 |
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
"God also sent two airplanes into the World Trade Center."
God loves us and he would never, ever do that! He does, however, work in mysterious ways we cannot comprehend. A lot of Muslims should realize they are wrong and turn to the truth. A lot of good can come from the WTC disaster, so you should never give up hope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
"Also which bible version of creation do you believe is true? There are actually 2 different creation stories in the Book of Genesis."
Looks like there is only 1 to me. You might have miscounted. And I am quite certain that you guys have shown that you are not Christian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Maybe he made 2 pairs of humans and called them both Adam and Eve because he liked those names. Does it matter? The fact is, some people here don't believe in what I think should be obvious. God is out there! Trying to explain how we are here today with singularities or dimensions is stupid.
If you guys don't live to serve God, are you those science guys that want to freeze their bodies in tubes to live forever? That baseball player was one of "them." I think that is bogus. Everyone dies and goes to his proper place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:20
|
|
Can we try and stay on topic please 
You'll never find it yourself, here, I'll help you:
quote:
The first book of the Bible, common to Judaism and Christianity, contains two versions of creation: one from Genesis 1 and one from Genesis 2.
In the first account, (starting in Genesis 1:1) in the beginning the world is a great body of water. God then produces over a period of six days the sky, stars, the sun and moon, land, plants, animals. Finally on the sixth day he creates human beings. On the seventh day he rests. God considers the majority of his creation 'good', but human beings are considered 'very good'. Creation order: Day 1: heaven and earth; waters; light; Day 2: heaven; Day 3: earth; grass; trees; herbs; Day 4: sun; moon; stars; Day 5: sea creatures; birds; Day 6: land creatures; cattle; man and woman.
The second account (starting in Genesis 2:4) concentrates on the creation of human beings; first a man, Adam, is created out of clay, then a woman, Eve, is created from Adam's rib. However, the creation order is different. 2:4: earth and heavens; 2:5 plants; 2:7: man; 2:8: garden of Eden; 2:9: trees; 2:19: beasts of the field; 2:21 woman.
|
So, which version is correct?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
So? If you scientists believe mammoths were hunted out, why not dinosaurs? And since when does believing in God make you an idiot? I think you are an idiot if you don't believe in God. |
Duh... you're an idiot if you think that dinosaurs (those big critters in Jurassic Park, right?) were hunted to extinction by our ancestors (which, at the time, were little furry creatures ranging from mouse-sized up to about beaver-sized). They might have eaten dinosaur eggs though.
quote:
Orange, the Bible isn't wrong. It is the word of God and everything in it is true. If you don't want God as your god, then are you like the people living in Sodom or Gomorrah? A sinner wasting his life? God didn't wipe them out without reason! |
The Bible contains thousands of errors and contradictions. It is not possible for everything in it to be true.
For instance, are we punished for the sins of others?
The Bible clearly says YES.
The Bible clearly says NO.
There are also the many misconceptions about the Bible. For instance, many fundies think that THEIR God wouldn't approve of human sacrifices, even though their own Bible says otherwise.
The Bible is nothing more than the collected myths and superstitions of a primitive people with a massive inferiority complex, surrounded by older and greater civilizations (e.g. Egypt, Babylon) who kept conquering them. Hence the profoundly sadomasochistic overtones.
If it was the actual "Word of God", then you'd expect to see some indications of that: scientific knowledge that the Hebrews could not have known or guessed at, or many detailed prophecies. But the Bible was written by flat-Earthers who knew less about science than others of the time, and their attempts at prophecy were blind guesses that almost invariably failed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
"So, which version is correct?"
The first one is. The second one was just pointing out that God is there and he made everything, in case you didn't catch it the first time.
"The Bible contains thousands of errors and contradictions. It is not possible for everything in it to be true."
The Bible is not wrong. In fact, you will not find any contradictions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
Rass, you speak of being tired of elitism, but you yourself say everyone else should be like you. (In the aspect of religion) What makes your religion any more creditble than Buddism, Islam, or any other religion for that matter? That's the REAL elitism, so step off the high horse and see things from a less biased view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
I'm not elitist. Everyone is welcome to become a Christian. However, these intellectuals that value their mental skills cannot make themselves smarter. They just think they are great because they are a little faster than everyone else. It's selfish to think you are great because you know some science or math others don't. It seems that science has taken the place of religion for some people. Science is great, but setting it on the place of God is a horrible blasphemy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
Jack, the fossil record doesn't prove anything.
Evolutionists claim it proves evolution, creationists claim it proves a young earth and a flood.
Most of the found fossils are fossils of incomplete skelletons, like the skull they found lately. Based on the skull the scientists conclude that it must have been an ancessor of humans because it walked straight. Much assumptions about this skill like the backside is more 'apish' while the front end is more like we expect a neanderthaler to be.
But it might be a extincted kind of apes as well, in example.
Most fossils fill pre defined gapes.
That's not objective, it's wishfull thinking.
I don't know that much about the topic that I can have an inteligent debate about it, but you know as much as I do that for both sides of the story there are arguments.
About the misquotes, I didn't claim these people said evolution didn't happen or something, the only thing these quotes show is that, ie. de fossil record is not a very good argument.
--------------
Boshko:
quantum mechanics is a THEORY that has not been proven.
I told you that before. In fact it's a technical rephrase of the question "how can something pop out of nothing"
It is impossible to prove the theory, because we can never observe 'nothing'. Vacuum is not nothing. Even complete empty vacuum is not nothing.
And about postive and negative energy summed up together give zero energy..........
That's a nice theory, but even in that case you need an extern source to split zero energy in X positive and X negative energy. Why would it split with no reason?
It only answers the question HOW God created all this out of nothing, by splitting up positive and negative energy.
The quantum mechanics is oftenly used by atheists as a fact, but it is not a fact. It's a ultimate theory that has not been proven. (this aspect of quantum mechanics, the 'something out of nothing theory' there are other aspects of course that are very usefull)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Some of those "errors" like Christ coming in "a short time" depend on how patient you are. Compared to how old you guys think the earth is, 2000 years is nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
CyberShy:
quote:
Jack, the fossil record doesn't prove anything.
Evolutionists claim it proves evolution, creationists claim it proves a young earth and a flood. |
It obviously cannot fit BOTH, because the fossil sequences would be radically different. So somebody must be lying. And I know that creationists lie often.
Scientists, however, have no reason to lie about this. Scientific theories (including evolution) are designed around the evidence, there is no religion to dictate what the evidence "should" look like.
quote:
Most fossils fill pre defined gapes.
That's not objective, it's wishfull thinking. |
No, most of the fossils that are considered newsworthy are those that fill gaps.
It's an example of the predictive power of evolution. For instance, the discovery of Ambulocetus, the "walking whale" (transitional between land mammals and whales) is an example of an evolutionary prediction being fulfilled.
BTW, virtual particles HAVE been shown to exist. A variation of Young's two-slit lightwave interference experiment, using only single photons, shows interference with ghostly "virtual photons". There is also the Casimir Effect, where two plates very close together (close enough to restrict the wavelength of virtual particles forming between them) are pushed together by the pressure of virtual particles forming more freely outside the gap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
"It obviously cannot fit BOTH, because the fossil sequences would be radically different. So somebody must be lying. And I know that creationists lie often.
Scientists, however, have no reason to lie about this. Scientific theories (including evolution) are designed around the evidence, there is no religion to dictate what the evidence "should" look like."
We don't lie about stuff either. If Christians wanted to be technologically backwards, you wouldn't have me posting right here. And science DID say what the walking whale should look like, so why not the Bible?
"BTW, virtual particles HAVE been shown to exist. A variation of Young's two-slit lightwave interference experiment, using only single photons, shows interference with ghostly "virtual photons". There is also the Casimir Effect, where two plates very close together (close enough to restrict the wavelength of virtual particles forming between them) are pushed together by the pressure of virtual particles forming more freely outside the gap."
Didn't someone say that has to do with time? And, last I checked, God created time. Don't try to put a silly theory or law of physics above God and what he does.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Some of those "errors" like Christ coming in "a short time" depend on how patient you are. Compared to how old you guys think the earth is, 2000 years is nothing. |
Paul thought that he, and many others, would live to see the Rapture:
quote:
Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. |
And he was talking to an audience to whom 2000 years would have meant a lot.
quote:
We don't lie about stuff either. If Christians wanted to be technologically backwards, you wouldn't have me posting right here. And science DID say what the walking whale should look like, so why not the Bible? |
Scientists didn't decide in advance that whales were mammals: they deduced it from studying them. Nor did they decide to "just believe" in evolution: it came from studying the evidence. Only THEN did scientists realize that there must have been land-dwelling ancestors of whales.
First, the evidence. Then the theory that fits it. Then the test: will all subsequent evidence continue to fit the theory, and does the theory accurately predict what more evidence would look like?
Evolution passes this test: creationism fails.
And creationists certainly DO lie. Though many simply don't know any better. Consider the following, from "Doctor" Kent Hovind (his degree is bogus, BTW):
quote:
"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer!" |
This is complete baloney. Human Cytochrome-C is closest to chimpanzee Cytochrome-C, not that of a sunflower. Human eyes are like chimp eyes, not octopus eyes (octopi have eyeballs, but their retinas are wired differently: human eyes are wired just like those of all other vertebrates, not octopi). And so on. Hovind just makes up all this stuff as he goes along. And other creationists, perhaps less willing to just invent the "evidence" they need, simply regurgitate the claims of a relatively small number of "prime liars" without even knowing it.
Jonathan Safarti, of "Answers in Genesis", doesn't think highly of Hovind, but he also came unstuck when he tried his own version of Hovind's Cytochrome-C claim. He had heard from a genuine scientist that crocodile Cytochrome-C was closer to chicken Cytochrome-C than to lizard Cytochrome-C, and published this as "proof that evolution was wrong". It shows exactly the opposite: according to evolution, this is expected, because birds evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved from archosaurs, the same branch of reptiles as crocs (but not lizards) evolved from.
Creationism consists entirely of religious fundamentalism and scientific ignorance, in varying proportions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bas
|
 |
Out of step
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
I shouldn't get involved in these debates, but I can't help it. I'll drop the first part of CS's post, Jack already explained that.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Boshko:
quantum mechanics is a THEORY that has not been proven. |
Quantum mechanics is one of the best proven theories in existence, actually. The actual interpretation of what is being done mathematically is still somewhat open to debate, but that quantum mechanics works is beyond doubt. I can give numerous examples of predicted quantum effects at work, but here are just a few.
- the excitation energies of electrons in atoms
- the anomalous Zeeman effect
- existence of spin (the conceptually simplest experiment is the Stern-Gerlach one, I think)
- tunnelling
Etcetera. Etcetera. Alternatively, read a book on QM yourself, although you'll need some mathematical background.
quote:
I told you that before. In fact it's a technical rephrase of the question "how can something pop out of nothing"
It is impossible to prove the theory, because we can never observe 'nothing'. Vacuum is not nothing. Even complete empty vacuum is not nothing.
And about postive and negative energy summed up together give zero energy..........
That's a nice theory, but even in that case you need an extern source to split zero energy in X positive and X negative energy. Why would it split with no reason?
It only answers the question HOW God created all this out of nothing, by splitting up positive and negative energy. |
I was going to reply to this as well, but I'm too lazy to sift through the thread to pick up the previous arguments you and Boshko used.
quote:
The quantum mechanics is oftenly used by atheists as a fact, but it is not a fact. It's a ultimate theory that has not been proven. (this aspect of quantum mechanics, the 'something out of nothing theory' there are other aspects of course that are very usefull) |
See reply 1. As far as theories go, quantum mechanics is pretty much fact. Hundreds or thousands of experiments have been done that back up predictions made by QM, and it has AFAIK never been directly contradicted. And you can't just cut out parts of quantum mechanics that you don't like, just because it doesn't agree with how you'd like things to be. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but the creation of particles and antiparticles in vacuum is something that has been widely observed. When you make arguments, at least try not to deny facts.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-07-2002 11:36
|