When did you accept God in your life, or realize you did not believe in him? [Archive]

Rob

03-31-04, 10:40 PM

Something that hasbeens wrote in another thread got me to thinking about this. I have been in the Episcopal church my whole life - was baptized as an infant and confirmed at 13 - and have never really thought twice about it. However there are others who did not find God - or more appropriately probably The Church - until older.

When I was a consultant we did some work for Campus Crusade for Christ and many of the floks that worked there were born again. They celebrated their "find Christ days" as second birthdays. I always understood how important an event that was, but I think I only now understand how much more of an impact it was on their life.

Where do you fit in?

PS - This is not a Christian-centric question. I want to hear from all religions and if you do not believe in God, when did you find that out

For me I accepted Christ in the fall of 2000. It changed my life. I grew up in a Christian home in the Lutheran Church. I was confirmed at age 12 into the church where my "class" was paraded out at a service and we recited the Nicean Creed.

In High School I started questioning things but more than anything just wanted to party. Church put a damper on that somewhat though it was a great place to buy some good pot. In college I quit going to Church and really didn't think about religion or God much. I went over 20 years like that, not praying, going to church, just working, traveling and having a good time.

I started attending the church where I accepted Christ because my 5 year old son wanted to go to church. My wife and I would leave him with his grandparents while we went to Panther games and they would take him to church. He liked it so we looked for something in our town for him. We found a small contemporary worship service where you don't have to get dressed up. The minister usually gives people an opportunity to accept Christ at the end of the sermon. There was no alter call or anything I just said the prayer at my seat. My life changed from that moment but not all at once. It has been a gradual process that I am sure will continue for the rest of my life.

magnus

04-01-04, 11:04 AM

I was young when we moved and it was a long way to the branch closest to us to continue practicing what we were. After some tries at the more prevalent local churches (Baptist, Methodist, etc) my family just didn't stick with anything. I never grew up innately spiritual and made it into high school before I really started to take a look.

When I dated my first true love in HS, I started going "religiously". I got a bible, went to Sunday School and the youth things on Wed. nights at a big Baptist church with her and her family. A while after the youth minister was caught cheating with one of the kids' mothers, things went south for us as well and I stopped going to church. After she and I got back together, I still didn't go. I was in college at that point, a few tries at Baptist Student Union and Intervarsity never really interested me. I'm not a "club" person, I don't even really think my spirituality and beliefs are things that I often share. Only when specifically asked by someone who's struggling do I share, but it's done good to do so, I feel.

So in college, almost despite these attempts, one day I was just walking to myself, thinking of something someone had said, and I just did it. It just came over me and to myself, I just accepted Christ and have spent time ever since exploring my spirituality and, to no small part in that, figuring out myself and who I should strive to be.
And it's been a struggle since. It may always be a struggle. But I try to take steps, some big steps, some slow and steady, and I'm a better, more aware person today than I was five years ago, and I hope to be better spirtually in five years than I am now.

Rob

04-02-04, 02:35 PM

So in college, almost despite these attempts, one day I was just walking to myself, thinking of something someone had said, and I just did it. It just came over me and to myself, I just accepted Christ and have spent time ever since exploring my spirituality and, to no small part in that, figuring out myself and who I should strive to be.

And it's been a struggle since. It may always be a struggle. But I try to take steps, some big steps, some slow and steady, and I'm a better, more aware person today than I was five years ago, and I hope to be better spirtually in five years than I am now.

Thats great Mags :applause:

Just wondering what was it "that someone had said" that caused you to ask Christ into your life?

magnus

04-03-04, 10:00 AM

Thats great Mags :applause:

Just wondering what was it "that someone had said" that caused you to ask Christ into your life?
I don't even remember. I know that's probably going to sound fishy but my mind just took off from there.
It had been on my mind - just contemplating myself and spirituality - I think it was even in an email. Just another cheesy forward about religion but something she said - she was from South Africa - in her message before she sent it on, it got my mind going. I was walking somewhere on campus and my mind just took off. Kinda like a roller coaster, not so much the speed but the lack of control. I just took in what I was thinking and questioned my own faith, and my mind came down to why I hadn't taken that step. And then I just did. I guess I had been working up to it - with detours along the way - for a while. It was just the right time.

Not a glamorous story and the story's not done, but it's mine and it means a great deal to remember that feeling.

Rob

04-03-04, 09:40 PM

Not a glamorous story and the story's not done, but it's mine and it means a great deal to remember that feeling.

Yes it sure is a good memory. Thats part of why I posed the question in another thread about chosing God. For me it was almost as if God came and got me. A lot of things happened to put me in the right frame of mind to accept Christ.

Playa

04-03-04, 09:54 PM

When Fluffy died. No god would ever let that happpen

WilliamJ

04-04-04, 12:38 AM

i was raised baptist and did all the things baptist kids do until i was a freshman in hs. i did not truly feel god working in my life until 4 years ago when my ass fell off and i had to put all of my trust in a higher power, since then i have had no doubt that i am in god's care.

curly

05-24-05, 02:57 PM

it was June 28th 1992. I was at an Amway convention outside Washington DC. I was young and dumb, and all I knew was that I wanted to be rich and I bought into the dream that Amway promised. I was a big pothead and tried to figure out a way to make enough money to pay my bills and support my habit without getting a job, because it (job) interfered with my getting high.
This lady (Joyce Meyer) whom I had never heard of and who wasn't a part of Amway, spoke a couple of times over the weekend. While everyone else was talking about strategies to get rich and how wonderful it is to be rich,she talked about real life issues that everyone encounters and how God helped to overcome them. Having been taught well by my college professors that there is no such thing a god, I listened and was touched by her stories but thought she was a little crazy and that her perseverance was what had got her through. But Sunday morning was different, I thought I was going to a meeting to hear about how to get rich and they had a church service. I thought about leaving but decided to stay, and she preached a message about God's forgiveness and love. I don't remember all that she said but I found myself tearing up and thinking to my self "I need that" on several of her points. As she closed she asked everyone to bow there heads and for anyone who is not born again and would like to ask Jesus into there hearts to stand up. I didn't. I didn't know if I was born again or not. I was raised in a church. I had gone through the confirmation classes. So I figured that I probably was. Then she, as if she's reading my mind, says "If you're not sure, then you're not, and you need to stand up." Then the heat was on. I knew that I either accepted or rejected it. I was really afraid of what others might think of me. In fact I thought I heard voices telling me not to do it saying "they'll make fun of you!!" And I'm sitting there crying and wanting whatever this is but too afraid to stand up. So I prayed to myself and said "God if this is real I want it...", and as soon as I prayed that something picked me up. I know it sounds crazy but the muscles in my legs didn't flex. I found myself suddenly up and about to fall, so i locked my knees and grabbed the chair in front of me and cried like a baby as all my sins were washed away.

Science

05-24-05, 03:04 PM

One day God and some of his tough-guy pals were pushing us around at recess. They called me and my buddy names like "fat-ass" and "rim-jobber" (even though we didn't really know what that meant). We were all pretty scared of God because he'd beat us up pretty bad if we didn't do what he wanted.

For some reason, this one day I decided I just didn't care anymore. When he told a dumb joke and then looked around at his friends for their reaction, I just kicked him in the nuts as hard as I could. God went down hard, and when I didn't run away, his pals just looked at each other and took off.

Ever since then, God hasn't messed with me.

hasbeen99

05-24-05, 03:49 PM

i suppose growing up and learning the scientific explanation of things probably helped ground my disbelief in christianity (which was the only other option to me at the time).
Was that because people told you things that weren't true (a la churches in the middle ages making EVERYTHING spiritual), or because you've learned something scientific that refutes the existence of God specifically?

sdplusbeauty

05-24-05, 03:50 PM

sdplusbeauty

05-24-05, 03:52 PM

hasbeen99

05-24-05, 04:20 PM

I was raised in a little Methodist church in Arkansas. It was the kind of church where the social elite went to be seen. Like most kids, I went because Mom made me go, not because I wanted to. I was confirmed and sprinkled at 11 (I think), but shortly thereafter Mom quit making me go. The Sunday morning hangovers were too much to overcome, I guess.

By that time, I was starting to have serious doubts about Methodist doctrine anyway, and I was really starting to pick up on the hypocrisy in the church. I soured on it quickly.

When I moved to California, I didn't go to church because Dad didn't make me go. It's just as well -- he's Episcopalian, and I would've hated it anyway. Then my new best friend asked me to go with him to a Baptist church. It was old school, stiff, and very "hell, fire, and brimstone". I went a couple of times, but never went back. By that time I'd pretty much lost interest in church. Not long after, I began to have serious doubts about God.

It wasn't until I started dating my wife that I was open to going back to church. We went to her church for a while, but I saw too much of my old church there -- too much money, not enough... something else, I guess. So we bounced from church to church for a while, but never found one I could buy into. So I wrote off church altogether.

Then my wife started going to the church we attend now. She went for 6 months before I finally agreed to join her. I went once and thought it was a little weird. A few weeks later, I tried it again and I was hooked. I heard a sermon that spoke directly to my heart and mind, and I've been going ever since.

But it was a couple of years later before I started to get serious about making any kind of commitment of faith. I wasn't interested in a feel-good piece of fluff -- an emotional crutch I could pull out of my hat when things were hard. I'd already been through hard times without that. I wanted to know what the truth was.

So I spent another three to four years researching not only the integrity of the Bible and various denominations of Christianity, but also other religions including Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, and some Buddhism, trying to keep an open mind as best I could. By Thanksgiving Day, 1999, I had seen enough validity and logic in the Bible to place my trust in Jesus, both in life and in death.

That doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in truth, however. To this day, I'm willing to listen to anyone with an opposing view, and I always will be. I've never been much on throwing up my hands and saying, "well, that's where faith comes in." If there are answers, I want to know, and I'll keep digging until I find one that makes sense.

Superfluous_Nut

05-24-05, 04:23 PM

Was that because people told you things that weren't true (a la churches in the middle ages making EVERYTHING spiritual), or because you've learned something scientific that refutes the existence of God specifically?
well, i've always been skeptical of religion (or at least the other-wordly aspects of it). the more i learned that the physical world fit together so well, the more i realized it didn't need the supernatural to make it work.

and the church does have a pretty poor history when it comes to accepting science. i think after a few "heretics! oh wait... um... our bad" you start to get the idea that maybe they just aren't very good evaluators of the truth.

sdplusbeauty

05-24-05, 04:24 PM

That doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in truth, however. To this day, I'm willing to listen to anyone with an opposing view, and I always will be. I've never been much on throwing up my hands and saying, "well, that's where faith comes in." If there are answers, I want to know, and I'll keep digging until I find one that makes sense.

That's good.. im' sorta the same way.

hasbeen99

05-24-05, 05:00 PM

well, i've always been skeptical of religion (or at least the other-wordly aspects of it). the more i learned that the physical world fit together so well, the more i realized it didn't need the supernatural to make it work.
To make it work, no. But how about to set it up?

and the church does have a pretty poor history when it comes to accepting science. i think after a few "heretics! oh wait... um... our bad" you start to get the idea that maybe they just aren't very good evaluators of the truth.
Agreed. But there are churches out there who think science and God go together like hand in glove. There's a pretty good site -- Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org) -- that is an example of this relatively new marriage between science and faith. The astrophysics alone is staggering.

hasbeen99

05-24-05, 05:04 PM

That's good.. im' sorta the same way.
What I didn't say there (but I'll say now), that after 8 - 10 years of research and debate, I have yet to see anything that blows a hole in Christian doctrine.

Superfluous_Nut

05-24-05, 06:00 PM

To make it work, no. But how about to set it up?

maybe. but then, why accept one form of other-worldliness over another? if i'm to turn by back on all my experience in the physical world to accept something that is beyond my ability to really conceive, then it seems that all such inconceivable options are equally appealing. christianity would simply be the option of convenience. unless something in me stirs to accept it, which it hasn't.

Agreed. But there are churches out there who think science and God go together like hand in glove. There's a pretty good site -- Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/) -- that is an example of this relatively new marriage between science and faith. The astrophysics alone is staggering.
i think astrophysics might look like the work of a supreme being because out understanding of it is still pretty rudimentary (in the scheme of things) and, in truth, we're talking about the universe here. astrophysics must, by its very nature deal with questions of origin and extents. it attempts to deal with such insanely vast numbers and concepts that it's no wonder a brain that evolved to deal with life on earth would have a hard time grasping it.

but i'll check out that site...

hasbeen99

05-24-05, 08:09 PM

maybe. but then, why accept one form of other-worldliness over another? if i'm to turn by back on all my experience in the physical world to accept something that is beyond my ability to really conceive, then it seems that all such inconceivable options are equally appealing. christianity would simply be the option of convenience. unless something in me stirs to accept it, which it hasn't.Who said anything about 'turning your back on your experience in the physical world'? I'm finding that Biblical Christianity and modern science fit together very well. A few perception changes may be needed (and I'm talking about how literally to interpret the Bible and how reliable things like carbon dating are), but generally speaking, neither forces you to pick one over the other.

i think astrophysics might look like the work of a supreme being because out understanding of it is still pretty rudimentary (in the scheme of things) and, in truth, we're talking about the universe here. astrophysics must, by its very nature deal with questions of origin and extents. it attempts to deal with such insanely vast numbers and concepts that it's no wonder a brain that evolved to deal with life on earth would have a hard time grasping it.

but i'll check out that site...Cool. :)

It's not just about being overwhelmed, though. The greatest evidence for Intelligent Design I'm seeing is not the unknown, but the intricacy and complexity of the known. And just as compelling is the 'small scale' evidence of biophysics on the cellular and even atomic levels.

Superfluous_Nut

05-24-05, 09:26 PM

Who said anything about 'turning your back on your experience in the physical world'? I'm finding that Biblical Christianity and modern science fit together very well. A few perception changes may be needed (and I'm talking about how literally to interpret the Bible and how reliable things like carbon dating are), but generally speaking, neither forces you to pick one over the other.

what i meant by "turning you back" was ignoring the empirical evidence you can touch and adding a ethereal aspect that is beyond physical reckoning just to see how that fits your personal vibe. my personal vibe is fine without adding backstory that is beyond this world.

put it this way. the supernatural to me is like saying there's a space ship floating above los angeles that's been there for 1 million years watching us. only, we can't see it or hear it or observe its presence in any measurable way. plus, it's essentially inert, tho it's possible it affects us without us knowing. when you die, you can see it and can even tour it, but of course, you then become immeasurable yourself.

there's something very placebo about the whole thing.

Cool. :)

ehh.... i looked around a bit. lots of intelligent design which seems to upset the right as much as the left. normally, i'd take that as a bona fide, but in this case, i think it's just looking at where we are and trying to fit the square peg of religion in to the round hole of science.

It's not just about being overwhelmed, though. The greatest evidence for Intelligent Design I'm seeing is not the unknown, but the intricacy and complexity of the known. And just as compelling is the 'small scale' evidence of biophysics on the cellular and even atomic levels.
you'd be surprised at just how complex we can make something when we view it holistically. have you heard of the game "life" on the computer? it illustrates the concept of emergent complexity where simple basic rules iterated a bunch of times looks like an amazingly complex system.

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

there's a java applet, but it seems like the loadable patterns (the ones that are truly interesting) don't seem to work. maybe it will for you.

there's an experiment in swarm intelligence where simple rules in simple actors can sort gravel into piles by color once the process is iterated and many actors are put to the task.

now, i suppose you could say that god created those base atoms and those universal forces, but i'm not sure why you'd need to.

curly

05-25-05, 07:29 AM

[QUOTE=Superfluous_Nut]what i meant by "turning you back" was ignoring the empirical evidence you can touch and adding a ethereal aspect that is beyond physical reckoning just to see how that fits your personal vibe. my personal vibe is fine without adding backstory that is beyond this world.

put it this way. the supernatural to me is like saying there's a space ship floating above los angeles that's been there for 1 million years watching us. only, we can't see it or hear it or observe its presence in any measurable way. plus, it's essentially inert, tho it's possible it affects us without us knowing. when you die, you can see it and can even tour it, but of course, you then become immeasurable yourself.

there's something very placebo about the whole thing.

Do you think that ESP and medium's and psychic kind of things are all just a load of crap? And if so does that mean you don't believe in anything beyond what you can physically measure?

curly

05-25-05, 07:34 AM

now, i suppose you could say that god created those base atoms and those universal forces, but i'm not sure why you'd need to.

What if it was true that god did create those base atoms and universal forces? Wouldn't you feel the need to at least give him the credit for that?

ECILAM

05-25-05, 11:22 AM

My discovery of the book Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship and Rock & Roll was my first clue that I was on the wrong path in life. From my Baptist background I'd drifted into the "nondenominational Christian" category, whatever that really is. True to my lifelong attraction to the strange and unknown, I'd also read on mystical and unorthodox subjects as well, "just for intellectual knowledge."

Lucifer Rising is a comprehensive history and rundown of Satanic philosophy, culture, music, and literature from ancient times to today. I bought it because I'd always been a Christian apologist and wanted to "know the enemy" for purposes of evangelism. But this book turned out to be a Who's Who and What's What of everything I was really into. My favorite authors, my favorite musicians, my biggest historical interests, and many names I had heard of in other works but had never connected before.

Later, having already read what amounted to the Cliff's Notes version of The Satanic Bible, I finally read the real thing. It was like reading all the little things I'd never been able to say to myself. Between that and Lucifer Rising, I had to ask myself: "If I'm a Christian, why is everything I'm into... everything I'm about... everything I associate with the real, inner me... in a book on Satanism? Could it be this is what I've been all along? Doesn't that make more sense that going to such ridiculous lengths and pain to try and make Christianity fit?"

So I went with it. I didn't join any groups, and there are no silly "blood oaths" in Satanism... all you have to do is start living like a Satanist. It was easy. I created my ECILAM online persona with which to put out my erotic cartoons, and stopped feeling guilty about it. I started getting serious about my writing. I stopped beating myself up about stupid shit. I stopped making women and romance the most important thing in my life, and my love-life immediately went through the roof.

Life in general became ten times better than ever before. I stopped being depressed all the time. I knew I was on the right track. But some things were missing. Satanism had done its job of purging the guilt and weakness of monotheism out of my system, but on its own it was a sort of shallow replacement for my deeply spiritual nature. Besides that, I soon learned I wasn't very interested in "blaspheming" Christianity or trying to "destroy" it. It just no longer pertained to me. But soon I discovered the link between Satanism and the authentic religion of my pre-Christian ancestors... Asatru.

The book Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground covered information on some more of my favorite heavy metal musicians, and the culture from which they came. I knew that many of these guys held loyalty to their "Old Gods," but didn't know much else about it. But the more I learned, the wider my eyes became.

I knew of the Teutonic-Germanic Gods from storybooks as a child, but on re-learning of their traits, values, and the legacy of the people who worshipped them... I was immediately drawn to the Allfather Odin. Odin is chief among the Teutonic Gods, but is primarily concerned with wisdom, knowledge, warfare, writing, inspiration, magic, and death... all my interests and passions. :) Everything about this diety resonated with me on a personal level. It was too "spooky" to be coincidence. I had to learn more.

And this learning is continuing even now. The Odinist, or Odian path, as I'm practicing now, is not as concerned with inner cosmology (are the Gods literal, where do we go when we die) as with daily values and how I will apply the Nine Noble Virtues into my life here in Midgard, the everyday world. I'm just starting off, relatively speaking, but I know that it's a great fit. It's natural and right, because I'm reconnecting with the spiritual legacy of my Northern European ancestors.

Superfluous_Nut

05-25-05, 03:24 PM

Do you think that ESP and medium's and psychic kind of things are all just a load of crap? And if so does that mean you don't believe in anything beyond what you can physically measure?
yes. i think it's all crap. i tend to believe only in the measurable/observable. measuring and observing also shed light on the fringe of our perceptions, so i accept there is a more out there than is currently accessible to us. by this, i mean things like sub-atomic particles and forces and the theories of their mechanics.

Superfluous_Nut

05-25-05, 03:27 PM

What if it was true that god did create those base atoms and universal forces? Wouldn't you feel the need to at least give him the credit for that?
if i knew god did that, then sure, i'd give him credit. but that's not what i know. you could simply replace "god" with "the easter bunny" and see how little sense that question makes to somebody who doesn't presuppose the existance of god.

Thelt

05-25-05, 03:34 PM

I accepted Christ when I was 12 years old. I was at home in my room after attending a revival service that same night. I did not accept him at church but I kept thinking about it and did it that night after I got home.

I think if you ever really get it then you will know it is real. You will feel God work in your heart and you will miss him when you break fellowship with him.

Hockeygirl44

05-25-05, 04:22 PM

I think if you ever really get it then you will know it is real. You will feel God work in your heart and you will miss him when you break fellowship with him.

I agree with that. I went to church/Sunday School my whole life. I accepted Christ one night while I was laying in bed all by myself, about age 5. I had heard it before, but that morning the SS teacher spoke of asking Jesus into your heart again, and that night I decided I should do it. So I said my prayer, and then rolled over and went to sleep.

Galethog

07-14-05, 09:28 AM

Thelt

07-14-05, 10:57 AM

"how reliable things like carbon dating are"

I think carbon dating is pretty reliable.

Is it? (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm)

Galethog

07-16-05, 03:59 PM

Is it? (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm)

Yes it is.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

CrazyIvan

07-16-05, 07:44 PM

I grew up (and still consider myself) Jewish. I'm also the son of an engineer. One day, as a teenager, I started questioning things such as the "world being created in 7 days". I got an interesting answer from my dad that I remember to this day: "We're not necessariy talking 7 X 24 hours here. The days could be 7 days based on some larger, much more slowly rotating planet. Or it might just be a bunch of poetry."

While I still consider myself Jewish and follow many (not all) of the traditions of Judaism, I tend to be most comfortable with the empiracle (sp?) world.

Superfluous_Nut

07-16-05, 09:43 PM

chipshot

07-16-05, 10:30 PM

I was told that I accepted God when I was about 1.

Superfluous_Nut

07-16-05, 10:31 PM

I was told that I accepted God when I was about 1.
you ever hear back from him?

hasbeen99

07-18-05, 07:44 PM

"how reliable things like carbon dating are"

I think carbon dating is pretty reliable.
So do I. But not infallible.

The Warden

07-18-05, 08:21 PM

I got saved on December 30, 1991 (Age 11) in the living room floor of my parents' home. Before then I started to become very rebellious to my parents, pastor, and to authority as a whole. I was raised in a Christian home and I thought I didnt need it anymore. I was wrong. My parents at one time were about to place me in a remedial type home cause they couldnt handle me. My dad would ware me out and it had no affect on me.

So after many attempts, my dad rented all four of the movies from "A Thief In The Night" series (A Thief In The Night, A Distant Thunder, Image of The Beast, The Prodigal Planet) made by Mark IV Pictures in the 1970s, which is a forerunner to the "Left Behind" series. After watching all of them, seeing that we are in the last days, and that Jesus Christ is coming soon, I wanted to get saved to avoid the times of The Great Tribulation.

Since then I've been in church (was since I was 6 days old) and later graduated from a Christian School and have never regretted it since.

I didnt turn over a new leaf, get confirmed, change ways, etc... I got SAVED!

Psalms 34:6---"This poor man cried, and The Lord heard him, and SAVED him out of all of his troubles."

Galethog

07-19-05, 08:48 AM

So do I. But not infallible.

It's not going to tell you that an object was made on 13th of October 390 BCE, at 3:14 am EST. But it will get you an approximate age.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 03:47 PM

It's not going to tell you that an object was made on 13th of October 390 BCE, at 3:14 am EST. But it will get you an approximate age.
Of course, but "approximate" is a subjective term. The problem I have with carbon dating is that it's based on mathematical consistencies, and nature is not that consistent. Anomales abound in nature, and I tend to think they often have a confounding effect on any equation we try to apply to it.

KrisJenkins77

07-19-05, 05:34 PM

Do you think that ESP and medium's and psychic kind of things are all just a load of crap? And if so does that mean you don't believe in anything beyond what you can physically measure?

I believe in ESP, but I don’t think that's something that God gives you. If you believe that, you might as well say God makes you mentally insane and want to hack up people and store them under your floorboards in your house. I'm not going to say the bible has NO evidence to support it, and it can explain all the things that evolution can, but there's no proof. (at least that I have seen) While on the other hand, evolution can't explain it all, but it can explain most of it, and what evolution can explain, there is proof. I've got a question for you, where did God come from? He was just there I suppose? And one day he was sitting in the nothingness and decided to create the universe? Yeah, that's more believable than evolution.

Superfluous_Nut

07-19-05, 05:38 PM

Of course, but "approximate" is a subjective term. The problem I have with carbon dating is that it's based on mathematical consistencies, and nature is not that consistent. Anomales abound in nature, and I tend to think they often have a confounding effect on any equation we try to apply to it.
this is true, but i think there's corroborating evidence that helps them "fine tune" the results (items that have other means of determing their age).

Galethog

07-19-05, 06:01 PM

Of course, but "approximate" is a subjective term. The problem I have with carbon dating is that it's based on mathematical consistencies, and nature is not that consistent. Anomales abound in nature, and I tend to think they often have a confounding effect on any equation we try to apply to it.

Scientists do use it. I would imagine that if it was as inaccurate as you think it is, they wouldn't. If I had a voltmeter that gave me a different reading each time I used it, I think I would find something else.

slydevl

07-19-05, 06:20 PM

I believe in ESP, but I don’t think that's something that God gives you. If you believe that, you might as well say God makes you mentally insane and want to hack up people and store them under your floorboards in your house. I'm not going to say the bible has NO evidence to support it, and it can explain all the things that evolution can, but there's no proof. (at least that I have seen) While on the other hand, evolution can't explain it all, but it can explain most of it, and what evolution can explain, there is proof. I've got a question for you, where did God come from? He was just there I suppose? And one day he was sitting in the nothingness and decided to create the universe? Yeah, that's more believable than evolution.
Evolution explains little and there is little proof of what it attempts to explain. It requires just as much faith as religion.

curly

07-19-05, 06:25 PM

... I've got a question for you, where did God come from? He was just there I suppose? And one day he was sitting in the nothingness and decided to create the universe? Yeah, that's more believable than evolution.

I think it is more believable. If not where would the particles come from that started the (theoretical) evolutionary process to begin with?

Galethog

07-19-05, 06:28 PM

I think it is more believable. If not where would the particles come from that started the (theoretical) evolutionary process to begin with?

The same place that God came from?

Superfluous_Nut

07-19-05, 06:50 PM

The same place that God came from?
who created god? (please, nobody say "man". i mean, from the perspective of a monotheist).

slydevl

07-19-05, 06:53 PM

I think it is more believable. If not where would the particles come from that started the (theoretical) evolutionary process to begin with?
The majority of cosmologists believe there was a beginning to our universe. Time, energy, and matter did not exist and then they did. They agree that there was a cause that transcended all three. Not one single one has a clue as to what that cause was. God from the earliest was described as transcending all three.

It takes a pretty simple mind to not be able to understand that you cannot think of the cause of the universe in terms of time.

slydevl

07-19-05, 07:05 PM

who created god? (please, nobody say "man". i mean, from the perspective of a monotheist).
What created the cause of the cosmos when before there was nothing? If it is fanciful to believe in a transcendent God, it is fanciful to believe what most, and by most I'm talking like 90%, of cosmologists believe for the same reasons. You are basically arguing that the cause of the universe, be it God or something else, could not exist and therefor the universe can not exist because the cause of the universe must have had the same characteristics we ascribe to God.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:07 PM

I've got a question for you, where did God come from? He was just there I suppose? And one day he was sitting in the nothingness and decided to create the universe? Yeah, that's more believable than evolution.
The Judeo/Christian (and most other versions of) God is believed to be an eternal being -- in other words He had no beginning. He has always been. Granted, that takes some 'outside the box' thinking.

(Macro)evolution, however, is less believable because the logic of it breaks down so badly. There is a significant difference between being outside the bounds of the physical realm, and being full of holes.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:10 PM

this is true, but i think there's corroborating evidence that helps them "fine tune" the results (items that have other means of determing their age).
Sure, and that's sort of my point. It seems like several items have been re-dated based on corroborating evidence which has overridden early carbon dating results. However, I can't think of any specifically, to be honest.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:12 PM

Scientists do use it. I would imagine that if it was as inaccurate as you think it is, they wouldn't. If I had a voltmeter that gave me a different reading each time I used it, I think I would find something else.
Scientists use it because it's the best estimating method available. And they'll continue to use it and refine it as they learn more, and adjust their results accordingly. I'm not saying it isn't a useful tool. I'm saying it's not as infallible as most would have us believe.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:13 PM

Evolution explains little and there is little proof of what it attempts to explain. It requires just as much faith as religion.
More, actually, IMO.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:18 PM

The same place that God came from?
That's where macroevolution breaks down. God is ethereal, evolution is confined to the material. And every shred of evidence I've heard of in the material world suggests it had a beginning.

Galethog

07-19-05, 08:18 PM

To answer the question at the beginning of this thread, I was "saved" Sept 12th, 1982. It didn't take. I don't have an exact date when I became an atheist, it occured over a number of years.

hasbeen99

07-19-05, 08:20 PM

who created god? (please, nobody say "man". i mean, from the perspective of a monotheist).Again, the concept of 'God', by its very nature requires Him to exist beyond the boundaries of the physical realm, including time. That being the case, the idea of the eternal becomes a possibility.

Edit: (or what Sly already said...)

Superfluous_Nut

07-19-05, 08:29 PM

What created the cause of the cosmos when before there was nothing? If it is fanciful to believe in a transcendent God, it is fanciful to believe what most, and by most I'm talking like 90%, of cosmologists believe for the same reasons. You are basically arguing that the cause of the universe, be it God or something else, could not exist and therefor the universe can not exist because the cause of the universe must have had the same characteristics we ascribe to God.
fanciful? perhaps, i dunno. but i find it interesting that you agree the two beliefs are equally implausible and yet you've picked one and seem defiant in your choice.

i'm not arguing the cause of the universe cannot exist. i'm just pointing out that "god" as a precusor seems like a stop-gap to the previous pre-cursor. what came "before" time seems like an invalid question by definition. i've always considered the concept of god to be anthropomorphic, but if he is essentially totally incomprehensible (eg, not bound by the notion of time), then i wonder why one would even try to comprehend him.

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 12:47 AM

Evolution explains little and there is little proof of what it attempts to explain. It requires just as much faith as religion.
Not really, because you can see evolution today. What’s the name of that amphibian that can live in and out of water? Can't think of it's name. There's the link between Amphibians and Reptiles. Plus, the theory that basically, a bolt of lightning hit a pile of goo, and then life formed from that was proven to be a real possibility when Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. The results were amino acids, the building blocks of life. Also, if you look at the embryos of a bird, a fish, a lizard, and a human, they look strikingly similar. Not to mention that the amino acid sequence between a Chimp and a human is 99% the same. Now why would God go to so much trouble to make it look like evolution is right if it's wrong? All the miracles and supernatural events that occurred in biblical times, why don’t they happen anymore? Does God all of the sudden not give a shit whether anyone believes in him or not?

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 12:51 AM

The same place that God came from?
Actually you made my point for me. Even if God was the creator of life, doesnt he have to come from somewhere as well? So neither one is more valid over the other IMO. So I'll go with the one with more proof.

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 12:58 AM

The Judeo/Christian (and most other versions of) God is believed to be an eternal being -- in other words He had no beginning. He has always been. Granted, that takes some 'outside the box' thinking.

(Macro)evolution, however, is less believable because the logic of it breaks down so badly. There is a significant difference between being outside the bounds of the physical realm, and being full of holes.
My bio is a little rusty, but the big bang theory basically says that the universe was a tightly packed mass, that all of the sudden exploded, and the universe expanded and continued to expand into the universe we have today, and is still expanding today. Couldn't that compacted universe have always existed just as much as God?

slydevl

07-20-05, 02:07 PM

Not really, because you can see evolution today. What’s the name of that amphibian that can live in and out of water? Can't think of it's name. There's the link between Amphibians and Reptiles. Plus, the theory that basically, a bolt of lightning hit a pile of goo, and then life formed from that was proven to be a real possibility when Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. The results were amino acids, the building blocks of life. Also, if you look at the embryos of a bird, a fish, a lizard, and a human, they look strikingly similar. Not to mention that the amino acid sequence between a Chimp and a human is 99% the same. Now why would God go to so much trouble to make it look like evolution is right if it's wrong? All the miracles and supernatural events that occurred in biblical times, why don’t they happen anymore? Does God all of the sudden not give a shit whether anyone believes in him or not?
The Miller experiment has been debunked. The fact that it is still referenced in text books is a travesty. The embryos do not look similar, the original drawings were fudged. No evolutionist even makes that argument anymore. The DNA sequence is what you mean and that also doesn't mean a thing because much of the similarity can be attributed to the structural similarity of dna is general. We also share dna similarities with bananas, horses, and dogs. Recent studies show the diffence in dna similarity is closer to 10% and the differences contain enough information to be contained in 120 million encyclopedia sets.

We see miracles every day. They still happen.

slydevl

07-20-05, 02:08 PM

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 02:41 PM

The Miller experiment has been debunked. The fact that it is still referenced in text books is a travesty. I was not aware of that.

The embryos do not look similar, the original drawings were fudged. No evolutionist even makes that argument anymore. Nor that.

The DNA sequence is what you mean and that also doesn't mean a thing because much of the similarity can be attributed to the structural similarity of dna is general. We also share dna similarities with bananas, horses, and dogs. Recent studies show the diffence in dna similarity is closer to 10% and the differences contain enough information to be contained in 120 million encyclopedia sets.Thanks for killing my arguement, but if all of what you're saying it true, why is it still taught like fact? I was taught that all of that was basically scientific fact.

We see miracles every day. They still happen. I haven’t seen anyone resurrected from the dead lately, or any prophets or preachers rise up into the heavens, have you?

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 02:42 PM

No just rusty, completed incorrect and outdated.
Then please tell us what it really is.

slydevl

07-20-05, 02:48 PM

Then please tell us what it really is.
I have, twice in this thread. The commonly accepted theory now is that there was nothing. No matter, energy, or time, and then there was.

Superfluous_Nut

07-20-05, 03:11 PM

I have, twice in this thread. The commonly accepted theory now is that there was nothing. No matter, energy, or time, and then there was.
perhaps, but it's pretty universally accepted as being a theory -- and there are plenty of others. probably every couple of years somebody comes up with another theory that fits certain aspects of the universe that others might not.

pre-cosmos is going to alway be theoretical and i think scientists don't pretend it isn't. folded dimensions and string theory? that's like trying to describe a color to a blind person. they might get the idea, but they'll never comprehend what it's all about.

i just don't think our brains were "designed" (using the term loosely) to grasp deails such as that. our environment is pretty finite so the tools we've developed are suited to that environment. our abilty to comprehend is far from perfect.

and i can live with that.

Galethog

07-20-05, 04:14 PM

The Miller experiment has been debunked. The fact that it is still referenced in text books is a travesty. The embryos do not look similar, the original drawings were fudged. No evolutionist even makes that argument anymore. The DNA sequence is what you mean and that also doesn't mean a thing because much of the similarity can be attributed to the structural similarity of dna is general. We also share dna similarities with bananas, horses, and dogs. Recent studies show the diffence in dna similarity is closer to 10% and the differences contain enough information to be contained in 120 million encyclopedia sets.

We see miracles every day. They still happen.

The Miller experiment wasn't exactly debunked. In 1957 Miller tested a theory that was proposed in the 1920's by Oparin and Haldane. We know today that the atmospheric composition they used was incorrect. New experiments since the Miller ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions.

No one uses the Ernst Haeckel theory or his drawings anymore because they were faked. Of course, this was in 1874. Things progress. Do a search and you will find that embryos do look similar.

Everthing I have read gives the percentage as about 98.5.

Yes we do share similarities with a lot of living things. But that makes me think that every living thing came from common ancestors. Yea, know, like in evolution. :ylsuper:

slydevl

07-20-05, 04:56 PM

The Miller experiment wasn't exactly debunked. In 1957 Miller tested a theory that was proposed in the 1920's by Oparin and Haldane. We know today that the atmospheric composition they used was incorrect. New experiments since the Miller ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions.
Similar results? Those experiments produced cyanide.

No one uses the Ernst Haeckel theory or his drawings anymore because they were faked. Of course, this was in 1874. Things progress. Do a search and you will find that embryos do look similar.
An egg and a smooth rock can bear a resemblance. The reality is embryos aren't nearly as similar as textbooks would have us believe which is a crying shame. I remember seeing Haeckels drawings in my biology textbooks in the late 1980's. THEY WERE DEBUNKED IN THE 1800's!
Everthing I have read gives the percentage as about 98.5.
Read more. I've seen 98.5 but I've also seen 90. Of course the term "similar" is hotly debated by even secular scientists as it relates to this.

Yes we do share similarities with a lot of living things. But that makes me think that every living thing came from common ancestors. Yea, know, like in evolution. :ylsuper:
Which is as big a leap as religion IMO.

Galethog

07-20-05, 05:29 PM

Similar results? Those experiments produced cyanide.

An egg and a smooth rock can bear a resemblance. The reality is embryos aren't nearly as similar as textbooks would have us believe which is a crying shame. I remember seeing Haeckels drawings in my biology textbooks in the late 1980's. THEY WERE DEBUNKED IN THE 1800's!

Read more. I've seen 98.5 but I've also seen 90. Of course the term "similar" is hotly debated by even secular scientists as it relates to this.

Which is as big a leap as religion IMO.

Some amino acids use cyanide as a necessary building block. The experiment still produced amino acids.

"""Laboratory syntheses of amino acids are usually related to syntheses of amines and/or carboxylic acids. We'll take a look at one such synthesis, the Strecker synthesis. We won't look at it's mechanism in detail, but we will look for similarities with reactions we've seen before.

The reaction begins with imine formation from an aldehyde and ammonia. The acid catalysis required for this comes from ammonium chloride, a weak acid. An addition of hydrogen cyanide to the imine follows. This is analogous to the additions of nucleophiles to an aldehyde or ketone which we studied earlier. In this instance, the cyanide ion serves as the nucleophile. """"

Maybe not nearly as similar, but similar nonetheless. I do know it is hard to tell the difference between a pig fetus and a human fetus at 8 weeks.

hasbeen99

07-20-05, 06:47 PM

My bio is a little rusty, but the big bang theory basically says that the universe was a tightly packed mass, that all of the sudden exploded, and the universe expanded and continued to expand into the universe we have today, and is still expanding today. Couldn't that compacted universe have always existed just as much as God?
Here is the problem I have with that premise:

How complex was that "tightly compacted mass"? Even at the atomic level, the theory of irreducible complexity comes into play.

Inert substances (such as would compromise the bulk of a 'universal mass') need outside catalysts to transform and/or combine to form other substances -- especially more complex substances. Macroevolution does not allow for such catalysts. It relies fully on chaos theory (as I understand it), which precipitate stretches of 'faith' which are truly absurd (i.e. the 747 appearing in an airplane junkyard because the right parts accidentally bumped together).

hasbeen99

07-20-05, 07:01 PM

Actually you made my point for me. Even if God was the creator of life, doesnt he have to come from somewhere as well?
Actually no, not really. The 'eternal being' assertation can get a little circular, so set that aside for a moment. Would age or time really have any effect on anything ethereal (non-material)? No, probably not. So without a physiological link, there's no evidence that says God (or any other spiritual entity) had to have a beginning in order to exist.

...So I'll go with the one with more proof.
Actually, there is more and better evidence to support the theory of intelligent design and far fewer flaws in its logic than that of macroevolution.

Galethog

07-20-05, 07:13 PM

Here is the problem I have with that premise:

How complex was that "tightly compacted mass"? Even at the atomic level, the theory of irreducible complexity comes into play.

Inert substances (such as would compromise the bulk of a 'universal mass') need outside catalysts to transform and/or combine to form other substances -- especially more complex substances. Macroevolution does not allow for such catalysts. It relies fully on chaos theory (as I understand it), which precipitate stretches of 'faith' which are truly absurd (i.e. the 747 appearing in an airplane junkyard because the right parts accidentally bumped together).

I think the mass was energy. And it stayed that way for 300,000 years until it cooled enough for hydrogen and helium to form. I think the other elements formed within stars.

The 747 really is a bad analogy. Most things in nature do "fit" together by themselves, such as crystals. Don't forget these. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 07:18 PM

hasbeen99

07-20-05, 07:23 PM

I think the mass was energy. And it stayed that way for 300,000 years until it cooled enough for hydrogen and helium to form. I think the other elements formed within stars. Again, why did it go from a supposed stable state to suddenly cooling? What was the source of that catalyst?

The 747 really is a bad analogy. Most things in nature do "fit" together by themselves, such as crystals. Don't forget these. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm Snow crystals? That's an example of a pure substance changing its state from vapor or liquid to solid form because of another outside catalyst, in this case a drop in temperature, occurred. We're talking about entirely new complex substances that came into existence all on their own.

hasbeen99

07-20-05, 07:26 PM

ok, ok, I'm sorry, you're saying God is not a material being. Yes that's something I do, somewhat, believe in. I do not believe in the big bang theory, which is why I'm not as up to date on it as Sly is. I do think there is a strong possibility that the universe was set in motion by some supernatural force or what have you, that is not fathomable in the physical world. I do not, however, believe that this force is "God" as referred to as the bible, or Allah, or Buddha or any other higher power. I think it is as simple as something, that we will never know or be able to understand, sparked the universal powder keg so to speak.
Okay, but take it a step further. If you get into things like cell structure, especially at the most basic levels, you see complex design. Purpose, not random chaos. Now take that scientific premise, and expand it to the big picture -- not just on earth, but throughout the universe.

Galethog

07-20-05, 08:20 PM

Again, why did it go from a supposed stable state to suddenly cooling? What was the source of that catalyst?

Snow crystals? That's an example of a pure substance changing its state from vapor or liquid to solid form because of another outside catalyst, in this case a drop in temperature, occurred. We're talking about entirely new complex substances that came into existence all on their own.

The expansion of the universe caused the cool down.

Here are a few websites that explains how the elements were made.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milkyway-00b.html

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/7/3/1

http://www.govertschilling.nl/nieuws/archief/2003/0307/030721_iau.htm

slydevl

07-20-05, 08:27 PM

The expansion of the universe caused the cool down.

Here are a few websites that explains how the elements were made.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milkyway-00b.html

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/7/3/1

http://www.govertschilling.nl/nieuws/archief/2003/0307/030721_iau.htm
Your ball of energy would have had to existed that way for eternity (the difference between eternity and a point in time is still eternity) and then picked that single moment to explode. Not likely.

Galethog

07-20-05, 08:38 PM

Your ball of energy would have had to existed that way for eternity (the difference between eternity and a point in time is still eternity) and then picked that single moment to explode. Not likely.

There was no time until the "Big Bang". Just like God, that singularity existed outside space and time.
Just like God, it always was.

The Warden

07-20-05, 10:36 PM

There was no time until the "Big Bang". Just like God, that singularity existed outside space and time.
Just like God, it always was.

I believe in The Big Bang Theory.... God spoke and :detonate:

IT HAPPENED.

KrisJenkins77

07-20-05, 10:42 PM

Okay, but take it a step further. If you get into things like cell structure, especially at the most basic levels, you see complex design. Purpose, not random chaos. Now take that scientific premise, and expand it to the big picture -- not just on earth, but throughout the universe.
Yep, those are some of the things that science still has to explain, we can form the amino acids that form the basics of the cell, and we can explain how one cell grew and evolved, but we don’t know what caused it to start dividing, or how that first single cell came to be. But what would have gotten me to believe in the Bible is if it had said something about cells, or DNA, or anything that the people back then couldn't have POSSIBLY have know about. But it doesn’t.

hasbeen99

07-21-05, 03:38 PM

But what would have gotten me to believe in the Bible is if it had said something about cells, or DNA, or anything that the people back then couldn't have POSSIBLY have know about. But it doesn’t.
No, but consider the authors and the circumstances surrounding them. More importantly, consider the purpose of the Bible itself. The reason those books and letters were written wasn't to be an A to Z encyclopedia of creation. The primary purpose of the books of the Bible is to reveal God Himself -- His character, His identity, and most importantly what He wants for humanity.

HardHarry

07-21-05, 03:56 PM

In all seriousness hasbeen99, and I hope it isn't seen as blasphemy, but if that is the purpose of the Bible, then are we as a society ready (perhaps even deserving) for "version 2.0", or are we just petulant little brats who overestimate our understanding of our world and God's mystery?

hasbeen99

07-21-05, 04:03 PM

KrisJenkins77

07-22-05, 01:58 PM

No, but consider the authors and the circumstances surrounding them. More importantly, consider the purpose of the Bible itself. The reason those books and letters were written wasn't to be an A to Z encyclopedia of creation. The primary purpose of the books of the Bible is to reveal God Himself -- His character, His identity, and most importantly what He wants for humanity.
So, the Bible is only meant to reveal God, but not provide any solid proof, then what makes it anymore valid that any of the other religions? Or those stories indians tell about a great big turtle creating the earth?

Galethog

07-22-05, 06:34 PM

Superfluous_Nut

07-22-05, 07:22 PM

The bible isn't more valid than any other religious text.
what do you mean by "valid"?

KrisJenkins77

07-22-05, 07:32 PM

My point exactly, by valid, I mean the content written in it is fact, as most Christians believe. How do we know the Koran isn’t the real bible? It's fairly similar.

hasbeen99

07-25-05, 05:28 PM

So, the Bible is only meant to reveal God, but not provide any solid proof, then what makes it anymore valid that any of the other religions? Or those stories indians tell about a great big turtle creating the earth?
How do you define "solid proof", as it would be found in any text? Did any non-mathematical book you ever used in school ever offer "solid proof", or was it written assuming the reader would accept its contents at face value? What makes a textbook any more valid than any other book?

hasbeen99

07-25-05, 05:34 PM

My point exactly, by valid, I mean the content written in it is fact, as most Christians believe. How do we know the Koran isn’t the real bible? It's fairly similar.
The Qur'an was written about 500 years after the last book in the New Testament, and it reads almost like a Cliff's Notes version of the Old Testament (from what I've read so far). It makes constant reference to it, yes, but the Qur'an is one man's revelation with no corroborating witnesses whatsoever, as I recall. Not a favorable comparison, really.

KrisJenkins77

07-25-05, 08:06 PM

The Qur'an was written about 500 years after the last book in the New Testament, and it reads almost like a Cliff's Notes version of the Old Testament (from what I've read so far). It makes constant reference to it, yes, but the Qur'an is one man's revelation with no corroborating witnesses whatsoever, as I recall. Not a favorable comparison, really.
According to the Koran, the angel Gabriel gave the Koran to Muhammed because the bible had been incorrectly translated over the years, that's the reason for the almost complete plagirising of the Bible. Couldnt Muhammed's version be correct, and Christians have been studying an incorrectly translated bible for the past 2000 years?

Galethog

07-25-05, 08:15 PM

The Qur'an was written about 500 years after the last book in the New Testament, and it reads almost like a Cliff's Notes version of the Old Testament (from what I've read so far). It makes constant reference to it, yes, but the Qur'an is one man's revelation with no corroborating witnesses whatsoever, as I recall. Not a favorable comparison, really.

Maybe, but as Muhammad could neither read nor write, I doubt he wrote it. He dictated it to his scribes. He probably used stories he heard from Jewish and Christian travelers. These writings circulated all over the Islamic world. In 650 CE Uthman ibn Affan formed a committee and pretty much did what the the Council of Nicea and King James did for the Christian bible. He put together the basic Quran.

hasbeen99

07-25-05, 08:15 PM

According to the Koran, the angel Gabriel gave the Koran to Muhammed because the bible had been incorrectly translated over the years, that's the reason for the almost complete plagirising of the Bible. Couldnt Muhammed's version be correct, and Christians have been studying an incorrectly translated bible for the past 2000 years?
It's possible, but highly unlikely. There are a couple of things to remember here -- one, it's basically Mohammad's word against every prophet in Israel's history, plus every one of Jesus' disciples, not to mention all the evidence (cultural, archeological, psychological, historical) in support of Christianity. Two, Mohammad's audience was the decendants of Esau, who got screwed out of his rightful inheritance by his brother and consequently banished (more or less) to a nomadic existence in the desert, while Jacob's line (Israel) lived it up in "the land of milk and honey". The bitterness of that history is still evident today. What I'm saying is, Mohammad had a serious motive to write a new holy book that painted Israel in a particularly poor light, and at the same time made the descendants of Esau look like the chosen ones they should've been from the beginning.

hasbeen99

07-25-05, 08:19 PM

Maybe, but as Muhammad could neither read nor write, I doubt he wrote it. He dictated it to his scribes.
The difference is negligible. Some of the New Testament (including the gospels of Mark and Luke) were dictated. That doesn't take that much away from its integrity, although having corroborating evidence (i.e. the New Testament Gospels) would help.

KrisJenkins77

07-25-05, 08:19 PM

How do you define "solid proof", as it would be found in any text? Did any non-mathematical book you ever used in school ever offer "solid proof", or was it written assuming the reader would accept its contents at face value? What makes a textbook any more valid than any other book?
Yes, I do accept text books at face value, but my math books never told me that the Pythagorean Theorem created the universe. Or that the Pythagorean Theorem performed miracles like pulling the sun closer to the earth (I think that was Elijah?) or that it would rapture those who believed in it and execute a 7-year tribulation for those who didn’t. There's a big difference between a book full or formulas developed by mathematicians, and a book full of incredible stories written by people 2000 years ago with nothing to back it up. By proof, I want evidence of some of those stories. Where's Noah's ark? Or like I said, if Moses goes into such detail to describe how God created the universe, and the Earth, and all the people and animals in it, why not go further and talk about things like atoms and cells and subjects Moses couldn't possibly have been able to even fathom back then unless God told him to put them in there.

hasbeen99

07-25-05, 08:36 PM

Yes, I do accept text books at face value, but my math books never told me that the Pythagorean Theorem created the universe. Or that the Pythagorean Theorem performed miracles like pulling the sun closer to the earth (I think that was Elijah?) or that it would rapture those who believed in it and execute a 7-year tribulation for those who didn’t. There's a big difference between a book full or formulas developed by mathematicians, and a book full of incredible stories written by people 2000 years ago with nothing to back it up.
That's why I excluded math books from the comparison. Math deals mostly in absolutes that can be proven easily enough. But when we start getting into history, politics, philosophy, social studies, etc., the "proof" doesn't come so easily, does it? I acknowledge that where, exactly, George Washington led his troops across the Delaware is all but irrelevant compared to the claims of the Bible -- I'll give you that. But just as there is historical evidence to back up the claims of any history book, there is evidence in support of not only the context, but the claims of the Bible.

By proof, I want evidence of some of those stories. Where's Noah's ark? Or like I said, if Moses goes into such detail to describe how God created the universe, and the Earth, and all the people and animals in it, why not go further and talk about things like atoms and cells and subjects Moses couldn't possibly have been able to even fathom back then unless God told him to put them in there.
The remains of Noah's ark rest on a mountain in Turkey. The Discovery channel and the History channel have both aired numerous documentaries featuring testimonies from archeologists and locals who have made the journey up the slopes, as well as old KH-11 satellite photos that show a structure buried under the snow cap that has no earthly business being up there.

As far as things God revealed to Moses about creation, there weren't even words in that ancient culture for physics and/or microbiology. To reveal such a thing would be pointless. But how about the order of creation, which has since been supported by modern science? For example, the sun is likely older than anything else in our solar system; marine life is older than land based life; animals have existed longer than mankind. Are these things a nomadic shepherd would even be able to figure out on his own? Highly doubtful, wouldn't you agree?

Galethog

07-25-05, 08:58 PM

"" The remains of Noah's ark rest on a mountain in Turkey. The Discovery channel and the History channel have both aired numerous documentaries featuring testimonies from archeologists and locals who have made the journey up the slopes, as well as old KH-11 satellite photos that show a structure buried under the snow cap that has no earthly business being up there.""

Maybe, but it's not been proven. All they can gather from the photos is maybe it's man-made, maybe it's not. But no one knows what it is either way.

KrisJenkins77

07-25-05, 09:04 PM

That's why I excluded math books from the comparison. Math deals mostly in absolutes that can be proven easily enough. But when we start getting into history, politics, philosophy, social studies, etc., the "proof" doesn't come so easily, does it? I acknowledge that where, exactly, George Washington led his troops across the Delaware is all but irrelevant compared to the claims of the Bible -- I'll give you that. But just as there is historical evidence to back up the claims of any history book, there is evidence in support of not only the context, but the claims of the Bible. I'll give you that most of our history cannot be proven anymore than the bible, I cant argue with you there.

The remains of Noah's ark rest on a mountain in Turkey. The Discovery channel and the History channel have both aired numerous documentaries featuring testimonies from archeologists and locals who have made the journey up the slopes, as well as old KH-11 satellite photos that show a structure buried under the snow cap that has no earthly business being up there. Yeah I remember that, it was a long time ago, and it appears it was a hoax (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html).

As far as things God revealed to Moses about creation, there weren't even words in that ancient culture for physics and/or microbiology. To reveal such a thing would be pointless. But how about the order of creation, which has since been supported by modern science? For example, the sun is likely older than anything else in our solar system; marine life is older than land based life; animals have existed longer than mankind. Are these things a nomadic shepherd would even be able to figure out on his own? Highly doubtful, wouldn't you agree? Actually, you reminded me to point out a couple of things I wanted to address, if Adam named all the animals, why do we find new species everyday and name them ourselves? And everything you mention in the last part, except for the sun being older than our solar system is what evolution says too. Fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into mammals and birds, mammals then evolved into humans. And if the bible is correct, does science show the Sun is one day (or how many days there were between the creation of the sun and the earth) older than the Earth? because if it doesn't, that would mean the 7 days weren’t really 7 days after all were they?

Superfluous_Nut

07-25-05, 09:35 PM

The remains of Noah's ark rest on a mountain in Turkey. The Discovery channel and the History channel have both aired numerous documentaries featuring testimonies from archeologists and locals who have made the journey up the slopes, as well as old KH-11 satellite photos that show a structure buried under the snow cap that has no earthly business being up there.
careful, hb. if this turns out to NOT be the ark, would you then say the noah story is bogus or would you say they just haven't found it yet?

the problem with proving the bible is that the evidence counter to biblical teaching is discounted as being wrong (can't trust science!) but then the evidence that supports the bible is always proffered as being above reproach (science even agrees!).

As far as things God revealed to Moses about creation, there weren't even words in that ancient culture for physics and/or microbiology. To reveal such a thing would be pointless. But how about the order of creation, which has since been supported by modern science? For example, the sun is likely older than anything else in our solar system; marine life is older than land based life; animals have existed longer than mankind. Are these things a nomadic shepherd would even be able to figure out on his own? Highly doubtful, wouldn't you agree?no. actually, not highly doubtful. let's just take the biological elements from the creation story (forget how light was created prior to the sun).

1. god creates grass and trees that bear fruit
2. god creates whales (and other sea life) and birds
3. god creates land animals
4. god creates man

obviously man would put man over animals and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to put animals over plants.

so the question is, what about the others -- whales, birds, land animals?

technically speaking, "land animals" are the first of this group. birds didn't adapt flying from water environments and whales are mamals, which clearly come from very late in the chain. it's pretty messed up. not to mention, the fruit bearing plants would come AFTER land animals had a good foothold on earth (no reason to make tasty fruit without something to eat it).

it's not surprising that a "primitive" man would not recognize the differences between whales and fish. or that he'd just lump all land animals into one group (reptiles, amphibians, mamals).

so the claim that genesis mirrors the scientific description of how life unfolded on earth is way off the mark.

slydevl

07-25-05, 10:52 PM

slydevl

07-25-05, 10:54 PM

so the claim that genesis mirrors the scientific description of how life unfolded on earth is way off the mark.
The cambrian explosion says that it really doesn't need to and goes a long way toward disproving evolution.

vpkozel

07-25-05, 11:45 PM

careful, hb. if this turns out to NOT be the ark, would you then say the noah story is bogus or would you say they just haven't found it yet?

I'm just curious, but why would you treat this (or any other "Bible hypothesis") differently than those that are changed/updated/proven incorrect in every other field of science?

Superfluous_Nut

07-25-05, 11:49 PM

I'm just curious, but why would you treat this (or any other "Bible hypothesis") differently than those that are changed/updated/proven incorrect in every other field of science?
not sure i totally understand the question.

the point i was trying to make to hb, was that he's really quick to look to science when it helps him, and then less ready when it doesn't. and in the end, he doesn't actually care about the science, i think. he believes and so he's looking for things that re-enforce that belief, but without them, he won't stop believing.

Superfluous_Nut

07-25-05, 11:52 PM

Scientific claims are proven wrong every single day. Every one! Not one claim of the Bible has been proven wrong. Many have been proven true, like the way Jericho fell. Yet for some reason science is trusted more than the Bible. Go figure.

More and more cosmologists become convinced of a creator every day due to recent research.
the bible is can't be proven wrong because it's not science. however, claims made by the catholic church have not necessarily held up very well.

what does "more and more" mean? i'm guessing there are more agnostic cosmologists (as a percentage) than there are agnostic "regular" folks.

Superfluous_Nut

07-25-05, 11:52 PM

The cambrian explosion says that it really doesn't need to and goes a long way toward disproving evolution.
that's okay, i'm sure it'll be disproven soon, right?

slydevl

07-26-05, 12:11 AM

the bible is can't be proven wrong because it's not science. however, claims made by the catholic church have not necessarily held up very well.

what does "more and more" mean? i'm guessing there are more agnostic cosmologists (as a percentage) than there are agnostic "regular" folks.
The minute they find the bones of Christ, I quit believing in anything.

slydevl

07-26-05, 12:13 AM

the bible is can't be proven wrong because it's not science. however, claims made by the catholic church have not necessarily held up very well.

what does "more and more" mean? i'm guessing there are more agnostic cosmologists (as a percentage) than there are agnostic "regular" folks.
Is archeology not science?

20 years ago I would have agreed with this assessment. I'm not so sure anymore.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 12:35 AM

Is archeology not science?

20 years ago I would have agreed with this assessment. I'm not so sure anymore.
archeology? yeah, it's generally regarded as a science. why?

slydevl

07-26-05, 08:25 AM

archeology? yeah, it's generally regarded as a science. why?
Outside of Genesis, archeology has corroborated many of the events described in OT.

vpkozel

07-26-05, 09:35 AM

not sure i totally understand the question.

the point i was trying to make to hb, was that he's really quick to look to science when it helps him, and then less ready when it doesn't. and in the end, he doesn't actually care about the science, i think. he believes and so he's looking for things that re-enforce that belief, but without them, he won't stop believing.

I don’t want to speak for HB, but this is the way that I see this.

Let's break it down, Bill Nye style.

I have a belief – for the sake of this argument, let’s call it a hypothesis – that God exists and that the stories in the Bible actually happened. This really is not too different from the way that scientist operate. So the fact that one particular location does not contain the ark does not mean that the ark does not exist, any more so than a cure for cancer does not exist just because we have not found one yet.

A lot of this gets to what I had been asking in that thread here what if God’s plan was for us to use science to “find” Him.

Galethog

07-26-05, 02:30 PM

Outside of Genesis, archeology has corroborated many of the events described in OT.

Maybe, but let's say I wrote that the Great IPU came down from the heavens and pierced Mt. St. Helens in 1980 with her horn, causing a massive eruption. If future archaeologists did some digging, they would find that indeed, Mt. St. Helens did erupt in 1980, but does that mean that the Great IPU did it?

In case you don't know what the IPU is,

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

slydevl

07-26-05, 02:40 PM

Maybe, but let's say I wrote that the Great IPU came down from the heavens and pierced Mt. St. Helens in 1980 with her horn, causing a massive eruption. If future archaeologists did some digging, they would find that indeed, Mt. St. Helens did erupt in 1980, but does that mean that the Great IPU did it?

In case you don't know what the IPU is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn
Since you like analogies, lets analyze your beliefs about creation. Say you are walking down a beach and you come across, written in the sand, Welcome to the Beach Galethog!

You of course must believe that the waves randomly placed those pieces of sand there and spelled out those words. I, on the other hand, am smarter and realize someone you know knew you were going to the beach and got there before you and wrote that in the sand. Your beliefs are complete fantasy.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 03:07 PM

Outside of Genesis, archeology has corroborated many of the events described in OT.
the events? such as?

it certainly doesn't corrobrate the great flood, unless you say that it didn't actually do what is claimed in the bible -- which would hardly make it a corroboration.

slydevl

07-26-05, 03:12 PM

the events? such as?

it certainly doesn't corrobrate the great flood, unless you say that it didn't actually do what is claimed in the bible -- which would hardly make it a corroboration.
Jericho
The destruction of the temple
The slavery of the jews in Egypt
King David existed
Pontious Pilot existed
there was a census at the time of Jesus's birth
and yes, there was a great flood in the middle east, to those people, their world was flooded

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 03:19 PM

I don’t want to speak for HB, but this is the way that I see this.

Let's break it down, Bill Nye style.

I have a belief – for the sake of this argument, let’s call it a hypothesis – that God exists and that the stories in the Bible actually happened. This really is not too different from the way that scientist operate. So the fact that one particular location does not contain the ark does not mean that the ark does not exist, any more so than a cure for cancer does not exist just because we have not found one yet.

A lot of this gets to what I had been asking in that thread here what if God’s plan was for us to use science to “find” Him.
the difference between scientific hypotheses and religious ones is that science subjects its theories to rigorous examination with the explicit attempt to discredit them, whereas religious investigators are generally looking to validate their initial assumtions.

good science (and there is bad science) is agnostic towards the big picture. they want the truth, not to "be right". the universe is expanding, no wait, it's not. okay maybe it is. maybe it's infinite or better yet, cyclical. these theories come and go as new information is collected a new methods of measuring are designed. nobody is steadfastly going to attack fellow scientists that don't agree with their pet theory from the 1950's. (again, there is bad science).

so if you really take the approach that you'll go where the science takes you, then sure. maybe your "theory" (i'm guessing it's more a bemusing thought than a real theory of yours) is right. but you have to be prepared that accept that it's completely going to fall apart at any moment. that's science. religion will never play by those rules.

vpkozel

07-26-05, 03:25 PM

the difference between scientific hypotheses and religious ones is that science subjects its theories to rigorous examination with the explicit attempt to discredit them, whereas religious investigators are generally looking to validate their initial assumtions.

good science (and there is bad science) is agnostic towards the big picture. they want the truth, not to "be right". the universe is expanding, no wait, it's not. okay maybe it is. maybe it's infinite or better yet, cyclical. these theories come and go as new information is collected a new methods of measuring are designed. nobody is steadfastly going to attack fellow scientists that don't agree with their pet theory from the 1950's. (again, there is bad science).

so if you really take the approach that you'll go where the science takes you, then sure. maybe your "theory" (i'm guessing it's more a bemusing thought than a real theory of yours) is right. but you have to be prepared that accept that it's completely going to fall apart at any moment. that's science. religion will never play by those rules.

See Warming, Global for a complete debunking of all of that.

A lot of people who make great scientific discoveries have as much devotion to their idea of the truth as a relegious person does.

slydevl

07-26-05, 03:26 PM

See Warming, Global for a complete debunking of all of that.

A lot of people who make great scientific discoveries have as much devotion to their idea of the truth as a relegious person does.
Also see the fact that Haeckel's drawings, discredited in the 1800's are still in just about every biology textbook published today.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 03:39 PM

Jericho
what about it? that it existed? how is archeology going to prove that israelites walked around in circles for 7 days and blew the walls down with trumpets?

The destruction of the temple
The slavery of the jews in Egypt
King David existed
Pontious Pilot existed

nobody's saying that the bible doesn't draw from history. using your beach analogy above, should that writing somehow be saved for a thousand years to be examined by our descendents. could they determine who wrote it or the circumstances involved? would it prove the divinity of galethog?

there was a census at the time of Jesus's birth

they were just getting their records straight for the big bc/ad changeover.

and yes, there was a great flood in the middle east, to those people, their world was flooded
so it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? this is what i'm getting at. you use select pieces of science to bolster select pieces of your religion and ignore the science that doesn't corroroborate your position.

there was a flood -- probably relating to rising ocean levels as the last ice age ended and water was freed from large ice deposits. there's good evidence that the black sea was totally flooded by this kind of event. probably other areas, too. but was it rain? did it last 40 years? was there a guy who had to save everybody? can you possibly fit 2 of every animal (and plant?) onto a boat? what would that do to the gene pool? why aren't the animals in a homogenous distribution throughout the world? or at least there should be a fossil record of marsupials in israel.

legends are generally born of real phenomena. we have few legends these days because written history allows people to know the truth before the fake word spreads.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 03:41 PM

See Warming, Global for a complete debunking of all of that.

could you explain what you mean by that?

A lot of people who make great scientific discoveries have as much devotion to their idea of the truth as a relegious person does.
for example....?

slydevl

07-26-05, 03:45 PM

what about it? that it existed? how is archeology going to prove that israelites walked around in circles for 7 days and blew the walls down with trumpets?

nobody's saying that the bible doesn't draw from history. using your beach analogy above, should that writing somehow be saved for a thousand years to be examined by our descendents. could they determine who wrote it or the circumstances involved? would it prove the divinity of galethog?

they were just getting their records straight for the big bc/ad changeover.

so it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? this is what i'm getting at. you use select pieces of science to bolster select pieces of your religion and ignore the science that doesn't corroroborate your position.

there was a flood -- probably relating to rising ocean levels as the last ice age ended and water was freed from large ice deposits. there's good evidence that the black sea was totally flooded by this kind of event. probably other areas, too. but was it rain? did it last 40 years? was there a guy who had to save everybody? can you possibly fit 2 of every animal (and plant?) onto a boat? what would that do to the gene pool? why aren't the animals in a homogenous distribution throughout the world? or at least there should be a fossil record of marsupials in israel.

legends are generally born of real phenomena. we have few legends these days because written history allows people to know the truth before the fake word spreads.jericho:
That it existed, there was a battle fought there, and the walls toppled outward. At the time the bible claimed.

flood:
Freeing water from ice deposits could certainly have increased humidity in temperate areas and caused lasting rains. In fact, it would be likely. Unless the whole world was covered, noah wouldn't have had to save every species, most like just the domesticated ones he was familiar with.

The Bible taken strictly historically and excluding Genesis stands up pretty damn well.

vpkozel

07-26-05, 03:48 PM

could you explain what you mean by that?

Global warming - especially that tied to man made warming - is by no means proven by science, yet it is accepted as fact - even to the point that governments are willing to spend trillions on it. And anyone who questions these scientific conclusions is attacked (do a search on Bjorn Lomborg to see a good example).

for example....?

Pretty much anyone who tried to invent a cure for something. You would have to be convinced that you can find something to endure all of those failures.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 03:53 PM

jericho:
That it existed, there was a battle fought there, and the walls toppled outward. At the time the bible claimed.

flood:
Freeing water from ice deposits could certainly have increased humidity in temperate areas and caused lasting rains. In fact, it would be likely. Unless the whole world was covered, noah wouldn't have had to save every species, most like just the domesticated ones he was familiar with.

The Bible taken strictly historically and excluding Genesis stands up pretty damn well.
if you throw out the details that don't fit.

of course, the details that demonstrably don't fit don't look any different from the details that are impossible to prove. i think it's bogus to assume that if science can't answer the question, then it must be true -- particularly when science discredits many of the details of the stories.

the release of water was a gradual thing. it took a long, long time.

slydevl

07-26-05, 04:01 PM

i think it's bogus to assume that if science can't answer the question, then it must be true -- particularly when science discredits many of the details of the stories.But you think it is perfectly fine to think that chance created our universe which is so fine tuned that the odds of its mere existence are impossible to calculate because there aren't enough elemental particles in the entire universe to write that many zeros?

Sure it would have taken a long time, and it would take a long time for the effects to accumulate be felt that far south.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:21 PM

Global warming - especially that tied to man made warming - is by no means proven by science, yet it is accepted as fact - even to the point that governments are willing to spend trillions on it. And anyone who questions these scientific conclusions is attacked (do a search on Bjorn Lomborg to see a good example).

i think the "scientific" understanding of global warming is that is actually happening and that man is adding "fuel to the fire". policy makers and political groups will certainly take what science they like and hold it as gospel. i think any honest evaluation would reveal that the concern of the enviornmental scientist is that the potential problems of global warming would warrant doing our best to ensure we're not adding to it.

i'm sure there are plenty of dishonest folks on both sides of the issue who treat it more like... well, like religion.

Pretty much anyone who tried to invent a cure for something. You would have to be convinced that you can find something to endure all of those failures.
not at all where i thought you were going with that. clearly the person seeking to cure cancer doesn't believe that every time he mixes up a new batch of something that it'll be the cure for cancer. in fact, there's a huge system in place to vet such discoveries because people know that even if it looks good to start with, there are good chances it'll mess up something else.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:24 PM

But you think it is perfectly fine to think that chance created our universe which is so fine tuned that the odds of its mere existence are impossible to calculate because there aren't enough elemental particles in the entire universe to write that many zeros?

i don't believe in chance.

Sure it would have taken a long time, and it would take a long time for the effects to accumulate be felt that far south.
you mean the flood thing? i'm not sure i follow you here. how does being south enter into it?

vpkozel

07-26-05, 04:24 PM

not at all where i thought you were going with that. clearly the person seeking to cure cancer doesn't believe that every time he mixes up a new batch of something that it'll be the cure for cancer. in fact, there's a huge system in place to vet such discoveries because people know that even if it looks good to start with, there are good chances it'll mess up something else.

But the whole point is that they believe that the end result is there and keep going on. Which was my whole point on the ark thing.

vpkozel

07-26-05, 04:27 PM

i think the "scientific" understanding of global warming is that is actually happening

I don't think that even that has been proven.

All we know is that it's been hotter lately than it was previously.

But our frame of reference is so small that it is dangerous to draw conclusions based on it.

If you had known me between my 7th & 8th grade year, when I grew 8 inches, you would extrapolate that I would end up being like 19 feet tall by now.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:33 PM

But the whole point is that they believe that the end result is there and keep going on. Which was my whole point on the ark thing.
i guess it's like saying "I HAVE CURED CANCER! ... oh wait. nope. this didn't work out... okay NOW! NOW I HAVE CURED CANCER! shit. lemme try this... THIS IS REALLY IT THIS TIME! CANCER IS HISTOr...fuck."

i'd wait till the ark is actually id'd and verified before saying anything. but to claim it's been found in a remote mountain in turkey without any actual science?

vpkozel

07-26-05, 04:36 PM

i guess it's like saying "I HAVE CURED CANCER! ... oh wait. nope. this didn't work out... okay NOW! NOW I HAVE CURED CANCER! shit. lemme try this... THIS IS REALLY IT THIS TIME! CANCER IS HISTOr...fuck."

i'd wait till the ark is actually id'd and verified before saying anything. but to claim it's been found in a remote mountain in turkey without any actual science?

But no one has said that they proved it is the ark - at least not that I have ever seen. They only say that is their theory. Same for the shroud of turin.

slydevl

07-26-05, 04:36 PM

i guess it's like saying "I HAVE CURED CANCER! ... oh wait. nope. this didn't work out... okay NOW! NOW I HAVE CURED CANCER! shit. lemme try this... THIS IS REALLY IT THIS TIME! CANCER IS HISTOr...fuck."

i'd wait till the ark is actually id'd and verified before saying anything. but to claim it's been found in a remote mountain in turkey without any actual science?
How is belief that the ark will be found different from belief that a cure for cancer will be found? The is little evidence for either yet the belief that cancer will be cured is pretty much universally accepted. It is quite possible that there simply isn't a cure for cancer.

slydevl

07-26-05, 04:43 PM

i don't believe in chance.

What are the other choices?

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:51 PM

I don't think that even that has been proven.

All we know is that it's been hotter lately than it was previously.

But our frame of reference is so small that it is dangerous to draw conclusions based on it.

If you had known me between my 7th & 8th grade year, when I grew 8 inches, you would extrapolate that I would end up being like 19 feet tall by now.
it is a smallish time-frame, no doubt. and it's obvious the earth goes thru cycles (ice-ages... hello!?)

but just because the earth naturally gets hotter and colder doesn't mean that humans can't tip the scales. and the tipped scales would be REALLY FUCKING BAD.

we're talking about feedback loops and shit spiraling out of control. not today or tomorrow or next year, but maybe in a few thousand years. we're talking "butterfly effect" stuff. a bit more heat, water levels rise, salinity changes in the ocean, currents are affected, global weather patterns shift, who knows what comes next...

maybe nothing. or maybe humans would end up as the next in a long line of animals who prosper themselves into extinction.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:52 PM

But no one has said that they proved it is the ark - at least not that I have ever seen. They only say that is their theory. Same for the shroud of turin.
kj asked about the ark and hb said it was found in turkey. that was when i said he should probably not go down that route.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:53 PM

What are the other choices?
natural law that just "is".

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 04:55 PM

How is belief that the ark will be found different from belief that a cure for cancer will be found? The is little evidence for either yet the belief that cancer will be cured is pretty much universally accepted. It is quite possible that there simply isn't a cure for cancer.
the bucket. oh wait. wrong joke.

oddly enough, you didn't suggest that it is quite possible that there simply wasn't an ark.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:01 PM

the bucket. oh wait. wrong joke.

oddly enough, you didn't suggest that it is quite possible that there simply wasn't an ark.
conclusion not supported by evidence at hand.....like most of science

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:14 PM

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:15 PM

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:24 PM

Maybe Noah only rescued his farm animals because it was just his region that what flooded and not the world.Then if it was only his region, he would have nothing to save, there would be farm animals in other places.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:25 PM

Then if it was only his region, he would have nothing to save, there would be farm animals in other places.
Well, we are talking about a pretty big region, and he would have no way of knowing that.

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:30 PM

Well, we are talking about a pretty big region, and he would have no way of knowing that. Then you can say the same for about 1000 other species that lived in that area, no more than a few hundred mammals with food and water, could fit in a boat that size.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:33 PM

Then you can say the same for about 1000 other species that lived in that area, no more than a few hundred mammals with food and water, could fit in a boat that size.
If you flooded South Carolina how many species would be wiped out?

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:36 PM

If you flooded South Carolina how many species would be wiped out?You just said Noah wouldnt know that those farm animals wouldnt be wiped out. If you flooded SC and didnt know that the animals there didnt live anywhere else how many would you gather?

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 05:38 PM

conclusion not supported by evidence at hand.....like most of science
what evidence is that?

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:40 PM

You just said Noah wouldnt know that those farm animals wouldnt be wiped out. If you flooded SC and didnt know that the animals there didnt live anywhere else how many would you gather?
I would gather what I needed to live. And the rest would likely survive without my help.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:40 PM

what evidence is that?
eye witness account

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:41 PM

I would gather what I needed to live. And the rest would likely survive without my help.
God told you to gather two of each species, not two of the ones you would like to have on there.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:44 PM

God told you to gather two of each species, not two of the ones you would like to have on there.
Your biology book told you Haeckel's drawings were relevant.....you gonna toss the whole thing?

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 05:49 PM

Maybe Noah only rescued his farm animals because it was just his region that what flooded and not the world.
or maybe noah didn't exist and there was a flood (probably a few really, but at least one of major proportions) and it killed a bunch of people and the survivors had to find a new place to live. maybe they couldn't figure out what happened or why and so they came up with a story. other came up with other stories (gilgamesh, for example).

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 05:52 PM

Your biology book told you Haeckel's drawings were relevant.....you gonna toss the whole thing?
everything in a biology text book is disputable and nobody would shed a tear if new theories cast doubt on any of it. the bible... not so much.

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 05:52 PM

Your biology book told you Haeckel's drawings were relevant.....you gonna toss the whole thing?
No because 90% of my biology book is true and can lean on facts to support it. I dont think you can say the same for the bible.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:58 PM

No because 90% of my biology book is true and can lean on facts to support it. I dont think you can say the same for the bible.
How can you say it is true when that one fact is in dispute? If you can't see your hypocrisy then you aren't worth arguing with.

slydevl

07-26-05, 05:59 PM

or maybe noah didn't exist and there was a flood (probably a few really, but at least one of major proportions) and it killed a bunch of people and the survivors had to find a new place to live. maybe they couldn't figure out what happened or why and so they came up with a story. other came up with other stories (gilgamesh, for example).
Maybe there is no global warming......back at you

KrisJenkins77

07-26-05, 06:00 PM

How can you say it is true when that one fact is in dispute? If you can't see your hypocrisy then you aren't worth arguing with.All it disproves is that one piece. I'm not saying the bible is fake, JUST because it's highly unlikely that the flood story is real. Probably more like a myth or folk tale. I'm just saying, it doest help matters much.

slydevl

07-26-05, 06:03 PM

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 06:09 PM

eye witness account
eye witness account of the ark? i assume you aren't using the bible's eyewitness account because that would be silly. so you must be referring to somebody who's seen the ark.

of course, there's also people who see elvis, the loch ness monster, and big foot.

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 06:13 PM

Maybe there is no global warming......back at you
well, there IS global warming by definition because the earth is measruably warmer than it was one hundred years ago. but what is the significance and what caused it? who knows. maybe it has nothing to do with man and maybe it'll actually turn out to be good. totally possible. i am completely willing to accept that "global warming" might be a complete crock.

are you willing to accept that the bible might be a complete crock?

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 06:23 PM

Certainly possible. I've maintained all I long I think the Bible is truth and not fact. It seems to me much of science really isn't much better in many cases.
which is why a scientific argument about the bible is utterly pointless. if science doesn't fit, then "god did it" or that particular sliver is allegory. if enough doesn't fit, then it was written so that people of the time could understand it.

science is actually just the opposite of "truth and not fact". it is purely interested in the facts -- the "truth" is left up to somebody else. that is, science describes a phenomenon and doesn't really get into "what are the implications if this is true?" it either is a good description of the phenomonon or it's not -- the bigger picture is only important if it supports or disproves the smaller pieces.

the "big picure" stuff changes wildly as new theories come up. space-time, quantum mechanics, strings... these things have serious implications but are not examined with the idea that they need get us to a particular truth -- they simply are attempts to descibe the observable universe.

einstein once tried to come up with a theoretical force that it's inversely proportional to the distance two bodies are from each other. the goal was to describe a universe that didn't keep expanding because the implications of an expanding universe were not very welcomed. that is bad science, in my book.

hasbeen99

07-26-05, 07:21 PM

Maybe, but it's not been proven. All they can gather from the photos is maybe it's man-made, maybe it's not. But no one knows what it is either way.
Proof is a subjective term. At the very least, it's highly coincidental that a man-made structure fitting the description of the ark would be resting precisely where the Bible says it is. Some eyewitness statements (particularly the locals) say the structure is wooden, and it's way above any treeline.

hasbeen99

07-26-05, 08:18 PM

Yeah I remember that, it was a long time ago, and it appears it was a hoax (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html).
Good site. I actually read through that entire article and bookmarked the site. Looks like they make some pretty strong arguments.

I never saw the one they debunk, though. I will give them credit however -- they blast the crap out of that one doc. But again, I've seen several (excluding the one referenced on talk.org) and they've all been different. For the record, they're all portrayed as "inconclusive", but certainly haven't disproven anything.

Actually, you reminded me to point out a couple of things I wanted to address, if Adam named all the animals, why do we find new species everyday and name them ourselves?
Why wouldn't we? Who says God isn't still creating new species? The Bible doesn't say one way or the other.

And everything you mention in the last part, except for the sun being older than our solar system is what evolution says too. Fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into mammals and birds, mammals then evolved into humans.
The stages are similar, yes, and that's the point I was trying to convey. Darwin came up with that hypothesis in the early 19th century (if I'm not mistaken). Moses wrote Genesis about 5 1/2 millenia earlier, and he was just a nomadic shepherd at the time. How could he possibly have come up with that, considering his intelligence level and utter lack of scientific resources?

And if the bible is correct, does science show the Sun is one day (or how many days there were between the creation of the sun and the earth) older than the Earth? because if it doesn't, that would mean the 7 days weren’t really 7 days after all were they?
I've said elsewhere that I'm not one who hangs my hat on literal interpretation of the creation account timeline. The Bible itself is actually a little vague (throwing into question what is a "day" to God, for example).

Superfluous_Nut

07-26-05, 08:30 PM

The stages are similar, yes, and that's the point I was trying to convey. Darwin came up with that hypothesis in the early 19th century (if I'm not mistaken). Moses wrote Genesis about 5 1/2 millenia earlier, and he was just a nomadic shepherd at the time. How could he possibly have come up with that, considering his intelligence level and utter lack of scientific resources?
hey! didn't you read what i wrote about this?

plants (in particular fruit bearing ones)
whales (and fish, presumably)
birds
land animals
man

land animals come before birds and whales.

a simple nomadic shephard would probably think whales are fish when in fact they are quite different. if he put whales down seperately from fish and after land animals, then i might wonder where he got such a radical notion and could see how people would infer it was divine.

and fruit bearing trees didn't evolve until land animals evolved. a fruit's whole purpose is to produce a seed in a tasty wrapping so an animals will eat it and distribute its seeds somewhere away from the parent tree (and in a pile of fertilizer, too boot). without animals, why create something tasty for animals to eat?

edit: i see. you're still catching up! what's wrong, you got a life or something?

slydevl

07-26-05, 10:00 PM

eye witness account of the ark? i assume you aren't using the bible's eyewitness account because that would be silly. so you must be referring to somebody who's seen the ark.

of course, there's also people who see elvis, the loch ness monster, and big foot.
why would the bible's account be silly?

slydevl

07-26-05, 10:02 PM

are you willing to accept that the bible might be a complete crock?
No, I'm not willing to accept that. That is what faith is. Kinda like all the researchers who think they will find a cure for cancer when there is really no reason, other than hope, to think that.

slydevl

07-26-05, 10:04 PM

science is actually just the opposite of "truth and not fact". it is purely interested in the facts -- the "truth" is left up to somebody else. that is, science describes a phenomenon and doesn't really get into "what are the implications if this is true?" it either is a good description of the phenomonon or it's not -- the bigger picture is only important if it supports or disproves the smaller pieces.Horseshit. Evolution is currently truth and not fact at best.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 01:00 AM

why would the bible's account be silly?
no the use of the bible to prove the bible would be silly.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 01:06 AM

No, I'm not willing to accept that. That is what faith is. Kinda like all the researchers who think they will find a cure for cancer when there is really no reason, other than hope, to think that.
sure. kind of like that. only the people trying to find a cure for cancer are HOPING to find a cure, implying that they think it's possible that they won't. you, on the other hand, do not accept the possibility that you're wrong. that simply is not scientific. that is why the two worlds are incompatible.

science can shed zero light on religious matters. i'm fine with people believing what they want. i know people get something good from religion. i just think it's insincere when they turn to science to attempt to prove their faith when their faith cannot be disproven by those same mechanics.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 01:12 AM

Horseshit. Evolution is currently truth and not fact at best.
so what is the evidence that disproves evolution?

KrisJenkins77

07-27-05, 02:11 AM

Good site. I actually read through that entire article and bookmarked the site. Looks like they make some pretty strong arguments.

I never saw the one they debunk, though. I will give them credit however -- they blast the crap out of that one doc. But again, I've seen several (excluding the one referenced on talk.org) and they've all been different. For the record, they're all portrayed as "inconclusive", but certainly haven't disproven anything. Yeah I liked it too, I plan on reading the whole thing when I get some time.

Why wouldn't we? Who says God isn't still creating new species? The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. I had never thought of that, that's very possible

The stages are similar, yes, and that's the point I was trying to convey. Darwin came up with that hypothesis in the early 19th century (if I'm not mistaken). Moses wrote Genesis about 5 1/2 millenia earlier, and he was just a nomadic shepherd at the time. How could he possibly have come up with that, considering his intelligence level and utter lack of scientific resources? If science shows the sun to be older than the rest of our solar system, then yes it would be hard for Moses to know that, but it's also possible that he assumed that it would be created first, keep in mind many early civilizations worshipped the sun, and so it would make since for Moses to put the sun before earth. Now how he knew sea creatures came before land creatures, you got me. Lucky guess? :D

I've said elsewhere that I'm not one who hangs my hat on literal interpretation of the creation account timeline. The Bible itself is actually a little vague (throwing into question what is a "day" to God, for example). I wish my pastor had been like you HB. I first questioned my belief in God when my parents split up when I was 16, and my grandfather died of Alzheimer’s. He was a lot like you from a religious standpoint, which is why I respect you so much, and it killed me when he died. So I made an appointment with my pastor and asked him questions that he obviously had never been asked before, he basically said "Don't think, don't question, just believe!!" I think all Southern Baptist preachers are like that, although it did later come out that he was a jack-leg preacher who had been having an affair with my mother while she was still married to my father, nevertheless, it was at that point when I rejected God. I'm still not completely hopeless, but it will take a lot of time and effort to ever get me to believe again.

slydevl

07-27-05, 09:21 AM

no the use of the bible to prove the bible would be silly.
is the use of an eyewitness to prove an eyewitness silly?

slydevl

07-27-05, 09:21 AM

so what is the evidence that disproves evolution?
The better point is that there is little evidence that proves it. However, the cambrian explosion is just one thing accepted by science that puts it highly in doubt.

Galethog

07-27-05, 09:27 AM

This has been floating around the internet for years, but I still like it. It's an example of circular logic.

Kiss Hank's Ass
By James Huber

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well-groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first.

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh, yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well, no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of Karl" letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says, 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says, 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says, 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says, 'Eat right,' and item 8 says, 'wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says, 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says, 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying, 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes.

John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken.

John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears:

Mary: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her.

John: "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

The end

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 01:19 PM

is the use of an eyewitness to prove an eyewitness silly?
when it's in dispute that those people actually exist? yes.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 01:23 PM

The better point is that there is little evidence that proves it. However, the cambrian explosion is just one thing accepted by science that puts it highly in doubt.
explain how the cambrian explosion puts evolution in doubt. i musta missed that.

edit:

and when faced with "little evidence" and absolutely no evidence, i would probably go with the theory backed up by at least a little evidence.

slydevl

07-27-05, 01:53 PM

explain how the cambrian explosion puts evolution in doubt. i musta missed that.

edit:

and when faced with "little evidence" and absolutely no evidence, i would probably go with the theory backed up by at least a little evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 02:04 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
and...?

that doesn't exactly seem to put much doubt in evolution. the fossil record is pretty much older = more primitive. the more complex the organism, generally, the later it is found in the fossil record. that is pretty good evidence that things are evolving in successive generations.

slydevl

07-27-05, 02:11 PM

and...?

that doesn't exactly seem to put much doubt in evolution. the fossil record is pretty much older = more primitive. the more complex the organism, generally, the later it is found in the fossil record. that is pretty good evidence that things are evolving in successive generations.
Are you serious? That is your take on that?

There is no way evolution could support an explosion like that. No way.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 02:33 PM

Are you serious? That is your take on that?

There is no way evolution could support an explosion like that. No way.
i don't really see the "explosion". maybe you've got another site that explains what you're getting at a little better?

i think you're also confusing evolution with the origin of life. evolution is simply the theory the organisms change from generation to generation, and that change is generally towards the complex. it doesn't get into how it all started.

if aliens landed and left behind a jar of crazy organisms and they evolved into man, that's still evolution. if god created the first bits and pieces of life, and they evolved into man, that's still evolution. if life began from lightning and ooze or a comet hitting the earth or heat and pressure or whatever, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution.

evolution might move quickly or slowly or in steps. but evidence of one or the other doesn't discount the theory.

slydevl

07-27-05, 02:35 PM

i don't really see the "explosion". maybe you've got another site that explains what you're getting at a little better?

i think you're also confusing evolution with the origin of life. evolution is simply the theory the organisms change from generation to generation, and that change is generally towards the complex. it doesn't get into how it all started.

if aliens landed and left behind a jar of crazy organisms and they evolved into man, that's still evolution. if god created the first bits and pieces of life, and they evolved into man, that's still evolution. if life began from lightning and ooze or a comet hitting the earth or heat and pressure or whatever, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution.

evolution might move quickly or slowly or in steps. but evidence of one or the other doesn't discount the theory.
Kinda hard to argue with someone about evolution who doesn't even grasp the concept. Thanks for the "lesson". I'm done.

HardHarry

07-27-05, 02:49 PM

Kinda hard to argue with someone about evolution who doesn't even grasp the concept. Thanks for the "lesson". I'm done.

Well, admitting your mistakes is the first step Sly.

Nice synopsis Nut.

slydevl

07-27-05, 02:57 PM

Well, admitting your mistakes is the first step Sly.

Nice synopsis Nut.
Nice. Own yourself. You won't find a single evolutionist, not one, who says evolution can move that fast.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 03:12 PM

Nice. Own yourself. You won't find a single evolutionist, not one, who says evolution can move that fast.
so you're saying that evolutionists dispute the fossil record of the "cambrian explosion"?

also:

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

so yeah, probably not a single one -- rather, thousands.

slydevl

07-27-05, 03:16 PM

slydevl

07-27-05, 03:17 PM

so you're saying that evolutionists dispute the fossil record of the "cambrian explosion"?

also:

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

so yeah, probably not a single one -- rather, thousands.:lmao:

You don't even know that you are owning yourself. :rofl:

We aren't talking about species. We are talking about whole phyla.

P.S. That is a proposed explanation with no backing evidence. PArt of the reason science is such a fantasy.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 03:33 PM

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bigbang.html
he quotes gould, so he must have known about the theory of punctuated equilibrium (since it predates the time article by 20+ years).

slydevl

07-27-05, 03:37 PM

he quotes gould, so he must have known about the theory of punctuated equilibrium (since it predates the time article by 20+ years).

:roflmao:

Puntuated equilibrium is an example of what happens when scientists "theories" come crumbling down

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 03:39 PM

:lmao:

You don't even know that you are owning yourself. :rofl:

We aren't talking about species. We are talking about whole phyla.

P.S. That is a proposed explanation with no backing evidence. PArt of the reason science is such a fantasy.

whole phyla? what is that supposed to mean? i think you were right earlier when you suggested it was difficult to argue with somebody who doesn't grasp the concept.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 03:40 PM

:roflmao:

Puntuated equilibrium is an example of what happens when scientists "theories" come crumbling down
yeah, scientists have a nasty habit of learning things.

slydevl

07-27-05, 03:42 PM

whole phyla? what is that supposed to mean? i think you were right earlier when you suggested it was difficult to argue with somebody who doesn't grasp the concept.
Yep, you are obviously poorly schooled. Don't even know Katie Put Candy On Father's Good Shirt

slydevl

07-27-05, 03:42 PM

yeah, scientists have a nasty habit of learning things.
I guess, if blind flailing can be called learning. You must be learning right now.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 04:15 PM

Yep, you are obviously poorly schooled. Don't even know Katie Put Candy On Father's Good Shirt
no, i'm pretty well schooled. your assertion that we're not talking about species and instead talking about "whole phyla" is a bit odd to me. "whole phyla" doesn't mean anything in this context. many of the animals found in the cambrian "explosion" are the sole examples of their particular phylum. how does an animal get classified into a particular phylum? it's totally arbitrary. theoretically, animals that share a common ancestry should be in the same branch, be it order or family or whatever. oh wait. you probably don't believe in any of that since you don't seem to believe in genetic branches.

given that these animals are about as old as we've seen, the concept of ancestry is moot. given that they're also extinct, the need to seperate them into specific classes or groups or species doesn't exist -- they're dead ends.

slydevl

07-27-05, 04:24 PM

no, i'm pretty well schooled. your assertion that we're not talking about species and instead talking about "whole phyla" is a bit odd to me. "whole phyla" doesn't mean anything in this context. many of the animals found in the cambrian "explosion" are the sole examples of their particular phylum. how does an animal get classified into a particular phylum? it's totally arbitrary. theoretically, animals that share a common ancestry should be in the same branch, be it order or family or whatever. oh wait. you probably don't believe in any of that since you don't seem to believe in genetic branches.

given that these animals are about as old as we've seen, the concept of ancestry is moot. given that they're also extinct, the need to seperate them into specific classes or groups or species doesn't exist -- they're dead ends.
Tose phyla are not represented in the fossil record before the cambrian period.

"All the known phyla, except one, along with the oddities with which I began this discussion, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. "

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 04:35 PM

Tose phyla are not represented in the fossil record before the cambrian period.

"All the known phyla, except one, along with the oddities with which I began this discussion, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. "
that has since been amended.

from your wikki reference:

According to more recent research, only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. On talkorigins.org, in response to the Creationist claim of sudden appearance, Mark Isaak [Isaak 2004] gives the following summary:

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants post-date the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya [Brown 1999]. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian [Wang et al. 1999]. Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla don't appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference [Collins 1994], 11 of 32 metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, 8 after the Cambrian, and 12 have no fossil record.

slydevl

07-27-05, 04:39 PM

According to one reference [Collins 1994], 11 of 32 metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, 8 after the Cambrian, and 12 have no fossil record.
So we go from one to 11. Point made. Game won in that it caused evolutionists to spasm and start tossing out unverified shit like punctuated equilibrium. Science takes a black eye.

HardHarry

07-27-05, 04:40 PM

I love it when Sly ignores the importance of the fossil record's evolution in this equation.

Sly, you sure do spend a lot of time busting out the "owned" phrases on a no-sniping board. :banned:

KrisJenkins77

07-27-05, 04:41 PM

Yep, you are obviously poorly schooled. Don't even know Katie Put Candy On Father's Good Shirt
Kingdom, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species right?

slydevl

07-27-05, 04:46 PM

I love it when Sly ignores the importance of the fossil record's evolution in this equation.

Sly, you sure do spend a lot of time busting out the "owned" phrases on a no-sniping board. :banned:
I knew you were a whiner I just didn't know how much. Owned means "you're wrong". If you can't say that on this forum I don't want to be a member anyway.

vpkozel

07-27-05, 04:51 PM

no, i'm pretty well schooled. your assertion that we're not talking about species and instead talking about "whole phyla" is a bit odd to me. "whole phyla" doesn't mean anything in this context. many of the animals found in the cambrian "explosion" are the sole examples of their particular phylum. how does an animal get classified into a particular phylum? it's totally arbitrary. theoretically, animals that share a common ancestry should be in the same branch, be it order or family or whatever. oh wait. you probably don't believe in any of that since you don't seem to believe in genetic branches.

given that these animals are about as old as we've seen, the concept of ancestry is moot. given that they're also extinct, the need to seperate them into specific classes or groups or species doesn't exist -- they're dead ends.

I have to tell you, I don't know a whole lot about the Cambrian Explosion, but unless you can disprove it, why would you be so defensive about it or so prepared to throw it out?

I thought the scientific method required revalidation of a theory after contrary evidence comes to light.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 04:53 PM

So we go from one to 11. Point made. Game won in that it caused evolutionists to spasm and start tossing out unverified shit like punctuated equilibrium. Science takes a black eye.
so the science behind the discovery of the "cambrian explosion" is sound, but the science behind evolution theory is not sound.

worth noting that we've also gone from 32 to 11. the fossil record is incomplete. it's entirely possible that we'll hone that down even further.

regardless, there are plenty of evolutionists who have little problem with the cambrian explosion. in fact, they probably welcome anomolies like that as it helps them gain further understanding of their field.

slydevl

07-27-05, 04:54 PM

regardless, there are plenty of evolutionists who have little problem with the cambrian explosion. in fact, they probably welcome anomolies like that as it helps them gain further understanding of their field.
All it helps them do is throw out ideas like punctuated equilibrium that are taught as fact but have no more merit than a creator.

vpkozel

07-27-05, 04:59 PM

worth noting that we've also gone from 32 to 11. the fossil record is incomplete. it's entirely possible that we'll hone that down even further.

Aren't you talking about 23? The 11 that we know and the 12 with no fossil record?

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:13 PM

I have to tell you, I don't know a whole lot about the Cambrian Explosion, but unless you can disprove it, why would you be so defensive about it or so prepared to throw it out?

I thought the scientific method required revalidation of a theory after contrary evidence comes to light.
sure, but the most up to date information is always best to work with. there's a big difference between saying that all but one branch of known life sprang into existance during the course of 5 million years of evolution vs there was a period of 30 million years during which time a wide spectrum of relatively complex life forms reveal themselves in the fossil record.

particularly when the argument revolves around "that seems really unlikely".

and again, evolution is change. the method, the speed, the forces at work... they're seperate theories with stronger or weaker supporting evidence.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:16 PM

All it helps them do is throw out ideas like punctuated equilibrium that are taught as fact but have no more merit than a creator.
that's a long way from:

"You won't find a single evolutionist, not one, who says evolution can move that fast."

so nobody is a proponent of it on page 10 and now on page 11 it's being taught as fact. i'll be damned if you didn't just evolve.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:19 PM

Aren't you talking about 23? The 11 that we know and the 12 with no fossil record?no. we know 20 -- 11 show up in the camrian, 1 is pre-camrian, 8 are post cambrian, and 12 have no record. no record, i presume, means they are things like jellyfish or octopods or other creatures that leave to discernable fossils.

edit:
of the 20 we have a record of, 11 show up in the cambrian. but it's worth pointing out that it's difficult to declare just how different these creatures are. simply that they've been put in different phyla doesn't really mean much. i'm sure it was done for a good reason, but a sole examples, the difference between them is not necessarily greater than the difference between species.

vpkozel

07-27-05, 05:20 PM

sure, but the most up to date information is always best to work with. there's a big difference between saying that all but one branch of known life sprang into existance during the course of 5 million years of evolution vs there was a period of 30 million years during which time a wide spectrum of relatively complex life forms reveal themselves in the fossil record.

particularly when the argument revolves around "that seems really unlikely".

and again, evolution is change. the method, the speed, the forces at work... they're seperate theories with stronger or weaker supporting evidence.

But it certainly seems like there is a big hole out there that no one can explain - and teh only thing that some people are willing to do is to rule out anything that has to do with a God even though they have no idea what to replace it with.

That is the kind of "blind loyalty" I was referring to earlier in this thread.

vpkozel

07-27-05, 05:22 PM

no. we know 20 -- 11 show up in the camrian, 1 is pre-camrian, 8 are post cambrian, and 12 have no record. no record, i presume, means they are things like jellyfish or octopods or other creatures that leave to discernable fossils.

This blurb says more than half of teh modern phyla showed up in the cambrian. That's why the 11 confuses me.

Major diversification of life in the Cambrian Explosion; more than half of modern animal phyla appear, along with a number of extinct and problematic forms. Archeocyatha abundant in the early Cambrian. Trilobites, Priapulida, sponges, inarticulate brachiopods, and many other forms all common. First vertebrates appear. anomalocarids are top predators. Edicarian animals rare, then die out.

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

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:34 PM

This blurb says more than half of teh modern phyla showed up in the cambrian. That's why the 11 confuses me.
yeah, i think the reason is that many of these phyla are dead ends.

the majority of animals today show up in like 9 or 10 different phyla, even tho i think the generally agree that there are something like 35 phyla that have been indentified.

in reality, there's probably heirarchy here, too. phyla (indeed, all taxonomic identifiers) have additional groupings. phyla are grouped into superphyla. how many superphyla showed up then? the phyla classification of these animals is arbitrary and very much in debate.

vpkozel

07-27-05, 05:36 PM

in reality, there's probably heirarchy here, too. phyla (indeed, all taxonomic identifiers) have additional groupings. phyla are grouped into superphyla. how many superphyla showed up then? the phyla classification of these animals is arbitrary and very much in debate.

OK - who else wants a turn on the geek-cycle?

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:37 PM

But it certainly seems like there is a big hole out there that no one can explain - and teh only thing that some people are willing to do is to rule out anything that has to do with a God even though they have no idea what to replace it with.

That is the kind of "blind loyalty" I was referring to earlier in this thread.
so if there's a book that says the far side of the moon is littered with ruins of an ancient civilization. would you say it's good science to assume that the book is right because the scientist of the 19th century has no information to the contrary?

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 05:46 PM

OK - who else wants a turn on the geek-cycle?
genetically speaking, the branches really ought to be simple forks. at any stage there should be only 2 choices. but then more complex subtley different organisms would have ludicrously long names to fit into the taxonomy. so the system is sort of arbitrary and sort of genetic. like the mammal orders atriodactyl and perissodactyl are segrated by how many toes the animal has -- even or odd. that's a hold-over from the strictly observational method of identifying animals. and there's something like 200 members of this order so you'd need a ton of binary splits to order them all out in a purely genetic system.

hasbeen99

07-27-05, 07:23 PM

careful, hb. if this turns out to NOT be the ark, would you then say the noah story is bogus or would you say they just haven't found it yet?
I won't say the Noah story is bogus until I see something to disprove it. It's possible they haven't found it yet, but it's also possible it's completely rotten away, meaning it cannot be found. We're talking about a wooden boat that's over 5,000 years old that was afloat for about a year with lots of bacteria and animal waste in it.

the problem with proving the bible is that the evidence counter to biblical teaching is discounted as being wrong (can't trust science!) but then the evidence that supports the bible is always proffered as being above reproach (science even agrees!).
Agendas exist on both sides, to be sure. I can only speak for myself when I tell you that I have found very little in the way of science that I've even come close to discounting. Science is neither universally trustworthy, nor is it universally untrustworthy. It is what it is.

KrisJenkins77

07-27-05, 08:03 PM

It is what it is.
Coach Fox? :D

hasbeen99

07-27-05, 08:05 PM

actually, not highly doubtful. let's just take the biological elements from the creation story (forget how light was created prior to the sun).

1. god creates grass and trees that bear fruit
2. god creates whales (and other sea life) and birds
3. god creates land animals
4. god creates man

obviously man would put man over animals and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to put animals over plants.

so the question is, what about the others -- whales, birds, land animals?

technically speaking, "land animals" are the first of this group. birds didn't adapt flying from water environments and whales are mamals, which clearly come from very late in the chain. it's pretty messed up. not to mention, the fruit bearing plants would come AFTER land animals had a good foothold on earth (no reason to make tasty fruit without something to eat it).

it's not surprising that a "primitive" man would not recognize the differences between whales and fish. or that he'd just lump all land animals into one group (reptiles, amphibians, mamals).

so the claim that genesis mirrors the scientific description of how life unfolded on earth is way off the mark.
What we must keep in mind in this debate is that neither side is rock solid in its claims. Genesis is written in poetic form, and the scientific side is based on mathematical dating formulas and archeological and geologic theory. There is little in the way of absolutes to be found on either side.

The Genesis account's list is thus (based on Genesis 1)
1. The planet itself -- (land, sea, atmosphere)
2. Vegetation
3. Sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies
4. Marine fauna and birds
5. Land-based fauna
6. Man

The general thinking is that Moses was inspired by God to write this account. There is some merit to your assertion, though, equating a sort of heirarchy with sequence of events -- I'll concede that. But my point is that a nomadic shepherd (who, by the way, almost certainly never saw the ocean even once in his life) didn't have a lot to go on to come up with that.

Granted, the sequence does seem significantly off from a purely scientific point of view (vegetation before celestial bodies?) to the degree of being impossible. From a spiritual standpoint however, it does seem possible, even if unlikely. Another thing to consider is that I've heard that the way ancient Hebrew was written (particularly in artistic form), the sequence of words and phrases was less important than the idea that they were simply included. In other words, the point was that all that happened, not that it happened in that particular order. But again, that's from a pro-Biblical position.

That's where the purpose factor comes into play. Within the context of creation history, the Bible and general science have differing motives. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges, but not quite, I suppose.

hasbeen99

07-27-05, 08:13 PM

not sure i totally understand the question.

the point i was trying to make to hb, was that he's really quick to look to science when it helps him, and then less ready when it doesn't. and in the end, he doesn't actually care about the science, i think. he believes and so he's looking for things that re-enforce that belief, but without them, he won't stop believing.
You're not far off in that assessment, Nut. I'm still open to contradicting science, because I'm still interested in truth. But the dynamic of the debate has changed for me since I began my research around 8 years ago. The foundation of the Bible centers on people, not natural history. Yet the most common arguments from the scientific community seem to want to focus on the latter. To me, it's become a secondary argument. If someone wants to unravel my faith, show me scientific evidence that tears apart the Gospels, for example, because that is where the core of my faith rests -- not on whether the chicken-and-egg argument is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.

hasbeen99

07-27-05, 08:18 PM

the bible is can't be proven wrong because it's not science. however, claims made by the catholic church have not necessarily held up very well.
The Bible isn't science, but it can be proven wrong with the right evidence (taking into consideration, of course that 'proof' is a subjective term).

IMHO, the Catholic church has a bit of a history of free-lancing when it comes to Christian doctrine.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 08:38 PM

What we must keep in mind in this debate is that neither side is rock solid in its claims. Genesis is written in poetic form, and the scientific side is based on mathematical dating formulas and archeological and geologic theory. There is little in the way of absolutes to be found on either side.

The Genesis account's list is thus (based on Genesis 1)
1. The planet itself -- (land, sea, atmosphere)
2. Vegetation
3. Sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies
4. Marine fauna and birds
5. Land-based fauna
6. Man

The general thinking is that Moses was inspired by God to write this account. There is some merit to your assertion, though, equating a sort of heirarchy with sequence of events -- I'll concede that. But my point is that a nomadic shepherd (who, by the way, almost certainly never saw the ocean even once in his life) didn't have a lot to go on to come up with that.

i don't think human intelligence has changed a whole lot in 5000 years. certainly knowledge has, but i would think a 30 year old man of any epoch could probably tell the difference between plants, fish, fowl, and land animals as sort of roughly seperate groups.

Granted, the sequence does seem significantly off from a purely scientific point of view (vegetation before celestial bodies?) to the degree of being impossible. From a spiritual standpoint however, it does seem possible, even if unlikely. Another thing to consider is that I've heard that the way ancient Hebrew was written (particularly in artistic form), the sequence of words and phrases was less important than the idea that they were simply included. In other words, the point was that all that happened, not that it happened in that particular order. But again, that's from a pro-Biblical position.

that totally valid, but is sort of like lucy pulling the football away from charlie brown as he's about to kick it. if the ancient hebrew in the bible is poetic and can't be read as a linear sequence of events, then i think it's dishonest to suggest that the genesis story mirrors the scientific account. i have tons of respect for you and your beliefs, but i think you're trying to have it both ways -- faith and proof. i totally accept that faith requires no proof or evidence or anything. i can offer no proof to counter one's faith. but when they start citing evidence to back up their faith, then i can't help but feel like responding. invariably, their faith is seperate and distinct from the evidence they provide. which is fine, but it makes me wonder why they proffer it in the first place if it's not important.

That's where the purpose factor comes into play. Within the context of creation history, the Bible and general science have differing motives. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges, but not quite, I suppose.
yes. science and religion and like oil and water. not to say that a religious man can't be scientific or scientific man can't be religious, just that faith has no place in science and science cannot speak to questions of faith. at least, as far as the judeo/christian faith goes.

Superfluous_Nut

07-27-05, 08:51 PM

You're not far off in that assessment, Nut. I'm still open to contradicting science, because I'm still interested in truth. But the dynamic of the debate has changed for me since I began my research around 8 years ago. The foundation of the Bible centers on people, not natural history. Yet the most common arguments from the scientific community seem to want to focus on the latter. To me, it's become a secondary argument. If someone wants to unravel my faith, show me scientific evidence that tears apart the Gospels, for example, because that is where the core of my faith rests -- not on whether the chicken-and-egg argument is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.
i think that's more out of self defense from the scientific community. take evolution as an example. in putting together a theory that explains the fossil record, scientists came up with the notion of evolution - that species don't just materialize out of nowhere, they share common ancestry with other species. the dominance of marsupials in australia indicates that the placental mammal line came about after australia split off from pangea. new world monkeys developed prehensile tails after africa and south america split apart. there are plenty of basic bits of evidence that support the notion that the animal life today is not what it was a few million years ago.

the problem is that conflicts with biblical teachings, so bible scholars attempt to discredit the science not by simply saying "i don't believe it" or "whatever floats your boat, sinner" but by actively condemning the science with their own interpretations of the facts or sprinkled in with the bible and theology. certainly there's some back and forth, but i believe the church fired the first shots.

slydevl

07-27-05, 09:29 PM

that's a long way from:

"You won't find a single evolutionist, not one, who says evolution can move that fast."

so nobody is a proponent of it on page 10 and now on page 11 it's being taught as fact. i'll be damned if you didn't just evolve.
The theory describes speciation. It is also a guess and nothing else. It is not a part of the theory of evolution which describes extremely slow change.

vpkozel

07-28-05, 07:55 AM

a nomadic shepherd (who, by the way, almost certainly never saw the ocean even once in his life) didn't have a lot to go on to come up with that.

Um - didn't he part one?

KrisJenkins77

07-28-05, 01:59 PM

Um - didn't he part one? :thud:

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 02:56 PM

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 02:59 PM

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 03:08 PM

kj asked about the ark and hb said it was found in turkey. that was when i said he should probably not go down that route.
You're right -- I responded as if it was a certainty, and it's not. I think what the satellites show very likely is the remains of the ark, but I wouldn't bet my life on it, or any amount of money. But like I said in my earlier post, if it isn't, no big deal. It could easily be completely decomposed by now, meaning it'll never be found. That's fine by me, my faith wasn't built on that, and doesn't rest on it.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 03:29 PM

Here's what I don’t get about the whole Noah's Ark thing. God told Noah to build an arc that was not large enough to hold all of the animals in the world. I mean you have to take in consideration for food for more than a month for all of them, the carnivores would need meat. I mean I just don’t see that as a realistic story.
The logistical aspects of it don't really work, do they? I tend to think that God did continue to create new species after the flood. The only evidence I have of that is the new species that seem to keep popping up from time to time all over the planet.

I also think that for the Noah's ark story to work, God would have had to intervene as far as keeping the animals healthy. It rained and flooded for over a month, but they were afloat for much, much longer. The ark's size is specifically outlined in Genesis. The variables are the number of animals and the amount of food. Personally, my theory is that God worked a miracle in that He somehow He make enough room inside the ark for everything to fit. (Poor example maybe, but think of and "enlargement charm" from the Harry Potter series.) If I'm right, it wasn't the only time a 'something from nothing' sort of miracle appears in the Bible.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 03:30 PM

Maybe Noah only rescued his farm animals because it was just his region that what flooded and not the world.
This is another scenario I agree is very possible.

Superfluous_Nut

07-28-05, 03:36 PM

The theory describes speciation. It is also a guess and nothing else. It is not a part of the theory of evolution which describes extremely slow change.
describes speciation...? you say that like it's somehow different from the generic term of evolution. is that because you don't believe lots of little changes can add up to large changes? so varieties of species make sense and maybe even genera, but any more substantial change is inconceivable. is that right?

and again, evolution doesn't address rate of change, only the change itself. i don't believe darwin's original theory of natural selection describes anything about a time frame aside from "generations".

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 03:54 PM

edit: i see. you're still catching up! what's wrong, you got a life or something?
My phone's ringing every 90 to 120 seconds. :thud:

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 04:53 PM

If science shows the sun to be older than the rest of our solar system, then yes it would be hard for Moses to know that, but it's also possible that he assumed that it would be created first, keep in mind many early civilizations worshipped the sun, and so it would make since for Moses to put the sun before earth.
It's possible, but ranking the sun above the earth in any regard doesn't really fit with Moses' writing. Nothing I've seen that he wrote would hint that he might make that assumption, though that certainly doesn't disprove your hypothesis.

I wish my pastor had been like you HB. I first questioned my belief in God when my parents split up when I was 16, and my grandfather died of Alzheimer’s. He was a lot like you from a religious standpoint, which is why I respect you so much, and it killed me when he died. So I made an appointment with my pastor and asked him questions that he obviously had never been asked before, he basically said "Don't think, don't question, just believe!!" I think all Southern Baptist preachers are like that, although it did later come out that he was a jack-leg preacher who had been having an affair with my mother while she was still married to my father, nevertheless, it was at that point when I rejected God. I'm still not completely hopeless, but it will take a lot of time and effort to ever get me to believe again.
It must be one of the great ironies of our time and the greatest tragedy of Christianity that so many people have been lost their faith from the words and actions of other believers. It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

The two blows you took (your parents' divorce and your grandfather's Alzheimer's disease and subsequent death) are enough to shake anyone up. It's hard to believe in a loving God when you get your guts ripped out like that and your whole world gets turned upside down. Trust me, I've been there. I know what it feels like to have the things you've counted on your whole life to always be there suddenly get taken away or changed forever.

And as someone who knows, I can tell you with confidence that the God you were taught to believe in as a child, the God your grandfather believed in, is still there -- He always has been, and always will be. He hasn't changed, nor will He. Ever. If there's anything I can do to help you see and believe that again, please let me know.

Ignatowski

07-28-05, 05:12 PM

It's possible, but ranking the sun above the earth in any regard doesn't really fit with Moses' writing. Nothing I've seen that he wrote would hint that he might make that assumption, though that certainly doesn't disprove your hypothesis.

It must be one of the great ironies of our time and the greatest tragedy of Christianity that so many people have been lost their faith from the words and actions of other believers. It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

The two blows you took (your parents' divorce and your grandfather's Alzheimer's disease and subsequent death) are enough to shake anyone up. It's hard to believe in a loving God when you get your guts ripped out like that and your whole world gets turned upside down. Trust me, I've been there. I know what it feels like to have the things you've counted on your whole life to always be there suddenly get taken away or changed forever.

And as someone who knows, I can tell you with confidence that the God you were taught to believe in as a child, the God your grandfather believed in, is still there -- He always has been, and always will be. He hasn't changed, nor will He. Ever. If there's anything I can do to help you see and believe that again, please let me know.

You're a good guy Hasbeen.....even though i don't agree with you i think you are a real good guy and have a lot of respect for you.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 05:14 PM

Kingdom, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species right?
I had forgotten about that acronym completely, and I was wondering where the heck Sly was going with that. Thanks, KJ. :)

vpkozel

07-28-05, 05:21 PM

It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

Dude - honestly no, you have not. At least not on tbr.

I have never been more serious about anything I have said on this board.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 05:25 PM

Coach Fox? :D
:D

Patti

07-28-05, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by hasbeen99
It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

I think everyone can look back and see things we have said or done that we could have handled in a better way.

We've got to realize that bad things happen to good people and your faith in people is different than your faith in God. The last part of that is why I'm really not that keen on churches or organized religion like I used to be.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 06:27 PM

i don't think human intelligence has changed a whole lot in 5000 years. certainly knowledge has, but i would think a 30 year old man of any epoch could probably tell the difference between plants, fish, fowl, and land animals as sort of roughly seperate groups.Sure, but I was referring to the order, not so much the classification. But as you pointed out, I've actually defeated my own argument with the information I presented about ancient Hebrew only being moderately concerned with chronological order of events.

...i think you're trying to have it both ways -- faith and proof. i totally accept that faith requires no proof or evidence or anything. i can offer no proof to counter one's faith. but when they start citing evidence to back up their faith, then i can't help but feel like responding. invariably, their faith is seperate and distinct from the evidence they provide. which is fine, but it makes me wonder why they proffer it in the first place if it's not important.I can see how you could get that impression from me in this thread (and probably a few others), in the context of the creation debate. But honestly, that's not really the way I look at it.

I'll freely admit there is FAR more science available for that genre than there is Biblical reference, and as as I've already admitted, the Biblical references are tenuous at best. The way I look at the two is that generally speaking, they tend to compliment each other (aside from the origin itself, which is in debate even in the scientific community). The more you dive into details, the more the two sides tend to part company in some areas -- I'll give you that. But given the uncertainty of both sides' evidence, to me it's always been a pretty fruitless debate. Natural science is not what a Christian (or Jew, for that matter) should be hanging their faith on, in my humble opinion. To do so would be to miss the point of the message of the Bible.

The real 'brass tacks' debates center around Jesus and the Gospels, in my opinion. Not coincidentally, that's also where the Bible is clearest in its message. No frills, no poetry, just straightforward prose (albeit in ancient Greek).

science and religion and like oil and water. not to say that a religious man can't be scientific or scientific man can't be religious, just that faith has no place in science and science cannot speak to questions of faith. at least, as far as the judeo/christian faith goes.I respectfully disagree. I think a better illustration would be oil and vinegar. Or perhaps dance partners. Sometimes they blend together, sometimes they don't. Each has value in and of itself, but when mixed can become something even better.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 06:39 PM

i think that's more out of self defense from the scientific community. take evolution as an example. in putting together a theory that explains the fossil record, scientists came up with the notion of evolution - that species don't just materialize out of nowhere, they share common ancestry with other species.

...the problem is that conflicts with biblical teachings, so bible scholars attempt to discredit the science not by simply saying "i don't believe it" or "whatever floats your boat, sinner" but by actively condemning the science with their own interpretations of the facts or sprinkled in with the bible and theology. certainly there's some back and forth, but i believe the church fired the first shots.[/i]
You're probably not wrong about that, but there are still dogmatic shots being fired from both sides. There are certainly believers who cling to a literal interpretation of the creation account, and at the same time there are scientists who just as dogmatically cling to bad science and faulty theory. Then there are those in the middle, trying to look for common ground between both sides in an effort to find what's really true. I'd like to think I could be counted among those in the middle.

Superfluous_Nut

07-28-05, 06:51 PM

I can see how you could get that impression from me in this thread (and probably a few others), in the context of the creation debate. But honestly, that's not really the way I look at it.
yeah, i understand. that's why i was warning about going down this road (providing evidence to support a conclusion of faith). i haven't seen to do it very often, and that's probably why i can respect your take on things. you've never tried to "prove it" before that i can recall. and not to say i disrespect sly's or vp's (or other's) faith, just that i enjoy arguing with them.

I'll freely admit there is FAR more science available for that genre than there is Biblical reference, and as as I've already admitted, the Biblical references are tenuous at best. The way I look at the two is that generally speaking, they tend to compliment each other (aside from the origin itself, which is in debate even in the scientific community). The more you dive into details, the more the two sides tend to part company in some areas -- I'll give you that. But given the uncertainty of both sides' evidence, to me it's always been a pretty fruitless debate. Natural science is not what a Christian (or Jew, for that matter) should be hanging their faith on, in my humble opinion. To do so would be to miss the point of the message of the Bible.

exactly.

The real 'brass tacks' debates center around Jesus and the Gospels, in my opinion. Not coincidentally, that's also where the Bible is clearest in its message. No frills, no poetry, just straightforward prose (albeit in ancient Greek).

one might say, the religion itself evolved. :)

I respectfully disagree. I think a better illustration would be oil and vinegar. Or perhaps dance partners. Sometimes they blend together, sometimes they don't. Each has value in and of itself, but when mixed can become something even better.
well, yeah... maybe we'll have to disagree on that. i don't see how christian faith can really bring much to science. certainly scholarly exploration of the bible can be scientific, and i'm sure there's plenty of solid history in the bible, but you don't have to have faith to explore that information.

science can't prove or disprove faith and faith can't change science.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:14 PM

Um - didn't he part one?
Well, yes and no.

I had thought the Red Sea was just a huge lake, much like Salt Lake or the the Black Sea. Turns out it actually is open to the Arabian Sea through a narrow channel to the south (at least today), making it a large bay.

When I think of oceans (especially with regard to large marine life like whales and such), I think of open water. Yes, the Red Sea most likely was home to some ocean-going marine life, but not the full spectrum of it like one would find on, say, the east or west coasts of the United States, or even the Mediterranean coast.

Here's a pic I found:

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:19 PM

You're a good guy Hasbeen.....even though i don't agree with you i think you are a real good guy and have a lot of respect for you.
Thanks, Ig. You're not too bad yourself. :)

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:23 PM

Dude - honestly no, you have not. At least not on tbr.

I have never been more serious about anything I have said on this board.
Mostly pre-TBR. Almost lost my best friend one time because I debated him into a corner on a road trip. There have been other mistakes, too. :(

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:28 PM

We've got to realize that bad things happen to good people and your faith in people is different than your faith in God. The last part of that is why I'm really not that keen on churches or organized religion like I used to be.

Not a bad way of looking at it. Not bad at all.

Superfluous_Nut

07-28-05, 07:36 PM

Well, yes and no.

I had thought the Red Sea was just a huge lake, much like Salt Lake or the the Black Sea. Turns out it actually is open to the Arabian Sea through a narrow channel to the south (at least today), making it a large bay.

When I think of oceans (especially with regard to large marine life like whales and such), I think of open water. Yes, the Red Sea most likely was home to some ocean-going marine life, but not the full spectrum of it like one would find on, say, the east or west coasts of the United States, or even the Mediterranean coast.

Here's a pic I found:
yeah, but what does genesis say? "whales" litterally? i've seen "sea monsters" as a translation as well. i think it's probably just meant to be "creatures of waters" which were probably not seen as being so friendly towards man (the water in general is probably recognized as being completely alien and inhospitable to man).

interestingly, the red sea probably had a major flood event happen there, too. there's a sliver of a channel (geologically speaking). as the ocean levels rise, the water would crest the land at this point and then flood through, cutting a deeper channel and letting more water rush in. the black sea is thought to have been formed this way, and perhaps the mediterranian as well.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:44 PM

one might say, the religion itself evolved. :)
Actually, it did :). Jesus took it to the next level and streamlined it at the same time.

i don't see how christian faith can really bring much to science.
I think Christianity (or more appropriately knowledge of God) offers one significant contribution to scientific study -- purpose. I've said before that if science is the 'what' and 'how', God is the 'why'. That may be oversimplified, but bringing God into natural science allows people to see intent and even love throughout the natural world.

science can't prove or disprove faith and faith can't change science.
Agreed. Trust (faith) is a decision, not the answer to an equation. And decisions are subjective by nature.

hasbeen99

07-28-05, 07:58 PM

yeah, but what does genesis say? "whales" litterally? i've seen "sea monsters" as a translation as well. i think it's probably just meant to be "creatures of waters" which were probably not seen as being so friendly towards man (the water in general is probably recognized as being completely alien and inhospitable to man).
Point taken. I just checked, and the terms used are "great sea monsters" and "living creatures of every kind". So I guess we kind of got off track there. See how sticky this can get?! :D

interestingly, the red sea probably had a major flood event happen there, too. there's a sliver of a channel (geologically speaking). as the ocean levels rise, the water would crest the land at this point and then flood through, cutting a deeper channel and letting more water rush in. the black sea is thought to have been formed this way, and perhaps the mediterranian as well.
Careful, Nut... you might be close to supporting the Bible's position there. :wink2:

Superfluous_Nut

07-28-05, 08:25 PM

Careful, Nut... you might be close to supporting the Bible's position there. :wink2:
heh... not really, tho.

the continental shelf is the extremeties of landmass during the periods when the ocean recedes (like during an ice age). if you take a look at a map that shows the shelf's extent, you can see how the land was different during these periods (or at least, a hint at how it might have looked depending on just what the ocean level was).

the red sea, the black sea, probably other seas of various colors... they didn't exist -- or at least, they didn't exist as they are today. think of death valley.... imagine the water level rose enough to make it just over the "rim" of death valley (i know, there are probably mountains and such, which is why it hasn't happened). as soon as the water could make it, it would flow into the valley and fill it up in a pretty short period of time. people in the area would freak out.

in the most extreme case, people would be killed in a large flood. in the less extreme case, they'd need to move as the shoreline kept creeping up. either way, you'd have remnants of "land life" at the bottom of a seas.

now did ancient people find these remnants and make up stories to explain them or did the ancient stories survive by word of mouth till somebody finally wrote them down in the form of the day? either seems just as likely to me and both seem more likely than the stories in the bible.

KrisJenkins77

07-28-05, 10:29 PM

I had forgotten about that acronym completely, and I was wondering where the heck Sly was going with that. Thanks, KJ. :)No problem HB.

KrisJenkins77

07-28-05, 10:33 PM

The logistical aspects of it don't really work, do they? I tend to think that God did continue to create new species after the flood. The only evidence I have of that is the new species that seem to keep popping up from time to time all over the planet.

I also think that for the Noah's ark story to work, God would have had to intervene as far as keeping the animals healthy. It rained and flooded for over a month, but they were afloat for much, much longer. The ark's size is specifically outlined in Genesis. The variables are the number of animals and the amount of food. Personally, my theory is that God worked a miracle in that He somehow He make enough room inside the ark for everything to fit. (Poor example maybe, but think of and "enlargement charm" from the Harry Potter series.) If I'm right, it wasn't the only time a 'something from nothing' sort of miracle appears in the Bible.
See, that's the problem I have with the bible. You can't disprove anything because God can do whatever he wants. Evolution, on the other hand, is bound by the limits of science and mathematics.

KrisJenkins77

07-28-05, 10:41 PM

It's possible, but ranking the sun above the earth in any regard doesn't really fit with Moses' writing. Nothing I've seen that he wrote would hint that he might make that assumption, though that certainly doesn't disprove your hypothesis.

It must be one of the great ironies of our time and the greatest tragedy of Christianity that so many people have been lost their faith from the words and actions of other believers. It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

The two blows you took (your parents' divorce and your grandfather's Alzheimer's disease and subsequent death) are enough to shake anyone up. It's hard to believe in a loving God when you get your guts ripped out like that and your whole world gets turned upside down. Trust me, I've been there. I know what it feels like to have the things you've counted on your whole life to always be there suddenly get taken away or changed forever.

And as someone who knows, I can tell you with confidence that the God you were taught to believe in as a child, the God your grandfather believed in, is still there -- He always has been, and always will be. He hasn't changed, nor will He. Ever. If there's anything I can do to help you see and believe that again, please let me know.
No way HB, you're not part of the problem, just the kind of person you are makes me question my belief that there is no God, and you've helped alot as far as answering questions that other people havent been able to. If there is a heaven, I believe God will have a special place reserved for people like you.