God is scientifically REALL

[Fred]

In Genesis 1:6 He said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters, and in 1:8 God called the firmament Heaven. Now that really don't make any since until you read on in 1:20 He said that the fowl will fly in the firmament called Heaven, now that means that the firmament is the air, because the fowls fly in it. That means that, according the the Bible, there was once water below the air, the sea, and also above the air, which some Christian scientist call the Hydrosphere. That is a layer of water around the earth, most likely it was ice since it is freezing in outer space. Now for those of you who do not know, water is one of very few things that can filter out all of the harmful rays that the sun produces, such as x-rays, and delta rays, and etc. X-rays are like very tiny bullets, and they shoot kind of like a shot gun blast. What x-rays do is shoot through anything except for lead and concrete, and also water, now x-rays that the sun produces shoot through our flesh about three million times per hour. Don't worry, they are so tiny that our bodies can heal them in an instant, but it does harm us. Now with water above the earth protecting us, and plants from these harmful rays, things would be able to grow much faster, because there wouldn't be anything to slow growth down. Now the break down of the human cells is what kills most of us, so with out the rapid destruction things would obviously live longer. now there are many
"scientific" statements that, so called, prove that the earth must be billions of years old, but in fact it is only about 6,000 years old, no I did not miss any zeroes. Some of those statements are that there is too much coal in the world, and that man never lived with dinosaurs. Well with the hydrosphere still above the earth the plants would be able to grow more and produce more oxygen and in turn make the animals heal faster and grow much larger and this would make more coal when they die. Well that will fix the first statement, now the whole dinosaur thing, where to begin, you'll like this one. What is a dinosaur? All a dinosaur is is a big lizard, now what else is a big lizard? For sake of time it is a dragon, haha, I know, but dragon is mentioned throughout history, for instants, nights became heroes by slaying dragons, right. Now people say that the bible never mentions dinosaurs, but it does mention dragons. In Job 40 and 41 He show Job two creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan. Now Behemoth is very well described, in Job 40:15 the Bible says that he eateth grass like an ox, and in verse 16 it says his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. That means the majority of the animals body is his stomach, so far we have a big bellied animal that is a plant eater. The majority of Bible scholars believe this animal to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus because in verse 21 it says that he lieth under the shady tree in the fens, that means he lives in a swamp. I, however, do not think so, in fact I think that they are not thinking very hard because in verse 17 it says that he moveth his tail like a cedar,now have any of you ever seen a hippo or an elephant with a tail as big as a cedar tree? I haven't, but I have seen a dinosaur that fits all those descriptions, a brontosaurus. Well that is enough for now, I'm tired if any of you have anything to say about this, just let me know. Thanks.

[Javier]

I ve read you,all right.

[daktaklakpak]

Just one question. Why the X-Ray machine operators in hospitals don't wear water bag cloths? Yes, they wear lead shields, and lead is much heavier than water.

[FA_Q2]

That does not solve the coal problem and the lack of fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs points to them never having lived together. Why are there no human bones in an Allosaurus’ stomach? The main problem with the amount of coal on earth is the length of time coal takes to become coal. We can see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away and yet the light has only 6000 years to travel? That does not make any sense. Also we can use radioactive dating to prove many things are much older that 6000 years. Bone records lead back further than 6000 years in of themselves. The world cannot be 6000 years old.

[Rambler]

LOL, your a funny character Fred. Thanks for the chuckle.

I really hope you meant that post to be humurous, I appolagise if you didn't but damn that was great.

Christain Scientist---LOL, a condradiction in terms don't you think??

[Fred]

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Just one question. Why the X-Ray machine operators in hospitals don't wear water bag cloths? Yes, they wear lead shields, and lead is much heavier than water.

You've never had an x-ray before have you? They stand behind a lead wall. And they lay a led shield over you because it is more durable and less likely to leak than water smart guy. Thanks for reading.
"Fred"

[Fred]

Originally posted by FA_Q2
That does not solve the coal problem and the lack of fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs points to them never having lived together. Why are there no human bones in an Allosaurus’ stomach? The main problem with the amount of coal on earth is the length of time coal takes to become coal. We can see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away and yet the light has only 6000 years to travel? That does not make any sense. Also we can use radioactive dating to prove many things are much older that 6000 years. Bone records lead back further than 6000 years in of themselves. The world cannot be 6000 years old.

Well first of all there is a river called the Pacos River in Texas, and one year the river flooded and washed up a bunch of limestone from the bottom of the river with fossils of human footprints on top of dinosaur foot prints. And the whole coal thing, you see when God desided to purify the earth He made the Hydrosphere drop from the earth's atmosphere on to the earth. That flooded the earth and trust me, that is a lot of preasure, and preasure can also shorten the time it takes to make coal. And the stars, God put them there to give light, without us seeing them, there wouldn't be much light now would there? Thanks for reading
"Fred"

[Fred]

Originally posted by Rambler

LOL, your a funny character Fred. Thanks for the chuckle.

I really hope you meant that post to be humurous, I appolagise if you didn't but damn that was great.

Christain Scientist---LOL, a condradiction in terms don't you think??

Just to let you know, there is more factual science in the Bible than in science books. Thanks for reading.
"Fred"

[Rambler]

Your a classic Fred, I near wet myself....keep up the good work.

But be carefull I'm starting to think your not joking.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

seriously.


BTW Smart guy, the reason they don't use water for x-ray protection is because you would need to wear a water jacket about as big as swiming pool to protect yourself. Hey there's an idea the radiologists should have a pool out the back and they can dive in to take the x-rays...very cool idea.


Oh and did this hydosphere exist before god invented air pressure??? or didn't water boil in those days???

answer please I love this joke :D

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by Fred


You've never had an x-ray before have you? They stand behind a lead wall. And they lay a led shield over you because it is more durable and less likely to leak than water smart guy. Thanks for reading.
"Fred"

How hard is to contain water? Considering the weight and the production cost, water is superior to lead in every way. With plastic, I am sure you can get a water jacket as durable as you want without leaking, and still cheaper and lighter than the lead shield.

[Tiassa]

2 cents about X-rays and protection ...

I own a microwave oven, which I use frequently. Furthermore, food stored nearby is subject to microwave radiation.

In the house that I live in, there are 6 desktop computers and 2 laptops accommodating four people; on the weekends, I can end up spending a good amount of time in front of any of several of these machines; during the week, if I have nothing more pressing and don't feel like wandering about the neighborhood, the park, or getting drunk up at the corner pub, I'm quite likely to spend a considerable amount of time either playing video games (currently Deus Ex and Sigma Chess). If I'm feeling in a proper writing mood, I will stare at a blank word processor for ridiculous periods.

Furthermore, if people don't stop complaining about the ozone layer, I'm going to start using it as an excuse. To make that, as well as the microwave and the cpu's relevant, I submit to you solar radiation.

The point of it is that I am surrounded by radiation that is widely considered to become dangerous at some point. In my home, at my office (where I spend half my day sitting in front of a computer), and even in the local park.

Add to this considerations of x-rays. A patient can only be surveyed via x-ray so many times during their life before the collected radiation becomes problematic. This is the reason for the lead shields among the medical staff. There is much inherent radiation bouncing around a radiology lab. If you're the lab tech who runs the gear, you'll reach your max quickly, and it will become unsafe for you to be in a radiology lab even with protection.

Wow ... it appears I'm starting to ramble. But there's a few notions on radiation.

But, of x-rays, a firmament of water or ice, and so forth ... what, then, of the Van Allen belts? Does the massive natural radioactivity of the planet play a role in any of this?
Well first of all there is a river called the Pacos River in Texas, and one year the river flooded and washed up a bunch of limestone from the bottom of the river with fossils of human footprints on top of dinosaur foot prints.
I seem to recall hearing about this; I'll read up on it some. But my memory pings with the notion that you're talking about a river, here, with various stages in its evolution, and a constant process of sedimentary erosion. So a dinosaur is walking along, making tracks, and dies; a sediment covers those tracks. The river nearby eventually floods its banks or widens due to erosion, and, over time, erases the sediment over the dino tracks. Depending on what's left of the sediment, it is very possible for humans to make footprints there. Given the number of times this could happen on the planet, that we find one example of it does not surprise me at all.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[daktaklakpak]

Fred,

Ask your bible what is light? Where it comes from? and where it goes? How fast does it run? Does light exists in particle form or wave form?

Do you know that x-ray is a form of light? Besides x-ray, light also contains gamma ray and UV ray. They are all deadly to life.

Did god create light just to kill us? Oh wait, the answer is yes. Because light exists before life according to the bible. Obviously god was trying to kill at the first place.

[tony1]

Originally posted by FA_Q2
...The world cannot be 6000 years old.

The data you think you have isn't evidence. It is merely described as evidence by those who oppose the Bible.

[Cris]

Tony1,

The data you think you have isn't evidence.
Your clause ‘think you have’ implies doubt, but there is no doubt that the data exists. What you are struggling to say is that the data should not be interpreted as evidence to support an evolutionary answer to the origin of life.

It is merely described as evidence by those who oppose the Bible.
The large quantities of data collected by scientists overwhelmingly indicate an evolutionary cause to life. It is reasonable at this stage, based on inductive logic, to interpret such data as evidence. Such types of data do form evidence, whether it is for or against a particular position. Your phrase ‘merely described’ is entirely redundant. And because an evolutionary cause and a supernatural cause are mutually exclusive then the data cannot be used to support a supernatural claim in this case.

It is therefore obvious that the bible passages relating to origins are highly unlikely to be correct in the light of reasonable interpretation of existing data. It is true that there will be those that use such evidence to oppose the bible, but realistically those that can see the only reasonable interpretation of the data cannot also be expected to support largely unsupported opposite claims found in bible passages. The bible becomes irrelevant in such circumstances and should be discarded, as would all other competing claims that have little or no reasonable supporting evidence.

Cris

[FA_Q2]

"Well first of all there is a river called the Pacos River in Texas, and one year the river flooded and washed up a bunch of limestone from the bottom of the river with fossils of human footprints on top of dinosaur foot prints. "

That is one example, and the only one I might add. Where are all of the other data, or do you base all your scientific data on a single find?

"And the whole coal thing, you see when God desided to purify the earth He made the Hydrosphere drop from the earth's atmosphere on to the earth. That flooded the earth and trust me, that is a lot of preasure, and preasure can also shorten the time it takes to make coal. "

One problem with that is that the pressure is still on earth today Why does it not speed up coal's formation anymore?.

"And the stars, God put them there to give light, without us seeing them, there wouldn't be much light now would there? Thanks for reading "

The argument isn't against the stars. It is that the light from stars needs more than 6000 years to get to earth.

IOW If there was a sphere of ice around the earth why did it not evaporate into space? As soon as the suns rays hit it a LOT of heat would be produced, even if it were crystal clear. Also, could such a sphere hold its own weight? I think not.

[Rambler]

The "hydrosphere (LOL) would boil, at that altitutde (ie I assume it was high since thare was supposed to be an oceans worth of water that froze...would have had to have been high). The air pressure up there is low enough for water to boil. The other thing is water needs some kind of impurity to form ice crystals, otherwise it will stay as super cooled vapour.
but seriously guys either Fred is a child or he's having us on, I'm hoping its the latter, because even grade school children are capable of questioning whats being fed to them as fact.


Tony1......

Tell me why your god would go to such extreme efforts to hide its own existance. According to you your god created a universe that looks billions of years old, planted false evidence of evolution, created humans to worship it unconditionaly, but also created us in such a way that we are not satisfied until we have evidence of something before we believe it...then left 1 single contradictory text which states: believe in me or burn in hell for eternity......and somehow your still convinced that your god loves you...how would you feel about a parent that went to extreme efforts to decive their child and then they killed that child for falling for it??? I'm pretty certain even the christains would be pissed of with such a person, and yet you defend whats writen in your holy book. Wake up man!!!!! your capable of questioning it...give it a try and see how it stands.

[ripleofdeath]

dear fred and tony...and all
i think one of the main problems in the way people try to interpret the earths evolution in-relation to humans,
is that ....(my opinion{and some damn convincing evidence too[cave drawings]})
people did evolve from micro organisms ....BUT...
this is where the god thing confounds alot of people,
we have been colinised by extraterestrials as well.
they have bred with the humans on earth and so
"most"... stories of godlike things are just ET's
seen by uneducated minds/(or deliberately alterd)
one of my thoughts in regard to this is
IF you look at the maths, the possible variations of human fetures and abilities,... we should have alot more
variety of WHAT PEOPLE LOOK LIKE.
but we dont.
think about that one when youre walking down a busy street.
god... "the creator"...?
to have a babby makes you a creator of life
but would you call youre-self god?...?
WE ARE ONE OF MANY
EMBRACE THE ALL AND THE DIFFERENT
ALLOW US TO EVOLVE,...NOT
REVOLVE
:)
peace...love...and missery to all greed merchants

[Deadwood]

I heard it said ealier in this thread that a Christian Scientist is somewhat of an oxymoron. So science isn't actually about learning and finding things now is it.

To become a scientist you can believe what you like. Why should you be limited by an atheist belief? Do you feel threatened or scared, you should be and rightly so.

Tell me why your god would go to such extreme efforts to hide its own existance. According to you your god created a universe that looks billions of years old, planted false evidence of evolution, created humans to worship it unconditionaly, but also created us in such a way that we are not satisfied until we have evidence of something before we believe it...then left 1 single contradictory text which states: believe in me or burn in hell for eternity......and somehow your still convinced that your god loves you...

Ever heard of Jesus Christ or the Bible. This is God's way of telling you that He exists. Jesus healed many and brought a couple of people back from the dead. If thats not proof, then look at one of my church ministers. Through him[my minister] Jesus has performed every single healing miracle mentioned in the Gospels, except one, healing a leper. This is because he[my minister] has never met a leper. He was hoping to on a recent missionary journey to Vanuatu, however, he didn't meet a leper. but I can testify on his behalf that many people were healed(around 20 give or take), over there. People were travelling on foot an hour or two hours just to be able to be prayed over and healed since they heard thruugh village talk that they were there.

I will tell you a story. They gave a talk at a particular village about healing, and stated that not everyone will be healed and maybe not straight away. Anyway as it goes they prayed for this man that coudn't speak. He was not healed that day.

That morning the Chief of the village came, he was not present at the talk, and was a bit aggressive toward them and said, you prayed over this man yet he was not healed. So our minister said, bring him back tonight and we will pray for him. Our minister was kind of scared because he basically said that he was going to heal this man. Anyway, that night, he came and they prayed over him. He was in a group that a very spiritual man from our church was a part of. the holy spirit gave him the idea to say Jesus. So he told him to say Jesus. While they were praying over him, also praying in toungues(a language unknown to the believer), he began to say Jesus. At first there was nothing coming out, then after a little while, you could here him softly and getting louder say Jesus...Jesus...Jesus, until he was shouting His name at loud. He was healed.

The next morning he was following our church group saying Hello, how are you?, Good morning, because that about as far as his english goes. In Vanuatu they speak Bislama, kind of like a derivative of English.

It was later found that he had lost his voice to a stroke he had had some time ago.

Tony1 and Fred, if you are reading this, you will be pleased to know that God used this missionary journey, to bring back His Holy Spirit to Vanuatu. He is alive now in Vanuatu and they now have a conference every year now dedicated to him. they speak in toungues and share a new love for Christ, the church has had great revival. People are going to their neighbouring villages. His spirit spreads like wild fire through these people.

I say this to you as proof that God exists. Science couldn't heal this man but God could.

how would you feel about a parent that went to extreme efforts to decive their child and then they killed that child for falling for it??? I'm pretty certain even the christains would be pissed of with such a person, and yet you defend whats writen in your holy book. Wake up man!!!!! your capable of questioning it...give it a try and see how it stands.

Where abouts is this?

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

[daktaklakpak]

If he is so good, why doesn't he come to hospital where doctors can monitor the whole healing process?

[Sir. Loone]

God and science can go hand in hand!
"For the Heavens Declares the Glory of GOD!"
Faith is what pleases God, and that is in Jesus the Son of GOD the Father! I have more then a "religion" , I have a Faith in Jesus. Astronomy /science is one way in which to wonder after His Glorious creations! To GOD be 'all' the Glory for all He had made! A-men!

[pragmathen]

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Deadwood:</i>
I heard it said ealier in this thread that a Christian Scientist is somewhat of an oxymoron. So science isn't actually about learning and finding things now is it.

To become a scientist you can believe what you like. Why should you be limited by an atheist belief? Do you feel threatened or scared, you should be and rightly so.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Science <i>isn't</i> about learning and finding things ... ? I see you've spent a good deal of time studying and pondering the writings of God, then. Being an atheist is somehow limiting? By tony1's definition, this would be taken in the literal sense--that atheism equates to death (eventually). Obviously you've never entertained an atheist's perspective, even for show. Threatened or scared is not the emotive force behind such thoughts. Are threats and fear the means by which you would "convert" others, then?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Ever heard of Jesus Christ or the Bible. This is God's way of telling you that He exists. Jesus healed many and brought a couple of people back from the dead. If thats not proof, then look at one of my church ministers ...
<hr>
</blockquote>

Jesus Christ? Oh, yeah. He's the one that taught about divisiveness, right? Isn't it interesting that Christians take quite an affront to anything derogatory towards Christ, but can take whatever is directed at God? Could this be an unconscious realization that God <i>may</i> indeed be at fault in some instances, whereas Christ represents all the good that God <i>could have</i> been if only he'd done a little better. I take it you've read the Bible, then. Quite a piece of work. My favorite section would be the Old Testament, because it seems the most poetic (and it's rather straightforward as well). Is it proof that God exists? Not necessarily. Is it proof that someone in the past thought that God exists? Yes.

And doesn't everyone (myself included) have an experience in which some form of healings have been propagated? The mind taps an amazing ability, though I haven't really looked into Scientology recently. Have a headache, try and circumvene the headache by understanding it (through neuroscience) and blocking it through the proper release of inhibitors from the endocrine system. Put a name on it, say, Jesus and it's healed. Jesus, then, becomes the means by which the healing has the desired effect. If you would have said, Ronaldo, it would have the same effect, as long as your mind can incorporate the belief that saying 'Ronaldo' will have a beneficial effect on your system. In short, doesn't it seem that people are being healed throughout this planet, whether they believe in Christ or not? That's great that your minister is capable of healing people. Seriously. Anyone that's trying to help others is keen in my sight.

BTW, tony1 doesn't give a rat's ass how the work is going in Vanuatu. This is not meant to be detrimental to your point on this one, but to show that, most likely, tony1 wouldn't even consider you to be Christian. In fact, tony1would probably think that the word 'Christian' is a misnomer perpetuated by the Catholics. Just a side note, there.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
His spirit spreads like wild fire through these people.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ever wonder why it spreads like wildfire in third-world nations? My brother did some proselyting in South America and, man, the word spread like wildfire down there as well. I did some in Japan and, guess what? Not a lot of spreading up there. Different culture? Sure. The only point, though? No. My brother said that the average educational level of the people he was acquainted with was equated to a 12-year old. As for my experience? We'll say that they're pretty good thinkers. IOTW, it would seem that the lower the education level, the more likely someone is to embrace religion, specifically Chrisitianity; while, conversely, the greater the educational level, the more likely someone will <i>NOT</i> embrace religion. Hmm. Wonder why. Why are people commanded to drink the milk (principles) and abstain from the meat (doctrine)? Because the doctrine is where all the questions crop up. But, a diet that consists solely on milk will lead to malnutrition.

So, Deadwood, although I disagree with your manner of teaching, I do think it is good that people are out there (like your minister) that have some talent in helping others. Talents such as those should never be buried. But other talents shouldn't be discounted either.

peace,

prag

[Deadwood]

Science isn't about learning and finding things ... ? I see you've spent a good deal of time studying and pondering the writings of God, then. Being an atheist is somehow limiting?

Sorry Pragmathen for not being as clear in my language. what I mean was that by saying that a Christian scientist is an oxymoron you are implying that science is not about learning and finding things. perhaps I should have added a question mark to the end of my statement and it would make more sense.

Threatened or scared is not the emotive force behind such thoughts. Are threats and fear the means by which you would "convert" others, then?

Sorry again, I thought you would understand again what I was implying. I was saying that whoever thinks that a Christian scientist is an oxymoron and that scientists should only be scientist must feel threatened by Christian scientists and what they could achieve. I was saying that those people should be scared because in these Christian scientists hands is the means to prove that God exists even more, that is why I said you should be scared(if your atheist) and with good reason because your faith in no God is at risk. I was not talking about the coming judgement and fire and brimstone as you thought I was.

A couple of good Christian scientist/archeology sites is
www.answersingenesis.org and
http://www.biblerevelations.org/ronwyatt.htm
http://www.wyattmuseum.com

They each are very good.

Isn't it interesting that Christians take quite an affront to anything derogatory towards Christ, but can take whatever is directed at God?

Yes I know this is a silly tendency that some Christians have. If I have ever done this then please give me an example. Christ is equal with God, in fact He is part of the Godhead. I think the reason why they do that is because they have that picture of a man in there head and thus because they can personify Christ since He came to Earth as a man, they automatically feel offended. However, what they forget is that God can defend himself as well.

I take it you've read the Bible, then. Quite a piece of work. My favorite section would be the Old Testament, because it seems the most poetic (and it's rather straightforward as well).

Yes, I love the Old Testament as well. I find it extremely interesting and edifying. A lot of it is poetry, and the sections about the law is extremely straight forward as you say. I have not read the whole bible. I would have only read about half of it over the years. I've read most of the New Testament, if not all, I wouldn't really know because I havn't read it from cover to cover. I read the whole of the Torah(The five books of Moses) except for about half of Deutoronomy. Some of the Prophets. Some of the Proverbs. However, definitely not enough of the Psalms. God usually leads me to verses I need anyway.

And doesn't everyone (myself included) have an experience in which some form of healings have been propagated? The mind taps an amazing ability, though I haven't really looked into Scientology recently. Have a headache, try and circumvene the headache by understanding it (through neuroscience) and blocking it through the proper release of inhibitors from the endocrine system.

So you actually know that God exists because science hasn't apperantly proved Him. However, you believe mind taps exist even though science hasn't even proved this either.

BTW my minister doesn't know anything about neuroscience if any. I think he might actually have a background in science but I wouldn't know what. Also, if my minister and the other church member who said to say Jesus doesn't know about brain surgery nor have an understanding of it, then how would they be able to mind tap? They don't know anything about this, only Christian stuff.

So how does our mind bring back the dead anyway? I always thought it was the Holy spirit who breathes life.

In fact, tony1would probably think that the word 'Christian' is a misnomer perpetuated by the Catholics.

Actually, the word Christian first originated in Atioch.

Acts 11:26

and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

IOTW, it would seem that the lower the education level, the more likely someone is to embrace religion, specifically Chrisitianity; while, conversely, the greater the educational level, the more likely someone will NOT embrace religion.

Mark 10:15

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.[/i]

Because the doctrine is where all the questions crop up.

Actually, I see doctrine as very important. It is one of the most important aspects when finding a church.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Sadly, I see this happening today. I listen to some preachers and see that they distort parts of the truth to in a bid to make more people convert. It is a sad fact of life. However, unfortunate.

[ripleofdeath]

just a little thought
if i was a scientist.......(would love to have all sorts of knowledge)
looking to prove ...or dis-prove something is a
premis of what the task at hand is.
but... to dissmis the findings once a lead has been established is to be the oxymoron in this instance....?
maybe a true un biassed scientist would think...
what can i develop from this point or ... what other possibilties does this leed to.
just a little thought
from a little thought guy :D
statements are "endings" and thus we dont end...so
"belife of" in its self is an obstical to look upon as a filter or barrier and try and place in perspective
:)
groove on all

[FA_Q2]

“ So you actually know that God exists because science hasn't apperantly proved Him. However, you believe mind taps exist even though science hasn't even proved this either.

BTW my minister doesn't know anything about neuroscience if any. I think he might actually have a background in science but I wouldn't know what. Also, if my minister and the other church member who said to say Jesus doesn't know about brain surgery nor have an understanding of it, then how would they be able to mind tap? They don't know anything about this, only Christian stuff.

So how does our mind bring back the dead anyway? I always thought it was the Holy spirit who breathes life.”

Science has proven and explained mind taps. Nether person needs to understand what they are or how they work for it to happen. It is usually done sublimely. The real question I have is weather your minister is a fake or not. Many people do healings while hundreds watch and are fakes. They are staged or play off of ignorance. The most famous group I can think of actually removes growths from the body with their hands. No cuts and no scars are left behind and there is little blood involved. It is all fake though yet these people in third world nations are ignorant enough to believe them. They have long lines of people traveling from miles away to get a chance to see them. Your minister may be like them, a fake. Why hasn’t he gone to a hospital? Why are these healings in third world nations? It smells of ulterior motives.

[Boris]

So you actually know that God exists because science hasn't apperantly proved Him. However, you believe mind taps exist even though science hasn't even proved this either.


This is precisely why "Christian scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm not coming out here to defend "mind taps" (whatever that means), but the point is this: a scientist is always in search of mechanistic explanations for all phenomena and objects. Whereas any religion (Christianity included) presupposes a supernatural, non-mechanistic influence in the world. This is the main difference between science and religion.

A "scientist" who is "Christian", is a person in conflict. They must suspend their faith while engaging in their trade, yet resume the faith at all other times. Not only is this hypocritical and inconsistent, but in all practicality it is also humanly impossible -- our minds simply don't work like that. At best, the "Christian" science merely consists of constantly emerging hypotheses in agreement with the Bible that subsequently get disproved (or had already been disproven a long time ago.) At worst, it turns into pseudoscience and snake oil.

Aside from the primary hypocrisy involved, the second major fault of "Christian" science is its inherent lack of objectivity. It does not start unbiased from ground zero; instead, it presupposes enough unsubstantiated axyoms to fill a very thick book -- and it apriori refuses to ever reconsider any one of those axyoms. This is fundamentally and irreconcilably inconsistent with scientific methodology.

[ripleofdeath]

and if you dont agree with borris...
you can feel confident in the fact that you are a true cristian... LOL
i dont see how anyone could add to what borris has said because its so compleete in its basic deffinition...
soo much so one could only hope some cristians will "see the light" and strep away from such
perverse thought.
groove on all

[Emerald]

Deadwood,

Originally posted by Deadwood
Mark 10:15

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! I see something quite different when I read that verse. Here, let me put it in context first (and this is from the KJV):

<font color="red">Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.</font>

Now, if you take a look at the concordance to see the word translated to "as" in the phrase "as a little child", you will see several possible meanings:

<font color="blue">5613 hos {hoce}

probably from comparative from 3739;; adv

AV - as 342, when 42, how 18, as it were 20, about 14, misc 56; 492

1) as, like, even as, etc.</font>

So basically what I'm seeing here is that Jesus is telling people they must brainwash their children while they're still very young and malleable, otherwise their efforts at indoctrination will be ineffective. Proverbs 22:6 was perhaps a bit more straightforward in its advice to parents:

<font color="red">Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.</font>

Emerald

[pragmathen]

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Deadwood:</i>
Sorry again, I thought you would understand again what I was implying. I was saying that whoever thinks that a <i>Christian</i> scientist is an oxymoron and that scientists should only be scientist must feel threatened by Christian scientists and what they could achieve. I was saying that those people should be scared because in these Christian scientists hands is the means to prove that God exists even more, that is why I said you should be scared(if your atheist) and with good reason because your faith in no God is at risk. I was not talking about the coming judgement and fire and brimstone as you thought I was.
<hr>
</blockquote>

This is an interesting point, Deadwood. You're right, I didn't understand it initially from your original point of view. However, I don't think the issue is whether someone [atheists] should be scared or not. If your God does indeed exist, then I like to think that most atheists would love to have a sit-down one-on-one chat with this supreme being. If you see your God as vindictive, then it would make sense that <i>you</i> would feel rather scared when confronting your God. But, since atheists do not believe in your God (which doesn't necessarily discount His existence in your perspective), it makes no sense to entertain thoughts of fear when encountering him. So, even though you say you weren't speaking of fire and brimstone, why did you say that atheists have reason to be scared and for good reason?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Yes I know this is a silly tendency that some Christians have. If I have ever done this then please give me an example. Christ is equal with God, in fact He is part of the Godhead. I think the reason why they do that is because they have that picture of a man in there head and thus because they can personify Christ since He came to Earth as a man, they automatically feel offended. However, what they forget is that God can defend himself as well.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Good point, here. The very fact that Christ came down as a man personifies and endears him to others, where God is seen as a visiting uncle, if there at all. It is easier to consider God as ethereal and most difficult to picture Christ as insubstantial. I was playing tennis with my brother last summer when he asked if I still respected Jesus for what he's done for me. I replied that I thought Jesus was a great man, though I do disagree with his methodology and some other points. He immediately took offense, to which I replied, "Look. It shouldn't matter what <i>I</i> think of Christ, but what you think of him. Who cares if some schmoe doesn't respect Christ? The fact that you do is all that matters." I find it interesting, even now, that he didn't ask what I thought about God.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Yes, I love the Old Testament as well...
<hr>
</blockquote>

Well, I'm going to digress a bit here and say that I actually loved the Old Testament quite a lot when I used to read through it. The story of John and Saul, David (the person in the entire Bible that I have ultimate respect for), the funny experience where Samuel was being called by the angel, and the horrendous trials endured by Job rank up there for some excellent reading. So, even though you haven't read the whole book, I wouldn't worry that much (and I'm not saying that from an atheist perspective). Read what makes an impression on you. If you read something that makes you want to do good to others, then by all means read it. I think a misunderstanding occurs when people think of atheists. Atheists are not ravenous wolves who detest anything scriptural. They just have an entirely different viewpoint on the validity of what is written. That doesn't mean that the Bible is worthless by any means. It just means that atheists read it differently (when they read it, that is).

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
So you actually know that God exists because science hasn't apperantly proved Him. However, you believe mind taps exist even though science hasn't even proved this either.
<hr>
</blockquote>

I don't think I know what a mind tap is. If you're talking about revelation, well then I could take issue with that, but I'm not sure. Please explain this part to me.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
BTW my minister doesn't know anything about neuroscience if any. I think he might actually have a background in science but I wouldn't know what. Also, if my minister and the other church member who said to say Jesus doesn't know about brain surgery nor have an understanding of it, then how would they be able to mind tap? They don't know anything about this, only Christian stuff.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Actually, you don't have to know about neuroscience for an aspirin to work. If you wanted to find out why it works, you could study about it and find out, though. IOTW, I won't say that healers don't exist in this world. I will say that these healers don't need to be Christian. Which tells me that being a healer is independent from being a practicing Christian as well, which implies that if there was a God, then he wouldn't care if a healer worshiped him or not. So, your minister could be a fake, like FA_Q2 mentioned, or he could be one of these rare healers in the world. And, like FA_Q2 said, the fact that your minister performs these healings in third-world countries makes me wonder. Why not <i>indeed</i> go to the local hospital and make some rounds in the chemotherapy rooms?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
So how does our mind bring back the dead anyway? I always thought it was the Holy spirit who breathes life.
<hr>
</blockquote>

I rather liked this point. I like to think that, like tiassa said in another post, our <i>mind</i> brings back the dead. IOTW, when we think of those that have died, we are in effect resurrecting them in our memory. They live and breathe just as they did before. We have a full, virtual environment in which to remember them, replete with surround-sound and external cues. Thus, the dead really never die as long as there is someone left to remember them.

Also, the point about the Holy Spirit deserves a response. When you go see a movie such as Braveheart and watch some exceptionally piercing (emotional) scene, do you ascribe those feelings to the Holy Spirit? Or, do you, instead, ascribe those feelings to some inner yearning of the soul? Or something else? Some churches will tell you, when you attend them, that, "That feeling you feel when you're here? It's the Holy Spirit telling you that what you're hearing is true." Not necessarily. I believe that it's some form of communication that everyone is capable of feeling. IMHO, this feeling is not limited to the religious (for it is possible to be spiritual without being religious) and it cannot be generated at will. The point? Just that, whether we realize it or not, no one has full reign over this particular feeling. Maybe I'm just rambling.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Actually, I see doctrine as very important. It is one of the most important aspects when finding a church.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Doctrine is indeed important. But if you focus on it long enough, it's only a matter of time before one of two things happen:

1. You become disgruntled with the way that particular piece of doctrine is being promulgated and therefore must leave that religious establishment and either look elsewhere or not at all.
2. You learn something that you don't think you should know or that you don't think you can handle and so it goes on the back burner along with a multitude of other religious inconsistencies because, as God said, "Thy ways are not my ways."

Anyway, thanks for the response. We have relatively the same number of posts, which I thought was pretty cool. Sorry for the tone in that previous post. I did misunderstand your point of view.

peace,

prag

[Rambler]

Just when I thought I couldn't laugh harder (thanks to Fred LOL, champion joker) along comes deadwood with the ol'

"Ever heard of Jesus Christ or the Bible. This is God's way of telling you that He exists. Jesus healed many and brought a couple of people back from the dead. If thats not proof, then look at one of my church ministers. "

Yes I have heard of both Jesus Christ and the bible...it all stems from the same source many people choose to take as fact and don't require proof...now let me ask you something Deadwood, ever heard of Santa Clause and his home in the northpole??? do you believe he comes to visit nice children once a year? do you also believe he flies in a slay being pulled by flying reindeer and the head reindeer has a red nose??? because if you don't I'd really like to know the difference between the Santa story and your god, which one has more "proof" of their existance??

I'll end with this: are you seriously trying to convince me your god exists because there are people out there who claim they can heal with prayer (and worse others who believe them)....baaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!! your a classic. Don't worry mate santa is coming and the easter bunny has just been.

ROFLMAO!!!!! I must admit if christains ever wake up to themselves and stop being so irrational I'm going to miss the entertainment.

[Rambler]

Deadwood I asked a question, you quoted it in your reply and still no answer whats with that??? its really a VERY simple question, the only thing I ask is you answer it without resorting to "christain science", I'd like a rational response please.


Side note:
I should have used the "christain science" angle at Uni, I would have passed with straight distinctions...I mean you can make it up as you go along and if you paint yourself into a corner just say god made it so, and no further explaination is needed.

[ripleofdeath]

rambler
you aint rambling!
gave me a good LOL
note* isnt it funny how cristians seem so arrogant about there belifes inspite of others who say ive got an open mind
have you ever heard a cristian say "im not sure but ive got an open mind"
:D
groove on

[Deadwood]

Rambler

Deadwood I asked a question, you quoted it in your reply and still no answer whats with that??? its really a VERY simple question, the only thing I ask is you answer it without resorting to "christain science", I'd like a rational response please.

I was just asking you where abouts this is in the bible?
If you're talking about Jesus, His will is the Father's. God is incapable of lying.

The real question I have is weather your minister is a fake or not. Many people do healings while hundreds watch and are fakes. They are staged or play off of ignorance. The most famous group I can think of actually removes growths from the body with their hands. No cuts and no scars are left behind and there is little blood involved. It is all fake though yet these people in third world nations are ignorant enough to believe them. They have long lines of people traveling from miles away to get a chance to see them. Your minister may be like them, a fake.

It was my ministers first mission. Actually, one of the group members, the same as who told the person who had a stroke to say Jesus, asked the minister there if anyone had been healed. They didn't know whether people were being healed or not. How could they fake a healing, if they didn't even know if the person had been healed or not. I assure you, there were no fakes involved, it would be to bring down Christ to do such a thing, nor would it be Christian.

Go to http://www.biblerevelations.org/ronwyatt/lordlord.htm
I urge you to see the fate of such deceivers.

I am sorry also to give the impression that everyone my minister lays hands on is healed. I did not mean to give this impression. God does not heal everyone who asks, even people with this rare gift know this. It is of God's right choosing who is healed.

People have been healed in our church, people would no the illness, so they could testify it was not a fake.

I would like to say again that it is really annoying having these so called miracle healings and healers that are outright fakes. I can see by reading what you have to say that it has damaged your view on such healings. I can see very clearly why. However, I would also like to say why it is that there are healers who are not of God. It should be noted that demons have the power to make us ill. Read the book of Job if you are unfamiliar with this (you only have to read the first few chapters-go to www.biblegateway.com and write something like Job 1-3 in the passage look up).

So when these people who demons have made sick are healed it is merely by taking away the illness which they put in the person in the first place. Please read the website above, for a more in depth look.

Why hasn’t he gone to a hospital? Why are these healings in third world nations? It smells of ulterior motives.

Yes, he does visit the ill. Healings are in both first world and third world. That is your opinion, I can only assure you of my opinion. Why would I lie to you about this in the first place? As I said before, that would be bringing down Christ.

Boris

While Christianity presupposes there is a God. Atheism pressuposses there isn't. Both scientists inherently have presuppositions before even starting experiments and finding evidence.

BTW I love your terms pseudoscience and snake oil. :) It just sounds funny to me.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! I see something quite different when I read that verse.

Actually the verse was saying how you must trust God as a child trusts their parents. If people in third world countries do this. It is to there blessing. I do try my best not to take the bible out of context, for this is the word of God, we are talking about.

Matthew 5:3
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:20
Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

The poor are most likely to come to Christ then the rich.

You may be thinking that Jesus sounds like one of those cult leaders who do this for power and money. However, Jesus didn't have much money, He didn't know where His next meal would be coming from, nor would he know where He was going to stay next. Also, a cult leader after gaining so much money would not be mocked and die one of the worst ways that mankind has conjured up in history.

To Pragmathen
why did you say that atheists have reason to be scared and for good reason?

Because they have the power to prove God scientifically once and for all. However, I think this will take a lot for some. Probably a lot more than I think.

Luke the writer of one of the four gospels(he also wrote Acts) in the New Testament was actually a doctor. He was supposed to be one of the most intelligent of our time. He wrote how when the Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side, the water and blood were seperated. Though he didn't know it at the time, this was discovered later by scientists of what happens in our kidneys after we die.

I replied that I thought Jesus was a great man, though I do disagree with his methodology and some other points. He immediately took offense,

I hate it when people take offense. You usually find that people take offense at things when they are uncomfortable with it. I used to see this among some of the Muslim population at my school. You can tell when you've proven Jesus is the Christ, because they suddenly turn off from listening, even though they were the ones who first told me why He isn't.

Well, I'm going to digress a bit here and say that I actually loved the Old Testament quite a lot when I used to read through it.

I only really started reading the bible about three probable now four years ago, and the old testament was basically all I read. Before then,I used to jst read the children's bible. I would have been 14 when I began to read the actual bible.

If you don't mind telling me, what religion were you and what are you now? Is your brother Jewish? Because you mentioned he was proselyting in south America, I found out last night when I was reading Hebrews and the foot note, had Proselyte as some kind of Jewish thing.

To Prag
It just means that atheists read it differently (when they read it, that is).[/b]

Do you still read the bible, just curious because it sounds like you still love it. Again I'm just curious.

The mind taps an amazing ability, though I haven't really looked into Scientology recently. Have a headache, try and circumvene the headache by understanding it (through neuroscience) and blocking it through the proper release of inhibitors from the endocrine system. Put a name on it, say, Jesus and it's healed. Jesus, then, becomes the means by which the healing has the desired effect. If you would have said, Ronaldo, it would have the same effect, as long as your mind can incorporate the belief that saying 'Ronaldo' will have a beneficial effect on your system. In short, doesn't it seem that people are being healed throughout this planet, whether they believe in Christ or not?

Pragmathen

You originally spoke about the mind tapping as an amazing ability to heal. Like understanding the actual illness first then healing it neurologically.

[qoute]Thus, the dead really never die as long as there is someone left to remember them.

This is true to us, but try to tell the dead person that.
It is more the memory of them hasn't died. This is more of a philosophical point. From a philosophical point of view the person is still alive in your heart. But dead in this world.

Also, the point about the Holy Spirit deserves a response. When you go see a movie such as Braveheart and watch some exceptionally piercing (emotional) scene, do you ascribe those feelings to the Holy Spirit? Or, do you, instead, ascribe those feelings to some inner yearning of the soul? Or something else? Some churches will tell you, when you attend them, that, "That feeling you feel when you're here? It's the Holy Spirit telling you that what you're hearing is true." Not necessarily. I believe that it's some form of communication that everyone is capable of feeling. IMHO, this feeling is not limited to the religious (for it is possible to be spiritual without being religious) and it cannot be generated at will. The point? Just that, whether we realize it or not, no one has full reign over this particular feeling. Maybe I'm just rambling.

I know, Christians are taught not to trust there feelings. Sometimes genuinely you can feel the Holy Spirit, other times it can be your imagination. So it annoys me to when people go ascribing feelings just to try to bring on some sort of spiritual experience. I feel sorry for those people.

I must also tell you that my minister on his trip didn't tell the people about these things. So when they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in toungues and even fall in the Spirit they could not come back and tell him that he made them do these things. He says that when praying over someone for an infilling of the Holy Spirit he doesn't touch them, so as later they can't say that he caused them to fall. Trust me, I have been prayed over by one women who was physically pushing my fore head so hard that I was almost getting a neck cramp. I'm not one of those to try to generate a spiritual experience. I do not think that God would honour such a mentality.

Doctrine is indeed important. But if you focus on it long enough, it's only a matter of time before one of two things happen:

1. You become disgruntled with the way that particular piece of doctrine is being promulgated and therefore must leave that religious establishment and either look elsewhere or not at all.
2. You learn something that you don't think you should know or that you don't think you can handle and so it goes on the back burner along with a multitude of other religious inconsistencies because, as God said, "Thy ways are not my ways.

By issue no.1 are you talking about how certain scripture is taken out of context? Then I agree.

Also for issue no.2 you will find that there is usually an answer that is non contradictory. The hardest part is looking and most importantly praying.

In all instances, if the church does not measure up to the doctrine then you should go and find a new church.

Rambler

Santa Claus was originally St Nicholas a real man who walked this Earth. He used to go out on the street each Christmas and give children gifts. This is where the tradition stems from. However, what I don't agree with is the notion that if you're naughty you don't get any presents. I believe people should say if you repent and turn to Jesus Christ then you will receive many.

Also, did I answer your question above. I'm sorry I did not really understand what you were asking, that why I asked where abouts it is. I am not perfect, I am human just like you are. I do not have an understanding of everything, however the bible does help me a lot, wheter you respect that is up to you. However, I am glad I brought a smile to your face. At least I made you day.

Thanks for reading.
I hope I answered some of your questions to the best of my somewhat limited ability. As this is probably the biggest post I have ever done! :)

Take care!

[Boris]

While Christianity presupposes there is a God. Atheism pressuposses there isn't. Both scientists inherently have presuppositions before even starting experiments and finding evidence.


A few minor points:

1) Christianity presupposes a great whopping deal more than a mere existence of <u>a</u> god. And actually on second thought, that's not at all a minor point.

2) Atheism is the natural state of mind. It is the tabula rasa, the blank page. It is how all humans are born. Lack of belief in a god is not a "presupposition" -- it is the fundamental starting point.

3) The "presuppositions" of scientists arise from existing theories and observations, which in turn are based on past theories and observations, and so on down the ladder to the most basic and fundamental "theories" (such as the "theory" of electromagnetic behavior of matter presupposed by the construction of the human eye) and fundamental observations (such as "I exist"). Thus, "presuppositions" is a misnomer when applied to science; the proper term might be "theories", or "models".

4) On the other hand, when it comes to religions, "presuppositions" are just that -- presuppositions. At some point in distant history, they were actually the most advanced science of the time -- and they <u>were</u> science, because attempting to explain existence is precisely what they were about. Of course, they were very poor science by modern standards, and for a great many reasons. Needless to say, no well-educated person would favor these ancient pseudo-models and semi-theories above modern science.

[Boris]

Just some random info about our various "Christian" rituals, for everyone's amusement...

I've always wondered about the connection between the alleged resurrection of Jesus and the egg-laying rabbit. So, I finally went and looked it up. Here's from Encyclopedia Britannica, for everyone else's benefit:


Around the Christian observance of Easter as the climax of the liturgical drama of Holy Week and Good Friday, folk customs have collected, many of which have been handed down from the ancient ceremonial and symbolism of European and Middle Eastern pagan spring festivals brought into relation with the resurrection theme. These customs have taken a variety of forms, in which, for example, eggs, formerly forbidden to be eaten during Lent, have been prominent as symbols of new life and resurrection. The hare, the symbol of fertility in ancient Egypt, a role that was kept later in Europe, is not found in North America. Its place is taken by the Easter rabbit, the symbol of fertility and periodicity both human and lunar, accredited with laying eggs (often brightly coloured or decorated) in nests prepared for it at Easter or with hiding them away for children to find.


Concerning Christmas, there's an interesting story behind the Christmas Tree:


Christmas tree
an evergreen, usually a balsam or douglas fir, decorated with lights and ornaments as a part of Christmas festivities. The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands as a symbol of eternal life was an ancient custom of the Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime; it survived further in the custom, also observed in Germany, of placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays.

The modern Christmas tree, though, originated in western Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam and Eve was a fir tree hung with apples (paradise tree) representing the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a paradise tree in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the host, the Christian sign of redemption); in a later tradition, the wafers were replaced by cookies of various shapes. Candles, too, were often added as the symbol of Christ. In the same room, during the Christmas season, was the Christmas pyramid, a triangular construction of wood, with shelves to hold Christmas figurines, decorated with evergreens, candles, and a star. By the 16th century, the Christmas pyramid and paradise tree had merged, becoming the Christmas tree.

The custom was widespread among the German Lutherans by the 18th century, but it was not until the following century that the Christmas tree became a deep-rooted German tradition. Introduced into England in the early 19th century, the Christmas tree was popularized in the mid-19th century by the German Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria. The Victorian tree was decorated with candles, candies, and fancy cakes hung from the branches by ribbon and by paper chains. Brought to North America by German settlers as early as the 17th century, Christmas trees were the height of fashion by the 19th century. They were also popular in Austria, Switzerland, Poland, and The Netherlands. In China and Japan, Christmas trees, introduced by western missionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, were decorated with intricate paper designs.

[Fred]

Originally posted by Rambler
Your a classic Fred, I near wet myself....keep up the good work.

But be carefull I'm starting to think your not joking.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

seriously.


BTW Smart guy, the reason they don't use water for x-ray protection is because you would need to wear a water jacket about as big as swiming pool to protect yourself. Hey there's an idea the radiologists should have a pool out the back and they can dive in to take the x-rays...very cool idea.


Oh and did this hydosphere exist before god invented air pressure??? or didn't water boil in those days???

answer please I love this joke :D



Well, it is cold in outerspace. So, I don'tthink it would boil, it would freeze.

[FA_Q2]

" Well, it is cold in outerspace. So, I don'tthink it would boil, it would freeze."

OK,
Ill go slow so you can understand this fred.

First of all evaporation can happen in cold environments. For example the ocean evaporates into the atmosphere all the time. Evaporation IS boiling, at a smaller scale that is. When a light ray hits the surface of the water it is absorbed and the water is heated. The entire ocean does not heat up simultaneously, a very small amount heats up and does one of two things. It either evaporates and escapes or cools off by giving its heat to the surrounding water. Now apply this to a hydrosphere that you suppose as absorbing HUGE amounts of energy in the form of radiation. I also need to mention that cold water can boil. In a chemistry class I attended some years ago I got the chance to see water at 0 C boil. The state of matter depends on two things: temperature and pressure. If the pressure around water is 0 then it boils quite easily. It does not need to become a liquid at all in the near vacuum environment of space.

[Rambler]

I assure you it would boil before it froze, Like FA_Q2 said boiling water depends on several things one of which is pressure. At even relativley low altitudes still well within the atmosphere water will boil. Further for water to freeze you need an impurity for the water to form an ice crystal around it or else you get super cooled vapour, this is what 'causes icing on wing tips and makes aircraft turn into large falling objects.

But lets say your God made it happen, somehow approximatley 6000 years ago there was a blanket of frozen water around the earth protecting the terran life forms below it....what happened to gravity??? how did light filter through a frozen ocean and begin a food chain??? where did the water end up??? what caused it to disapear?? why can't it be verified?? could it be because it never existed?? that you have infact fooled your own self, that your faith has missled you?? that you subscribe to ideas that grade school children would find laughable??

Fred, how is it that a person (yourself) who can read has information available at their fingertips (Internet, books, school) can be so confused about the very world they interact with??? I just can't understand how a person could be SO missled by 1 freaking book.

[ripleofdeath]

dont forget 200 or more people standing next to him screaming the same thing.
and not to belive is to be a "bad person" and victimised by the church people that surrounded him.
in time with the rite guidence he may become more accepting of the possibilties that encompass all things rather than the" facts that rule out most"
groove on all
chin up fred and look to the future not the appoccalipse

[tony1]

Originally posted by Cris
Your clause ‘think you have’ implies doubt, but there is no doubt that the data exists. What you are struggling to say is that the data should not be interpreted as evidence to support an evolutionary answer to the origin of life.
I stand corrected, however, it is not as much of a struggle as you think.

The large quantities of data collected by scientists overwhelmingly indicate an evolutionary cause to life.
Except for the the fact that the data prove creationism, you might be right.

Your phrase ‘merely described’ is entirely redundant.
It appears so, but many believe there is evidence for evolution when there actually isn't any.

And because an evolutionary cause and a supernatural cause are mutually exclusive then the data cannot be used to support a supernatural claim in this case.
I was just about to say the same, in reverse.

It is therefore obvious that the bible passages relating to origins are highly unlikely to be correct in the light of reasonable interpretation of existing data.
The definition of "reasonability" here would be at such a low level as to be unacceptable to me.

The bible becomes irrelevant in such circumstances and should be discarded, as would all other competing claims that have little or no reasonable supporting evidence.
Needless to say.
I really do mean needless.

This is your main point in any debate involving well, anything.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Also, could such a sphere hold its own weight? I think not.
A non-self-supporting sphere?
What whimsical nonsense that is.
Are you completely unaware of the shape of a sphere?


Originally posted by Rambler
Tell me why your god would go to such extreme efforts to hide its own existance. According to you your god created a universe that looks billions of years old, planted false evidence of evolution, created humans to worship it unconditionaly, but also created us in such a way that we are not satisfied until we have evidence of something before we believe it...then left 1 single contradictory text which states: believe in me or burn in hell for eternity......and somehow your still convinced that your god loves you...how would you feel about a parent that went to extreme efforts to decive their child and then they killed that child for falling for it??? I'm pretty certain even the christains would be pissed of with such a person, and yet you defend whats writen in your holy book. Wake up man!!!!! your capable of questioning it...give it a try and see how it stands.
I'd be kind of pissed off myself if that's the way things were.

1. Who told you it looks billions of years old?
How does anyone know what differences there would be between an earth billions of years old and one that is 6000 years old?
We've only got one earth.
2. There is NO evidence of evolution, therefore there isn't any false evidence.
3. People were created to worship God, but were also given the choice to do so or not.
4. There are no contradictions in the Bible, simply a long list of ideas people have difficulty understanding.
5. Hell is the grave.
6. There is a lake of fire, but that doesn't last for eternity.
7. God does love me; he sent Jesus to die for me.

ripleofdeath:
Cave drawings prove that people are descended from micro-organisms?
That is new.

Deadwood:
God in Vanuatu?

Great!!

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
If he is so good, why doesn't he come to hospital where doctors can monitor the whole healing process?
Do you know any doctor who likes to be pre-empted?
Don't just lie and say yes, answer the question for real.

Originally posted by pragmathen
IOTW, it would seem that the lower the education level, the more likely someone is to embrace religion, specifically Chrisitianity; while, conversely, the greater the educational level, the more likely someone will <i>NOT</i> embrace religion. Hmm. Wonder why.
People who are very educated are unaware that they do not have the answers because of the large number of "answers" they've been given.

Deadwood:

...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(Acts 11:26, KJV).

By whom? I'm guessing non-Christians.
Christians call each other Bob, Bill, Sue, etc.

Originally posted by pragmathen
Doctrine is indeed important. But if you focus on it long enough, it's only a matter of time before one of two things happen:

1. You become disgruntled with the way that particular piece of doctrine is being promulgated and therefore must leave that religious establishment and either look elsewhere or not at all.
2. You learn something that you don't think you should know or that you don't think you can handle and so it goes on the back burner along with a multitude of other religious inconsistencies because, as God said, "Thy ways are not my ways."

1. Do your own promulgation.
2. Read what the Bible actually says rather than what you're told it says.

Originally posted by Rambler
are you seriously trying to convince me your god exists because there are people out there who claim they can heal with prayer (and worse others who believe them)....baaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!! your a classic. Don't worry mate santa is coming and the easter bunny has just been.
Die in your sins, then.

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
note* isnt it funny how cristians seem so arrogant about there belifes inspite of others who say ive got an open mind
have you ever heard a cristian say "im not sure but ive got an open mind"
Make sure your mind isn't so open everything falls out.
Oops, I may be too late.

Originally posted by Boris
Just some random info about our various "Christian" rituals, for everyone's amusement..
Glad you put the quotation marks around Christian.
As you might have found out in your studies, those rituals were created, or adopted, by our "Christian" buddies, the Catholics.

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
dont forget 200 or more people standing next to him screaming the same thing.
and not to belive is to be a "bad person" and victimised by the church people that surrounded him.
in time with the rite guidence he may become more accepting of the possibilties that encompass all things rather than the" facts that rule out most"
groove on all
chin up fred and look to the future not the appoccalipse
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read stuff like this.

People are actually trying to save your life, so you could change your nick to "ripleoflife."

riple, we're talking about life, your life.
You're acting like a wild animal caught in a trap, violently resisting any help, because you don't understand.

[Cris]

Tony1,


...the fact that the data prove creationism, ...

and

but many believe there is evidence for evolution when there actually isn't any.

Are you really serious? Do you really believe that there is no substance to evolutionary theories?

It is not credible to believe that anyone can totally reject all the vast quantities of evidence that show the validity of evolution. How can you be so blind?

[Rambler]

It's called "Christain Science" and it makes as much sense as the name suggests.

[Cris]

Rambler,

Ah yes that famous oxymoron 'Christian Science' - the two irreconcilable opposites - Christianity and science – just like faith and reason.

Thanks

[ripleofdeath]

dear tony... sigh
what i meant about the cave drawings is that they date back thousands of years and show pictures of men in suits with helmets.
sorta like space traveling type people.
i must appoligise for the very vauge reference.
soo....
your trying to save my life...?
so what do i have now in youre opinion?
and if you want me to expand on the ripleofdeath-isms
i will gladly.
the name means as much as yours but more...
because it isnt yours its mine...
and so there for it is a name for me not you.
you dont call youre self "light of all good hope"
or
"tony nice guy"
or
"caringfortheworld"
WE ARE 'ALL' BUT A MEER RIPLE OF DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE LIFE IS ETERNAL AND WE ARE MEER SHADOWS OF WHAT WE COULD BE!
AND EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE HAVE CHOSEN.
but i seek to evolve ... not revolve!
so we "all" must expand our horizons of thoughts.
you do not need to defend god!
god as you belive will endure!
so let us concentrate on teaching all to live together not
be vindictive or hateful
OR
pregedus as most religin seems to dictate.
how arrogant to think jesus died for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he tried to prove a point!
and it was lost by most people.
look at "gahndi" (spelling might be up the shitter)
passive resistance by the masses!
imagine if all the cristians in the USA only decided to protest against ... lets say... deception of others for the greed of one!
all the world press would be there... it would be one of the greatest assembalies of people in all history!
BUT THEY DONT
and
THEY WONT
but we all hope they might.
groove on :)
peace...love...and missery to all greed merchants

[FA_Q2]

Except for the the fact that the data prove creationism, you might be right.

you must be joking. How does the data point that way?

A non-self-supporting sphere?
What whimsical nonsense that is.
Are you completely unaware of the shape of a sphere?


ha, yes I do have a very good idea of what the shape of a sphere is. The question is do you have any idea what the logistics of a sphere that encircles the entire planet AND is thick enough to block out all radiation. Don't tell me a sphere is incapable of collapsing in on itself. That leaves some serious problems with modern science and engineering.

1. Who told you it looks billions of years old?
How does anyone know what differences there would be between an earth billions of years old and one that is 6000 years old?
We've only got one earth.

But on this earth there are lots of old and new things, and many are older than 6000 years.

Glad you put the quotation marks around Christian.
As you might have found out in your studies, those rituals were created, or adopted, by our "Christian" buddies, the Catholics.

Then you must not celebrate Passover or Christmas. Both products of pagan worship I might add.

[Deadwood]

I would like to point out to all that space is actually extremely hot. However, if we were out in space and were not affected by the vacuum, we would actually be snap frozen. Does that help for an explantion of ice? Anyway, there is ice in space.

The reason why space is hot, is because the particles move really fast. That is what heat is. If a group of atoms in a solid are moving really fast, the solid will be hot. However, if the atoms are moving very slow. The solid will be cold.

I forget why things will be snap frozen, I think its because there are less particles per square metre.

Anyway, I learnt that in Grade 12 multristrand science last year. So if you want to refute that you may very well, however, I didn't go to a Christian school but a public one, so you wouldn't be refuting my Christian buddies but your scientists. I guess that will stop a lot of the nit picking now and actually generate discussion about the actual topic.

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by Deadwood
I would like to point out to all that space is actually extremely hot. However, if we were out in space and were not affected by the vacuum, we would actually be snap frozen. Does that help for an explantion of ice? Anyway, there is ice in space.

The reason why space is hot, is because the particles move really fast. That is what heat is. If a group of atoms in a solid are moving really fast, the solid will be hot. However, if the atoms are moving very slow. The solid will be cold.

I forget why things will be snap frozen, I think its because there are less particles per square metre.

Heat is energy, and it can only be transferred by contact or radiation. You can't not say space is hot because particles move fast. Heat can only be measured if there is energy transfer between objects. No transfer, no heat. Simple as that. If you take a water molecule of out a pot of boiling water into the space, you won't feel a thing. Why? Because the molecule alone don't have enough energy to heat you up, even it move at the same speed as every other boiling molecule in the same pot.

[ripleofdeath]

but what if that molicukle of water was broken down to atoms or qwarks and then bounced through you at light speed?

[Rambler]

Multistrand science hey...that kind of explains it then.

However, you are quite right if you take matter and throw it out into space it will snap freeze. The reason is that space is actually at almost absolute zero. Absolute zero is where all motion stops at atomic level. Basically its freaking cold...the tempreture gradient between you and space is HUGE. From your multistrand studies you should have learnt that heat will try to find an equilibrium ie if you take 2 bits of matter at different tempretures and bring them together they will transfer heat until they are at equal tempreture. The greater the temp gradient the quicker the transfer. So thats how you get snap frozen. Now back to the hydrosphere (LOL), if you are suggesting that your god made this water appear instantly just outside the atmosphere then yes it would freeze (well some of it) not snap freeze (we're considering a HUGE ocean it would flood the earth, it would have to be thick enough to support its own wieght (HUGE is an understament)...so the process would not be instant and much of the water would infact boil off (need pressure for liquids). Also this water could not just be water it would need alot of impurity to form ice, as I've said twice now for ice crystals to form you need an impurity or it will not form (remember super cooled vapour). I hope that makes it a little clearer for you.

Now if you still believe such an event occured 6000 years ago where's the water now??? how did life sustain itself?? you know for the food chain to begin you need sunlight the good and the bad radiation... some forms of flora need UV, what about heat, where did it come from??, wheather, did it exist??, Care to explain how the ecosystem sustained itself or even began??, or simply explain how that big arse crater in the states formed, Infact what happened to all the meteor activity at that time did this hydrosphere just take impacts of that kind (now where talking a hydrosphere of imense proportions), where was the moon during this time?? and how did the dynamics of its gravity get countered by the hydrosphere to keep it from colapsing?? Can you verify your interpretation of the bible with physical evidence??? If you can give a satisfactory answer I'll go praise your god otherwise dust off your text books and use that bible as the door stop it was meant to be.

BTW mate I'm not refuting scientists I'm refuting your misinterpretation of basic science. (for those of you outside of australia mutlistrand science in senoir highschool is equivalent to an mid-level junior science course, an introduction to science if you like). Oh and thanks for making my point about what it takes to be a christain ie misinformation and ignorance.

LOL I can't believe this thread is still going...it is amusing though.

[Tiassa]

When I was 14, I saw a cold boil. Essentially, this is a simple experiment. A pyrex flask holding, say, 250 ml of water, capped with a rubber stopper bearing one hole, to which is attached a length of hose attached to a hand-held pressure gun. At first, of course, the pressure gun simply draws the air out of the flask, but as nature abhors a vacuum ....

The water gives the appearance of boiling as it attempts to fill the space; I could hold the flask in my hand with no discernable heat effect during this process carried out. There are many, I'm sure, who can fill in the detail of that process. What I'm after here is the vacuum of space ... as the water boils off and freezes, depending on its exposure to the radiation and chill of space, it will attempt to equalize the density of the void it finds itself in.

As relates in any way to the topic at hand, at no time can I see the firmament as a shield of solid ice. Although I admit that the planet would do well with pretty ice rings, but that would probably make it too cold to be habitable, should the planet be far enough from the sun to support ice rings.

Just a random thought popping up ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[Rambler]

It's Bernouli's (SP? been a few years since I've had to think about it) equation. From Memory it goes like this:

nRT= PV (I think, like I said a few years)
R= Reynolds Number, constant.
n = Can't remember, but its constant
V = Volume
only variables are T, P, and V

regardless, as can be seen pressure and tempreture are directly proprtional which means if you decrease one the other needs to be decreased by the same ratio (Volume increases proprtionaly). In other words as P approaches zero so does T for the equation to hold true. Hence decreasing pressure will decrease the boling tempreture of liquids.

Forgive me about the spelling of Bernouli (BER-NOOL-EE) I can't remember it, but I'm pretty sure of the equation.

[Tiassa]

I don't even recall why we did this experiment. We sure never learned the neat-o formula. But then again, I went to a rural/suburban, American public junior high school. I'm surprised I know how to breathe. :D

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

[ripleofdeath]

hey tiassa :D
maybe you got hit by a bolt of lightning that formatted the school brainwashing :D
groove on

[Sir. Loone]

God is real! And He is as real as any of you! :)

He is the 'Supreme Being', and is beyond scientific scrutiny! :O :) So don't lose your hair over this! Come to Jesus in faith and we could show you folks what true LOVE IS! :D

[Tiassa]

He is the 'Supreme Being', and is beyond scientific scrutiny!
So that eliminates the argument that God is scientifically real ....

Thank you for simplifying the topic, but we all knew that God is not scientifically real or even demonstrable, to begin with. Well, as I look at the topic header, I should amend that to say that, Almost all of us knew that God is not scientifically real or demonstrable.

(Any port in a storm, it seems ... it's a great faith argument, but it kind of hacks the topic premise while, apparently, but ... oh!)

Hey, Loone: I officially call you out on this one.
God and science can go hand in hand! (Sir.Loone, God is scientifically REALL, 4/25/01; 1.09 GMT)
and, of course, as we noted above:
God is real! And He is as real as any of you!

He is the 'Supreme Being', and is beyond scientific scrutiny! (Sir.Loone, God is scientifically REALL, 5/7/01, 23.37 GMT)
So, um ... yeah. If nothing is impossible for God, we must realize that this includes the capability of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. To the other, even I would have thought God smart enough to use two separate sheep from the flock. This, at least, would explain, say, Tony1 vs. Catholics, or to be more serious, why WARC keeps calling together various reformed churches in an effort to unify the flock.

But that's some nice consistency there, Loone. I applaud you with my broadest grin :D

--Tiassa :cool:

[Rambler]

Your not suggesting that a christain would contradict themselves now are you (tongue firmly in cheek)...surely you jest.

LOL, everytime I read this subject name I laugh. Its like the simpsons episode when bart and lisa go to camp krusty and bart sits in a corner chanting "Krusty's coming, Krusty's coming..........." when I read the subject name I get this visual of a christain rocking back and forth saying "he's real, he's scientificaly real...."

[FA_Q2]

I remember the equation fairly well Rambler, not as many years I guess. You got it right except that n is not a constant. It stands for the number of molecules in a substance. Just thought you would like to know :)

[Rambler]

I knew someone would pick me up on it. However in this case the n would be contsant because the only parameters we are concerned with as variables are PTand V, ie mass is constant.

I actually did this in a sub-sonic aerodynamics subject, and if you were ever bored by math then aerodynamics would put you in a coma, so I'm happy I remembered any of it :D.

how did I go with the spelling of Bernouli???

[Sir. Loone]

Yes, God is real! But don't look to science to explane that of the 'super natural', and the infinte 'Supreme Being'! This is far beyond science and the ability for carnal man to concieve!
Even the Angels in Heaven do not know all about GOD! He the most mistereous being of all! More later! :)

[Sir. Loone]

Originally posted by tiassa

So that eliminates the argument that God is scientifically real ....

Thank you for simplifying the topic, but we all knew that God is not scientifically real or even demonstrable, to begin with. Well, as I look at the topic header, I should amend that to say that, Almost all of us knew that God is not scientifically real or demonstrable.

(Any port in a storm, it seems ... it's a great faith argument, but it kind of hacks the topic premise while, apparently, but ... oh!)

Hey, Loone: I officially call you out on this one.

and, of course, as we noted above:

So, um ... yeah. If nothing is impossible for God, we must realize that this includes the capability of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. To the other, even I would have thought God smart enough to use two separate sheep from the flock. This, at least, would explain, say, Tony1 vs. Catholics, or to be more serious, why WARC keeps calling together various reformed churches in an effort to unify the flock.

But that's some nice consistency there, Loone. I applaud you with my broadest grin :D

--Tiassa :cool: Hey Tiassa, God is a real person, but being the Supreme Being and is of the super natural, unsaved, and carnal people could never understand GOD as being a real person! The evidence of the Creator is all around you all, and we all shell meet Him face to face soon, saved or unsaved! Jesus saves! :D What you don't know can hert you ! :)

[Cris]

Sir Loone,

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
Yes, God is real! But don't look to science to explane that of the 'super natural', and the infinte 'Supreme Being'! This is far beyond science and the ability for carnal man to concieve!
Even the Angels in Heaven do not know all about GOD! He the most mistereous being of all! More later! :)

This poses something of a problem as to how we would categorize you.

It seems we must rule out science as a method for establishing this special knowledge. And angels, although I don't know of anyone who knows how to contact angels anyway. But you also claim that this being is the most mysterious of all. Do you realize that something mysterious is something that cannot be explained and is unknown?

So where does that place you? You appear to be above our best scientists, and above angels, and claim to know the unknown. I guess you are claiming that you are yourself a god if you know so much. How is that you have achieved this godhood?

But I also see your reference to carnal man, and in this sense I assume you mean non-spiritual. Does this then imply that you are purely spiritual?

Some answers please as to how you know these things with such certainty where others find the need to ask questions?

Cris

[Sir. Loone]

Originally posted by Cris
Sir Loone,



This poses something of a problem as to how we would categorize you.

It seems we must rule out science as a method for establishing this special knowledge. And angels, although I don't know of anyone who knows how to contact angels anyway. But you also claim that this being is the most mysterious of all. Do you realize that something mysterious is something that cannot be explained and is unknown?

So where does that place you? You appear to be above our best scientists, and above angels, and claim to know the unknown. I guess you are claiming that you are yourself a god if you know so much. How is that you have achieved this godhood?

But I also see your reference to carnal man, and in this sense I assume you mean non-spiritual. Does this then imply that you are purely spiritual?

Some answers please as to how you know these things with such certainty where others find the need to ask questions?

Cris Hello Cris, this is Sir. Loone, Well my little 'rabbit' guy, I am a survent of GOD. In that I have some 'heart knowledge' of the Word of God, we Christians are not gods, but messingers of the most high 'living' GOD and we know more then you who deny the faith. Attmit it, there is still so much about this old universe thet we humans will ever know in this life time [laymen or scientist] on Earth, even many life times will never know about scientificaly. Still there's an enormus amount you don't know, I don't know, they don't know about what is, and is not now in the present may be found to be true in the future. GOD is omnipresent and is right there were you are and also past the farthest quazar! He is the GOD of the here and now, and He is not an 'ogre' in the sky that wants to take all the fun out of life, but His Son has come so that we that believe in Him (the Son of GOD) would have life, and to have it more abondently. (freed up from the 'slavery' of sin)
Remmeber that there is the enemy with-in(carnal nature) and the Devil that aposesses the turth of God's word so that you would not believe.
Science can shine some light that GOD's words are true, and that there is a desiner to this universe ,but only in the natural. Science can not disprove, but it is mans tool to wonder afther His creation! :D

If you dont know God, then He is unknown to you, and I garantee you He will be revealed to you one day. But don't let it be the Great White Throne of Judgment! :D

[Tiassa]

Attmit it, there is still so much about this old universe thet we humans will ever know in this life time [laymen or scientist] on Earth, even many life times will never know about scientificaly. This is why scientists work toward posterity, because no new progress can be made if the future generations don't have a record of scientific advances and mistakes.

In religious terms, it's called working toward the Kingdom of God.

This lifetime is, in this sense, unimportant compared to the whole of humanity: it would seem you are concerned about the present state of things (e.g.--your Universe), and not the kingdom of knowledge to come (e.g.--your children's Universe).

Just because we won't have the answers in this lifetime doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or is that what God teaches? And where in the Bible is that?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[Cris]

Sir Loone,

So you have some ‘heart knowledge’ of the word of God. I think I can safely re-phrase that and state ‘you know god because you feel it in your heart’.

As a serious question: Can you see that there is no difference between the psychological condition of self-delusion and your claims of god knowledge?

Without some form of independent verification that what you say has substance then it is reasonable for us to conclude that you are suffering from self-delusion.

Cris

[Javier]

This poetry of yours tiassa:floater,endless 1;is good, man...

[Tiassa]

And thank Rob, Dave, and Pete, for giving to all of us. http://www.floatermusic.com

What can I say? They're my favorite band, with no sign of letting go.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[ripleofdeath]

hey all
sir loone-a few thoughts on your statements-or nature there of.
as you call your self a christian do you think that everyone needs to label them selfs as a christian?
i assume not....?
and you point to judgement day!- why would god create us mearly to judge us?
jesus the son of god-i assume god did not have sex???
i might be wrong(i hope he has the pleasure of it in some form)
so if jesus is not able to be the "son" of god-re: father-mother-reproduction>creating>"son of _"
do you infer jesus was the adoptive son of god?
i see jesus in par with people like ma>hut>ma>gahndi (sorry for bad spelling)-jhon lennon-jhon f kennedy-and a lot others-
the monk body>dharma-buhda/
not all have reached the same quanity of people as others may have and may do, but...
"THE LESSON"
is the important part, not the label, as im sure you will agree. Though we may have retarded science(in light of cover-ups and ETs) we can scientificly prove
that god exists(if infact he does/my personal opinion is that what most atribute to god is just a superior ET)
because all energy affects or is affected and all life has energy.

just a thought and a q 2 u 2 ponder through....your thoughts?

groove on all :)

[rlpete2]

Now, if the bed of the Pecos had dinosaur footprints ON TOP of the human footprints, there would be an interesting point to discuss. But people who want to take the Bible literally are not going to listen to actual scientific study; they are going to confuse the scientists use of a word like theory with the meaning of hypothesis; they are going to insist that God created all the paleological and geological evidence of an ancient Earth to confound us. I have no idea why God would want to do that, and I doubt that I would want to worship such a deceptive god. Too bad the Bible doesn't say humans can fly; maybe the fundamentalists would all jump off tall buildings, or at least think twice about taking the Book literally.

[Lawdog]

Well, you really make the reasoned side of Revealed religion sound ridiculous by saying the Earth is only 6000 years old. Using the Bible in such haphazard way does not win points in scientific speculation. Just because the Evolutionary Theorists have prostituted Science to fit their their theory doesnt mean we should respond with equally shaky pronouncements.

The science of theology and the MOST ancient records of the Hebrews in scripture attest to the truth of God's creative power, that he "creates things out of nothing".

Hebrew Scripture is not myth. I am a mythographer and know the elements of Myth in detail. Hebrew scripture is historic in purpose. Nothing in scripture resembles "mythology of other cultures"

Western Science has thrown out its partner in knowledge, theology, and thus is bound to err in several ways.

The idea that you bible-thumpers have about the Earth being 6ooo years old, apart from being hinted at in Isaiah, was popularized by an Anglican cleric over a hundred years ago. Such an idea is as absurd as saying life started on Earth several billion years ago.

Even Darwin himself noted the serious deficiency in fossil evidence. Most scientists of his day knew that he had alot to explain. It was the rise of liberal materialist philosophies that opened up the way for such left feild atheistic theories like Darwin's.

Now the Scientific Establishment wishes to base their claims for the age of the Earth on depth of fossil in strata, but how do they know how old the strata is? They know strata-age by the fossil found therein, a circular arguement.

The Evolutionists have proped up their seriously flawed theory by extending the existance of Life on Earth to an absurdly huge length of time, since the needed amount of mutations to change a mouse into a whale is so huge only vast expanses of time could give rise to such change. At the same time, for a mammal to become a whale with the windpipe in its back, would take a single-generational evolutionary jump, or else youve got alot of drowned little mammals.

The main error of the Evolutionists is to conclude that similarity of species implies common origin. This leads them to make absurd ascientific assumptions.

Isaiah 6ooo years means the world in relation to Man and Redemption. Having studied the Evidence for many years, my guess, as a professional pre-historian, is that the Earth was created about 50-100,000 years ago. This allows for the successive worlds of dinosuars to flourish and in turn be replaced by other worlds, such as mammals.

Of course dinosaurs may have remained up until the time of the antediluvian civilizations, since lack of evidence for dinosuars/+men is reasonable,but lack of evidence does not necessarily mean they were not contemporaneous, but it is unlikely.

We may conjecture that such beasts (Behemoth, Leviathan) may have been destroyed by humanoid giants, the kind that Goliath and others may have descended from. This is unlikely. However, early men may have found dinosuar sculls still unburied and reasoned what these great beasts once were, hence the dragon stories.

Certainly by the time of Noah the great lizards had perished. Noah's ark will soon be found in mt Ararat. Scientists will wet their pants.

[pragmathen]

First off, welcome back to sciforums, Lawdog. It's been a while.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Lawdog:</i>
The science of theology and the MOST ancient records of the Hebrews in scripture attest to the truth of God's creative power, that he "creates things out of nothing".
<hr>
</blockquote>

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's actually possible to create things out of nothing. I thought that the original Hebrew scholars would say that God <i>organizes pre-existing material and forms other things</i>. If God set the standard for this universe (or especially if he did not) then God cannot create things out of nothing, he must take what is already present and form things accordingly. Otherwise he'd be cheating on the laws he set for us.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Nothing in scripture resembles "mythology of other cultures"
<hr>
</blockquote>

Sure about that? That's an awful lot of discounting going on there. What about the creation story? Quite a few religions, as well as tribes have something similar to that. Some are a little more detailed, others about as simple. The flood? Quite a few stories about that are passed around as well. A coming messiah that will restore things ... ? Which religion doesn't have some super-human being that is worshipped and looked on as redemptive?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
The main error of the Evolutionists is to conclude that similarity of species implies common origin. This leads them to make absurd ascientific assumptions.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ascientific assumptions, eh? Like the fact that, as tiassa pointed out in another thread, bonobos monkeys share over 90% of the same DNA as humans. Assumption? Fact. Bone curvature, along with cranial capacity, shape of cervix, phalangial configuration, and backbone alignment give scientists as well as others ideas of similarity. Perhaps you'd like to compare apples to oranges and claim that, since there exists little similarities, they cannot be related. Why not compare oranges to tangerines? Apples to pears? Yeah, it would be one thing if scientists were saying that humans developed from little squiggly motile bacteria-like things--oh wait, we do. Sperm and ova cells.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Having studied the Evidence for many years, my guess, as a professional pre-historian, is that the Earth was created about 50-100,000 years ago.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Now, did you make this claim <i>before</i> you had heard what scientists thought of the age of the earth, or after? Because if it was after, then that means you recognize that life could not have evolved the way it has in 6,000 short years. If it was before, then that means you weren't tainted in any conceivable way by what those dastardly scientists have <i>already</i> postulated.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Noah's ark will soon be found in mt Ararat. Scientists will wet their pants.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Scientists will wet their pants? Is that from too much laughing perhaps?

What does it all come down to? Over-simplification aside, if Evolutionists are correct, then people are nice because they <i>want</i> to be. If Christians are correct, then people are nice because they feel <i>obligated</i> to do so. If people kill, it is because they want to, not because it is sanctioned by some minor deity; if one group dominates, it is because they love to have others subservient to them, not because some tyrannical God wills it to be so.

As Mark Twain once said, "Christianity will still be here five hundred years hence: stuffed and mounted in a museum."

This argument is one in which people are trying to let others know that we are all on pretty equal footing. Some of us are not at a higher plane solely on the way in which we believe. That's why most Christians won't budge on this. They don't want to be on level footing with the masses; they have this superiority complex they must feed. Those that voluntarily take a step down from such divisiveness realize motives they never knew existed.

Lawdog, this was not aimed directly at you. I should say thanks for what you wrote because it got me thinking and gave me a little boost to get on that soapbox.:)

[Sir. Loone]

Originally posted by Fred
In Genesis 1:6 He said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters, and in 1:8 God called the firmament Heaven. Now that really don't make any since until you read on in 1:20 He said that the fowl will fly in the firmament called Heaven, now that means that the firmament is the air, because the fowls fly in it. That means that, according the the Bible, there was once water below the air, the sea, and also above the air, which some Christian scientist call the Hydrosphere. That is a layer of water around the earth, most likely it was ice since it is freezing in outer space. Now for those of you who do not know, water is one of very few things that can filter out all of the harmful rays that the sun produces, such as x-rays, and delta rays, and etc. X-rays are like very tiny bullets, and they shoot kind of like a shot gun blast. What x-rays do is shoot through anything except for lead and concrete, and also water, now x-rays that the sun produces shoot through our flesh about three million times per hour. Don't worry, they are so tiny that our bodies can heal them in an instant, but it does harm us. Now with water above the earth protecting us, and plants from these harmful rays, things would be able to grow much faster, because there wouldn't be anything to slow growth down. Now the break down of the human cells is what kills most of us, so with out the rapid destruction things would obviously live longer. now there are many
"scientific" statements that, so called, prove that the earth must be billions of years old, but in fact it is only about 6,000 years old, no I did not miss any zeroes. Some of those statements are that there is too much coal in the world, and that man never lived with dinosaurs. Well with the hydrosphere still above the earth the plants would be able to grow more and produce more oxygen and in turn make the animals heal faster and grow much larger and this would make more coal when they die. Well that will fix the first statement, now the whole dinosaur thing, where to begin, you'll like this one. What is a dinosaur? All a dinosaur is is a big lizard, now what else is a big lizard? For sake of time it is a dragon, haha, I know, but dragon is mentioned throughout history, for instants, nights became heroes by slaying dragons, right. Now people say that the bible never mentions dinosaurs, but it does mention dragons. In Job 40 and 41 He show Job two creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan. Now Behemoth is very well described, in Job 40:15 the Bible says that he eateth grass like an ox, and in verse 16 it says his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. That means the majority of the animals body is his stomach, so far we have a big bellied animal that is a plant eater. The majority of Bible scholars believe this animal to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus because in verse 21 it says that he lieth under the shady tree in the fens, that means he lives in a swamp. I, however, do not think so, in fact I think that they are not thinking very hard because in verse 17 it says that he moveth his tail like a cedar,now have any of you ever seen a hippo or an elephant with a tail as big as a cedar tree? I haven't, but I have seen a dinosaur that fits all those descriptions, a brontosaurus. Well that is enough for now, I'm tired if any of you have anything to say about this, just let me know. Thanks.

This is Sir. Loone, to Fred: I have really enjoyed reading this post Fred, and I agree with you 100%! Keep up the good posts Fred! God bless you! Will be reading you. :D

[rlpete2]

I hadn't noticed before that the Bible verse about the great creature says it "moves its tail like a cedar." It does NOT say the tail was the size of a cedar; it is describing the MOTION, which I would guess meant that the tailswayed from side to side. Besides, some trees are not all that big; there's an elm seedling in my yard only 2 feet tall. So it seems to me the creature had a swaying tail; maybe like an elephant switches its tail to scatter flies.

Matter DOES flicker in and out of existence on a quantum level. To me, thay implies that there are further dimensions beyond our space-time, and other aspects of reality occasionally become detectable. Perhaps God lives in those other dimensions.

[Tiassa]

It really is a nice jigsaw-composite of ideas, but as I read through the bit about the cedar tails and the response to that, I'm left with a memory of a short story (fiction) in Omni magazine several years ago, by Lucius Shepherd, in which it came about that Marilyn Monroe was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas.

The problem with it is that if you confine yourself entirely inside the boundaries of the story, it makes perfect sense, and Marilyn Monroe killed Kennedy.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[ripleofdeath]

hey all
hey lawdog
i thought that the arc and the dead sea crolls had already been found but the local govt had stopped the digging and sent the archeoligists packing at gun point??????????????????????

[ripleofdeath]

or was that the 10 commandments???????????????????
it was a guy who was digging on a site for 20 + years and when
he found some stuff from the same era he was told to get out of the country by the govt and closed down his dig!]
he had been recieving students at the site for years from all over the world!
it was a documentary i saw a few years ago!
groove on all
:)