for bringing it up as we'd never ever heard that argument before.

BTW: If Genesis is scientifically correct then you can of course answer the following question:

Why is it that you think giving virgin girls to a mob to be raped is a good thing? Genesis 19:8.

And for those that don't ,know the text here it is:

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."


DA Morgan
#13399 08/16/06 10:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
The bible often records history, including human failures, without explicitly making judgment on the events.

The verse quoted above (Gen 19:8) in which Lot attempts a feeble and reprehensible solution to an immediate problem, is not promoted as virtuous; but rather in the context it comes across as a useless and repulsive.

Let's not pretend that in an account of, say, the holocaust, in which the phrase ??and Hitler exterminated six million Jews?? occurred, we would immediately jump to the conclusion that the work promoted the act, unless we had a prior commitment to de-legitimize it.

Samh

#13400 08/17/06 04:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
SaMH wrote:
"The bible often records history, including human failures, without explicitly making judgment on the events."

Often: But not in this case. If you are going to believe in the text then you can't pick and choose which sentences you choose to acknowledge. According to the biblical story Lot was saved precisely because he was a good person. So, by definition, good people give their virgin daughters to mobs to be raped. It was just 7 paragraphs earlier in Genesis 19:1 where god sends not one but two angels to help him out. And not that many paragraphs later when again god helps him out because he is not one of the evil people that was destroyed with the city.

While you are trying to deal with it ... deal with this:

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

So much for scientific accuracy.


DA Morgan
#13401 08/18/06 12:43 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
It seems we have a problem with classification.
Is the Bible fiction or non-fiction. I suppose we could run a poll and eliminate a great deal of discussion. Lets supose a tie. That would at least tell us you are getting no-where arguing.

DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants.
jjw

#13402 08/18/06 04:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The bible is indisputable fact written by god right up until you find an obvious failure. Then it is allegorical stories inspired by god.

I don't know if you have ever taken a university level class in historical religion. But one of the things that would frost these troll's cookies would be if they were confronted with the belief system of their religion just 100, 200, or 500 years ago.

They are rendered safe in their belief system through the lack of education and knowledge of history. And here's a classic example: Christians in Tuscany are fighting about right now.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/07/1102182260709.html
Now that is religious art.


DA Morgan
#13403 08/18/06 04:45 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants."

That is a misreading jjw. Let me demonstrate:

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The is the creation of spacetime.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Light ... that has nothing to do with our sun as I will prove in a minute. Lets call this the microwave background radiation.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit

Here are the green plants. There is light but no light on earth again as I will prove next.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

That greater light ruling the day. We call that the sun.

And now the slam-dunk:

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Demonstrating there was no light on earth until the sun was created. And we know the word of God can't be wrong.

I just love a heartwarming fairytale. Especially one written by ignorant middle-eastern tribespeople living as hunter-gatherers.


DA Morgan
#13404 08/19/06 01:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Quote:
DA Morgan said:
If you are going to believe in the text then you can't pick and choose which sentences you choose to acknowledge.
Of course I acknowledged that "sentence" completely, even commenting on it. I just correctly pointed out that in the context, the act wasn't celebrated as virtuous. I think it's fairly apparent that every verse in the bible can't be considered "an instruction on how to act to be considered virtuous."

I assume you know that Lot's righteousness was attributed by faith (trust in God) and not earned by actions or denied by failures. Like every person in God's creation, we will all be justified by faith if we are to be justified at all.

Whether you believe in the bible or not: if you believe in evolution, you should be willing to consider that evolution has "preserved" faith-based belief systems because they have been beneficial. Otherwise, they would have been eliminated by natural selection.

In that view, it is difficult to ascertain why you hold faith in such low regard, even resorting to pejoratives to discribe those who adhere to biblical teaching.

Quote:
DA Morgan said:
But one of the things that would frost these troll's cookies would be if they were confronted with the belief system...
Noting of course that a reader doesn't have to limit themselves to this thread to find examples of that.

Samh

#13405 08/19/06 08:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
SaMH wrote:
"Of course I acknowledged that "sentence" completely, even commenting on it. I just correctly pointed out that in the context, the act wasn't celebrated as virtuous."

I think you are wrong and a good friend of mine who is a Lutheran Minister says that for a fact you are wrong.

The entire story of Lot is one of god saving, alone, a good person from an evil and wicked city. The person saved IS intended to demonstrate moral uprightness. And, in fact, if you actually had a real understanding of biblical scripture you would know that the point of the story relates to the fact that the life of a man is worth many times that of a woman. That saving the life of a male stranger is more important than the virtue of a daughter. Lesson leaned.

Stoned any adulterers lately?


DA Morgan
#13406 08/19/06 11:45 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA: You are more entertaining than you suspect.

You profess to call the biblical offerings trash and unworthy of any serious consideration. You then come up with a biblical ?space time? to argue your point.

?jjw wrote:
"DA: G1:3 gives us light. G1:11 give us plants."

That is a misreading jjw. Let me demonstrate:

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The is the creation of spacetime.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Light ... that has nothing to do with our sun as I will prove in a minute. Lets call this the microwave background radiation.?

I think there is no ?space time? in the bible but I am impressed that you think those ?idiots? were so far ahead of the rest of us so long ago. Really!! Microwave background radiation, discovered by?....?
jjw

#13407 08/19/06 11:56 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA: FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Those confused people at Wikipedia think that the Electromagnetic background radiation, assumed to flow from the Big Bang, was not discovered until 1965. That is 1965 AD, DA.
jjw

#13408 08/20/06 12:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"
You profess to call the biblical offerings trash and unworthy of any serious consideration. You then come up with a biblical ?space time? to argue your point."

I try not to lower myself to the level of hypocrisy of those I criticize. I have taken a lot of classes on religion so I know something of what I speak unlike those that criticize evolution or other scientific propositions. Much like Thomas Jefferson I read profilically.

jjw wrote:
"I think there is no ?space time? in the bible but I am impressed that you think those ?idiots? were so far ahead of the rest of us so long ago. Really!! Microwave background radiation, discovered by?....?"

Actually I don't think any of the pseudoscience trolls here at SAGG can think that deeply. But the halls of academia contain those that try to be both scientists and cling to their religion. They profer arguments of this type so I've heard it more than once.

The point here is that the biblical text clearly separates 'light' from 'sun and moon' and one must presume that the word 'light' refers to something though personally I think it all refers to eating too many mushrooms or smoking too much weed.

And no Kate this is not an insult. It is rather science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_mushroom

The background radiation was discovered in '65. But don't forget it is turtles all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


DA Morgan
#13409 08/23/06 08:27 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
A minor point DA:

When reviewing the biblical version of the origin of this Solar System I like to think of "let there be light" as refering to the ignition of the Sun, its beginning, after which it settled down to a Star providing continuous light as referred to later on. I am just unable to think of a massive object turning into a blast furnace casually or silently- or for that matter, instantly.

As to the second "light" your referring to reflected light from the Moon I suggest that contention has no factual basis in the bible or any where else. Conceivably from what is known the Moon was not even a companion of Earth at the beginning. Some other light source is being referred to. One possibility is a binary star companion, now gone dark. We don't know much.
jjw

No importance. It simply shows how we are divided on the "science" contained in the book.

#13410 08/23/06 08:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
The only possibility of a binary gone dark in this system is one of the gas planets and they are not near big enough. Another star (even the smallest possible one) would have a major gravity pull that would cause us to have a highly variable change in the year.

Another point is that the sun took a very long time to start flaming at the fusion level. It would have been producing light from a heating level long before it reach critical mass for fusion. Of course the earth would not have been around to enjoy that weaker light. If you read what da wrote there, you will see that he put the sun and moons light coming at the same time. because the sun would have been needed for the plants.

as far as the moon not being part of the earth in the beginning, yes it was not. Unfortunately, nothing has survived completely intact from that period because the planetoid that created the moon struck the earth, melting most of both the earth and the material that became the moon. the material that became the moon basically solidified while in space, then gravitated together to form what is now the moon. No plant or animal survived from preimpact.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13411 08/23/06 09:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Dehammer:

You tell me:
"The only possibility of a binary gone dark in this system is one of the gas planets and they are not near big enough. Another star (even the smallest possible one) would have a major gravity pull that would cause us to have a highly variable change in the year."

You may need to open up your thoughts to more possibilities. First of all the Gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, are located far to close to the center of the system to hint at anything more than what they are. Also it is worth noting that the density of the large planets increases after you pass Saturn (the least density) and continue in kind up through Neptune. Do you believe in coincidence as the building blocks of this Solar System? Any Binary object must be a great distance off and allow for the Sun to remain at the center of gravity and I know that is not the way of binaries. The point is that the hypothetical object could have barely been Star material and reduced itself along the lines of Jupiter but smaller and denser. All conjecture.

My personal contention is that there is a large object out there and/or a lot of trash which gave our SS the shape we find it in. As to the light by night I contend it was a brilliant planet Venus located about where Nars is now before it made the trip inward during a severe calamity in the system. All conjecture.
jjw

#13412 08/23/06 10:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
thats the thing though. if it were big enough to be a star even for a small time, it would be big enough to pull the earth's orbit out of a near (relatively speaking) circle. All of the planets, but especially those farther out, would be pulled out when they move toward the second, burnt out star, binaries dont have individual oort clouds. the sun is too young to have a burnt out twin without it giving off some sort of energy.

do you have any evidence that venus was nearer mars (where did mars come from) and somehow went into the orbit its in now. it would take billions of years for it to stablize in such an orbit. definiately much less than the 5000 or so that biblical scholars claim the earth has existed.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13413 08/24/06 05:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"When reviewing the biblical version of the origin of this Solar System I like to think of "let there be light" as refering to the ignition of the Sun"

I can understand why but the text, as you can see, clearly contradicts that in that it states that the sun and moon were not created until later.

Go figure!

My guess is that the word "light" here is a mistranslation and likely was more a reference to some form of enlightenment but I can't know for sure.


DA Morgan
#13414 08/29/06 05:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Wow, DA, we actually agree with something. The word "light" can be a mistranslation from the Hebrew. By studying the Hebrew script, I found that the word used is "or" (with some accents; I don't have the Hebrew characters). The word doesn't have to mean literal light, it is sometimes used as a positive attitude like the term "there's a light at the end of my tunnel" showing the contrast between what it was and the positiveness which is to come. But I'm not a scholar of the Hebrew texts so I don't know for sure; I can just read and translate.

#13415 08/29/06 11:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"I can just read and translate."

What languages can you read and translate?

Certainly not ancient Hebrew
Certainly not Aramaic
Certainly not Sumerian

What is the relevance of your statement?

If you get to college, and hopefully a real academic institution and not some bible college, take a class on comparative religion. Preferably not one taught by someone of your own faith.


DA Morgan
#13416 08/30/06 04:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
I happen to know some Hebrew and Greek. And I want to go to a Christian college.

#13417 08/30/06 04:36 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"And I want to go to a Christian college."


You can go to college to learn or you can go to college to have your beliefs reinforced. Some people are 'intellectually' better suited to a life in the clergy than to a life in science.

#13418 08/30/06 05:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Tim, here is an example of the problems of the bible.

there is a very famous line in the bible, that when someone i knew used a computer translator on the ancient hebrew texts, came out (roughly) "thou shall not listen to a soul poisoner". According to some research, the term sould poisoner, meant someone that preached hate.
The modern hebrew translation is something that can go "you will not take (life, substance, food or several other words are possible) from a ***" (the asterics are because there is no actual current word that matches exactly: closest approaximation is witch but only if its misspelled). the version you find since king james says, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". The ancient world did not see witch's as soul poisoners, as they did not preach hate.


hmmm, i wonder in todays world, who would classify as preaching the words of hate mongerers.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13419 08/30/06 08:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"I happen to know some Hebrew and Greek. And I want to go to a Christian college."

Why a Christian College? Afraid to be exposed to the rest of the people you share this planet with? Afraid they may think thoughts you don't think? Eat food you don't eat? Believe things you don't believe? What are you afraid of?

The point of going to college is to learn new things and be exposed to new things. Climbing into a bomb shelter that only contains people that think what you think because they have been and will be taught what you have been taught is not a real college experience. Show some courage.

And, BTW, the Torah was not written in modern Hebrew so you can't read it I expect. Which makes me wonder what you've actually been given to read.


DA Morgan
#13420 09/09/06 01:04 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
Religion cannot be approached with a scientific mind. Religion is foundated on belief and faith - not the rock hard facts of reason. Science and Religion now are poles apart in ideology but they have common roots based in ancient times.


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
#13421 09/09/06 01:16 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi dehammer:

You inquire: "do you have any evidence that venus was nearer mars (where did mars come from) and somehow went into the orbit its in now. it would take billions of years for it to stablize in such an orbit. definiately much less than the 5000 or so that biblical scholars claim the earth has existed."

We do not exchange ideas very well. It would take a lot of discussion to open this thought and I fail, even as an advocate, to see any semblance of potential progress from the effort. You have a lot of questions of many. It becomes tedius to respond to all of them. Ignore my previous comment.
jjw

#13422 09/13/06 01:24 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
One point dehammer,

I did not say that "Venus was nearer Mars".

You are in excellent company if you think the Solar System we see today was the Solar System as it originated.

There is nothing wrong with expecting people to explain thier theories. A requirement that is mandated is that you acurately read what is offered so you can frame intellegent questions to the moving party.
jjw

#13423 09/13/06 02:55 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
One point dehammer,

I did not say that "Venus was nearer Mars".

You are in excellent company if you think the Solar System we see today was the Solar System as it originated.

There is nothing wrong with expecting people to explain thier theories. A requirement that is mandated is that you acurately read what is offered so you can frame intellegent questions to the moving party.
jjw
Quote:
My personal contention is that there is a large object out there and/or a lot of trash which gave our SS the shape we find it in. As to the light by night I contend it was a brilliant planet Venus located about where Nars
since there is no Nars in the system, i assumed you meant Mars. so i did read what you wrote.

since you did not mention Mars moving in to, that would put them both in the same orbit.

unless your claiming a that all planets have moved in that far, in which case earth wold have been somewhere in the vacinity of jupiter's current orbit.

unless there is some theory that would indicate with evidence that the planets have been rearranged somehow and some where, the current theory is that they were created in the general areas they are now. Do you have evidence of that theory? If you do, please share it. ive never heard of any theory that the planets changed orbits that much. (you can ask others, ive heard some really far out theories, and like to check them out, but this one is not one ive ever heard of)


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13424 09/13/06 10:50 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi dehammer, you made a good choice. In my coded message I did mean to call Mars - Nars. Good pick.

Venus located where about Mars is now was another coded idea that failed to grasp due to my lack of clarity.

You insist so I will share the tip of the issue,

From the Sun out.

1. Possibly the Earths Moon;
2. Mercury is next;
3. Mars is next;
4. Earth is next:
5. Venus is next;
6. Atlan or whatever was next and gone;
7. Jupiter;
8. Saturn;
9. Uranus;
10. Neptune.

Mow you want proof! None available. The prospect I offer by my speculation has much circumstantial evidence for me but most certainly not for you. I can risk the plunge into heavy speculative imagination because my working life is behind me and I can now be self indulgent.

I will not elaborate further for your curiosity because I do now want to waste web space. You are not ready yet, in my opinion, to fairly consider prospects beyound the common place and I respect that circumstance but have no desire to feed it. Remind me, I left out Pluto.

I will document my views evem though we are all well aware proof, at this time, is beyound any possible individuals grasp.
Cheers.
JJW

#13425 09/20/06 11:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
I appologize, first and foremost, if I cover something already covered. I read the first and last three pages, but being that time is relavent to me and any changes in time do not grant any more of it to me, I had to cut my reading short.

I believe that Genesis can be explained, and can coincide with most of current science. The first thing you have to understand is this (sorry all you high-science minded non-religious individuals, but its a discussion on religion, so we have to start there):

God is perfect, man is fallible. So the interpretations of one or even a group of religious people can very easily be incorrect.

Second: Theology is a science (Check out the Pope's speech in Germany (you know, the controversial one) at www.vatican.va

As such, when we create a hypothesis (in this case, understanding biblical text) that fails the test, we have to go back and re-examine.

It may not need to be said, but I am a believer. I also believe that there is room for science and reason along side belief in a creator diety.

In this case, we need to address two things. First, in Genesis 1, there is a repeated theme of acts of God, followed by "And there was evening, and there was morning - the ___ day."

Important to note is that in the original Hebrew, the word pronounced "yom" is used for day. Of most interest relating to this subject, the use of "yom" in Genesis 1 is unique in the bible. For example, Gensis 1:5 reads "yom ehad" and Genesis 1:8 reads "yom seni." Elsewhere in the bible, where you find the hebrew word "yom" either it or the numerical value associated with it (or in most cases, both) are prefixed, making the wording different. For example, in many places, "the first day" is denoted in hebrew as "hayyom harison" and "the second day" is "hayyom hasseni."

I believe, and there are many others who follow this belief, that the uniqueness of the use of the word "yom" in Genesis suggests that it should be interpreted differently than elsewhere in the book. One other I've read even suggested replacing the translation to "day" with "time."

Secondly, there are only three creative acts in Genesis, and I've noticed many people talking about God creating the Sun and Moon, this is not readily evident in Genesis. The three creative acts of God are: Heaven & Earth, Animal Life, and Mankind.

As such, this would mean Genesis 1 could be read (roughly) as:

God created Heaven and earth* and seperated light from darkness, thereby defining day and night. This was the first age/era/time.

God seperated water of heaven from water of earth* and called the seperation "sky".** This was the second age/era/time.

God draws land from the sea and allows it to produce plant life.. This was the third age/era/tme.

God allows the sun, moon, and stars to be individually visible, and to mark the passage of time.*** This was the fourth age/era/time.

God creates aquatic and aerial life. This was the fifth age/era/time.****

God allows creatures of the land to form.****

God creates man in his own image and likeness. This was the sixth age/era/time.*****

God rests. This is the seventh age/era/time.

*Also an important note is the use of the translation, "earth" which comes from the Hebrew word pronounced "erhets" which can be anything from a small locality to the entire planet, to all of existence. Taking "erhets" in Genesis 1:1 to mean, all of existence, simply means that God instigated the "big bang."

** This could be seen as the forming of the Earth, and or other planets.

*** There is no creative act in Genesis 1:14-19, merely allowing the sources of light to be visible. By this interpretation, the light that is "allowed to appear" in 1:3-5 could also be the Sun, suggesting that the Sun came before the Earth, but was seen as dispersed light within a vapor until Genesis 1:14.

**** Note again that this interpretation of "yom" allows for evolution among animal life. Also note that in Genesis 1:24-25 there is no implicit act of creation with the land dwelling creatures as there is with the aquatic and aerial creatures, leaving room for the possibility that creatures of the land could have evolved out of the sea. If I recall correctly, current scientific theory suggest something of the like.

***** This is where the point of contention comes in between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution. Genesis explicitly spells out that man was created, not evolved. I personally believe this is why there has been no evolutionary "missing link" found, and there won't be. Mankind's existence is an act of God. Note also, that the divine creation of mankind, does not prohibit mankind from experiencing evolution also.

Science and religion can exist in conjunction, and both can be true. Throughout the bible, God is portrayed and a structured and orderly entity. Thus, it makes sense that there would be scientific laws that govern existence. These do not rule out actual miracles, or acts of God, such as the creation of mankind. Another example, as Hawking put it (paraphrased), our current understanding of physics works mathematically all the way to (something like) one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of a second after the "big bang." I believe Hawking has even suggested that this supports the idea of a creator entity, that physics breaks down at the moment of creation (or course, I also believe he leaves open the possibility for error in scientific theory).


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
#13426 09/21/06 03:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Theology may be some kind of 'science', but it is not science, per se.

There are plenty of transitionals between humans and other animals.

#13427 09/24/06 01:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
The best example I've found of what you're suggesting is the 3.3 million year old skeleton of Lucy, which, reading the analysis written by the scientists, seems just as likely to be a precursor of chimpanzees as it is of humans. (I believe the current theory is that it is a precursor of both).

Again, though, I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water. (Both being unproven theories).


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
#13428 09/24/06 02:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
no, the chimpanzee would not be standing upright, nor would it have ancestors that did so. Since it stands up right, but still has some of the atrobutes of a tree climber it is believed to be the place where our ancestors seperated from them. If this is true, then it disproves the bible as fact theory.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13429 09/24/06 06:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Again, though, I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water. (Both being unproven theories)."

Theories aren't generally "proven," rather they fail to be disproved. Evolution is disprovable if it is false. Creationism is not. Creationism is not science. Theology is not science. The bible's story is not a scientific theory at all.

#13430 09/27/06 02:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
onegermanglassofbeer wrote:
"I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water."

Given that no scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from animals what is your point? It would seem you are commenting on evolution while lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the theory.


DA Morgan
#13431 09/27/06 03:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
Dehammer, you make the assumption that evolution would require being upright to be the product of an mutation, rather than the possibly that a more upright species evolved to be more squat and arced, as chimpanzees are. But in truth, the theory of evolution suggests both are possible.

Fallible, Christian Theology is the study and interpretation of the bible and criptural events. These can indeed be shown to be false. More over, even the bible, though it is more difficult to do because of the varied interpretations, can, in heory, be proven false.

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
onegermanglassofbeer wrote:
"I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water."

Given that no scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from animals what is your point? It would seem you are commenting on evolution while lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the theory.
I guess that means you don't consider Raymond Dart or Thomas Huxley to be scientists.

Regardless, if the position, as you seem to be claiming, is that man is not the product of evolution from animals, then there is no contention at all between Genesis and Evolution, which is also fine by me.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
#13432 09/27/06 04:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by onegermanglassofbeer:
Dehammer, you make the assumption that evolution would require being upright to be the product of an mutation, rather than the possibly that a more upright species evolved to be more squat and arced, as chimpanzees are. But in truth, the theory of evolution suggests both are possible.
they might be possible, but show me any sign that any of the chimpanzees ancestors were upright. no sign of any save the potencial of the one in Africa.

On the other hand, all the possible ancestors of that one species were squat tree climbers that were simular to chimps, apes and others of that kind. So far there has never been one found before that time that stood upright. so how did they go from upright to squat if there was no uprights before.

the stories indicate that it had the arms of a tree climber but the legs of something that spent its more time on the ground. Last i heard they were hoping that the feet would show that they still had the climbers feet. that would show distinct linage from the tree climber to the ground runner.

chimps have the same type arm sturcture and leg structure of tree climbers that were the ancestors. This species is the first to have the legs of a ground runner.

theory would allow both, but it does require some form of evidence to back it up.

I could make a theory that we all came from Alpha Cenaturi, but i would not have any proof of it. It would not be considered scientific theory, because of that, more speculative theory instead. the theory that this is mans link to tree climbers is backed with scientific evidence. So far there is none to say that this is the ancestory of chimps. So that too would be considered speculative theory instead of scientific theory.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13433 09/27/06 05:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
Finding a long extinct species and attempting to link it to a modern species is speculative. There's no other approach. It is an unprovable, or better put, not falsifiable.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
#13434 09/27/06 09:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
OGGOB wrote:
"I guess that means you don't consider Raymond Dart or Thomas Huxley to be scientists."

Not at all. It means that I consider you capable of reading things and not understanding what you've read.

Your lack of comprehension does not make them non-scientists.

Feel free to disagree. But you'll never find anywhere that it is written by a biologist that "humans evolved from animals."


DA Morgan
#13435 09/27/06 09:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
If it were just one species that has been dead that long, then it might be.

But when there is a line between it and the current speicies, there is not much room for speculation.

each spot in the line shows a small change, with the rest being identical to its predicessor.

Example: skulls that are identical save for a slightly longer or shorter jaw. If there is a small amount of time between it, then you know that they are related. Esp if the rest of the body is identical. Then the next one in the line has a slightly shorter or longer arm. Again everything else is the same. Then a hand, then a leg.

this is all example. I dont know right off the top of my head what the sequences of changes were. there has long been a problem that they could not find one that showed both a connection with tree climbers and land walkers. The newest one is in the right time frame and shows things that were the same as both sides of the line.

that takes the speculation out of it. That makes it scientific.

claiming that man was made from mud with nothing else between the mud and the man is speculative at best.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#13436 10/25/06 12:49 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi, one too many Germanglassofbeer.

Nice to hear from our friends accross the blue. I spent some time in Germany and Austria and did not get to exchange ideas of your kind with any of them.

Those people that read and understand Hebrew come forward to tell us how many words in the Bible were translated impropery or incorrectly and that is fine. Is is only when you begin to rewrite the meaning of the content that some of us may take issue. Every religion fosters its own interpretation of the Bible. Does not that lack of focus suggest possibly none of the efforts are worthwhile?
I like the King James version because I can read it.
jjw

#13437 11/06/06 05:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
?I believe it's possible to make something out of nothing, especially if that is done by intelligence higher than ours. For our limited understanding of something and nothing can in no way set rules or boundaries about what is possible or impossible?

Limited understanding? What's to understand? Something is the presence of something, no matter how big or small; nothing is the abscence of anything. Just because we can't visualise nothing, or everything, it doesn't mean we have a limited understanding of it. We understand what it is, that's what's important.
Really?

Then tell me one thing that you think that you, or me, or someone else has unlimited understanding about?

A lion? The ocean? Genetics?

I believe there is almost no single thing that anybody - ever - fully understands.

We may believe what we see, but that's different from believing something we can only learn about, and never have seen, such as the rain of Genesis 2.


mdvaden
To contact - frame my signature with www. and .com
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5