question about 'young universe' and light speed/stars

[qarpl]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea

[fjccommish]

How far something is from the Earth doesn't affect Earth's age.

[CID_0687]

sorry should have said universe... which obviously it does since the idea is that the light from those planets are traveling to us and they are millions of lights years away, implying that the source planet has to be millions of years old
Ahhh...but what is the source of the planet?

My opinion would be that the source is God.

How old is God? Who knows?

[Conservatismfirst]

If it's not very satisfying then maybe you're looking for a particular answer that you already have theorized?

Carbon dating is a common way that is used to determine the age of things...it assumes that carbon always broke down at the same rate though so it is built on this assumption. What if carbon broke down at a much faster or slower rate several thousand years ago?

I would check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/
and http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Much of it depends on your perspective.

I have read both The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Language of God by Francis S. Collins if you care to look at an athiest's perspective vs. a believer. Mr. Dawkins think's he's the greatest scientist and knows all...Dr. Collins was the scientist who mapped the human genome during the Clinton administration.
Hope this helps.

[Apatriot]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea

Very simple conceptually. God created the universe with the light rays from all the start already in place. It's the same concept as Adam's navel.

[Residential Bob]

I think I am confused by your response. To believe young earth/bible account of creation means that you believe the whole universe was created at once right? In that case, earth and the source planets of light would have to be formed at the same time.

if you believe that, then how can you explain the idea that we are receiving light from those planets from millions of years ago? this isn't me being stubborn the article i linked to explains the same ideas and the trouble creationist scienitists have explaining it.Planets aren't light sources.

But yes, I agree. Light travel time tells us that the universe is billions of years old.

[Apatriot]

I think I am confused by your response. To believe young earth/bible account of creation means that you believe the whole universe was created at once right? In that case, earth and the source planets of light would have to be formed at the same time.

if you believe that, then how can you explain the idea that we are receiving light from those planets from millions of years ago? this isn't me being stubborn the article i linked to explains the same ideas and the trouble creationist scienitists have explaining it.

God created the light from those stars in place.

[Conservatismfirst]

I think I am confused by your response. To believe young earth/bible account of creation means that you believe the whole universe was created at once right? In that case, earth and the source planets of light would have to be formed at the same time.

if you believe that, then how can you explain the idea that we are receiving light from those planets from millions of years ago? this isn't me being stubborn the article i linked to explains the same ideas and the trouble creationist scienitists have explaining it.


See my previous post on the book by Dr. Collins...ALL scientists now agree that the earth and everything in the universe was created as a result of an instant event...perhaps an explosion. Nobody has yet to come up with anything that caused this...other than an outside source...God?

[Marleysdaddy]

Carbon dating is a common way that is used to determine the age of things...it assumes that carbon always broke down at the same rate though so it is built on this assumption. What if carbon broke down at a much faster or slower rate several thousand years ago?
That's a great hypothetical...the problem is, there is no EVIDENCE that the rate of radioactive decay has changed (or even can change).

and this

Mr. Dawkins think's he's the greatest scientist and knows all.
is a straw man...

[Marleysdaddy]

ALL scientists now agree that the earth and everything in the universe was created as a result of an instant event...perhaps an explosion.

Can you provide some data which support this universal statement?

[CID_0687]

I think I am confused by your response. To believe young earth/bible account of creation means that you believe the whole universe was created at once right? In that case, earth and the source planets of light would have to be formed at the same time.

if you believe that, then how can you explain the idea that we are receiving light from those planets from millions of years ago? this isn't me being stubborn the article i linked to explains the same ideas and the trouble creationist scienitists have explaining it.
The concepts of time and distance don't apply with God.

I see it as perfectly feasible that the universe could have been created in one day.

Would you expect everything to be clumped together and only a couple of hours apart from each other? I don't.

[Conservatismfirst]

Can you provide some data which support this universal statement?


Can you prove it's a straw man?

That data comes from Dr. Collins...please see post below...if you want to prove me wrong the ball's in your court.

[Conservatismfirst]

this isn't a good answer either. its the same as saying time traveled faster or slower long ago without proof just to fit a theory. also from the reading I have done (quite a bit) christiananswers.net is almost always more scientific and reasonable than answeringenesis.

EDIT: change "saying time traveled" to "saying LIGHT"...

It's not something that specifically I've ever delved into...never even been to christiananswers.net

I can tell you that looking at looking at science from a starting point of the bible is a new concept and is greatly underfunded. Most scientists already buy into the atheistic view. I can tell you that Dr. Collins' states that he believes the earth is old too...but he still believes that an interactive God controls things from an outside perspective. Remember, we only have a brain and 5 senses.

I'm not sure what to believe about the issue to tell you the truth...an interesting subject though

[Apatriot]

I am not sure if you are being serious or not, but that response (and its associated issues/dilemmas) are answered in the url i had in my original post. the beginning of that explanation:

Why would God create a universe that couldn't be observed, and that was static? Why not put in the supernovas, etc. It was essential so that everything would look right.

Just like God giving Adam a navel.

[I am the Eggman]

Wow, then your god sure went to a lot of trouble to try to fool everybody into thinking that the earth is older than ~6000 years. I mean, creating light in place, putting fossils into rocks, changing the laws of physics so carbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) would make things look much older than they are. Are you sure he isn't trying to lie to us about when creation took place?

[RayMan]

God created the light from those stars in place.


Hi Apatriot,
I seem to recall you are Catholic. We have another Catholic on the board, a firm believer in God, who just last week wrote a very strong post about this subject and said, in essence, I paraphrase not quote, that if God created the Earth six thousand years ago and made it look like it took billions of years for the light from those stars to reach it, which I what I think you are saying, then God would be a liar.

He used the light from the stars as the basis for his disbelief in a six-day creation.

[optrader]

Wow, then your god sure went to a lot of trouble to try to fool everybody into thinking that the earth is older than ~6000 years. I mean, creating light in place, putting fossils into rocks, changing the laws of physics so carbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) would make things look much older than they are. Are you sure he isn't trying to lie to us about when creation took place?

Perhaps it is Satan doing the fooling...

[RayMan]

can you link me to this thread/post please? I would be very intersted

I love detective work. Let me burrow around in the threads and see what I come up with.

[RayMan]

can you link me to this thread/post please? I would be very intersted

That didn't as long as I thought it would. Here you go.


Literal
Metaphor
Metaphor

"This is My Body"...Literal

First day...sixth day...Allegory




To respond to another post...IMNSHO, a lying God is a God who creates a universe that REQUIRES we poor, stupid humans have to make up supernatural and other hand-waving events to explain them.

Could God have created the universe with light that looks as though it's been traveling for billions of years? Sure He could. Do I believe He did? No...that would be a lie.

[RayMan]

My pleasure.

[I am the Eggman]

Perhaps it is Satan doing the fooling...

Well, considering only your god could possibly do the creating, then satan would have had to author the genesis account to fool you. Or is satan your god?

[Lie Sniper]

Well, considering only your god could possibly do the creating, then satan would have had to author the genesis account to fool you. Or is satan your god?

Them there fossils got placed after God was done.

[orbitaldecay]

That's a great hypothetical...the problem is, there is no EVIDENCE that the rate of radioactive decay has changed (or even can change).

and this

is a straw man...

I figured it was more of a red herring.

[optrader]

Them there fossils got placed after God was done. :think:


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[optrader]

Well, considering only your god could possibly do the creating, then satan would have had to author the genesis account to fool you. Or is satan your god?


:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[optrader]

are you implying that satan created the earth/universe or what exactly did satan have enough power over to fool us with? if you believe the bible's account of creation you can't believe that satan put all of these things in place since it says God specifically did

People forget Lucifer/AKA Satan was second only to Christ in power and glory in Heaven. He would kill us all outright were Jesus to allow it. The only weapon Satan has unlimited use of is deception. Yes, God is the creator; can Satan tamper with evidence? To say no is to underestimate him, but I can't say he does in fact have the kind of power to pull off a deception of that magnitude. Still, we not taking his power and influence into consideration is to his benefit and our detriment...

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Marleysdaddy
Can you provide some data which support this universal statement?

Can you prove it's a straw man?
That's not the post which I said was a straw man...your post about Dawkins was the straw man

That data comes from Dr. Collins...please see post below...if you want to prove me wrong the ball's in your court.
I can easily prove you wrong...
I am a scientist
I do not agree that the earth and everything in the universe was creates as a result of an instant event.

Originally Posted by Conservatismfirst
ALL scientists now agree that the earth and everything in the universe was created as a result of an instant event...perhaps an explosion.

That's the problem with universal affirmatives, it only takes one contrary example to prove them wrong.

[Marleysdaddy]

I figured it was more of a red herring.

You are also correct...it was both a straw man and a red herring.

[RayMan]

You are also correct...it was both a straw man and a red herring.

There's a nasty mental image.

[gpd®]

We always fall back on Neo and the Architecht to fall back on

The Architect: Hello, Neo.

Neo: Who are you?

The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

Neo: Why am I here?

The Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

Neo: You haven't answered my question.

The Architect: Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "Others? What others? How many? Answer me!"*

The Architect: The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.

*Again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Five versions? Three? I've been lied too. This is ********."*

Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.

The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

*Once again, the responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "You can't control me! **** you! I'm going to kill you! You can't make me do anything!*

Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

*The scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architect's room*

The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.

Neo: The Oracle.

The Architect: Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

Neo: This is about Zion.

The Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.

Neo: ********.

*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "********!"*

The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

*Scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architects room.*

The Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.

Neo: You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.

The Architect: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every human being in this world.

*The Architect presses a button on a pen that he is holding, and images of people from all over the matrix appear on the monitors*

The Architect: It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.

*Images of Trinity fighting the agent from Neo's dream appear on the monitors*

Neo: Trinity.

The Architect: Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.

Neo: No!

The Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the source, and the salvation of Zion. The door to the left leads back to the matrix, to her, and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

*Neo walks to the door on his left*

The Architect: Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

Neo: If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.

The Architect: We won't.

[Marleysdaddy]

I can tell you that looking at looking at science from a starting point of the bible is a new concept and is greatly underfunded.
It doesn't receive scientific funding because it isn't science.
Most scientists already buy into the atheistic view.
Balogna...when I was an undergrad, all but one of my science professors were Christians.
I am a scientist and am not an atheist, Greyclouds is another non-atheistic scientist here in the RF.

[natalie addict]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea


Alas, the theory of Last Thursdayism rears its unsightly head once again....

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

[biggles53]

Just before this thread too gets shovelled off to the GI graveyard...

Concepts of a 'faster speed of light' or a 'slower radioactive decay rate' just won't wash....ask Mr Einstein!

Even if you believe that all that is in place is as a result of your god's handiwork, the case remains that there are laws of physics at play throughout our universe...and E = mc2 happens to be the one which links the speed of light with the production of ENERGY within the universe.

To achieve the the incredibly faster light speeds which would give the appearance of a younger universe (why would your god go to the trouble of such deceit?), would mean energy production of such a degree that the earth (and all other planets) would have been destroyed in a fireball long ago....!

This is just one example of what happens when one attempts to shoehorn reality onto a particular dogma..............

[texan_rep]

It doesn't receive scientific funding because it isn't science.

Balogna...when I was an undergrad, all but one of my science professors were Christians.
I am a scientist and am not an atheist, Greyclouds is another non-atheistic scientist here in the RF.

And I am an engineer and (quite obviously) not an atheist.

[Thor]

Carbon dating is a common way that is used to determine the age of things...it assumes that carbon always broke down at the same rate though so it is built on this assumption. What if carbon broke down at a much faster or slower rate several thousand years ago?


And what if dinosaurs never really existed? Maybe the fossils we find were created and placed around the globe by mischievous gnomes as a practical joke. This makes about as much sense as your theory of carbon breaking down at wildly fluctuating rates.

I would check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/
and http://www.creationmuseum.org/


Oh, yeah.... those are two valid scientific resources. Science majors use those sites as references for their papers all the time.:rolleyes:

[Thor]

Very simple conceptually. God created the universe with the light rays from all the start already in place.

You know, in my college astronomy class this is the exact theory that the professor taught us... :rolleyes:

[Thor]

God created the light from those stars in place.

And your evidence for this statement is...??????

Oh, I know! Observable reality conflicts with your holy book, so you have to make something up.

Am I right?:D

[captusa]

And your evidence for this statement is...??????

Oh, I know! Observable reality conflicts with your holy book, so you have to make something up.

Am I right?:D

Yes!
Next question.

[Apatriot]

Hi Apatriot,
I seem to recall you are Catholic. We have another Catholic on the board, a firm believer in God, who just last week wrote a very strong post about this subject and said, in essence, I paraphrase not quote, that if God created the Earth six thousand years ago and made it look like it took billions of years for the light from those stars to reach it, which I what I think you are saying, then God would be a liar.

He used the light from the stars as the basis for his disbelief in a six-day creation.


You caught me. I was the poster last week (I know I posted something similar recently if not on this board then on another). I was just being the devil's advocate today.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Hi Apatriot,
I seem to recall you are Catholic. We have another Catholic on the board, a firm believer in God, who just last week wrote a very strong post about this subject and said, in essence, I paraphrase not quote, that if God created the Earth six thousand years ago and made it look like it took billions of years for the light from those stars to reach it, which I what I think you are saying, then God would be a liar.

He used the light from the stars as the basis for his disbelief in a six-day creation.

I tend to agree with that position.

[ThrowCop]

And I am an engineer and (quite obviously) not an atheist.I am a physicist/engineer & I am not an atheist.

I am also not a Biblical Literalist either.

[Samm]

I figured it was more of a red herring.

Naw... Red Herrings are created by God; Straw men are created by man. ;)

[MikeJF]

Around 2002, Hubble telescope took this image of God's eye!:

http://www.librarything.com/authorpics/god2586.jpg

well really its the Helix Nebula, which is a trillion-mile-long tunnel of glowing gases with a dying star in the center!

[Samm]

Around 2002, Hubble telescope took this image of God's eye!:

http://www.librarything.com/authorpics/god2586.jpg

well really its the Helix Nebula, which is a trillion-mile-long tunnel of glowing gases with a dying star in the center!

Looks like a spaghetti monster eye to me... :think:

[James Juno]

Looks like a spaghetti monster eye to me... :think:

The saucy eyeshadow is a dead give-away.

[Alaric]

God created the light from those stars in place.

Or maybe he created you just a couple of seconds ago, with memories of a past that never actually occurred created in situ in your brain, and maybe I was created with this internet post already half written, and this thread was created already in existence and in process, and all past contributions to it were actually created at the exact same instant as any memories of having actually contributed to it, giving it the false appearance of being older than a few seconds.


On the other hand, maybe what we observe is real and fallible men interpret the Bible wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that happened.

Since the first paragraph is absurd, and its a historical fact that the Bible has been interpreted wrong, what do you think to be more likely: A theory that light was created in route to the Earth that was contrived in order to support a particular interpretation of scripture ? Or that the Universe really is billions of years old?

[gpd®]

Naw... Red Herrings are created by God; Straw men are created by man. ;)

So who created "white elephants?"

[Alaric]

See my previous post on the book by Dr. Collins...ALL scientists now agree that the earth and everything in the universe was created as a result of an instant event...perhaps an explosion. Nobody has yet to come up with anything that caused this...other than an outside source...God?

ALL scientists? Thats a bold statement. Its also inaccurate. Very few scientists believe that.

If you are referring to the Big Bang theory then perhaps you need to bone up on what it really is.

[Alaric]

So who created "white elephants?"

Al Gore.

[ThrowCop]

Al Gore.No, he created manbearpig...

[Marleysdaddy]

Or maybe he created you just a couple of seconds ago, with memories of a past that never actually occurred created in situ in your brain, and maybe I was created with this internet post already half written, and this thread was created already in existence and in process, and all past contributions to it were actually created at the exact same instant as any memories of having actually contributed to it, giving it the false appearance of being older than a few seconds.


On the other hand, maybe what we observe is real and fallible men interpret the Bible wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that happened.

Since the first paragraph is absurd, and its a historical fact that the Bible has been interpreted wrong, what do you think to be more likely: A theory that light was created in route to the Earth that was contrived in order to support a particular interpretation of scripture ? Or that the Universe really is billions of years old?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=662171&highlight=mature

[Marleysdaddy]

No, he created manbearpig...

:))

[Alaric]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=662171&highlight=mature

The entire Hannity board and all those archived threads was created much more recently than that thread - it's only there to make the board look older and look like a board that was fully functional and already in process (with virtual tree rings and virtual belly buttons and all). :think::think::think:

[Samm]

So who created "white elephants?"

If I remember correctly, that was the Salvation Army. ;)

[Samm]

The entire Hannity board and all those archived threads was created much more recently than that thread - it's only there to make the board look older and look like a board that was fully functional and already in process (with virtual tree rings and virtual belly buttons and all). :think::think::think:

It is entirely possible that we were all created a mere instant ago with everything we know to "be" as nothing more than a planted memory. But of course it is not at all likely...

[Alaric]

It is entirely possible that we were all created a mere instant ago with everything we know to "be" as nothing more than a planted memory. But of course it is not at all likely...

The likelihood that it was all created an instant ago with the entire universe in process is exactly the same likelihood that everything was created 6,000 years ago with the entire universe in process.

[I am the Eggman]

So who created "white elephants?"
I don't know, but Jack Daniels is responsible for a lot of the pink ones.

[Samm]

The likelihood that it was all created an instant ago with the entire universe in process is exactly the same likelihood that everything was created 6,000 years ago with the entire universe in process.

Bingo. :clap:

[natalie addict]

The likelihood that it was all created an instant ago with the entire universe in process is exactly the same likelihood that everything was created 6,000 years ago with the entire universe in process.

And since there is no evidence to indicate which one is true, I'll continue with the Big Bang standard model for which we have plenty of evidence that it has occured.

[Alaric]

And since there is no evidence to indicate which one is true, I'll continue with the Big Bang standard model for which we have plenty of evidence that it has occured.

And since there is no evidence to indicate which one is true, I'll continue with the Big Bang standard model for which we have plenty of evidence that it has occured.

Same here... And for which we have observable and verifiable evidence on when it occurred as well.

As for whether one wants to believe a god or gods caused it or not, I'll quote dphd's reply to another similar thread (the one Marleysdady linked to earlier)

As I've experienced this, the problems are not with faith vs. science so much as identifying faith and identifying science.;)

The "fruits" can be much greater understanding of the various faiths and of science.

[biggles53]

Look, the literal creationists have a really tough one to answer here.

EITHER... they believe that their god created the universe, with the light coming from distant stars already 'en route', so as to give Adam and Eve a pretty sky to admire at night! The problem with this is that it makes their so-called 'perfect being' a deceiver. It also means that EVERYTHING we see from those distant stars, for the next several million years, is all fake - was put there just to give us a nice backdrop!

OR...they believe in the nonsense surrounding a "faster speed of light back then". This produces even more problems, in that, because of the relationship between light speed and energy, a significantly faster speed of light would have produced energy levels sufficient to fry every planet in the universe to a crisp!

[notluzn]

6000 years old? I don't think so Tim. even God laughs at that and who is useing the Bible for a science fact book. It was written by men from different points of view. They would go crazy if they were in the now times.

The Universe is just to big for us to understand.

[optrader]

Look, the literal creationists have a really tough one to answer here.

EITHER... they believe that their god created the universe, with the light coming from distant stars already 'en route', so as to give Adam and Eve a pretty sky to admire at night! The problem with this is that it makes their so-called 'perfect being' a deceiver. It also means that EVERYTHING we see from those distant stars, for the next several million years, is all fake - was put there just to give us a nice backdrop!

OR...they believe in the nonsense surrounding a "faster speed of light back then". This produces even more problems, in that, because of the relationship between light speed and energy, a significantly faster speed of light would have produced energy levels sufficient to fry every planet in the universe to a crisp!

Just curious, how does this make God a deceiver? How do we know those stars didn't/ aren't going to explode at the proper time? we tend to put things in our terms and limit things to our understanding. there is infinitely more things we don't understand than things we do. For example, dark matter... Please give a complete detailed explanation of what it is and how it works. I'm not trying to insult you here, just demonstrating that this is a very recent theory, not proven and little understood. Because WE can't understand/demonstrate/duplicate something, we tend to disbelieve or discredit it. I can't prove a six day creation, you can't disprove it.
You accept the current scientific explanation because it fits your preconceived ideas, it was once believed the earth was flat and that all celestial bodies revolved around the earth. You believe we are much more advanced now, so this is a ridiculous comparison, not to God!


If you reject the idea of God to begin with, then everything you believe is limited to science. You believe in gravity, can you explain how or why it works? The Bible is not meant to be a science book, we couldn't understand it if it was...

[notluzn]

Can you see the City of scape of your computers processor and explain how it works? Dr Kaku does explain gravity BTW. :)

The Church believed that the Sun went around the Earth and if you said no they would burn you at the stake. Do you still believe that the Sun moves around the Earth?

True, the Bible is not a science book, but to say the Earth is only 6000 years old is like saying everything before I was born wasn't there. Come on now

[QUOTE=optrader;54235061]

You believe in gravity, can you explain how or why it works? QUOTE]

[Dregun]

As far as I remember from school the Big Bang theory is the most logical explanation of our origins to date. While looking through very powerfull telescopes we can see that the Universe is still expanding and those stars/galaxies further from us seem to be expanding faster then our solar system. (meaning the further out we see the faster the universe seems to be expanding..even violently) We also don't quite know what the limits of "light" actually are either. Some people have a theory that light can only travel for so long before its wavelength is un-noticable. This means that although we can see distant stars and perceive that nothing is present past them giving us a "date" (imagine it only being 30 miles) but if we moved closer we could still see the same distance out (30 miles) and it would be further then we saw earlier. So its like saying you can stand at the 10 yard line and can only see up to the 20 yard line, yet if you stand at the 20 yard line you can now see the 30. This means that what we perceive the universe being so many million or billions of years old that it could actually be much older if in fact light disapates and prevents us from seeing further.

This is part of the reason why Religeon will always be around, as being human we always ask the questions who, what, when, where and how. So what caused the big bang, what created the matter to start with; when does the universe end etc etc. Once we answer these questions that will lead us to more questions that need answers. Many people turn to Religeon or "God" to answer these questions as it gives them an absolute, "God" started, created the Universe. Yet being human we have to ask ourselves the same question about "God"; who, what, when, where and why was "God" created.

In my opinion someones belief in "God" is the direct oposite in thier ability to believe in science. Since the belief in "God" gives them answers for an absolute without questioning the absolute of "God" itself. So those who believe in God will never be great scientists because their dogma will not allow them to seek for more answers because it questions their faith.

Could you imagine what our world would be like today if Religous dogma was the basis of all science? If those scientist relied on the Bible to tell them about the makings of our world and never put their dogma behind them we wouldn't have ANYTHING we have today. It is the abscense of Religeon in science that has brought us to where we are today. The computer, vaccines, the ability to do water purification; almost everything we hold dear today is the result of someone asking who, what, when, where and how. All of those answers are in the bible in some way or another and all of them have been proven false by science except the biggest question.....yet. Where did we come from!

[notluzn]

Well, maybe I'm the only one but I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory because Theory is not an Answer. All the matter in the Universe could not be stored into such a small space. It could never break apart because the mass is so great and would just collapes in on itself like a Black Hole. And what was always there is just that, always there.

so far there are only to real arguments, God and Big Bang. I don't believe in the Bible but what was said in the book of Genisus. "Let there be Light" is what seems to me an idea of Big Bang. Why can't God and Big bang go hand in hand? not impossible IMO. Or there has to be more to it than these 2 ideas. maybe countless ideas.

Where all the matter goes into a Black Hole creates a new universe on the other side.

[optrader]

As far as I remember from school the Big Bang theory is the most logical explanation of our origins to date. While looking through very powerfull telescopes we can see that the Universe is still expanding and those stars/galaxies further from us seem to be expanding faster then our solar system. (meaning the further out we see the faster the universe seems to be expanding..even violently) We also don't quite know what the limits of "light" actually are either. Some people have a theory that light can only travel for so long before its wavelength is un-noticable. This means that although we can see distant stars and perceive that nothing is present past them giving us a "date" (imagine it only being 30 miles) but if we moved closer we could still see the same distance out (30 miles) and it would be further then we saw earlier. So its like saying you can stand at the 10 yard line and can only see up to the 20 yard line, yet if you stand at the 20 yard line you can now see the 30. This means that what we perceive the universe being so many million or billions of years old that it could actually be much older if in fact light disapates and prevents us from seeing further.

This is part of the reason why Religeon will always be around, as being human we always ask the questions who, what, when, where and how. So what caused the big bang, what created the matter to start with; when does the universe end etc etc. Once we answer these questions that will lead us to more questions that need answers. Many people turn to Religeon or "God" to answer these questions as it gives them an absolute, "God" started, created the Universe. Yet being human we have to ask ourselves the same question about "God"; who, what, when, where and why was "God" created.

In my opinion someones belief in "God" is the direct oposite in thier ability to believe in science. Since the belief in "God" gives them answers for an absolute without questioning the absolute of "God" itself. So those who believe in God will never be great scientists because their dogma will not allow them to seek for more answers because it questions their faith.

Could you imagine what our world would be like today if Religous dogma was the basis of all science? If those scientist relied on the Bible to tell them about the makings of our world and never put their dogma behind them we wouldn't have ANYTHING we have today. It is the abscense of Religeon in science that has brought us to where we are today. The computer, vaccines, the ability to do water purification; almost everything we hold dear today is the result of someone asking who, what, when, where and how. All of those answers are in the bible in some way or another and all of them have been proven false by science except the biggest question.....yet. Where did we come from!

Don't quite know where to begin here... Isaac Newton is considered one of the greatest scientists that ever lived and he was a Christian. As a matter of fact, he wrote more books on theology than science. How about Galileo? Are you saying he also wasn't a great scientist? I don't know too many believers, of any faith, that believe science and religion are mutually exclusive, I'm a fairly fundamentalist guy and I believe science has done much good and explains many things.

Pardon me, but your post displays a smidgeon of ignorance to assert someone that believes in God could never be a great scientist. There are many great scientists who believe in God. I enjoy exchanging ideas and beliefs with others but you make statements such as this that most of faith would find ridiculous and offensive... :rolleyes:

[optrader]

Can you see the City of scape of your computers processor and explain how it works? Dr Kaku does explain gravity BTW. :)

The Church believed that the Sun went around the Earth and if you said no they would burn you at the stake. Do you still believe that the Sun moves around the Earth?

True, the Bible is not a science book, but to say the Earth is only 6000 years old is like saying everything before I was born wasn't there. Come on now

[QUOTE=optrader;54235061]

You believe in gravity, can you explain how or why it works? QUOTE]

No, I actually believe the earth revolves around the sun, I believe it is spherical too! (It's actually an oblate spheroid to be "scientific") I have at least progressed to a 17th century level of undersatanding!

My point is, that people try and explain things in human terms but there will always be things we don't understand. The carnal minded always try and explain things from mans point of view, that there is nothing that can't be explained by science. It doesn't always work. As soon as we think we have an answer, another question pops up which scientists scramble to explain. Dark matter is why the universe isn't expanding according to long held scientific beliefs for example.

I'm not anti-science, I just don't accept the notion that our scientific discoveries and theories preclude the existence of God. I can't prove He exists and you can't, by science, prove He doesn't.

[Marleysdaddy]

Well, maybe I'm the only one but I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory because Theory is not an Answer. Science must drive you crazy :D

All the matter in the Universe could not be stored into such a small space.
Oh, but it could. And FYI, a singularity is not "such a small space"...it only exists in one dimension...it is a single point.

[Marleysdaddy]

Don't quite know where to begin here... Isaac Newton is considered one of the greatest scientists that ever lived and he was a Christian. As a matter of fact, he wrote more books on theology than science.

But when Newton was investigating the forces which acted on bodies, he kept his religion out of his research...that's the hallmark of a good scientist.

Many scientists are theists of some sort, but most of them keep their science and their religion separate.

[notluzn]

Science must drive you crazy :D


Naw, Science is my favorite. I just don't believe in Theory of the Big Bang because that would be too easy and us earth bound creatures would have to know what was before the Big Bang to say it was a Big Bang.


Oh, but it could. And FYI, a singularity is not "such a small space"...it only exists in one dimension...it is a single point.
Scientist believe that all matter was trapped in a space the size of a pen head. Impossible by all accounts and un-founded. It's hard / impossible to imagine what was before God or the Big Bang.

Even the idea of God seems crazy. Simple questions like "Could God make a wall that he couldn't destroy?", "Why don't God just snap his finger and make the Devil disappear?", "Why would God make a planet in another Solar System?"

Science and religion do trip on eachother but there never seems to be any gray when mixing them both.

[Thor]

Because WE can't understand/demonstrate/duplicate something, we tend to disbelieve or discredit it. I can't prove a six day creation, you can't disprove it.


Just because it is impossible to disprove your claim is a poor reason to believe that your claim is true. I claim that there is a family of invisible gnomes living in my basement. You can't disprove it. Does this provide any support that my claim is true?

[notluzn]

Just because it is impossible to disprove your claim is a poor reason to believe that your claim is true. I claim that there is a family of invisible gnomes living in my basement. You can't disprove it. Does this provide any support that my claim is true?How many socks have gone missing in the last year? Yeah, I believe that there are gnomes down there as well. :lol:

[Marleysdaddy]

Naw, Science is my favorite.
Well science only yields theories, so I thought you'd be frustrated that it never yielded "answers"
Theory is not an Answer.


Scientist believe that all matter was trapped in a space the size of a pen head.
Nope...pen heads still have (at least) three dimensions
Impossible by all accounts and un-founded.
Can you demonstrate how/why it is impossible?
It's hard / impossible to imagine what was before God or the Big Bang.
'Hard to imagine' and 'impossible to imagine' are two very different things

Science and religion do trip on eachother [sic] but there never seems to be any gray when mixing them both.
You don't think things become gray when a scientist reaches a point where he can't understand something, so he says "a god did it"?

[notluzn]

Well science only yields theories, so I thought you'd be frustrated that it never yielded "answers" Science takes those Theories and gives Answers and Creates things as well. A scientist is why you are able to chat here. The Big Bang theory is still a Theory so they have to prove it to me. And it's true, theory isn't the answer, it's a thought.


Nope...pen heads still have (at least) three dimensions
Who said the big bang material was 1 dimensional?

Can you demonstrate how/why it is impossible?
All Atoms have Mass no matter what and are dimensional so it would be a ball of Mass. Light has Mass and so does Heat.

'Hard to imagine' and 'impossible to imagine' are two very different things
I didn't complete this sentence completely. It should have been "It's hard to Imagine and is almost impossible.... My bad. I do this often.

We could dream about it but how accurate would that be? Probably not accurate at all..... How to get something from nothing and to say something has always been is in human term impossible but has to be possible because we're here or are we? :)


You don't think things become gray when a scientist reaches a point where he can't understand something, so he says "a god did it"? Never known a scientist to say god did it but I have see the Church say "The Earth revolves around the Sun." when it was against that theory before. Lucky that Galilao was friends with the Pope at that time and only had house arrest.

What I'm saying is that the Bible should never be used as a science book. I don't even know where people get the 6000 year from anyways other than a 1600 centry biship. Christanity could be 6000 years old. Hmmmm

[badkarma]

All Atoms have Mass no matter what and are dimensional so it would be a ball of Mass.
What do atoms have to do with the big bang?

I don't think you quite understand the argument you are making here.

[Marleysdaddy]

The Big Bang theory is still a Theory so they have to prove it to me.
The Big Bang Theory will always be a theory, and no one can "prove" it...that's not how science works

Who said the big bang material was 1 dimensional?
Physicists...
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[23] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

I don't think singularities exist in three dimensions like normal objects

Light has Mass and so does Heat.

That is incorrect...photons do not have mass and neither does heat.

Never known a scientist to say god did it
google 'Michael Behe' :D

[notluzn]

What do atoms have to do with the big bang?

I don't think you quite understand the argument you are making here.Yeah Astronomy and Geology in College did me no good. my bad. :rolleyes:

[notluzn]

[QUOTE=Marleysdaddy;54251221]The Big Bang Theory will always be a theory, and no one can "prove" it...that's not how science works Science doesn't stop looking for answers. Thats how Science works. It could take 1 trillion years. LOL


Physicists...
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

I don't think singularities exist in three dimensions like normal objects Kinda destroys their ownsleves knowing what they know about atoms and matter huh? :)) We're starting to sound like trekkies :))


That is incorrect...photons do not have mass and neither does heat. It might not have resting mass but it still has mass

[ThrowCop]

Science takes those Theories and gives Answers and Creates things as well. A scientist is why you are able to chat here. The Big Bang theory is still a Theory so they have to prove it to me. And it's true, theory isn't the answer, it's a thought.Every physical test to prove different hypothesis brought about by the Big Bang Theory have shown positive results. From background microwave radiation, etc.

And the Large Hadron Collider could possibly put this almost entirely to rest. Once we know more about the conditions that existed just picoseconds after the Big Bang itself, we can postulate with even greater understanding.
Who said the big bang material was 1 dimensional?The beginning was infinitesimally small. One dimension.

All Atoms have Mass no matter what and are dimensional so it would be a ball of Mass. Light has Mass and so does Heat.Not when they are collapsed. And as far as heat goes, E=MC2 means that heat does not have mass.

I didn't complete this sentence completely. It should have been "It's hard to Imagine and is almost impossible.... My bad. I do this often.Many things seem impossible.

We could dream about it but how accurate would that be? Probably not accurate at all..... How to get something from nothing and to say something has always been is in human term impossible but has to be possible because we're here or are we? :)True. And this is coming from someone whose faith believes that, "God Flipped The Switch."

And as far as what happened before the Big Bang, that is a pointless thought experiment since time did not begin UNTIL the Big Bang...

What I'm saying is that the Bible should never be used as a science book. I don't even know where people get the 6000 year from anyways other than a 1600 centry biship. Christanity could be 6000 years old. HmmmmIf the Bible was a science book we would be in trouble. It gets the value for Pi wrong & that's kinda important for many things...

[badkarma]

Yeah Astronomy and Geology in College did me no good. my bad. :rolleyes:
Apparently not. Atoms did not exist at the time of the Big Bang. The parts that make up Atoms did not even exist yet. So your using atoms in an attempt to disprove the big bang is an argument made out of ignorance, astronomy classes or not.

[JimGP20]

Every physical test to prove different hypothesis brought about by the Big Bang Theory have shown positive results. From background microwave radiation, etc.

And the Large Hadron Collider could possibly put this almost entirely to rest. Once we know more about the conditions that existed just picoseconds after the Big Bang itself, we can postulate with even greater understanding.
The beginning was infinitesimally small. One dimension.

Not when they are collapsed. And as far as heat goes, E=MC2 means that heat does not have mass.

Many things seem impossible.

True. And this is coming from someone whose faith believes that, "God Flipped The Switch."

And as far as what happened before the Big Bang, that is a pointless thought experiment since time did not begin UNTIL the Big Bang...

If the Bible was a science book we would be in trouble. It gets the value for Pi wrong & that's kinda important for many things...


I think that the big bang's point of origin is here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/stuckinliberalhell/fourcorners-1.jpg

:cool: :lol:

[notluzn]

Might want to do a search. Since the Big Bang is a Theory know one knows what was in it. I've heard other wise that particles were there and after the explosion more was created. Some say Plasma. I've read a lot of "THEORIES" so who it correct? Who knows again.Apparently not. Atoms did not exist at the time of the Big Bang. The parts that make up Atoms did not even exist yet. So your using atoms in an attempt to disprove the big bang is an argument made out of ignorance, astronomy classes or not.

[Marleysdaddy]

Might want to do a search. Since the Big Bang is a Theory know one knows what was in it. I've heard other wise that particles were there and after the explosion more was created. Some say Plasma. I've read a lot of "THEORIES" so who it correct? Who knows again.

I don't think you understand that 'Theory' is the highest, most evidentially supported level an idea in science can achieve.

[badkarma]

Might want to do a search. Since the Big Bang is a Theory know one knows what was in it. I've heard other wise that particles were there and after the explosion more was created. Some say Plasma. I've read a lot of "THEORIES" so who it correct? Who knows again.
I once heard someone say that president Obama is the Messiah, but since that is not a very good theory I don't believe in God.

Wait what? you mean that accredited and expert christian theologists do not count President Obama as the Messiah? Might want to do a search man, I have heard otherwise.

[Alaric]

All Atoms have Mass no matter what


While what you said here is fundamentally correct, the road you are continuing on to butress your position is incorrect.


and are dimensional so it would be a ball of Mass. Light has Mass and so does Heat.

Just so you understand, Although matter did exist, atoms did not exist prior to the big bang. The matter was fundamental particles. Next you need to understand that mass and energy are not substances or things. Mass and energy is a fungible PROPERTY of matter. Mass and energy can be exchanged in exact and known proportions. This has been proven. Where people get into trouble is when they think of mass and energy as substances. The m in Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2 stands for mass, not matter. Matter is always conserved, even in nuclear reactions. Every time a nuclear reaction occurs that supposedly annihilates a more massive particle, a different kind of particle is released from the reaction, and the combined mass and energy remains the same. Light consists of high energy particles called photons. Visible light and gamma rays are exactly the same thing except for the energy level of the photon. Photons are particles where the energy property is dominant and the mass property is essentially zero, but they are still matter. Your statement that light has mass is incorrect. For example, nuclear fussion reactions in the Sun change the net mass of the particles undergoing fusion, resulting in a lower total mass for elements up through iron, releasing photons (matter particles) with an energy exactly proportional to the change in mass, giving us visible light, x-rays, gamma, rays, etc. (I won't talk about reactions above iron, but if you want to know why stars explode then look it up, but the physics is exactly the same)

Matter is neither created nor destroyed, but the fundamental particles can be changed and rearranged, and although the big bang theory posits that all matter in the universe existed in the singularity, it does not attempt to explain the form of the matter nor the proportion of its mass/energy properties. The singularity could have been massive or it could have been energetic in any of an infinite range of possibilities.

Likewise, heat is not a substance. Its also not a property. It is an empirical measurement of the relative energy of two collections of matter and the rate of the energy transfer that must occur between the collections due to entropy. Its a relative measurement. As such it cannot have mass. It makes no more sense to say that heat has mass than it makes sense to say that red has more mass than green.

Incidentally, creation ex nihilo is Greek philosopy, not Judeo-Christion philosophy. Just because Judeo Christian philosophy conflated it into the creation myth doesn't make it any more valid.

[optrader]

But when Newton was investigating the forces which acted on bodies, he kept his religion out of his research...that's the hallmark of a good scientist.

Many scientists are theists of some sort, but most of them keep their science and their religion separate.

Perhaps, but the statement was "BELIEVERS CAN'T MAKE GREAT SCIENTISTS." There was no room for such as you described in his statement. I see nothing wrong with searching for scientific ways God might have achieved something, but again, finding a plausible scientific answer does not negate Gods existence. Why would God not use the means He created to achieve His ends when possible?

[optrader]

Just because it is impossible to disprove your claim is a poor reason to believe that your claim is true. I claim that there is a family of invisible gnomes living in my basement. You can't disprove it. Does this provide any support that my claim is true?

I am not saying my claim is true. I have said many times, I can't prove God exists. It is those who are claiming science answers everything that use such reasoning to assert God can't exist. My assertion is that God and science can co-exist, that one does not exclude the other. IMO, it is people who say that because OUR understanding is of a "big-bang," or, OUR understanding is that evolution is true are the ones being narrow minded in their view. I think Gods understanding of the principles He created are infinitely greater than ours. He can use, bend or break them according to His purpose...

[notluzn]

While what you said here is fundamentally correct, the road you are continuing on to butress your position is incorrect.



Just so you understand, Although matter did exist, atoms did not exist prior to the big bang. The matter was fundamental particles. Next you need to understand that mass and energy are not substances or things. Mass and energy is a fungible PROPERTY of matter. Mass and energy can be exchanged in exact and known proportions. This has been proven. Where people get into trouble is when they think of mass and energy as substances. The m in Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2 stands for mass, not matter. Matter is always conserved, even in nuclear reactions. Every time a nuclear reaction occurs that supposedly annihilates a more massive particle, a different kind of particle is released from the reaction, and the combined mass and energy remains the same. Light consists of high energy particles called photons. Photons are particles where the energy property is dominant and the mass property is essentially zero, but they are still matter. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, and although the big bang theory posits that all matter in the universe existed in the singularity, it does not attempt to explain the form of the matter nor the proportion of its mass/energy properties. The singularity could have been massive or it could have been energetic in any of an infinite range of possibilitiies.Ok I was told that Light does have Mass but not resting Mass even how small it may be. Thanks for your response BTW. There is just so much to talk about with this topic. I guess it's much easier to explain the science portion than the God portion.

I just can't for the life of me believe in the 6000 year old rule. it's like me saying 200 years ago, no one was alive even though their is proof.

[badkarma]

that makes no sense and i see that your being ironic- but Theories welcome scrutiny, in fact- they require it. Religion however fears scrutiny and starts wars over it.
So, you are saying that I should not try and use points from a bad and untested idea in order to try and disprove a good theory based on actual science and evidence? If that is what you are saying, then I have managed to get across exactly the point I was aiming for.

[notluzn]

I don't think you understand that 'Theory' is the highest, most evidentially supported level an idea in science can achieve.Yes, but these guys change their Theory with new discoveries correct? I was born in the wrong times. Another 4000 Years would have been better for me. :cool:

[notluzn]

that makes no sense and i see that your being ironic- but Theories welcome scrutiny, in fact- they require it. Religion however fears scrutiny and starts wars over it.Religion doesn't start wars, people do. they can use it as an excuse but thats all it is. Don't need religion to start wars Pal.

[Marleysdaddy]

It is those who are claiming science answers everything that use such reasoning to assert God can't exist.
I think this is a straw man...the most a scientist says is 'there is no evidence that a god exists'

Science is not in the business of saying what can or can't exist...that kind of ontological discussion belongs to philosophy :)

[I am the Eggman]

As far as I remember from school the Big Bang theory is the most logical explanation of our origins to date.

<snip>
In my opinion someones belief in "God" is the direct oposite in thier ability to believe in science. Since the belief in "God" gives them answers for an absolute without questioning the absolute of "God" itself. So those who believe in God will never be great scientists because their dogma will not allow them to seek for more answers because it questions their faith.

(emphasis mine)
That's a rather odd position, since the originator of the Big Bang Theory (originally called hypothesis of the primeval atom) that you cite was a Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître, and interestingly enough, Einstein initially disagreed with the hypothesis. He even proposed what was to become Hubbles law and the Hubble Constant (though he didn't have the data at the time to prove the linear relationship which Hubble later did).

So, consider your hypothesis falsified ;).

[Marleysdaddy]

Dregun's post also ignores the millions of people who

a) believe in a god but have no dogma

b) believe in a god, have religious dogma, but don't let it interfere with their science

c) believe in a god who doesn't interact with this world, and so their religion has NO impact on their science

etc.

[optrader]

I think this is a straw man...the most a scientist says is 'there is no evidence that a god exists'

Science is not in the business of saying what can or can't exist...that kind of ontological discussion belongs to philosophy :)

I was responding to the direct statement "In my opinion someones belief in "God" is the direct oposite in thier ability to believe in science."

If someones belief in God is directly opposite their ability to believe in science, then their belief in science must be directly opposite their abilty to believe in God. If A=B, then B=A. As I have said, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.

[Alaric]

I guess it's much easier to explain the science portion than the God portion.


True that!

But science and religion can and do co-exist side by side in the hearts and minds of many people.

Oil and water don't mix, but they can both exist in the same cup and fill the cup without breaking the other down. People can enjoy the richness of a life of curiosity and discovery enriched by faith.

Just as science once discovered that the Earth didn't rest on pillars and that it orbits the sun, and peoples lives were enriched by that knowledge (that knowledge actually expanded the universe, making "creaton" larger than any man previously imagined) so should the believer (of any god) embrace new knowledge, because it makes his god's creation bigger than it was imagined when he was in his ignorance. An old Earth with four million millenia of life is a bigger creation than a six millenia old hunk of rock, and a universe that is 14 billion light years across (thats the visible universe, it could be 70 billion light years across) with trillions of worlds inhabited by an unimaginable diversity of life is an even bigger creation.

What I don't understand is why YECs so constrain God, especially when the historical track record on the nature of even just the local solar system is so bad. We don't live in one of these:
http://www.andyzito.com/images/snowdomes/collection/australians/lachlan_vintage%20village.jpg

Click here for a thought provoking video on Youtube about images Hubble has taken of our universe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw).

[biggles53]

Just curious, how does this make God a deceiver?

If you assert that your god 'placed' light in position at creation to give the appearance of what distant stars would look like, when in actual fact their light would not reach us for many millions of years yet, then that is an act of deceit - or trickery at best.

How do we know those stars didn't/ aren't going to explode at the proper time?

I do not understand your question? It doesn't seem to relate to any point I made...

we tend to put things in our terms and limit things to our understanding. there is infinitely more things we don't understand than things we do.

No argument. How does this lend support to the argument that a god was responsible...??

For example, dark matter... Please give a complete detailed explanation of what it is and how it works. I'm not trying to insult you here, just demonstrating that this is a very recent theory, not proven and little understood.

No insult taken. I'm not a scientist, much less a cosmological physicist, so I can't answer your question sorry.

Because WE can't understand/demonstrate/duplicate something, we tend to disbelieve or discredit it.

Not here! I go looking for answers...

I can't prove a six day creation, you can't disprove it.

Which is the leading reason why it has no place in discussions about science, of course.

More to the point, I don't have to disprove it! He who makes extraordinary claims, is required to produce extraordinary evidence in support. Got any...?

You accept the current scientific explanation because it fits your preconceived ideas,

Absolutely, demonstrably, 100% incorrect...!! I accept current scientific explanations for a lot of things, because of the evidence that supports those explanations!

it was once believed the earth was flat and that all celestial bodies revolved around the earth. You believe we are much more advanced now, so this is a ridiculous comparison, not to God!

I don't understand your point here - please elucidate.

If you reject the idea of God to begin with, then everything you believe is limited to science.

Not technically accurate, but I get your drift. Why do assume that there is a "limit" to what science can find/know/achieve?

You believe in gravity, can you explain how or why it works?

I don't "believe in" it - I observe it. And Messrs Newton and Einstein have formulated very sound explanations as to how and why...

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, we couldn't understand it if it was...

I certainly don't think it is...but you do! You rely upon that book as a complete explanation as to how all that you see around you was formed - all it's lacking is the evidence to back it up!!

[notluzn]

Great Post. I believe in God because of faith but i have no faith in the Bible. There is a lot of good things in there but I think people take it word for word and nothing outside of it is true. the Oil and water in the same cup is a bad example because the oil and water never does mix even in a cup.
the Big Bang I have a problem with because no one has a good enough answer for me that says what happen before this Big Bang.

But science and religion can and do co-exist side by side in the hearts and minds of many people.

Oil and water don't mix, but they can both exist in the same cup and fill the cup without breaking the other down. People can enjoy the richness of a life of curiosity and discovery enriched by faith.

Just as science once discovered that the Earth didn't rest on pillars and that it orbits the sun, and peoples lives were enriched by that knowledge (that knowledge actually expanded the universe, making "creaton" larger than any man previously imagined) so should the believer (of any god) embrace new knowledge, because it makes his god's creation bigger than it was imagined when he was in his ignorance. An old Earth with four million millenia of life is a bigger creation than a six millenia old hunk of rock, and a universe that is 14 billion light years across (thats the visible universe, it could be 70 billion light years across) with trillions of worlds inhabited by an unimaginable diversity of life is an even bigger creation.

What I don't understand is why YECs so constrain God, especially when the historical track record on the nature of even just the local solar system is so bad. We don't live in one of these:
http://www.andyzito.com/images/snowdomes/collection/australians/lachlan_vintage%20village.jpg

Click here for a thought provoking video on Youtube about images Hubble has taken of our universe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw).

[biggles53]

Great Post. I believe in God because of faith but i have no faith in the Bible. There is a lot of good things in there but I think people take it word for word and nothing outside of it is true. the Oil and water in the same cup is a bad example because the oil and water never does mix even in a cup.
the Big Bang I have a problem with because no one has a good enough answer for me that says what happen before this Big Bang.

There was no "before". It's hard to get your mind around, but space and TIME came into existence at the instant of the singularity.

[JohnCraven]

There was no "before". It's hard to get your mind around, but space and TIME came into existence at the instant of the singularity.

If that were true, then what caused the singularity to begin with?

Something does not come out of nothing.

There has to be a reason for existence. There has to be a cause of it.

What is the cause of the singularity?

From where does its existence come?

To say its existence comes from nothing is not an answer. It's not even logical by any stretch of the imagination.

Something produces something. Nothing produces nothing.

Where did the singularity come from? What caused its existence? And has its existence been repeated before?

A Supreme Being creating a singularity which produces everything we've come to know is infinitely more logical than saying nothing produced a singularity which came into existence out of nothing for no reason at all.

It is why God can not not exist whether we believe in Him or not and I do believe in Him.

JohnCraven
New Orleans:flag:

[Finality]

If that were true, then what caused the singularity to begin with?

Something does not come out of nothing.

There has to be a reason for existence. There has to be a cause of it.

What is the cause of the singularity?

From where does its existence come?

To say its existence comes from nothing is not an answer. It's not even logical by any stretch of the imagination.

Something produces something. Nothing produces nothing.

Where did the singularity come from? What caused its existence? And has its existence been repeated before?

A Supreme Being creating a singularity which produces everything we've come to know is infinitely more logical than saying nothing produced a singularity which came into existence out of nothing for no reason at all.

It is why God can not not exist whether we believe in Him or not and I do believe in Him.

JohnCraven
New Orleans:flag:
It is only more logical if you ignore the fallacy of special pleading, where the universe needs a creator but that creator does not need a creator. Or that creator's creator doesn't need a creator. And so on.

If you want to believe in Aristotle's unmoved-mover, or Aquinas' supernatural first cause, that is your prerogative. But doing so is no more logical than believing something comes from nothing.

These statements are all essentially the same:


Something comes from nothing.
Something comes from god-creator.
Something comes from blarghmph.

in that they are all meaningless as statements that are trying to describe what, if anything, happened before time existed.

And, boiled down, (A) "something comes from nothing" is less illogical than (B) "something comes from god, which comes from nothing."

(A) is less complex, and employs at least one fewer fallacies, than (B).

[badkarma]

If that were true, then what caused the singularity to begin with?

Something does not come out of nothing.

There has to be a reason for existence. There has to be a cause of it.

What is the cause of the singularity?

From where does its existence come?

To say its existence comes from nothing is not an answer. It's not even logical by any stretch of the imagination.

Something produces something. Nothing produces nothing.

Where did the singularity come from? What caused its existence? And has its existence been repeated before?

A Supreme Being creating a singularity which produces everything we've come to know is infinitely more logical than saying nothing produced a singularity which came into existence out of nothing for no reason at all.

It is why God can not not exist whether we believe in Him or not and I do believe in Him.

JohnCraven
New Orleans:flag:
What caused the sun? It could not have come from nothing, there has to be a reason for it and a cause. You can't just say irt came from nothing because that doesn't make any sense. It had to be created by something, not created by nothing. So where did it come from? The God Ra creating the sun is infinitely more logical than saying the sun came into existence from nothing at all.

[Marleysdaddy]

There has to be a reason for existence. There has to be a cause of it.

From where does its existence come?

To say its existence comes from nothing is not an answer. It's not even logical by any stretch of the imagination.

Something produces something. Nothing produces nothing.

What "something" produced your god? :flag:

[optrader]

If you assert that your god 'placed' light in position at creation to give the appearance of what distant stars would look like, when in actual fact their light would not reach us for many millions of years yet, then that is an act of deceit - or trickery at best.

I do not understand your question? It doesn't seem to relate to any point I made...

I assume that if God created a universe in an aged condition, then some of the stars would be similarly aged and thus would explode at creation. No deceit would be involved then for God to put the light that reached earth in such condition to show these stars as exploded.

No argument. How does this lend support to the argument that a god was responsible...??

No insult taken. I'm not a scientist, much less a cosmological physicist, so I can't answer your question sorry.

It doesn't, my point is scientists are always looking to science for answers and science will never provide all the answers.

Not here! I go looking for answers...

What provides you with satisfaction, the seeking of answers or the answer itself?

Which is the leading reason why it has no place in discussions about science, of course.

You pre-suppose that the "science" presented is a fact. If it is inaccurate or can't be proven, present an alternative theory and let people decide for themselves.

More to the point, I don't have to disprove it! He who makes extraordinary claims, is required to produce extraordinary evidence in support. Got any...?

The claim that life was spontaneously created by lightning or from a comet collision etc., is pretty extraordinary. There are countless conditions that had to be met and sustained over billions of years. Given the turmoil that our planet underwent for those billions of years, it is quite a fantastic claim that any life created by accident wasn't likewise destroyed by accident. That is the claim of "science." IMO, lots of contradictions...


Absolutely, demonstrably, 100% incorrect...!! I accept current scientific explanations for a lot of things, because of the evidence that supports those explanations!


It has been theorized that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or at least some birds from some dinosaurs. If dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by an asteroid collision, this greatly reduces the amount of time that birds would have to evolve. In fact, there have been many extinctions that would have interupted the evolutionary process. You must develop alternate theories to explain these breaks in the billions of years it is claimed it took for us to evolve from that first single cell organism created by that lightning bolt. You do so, because you believe in evolution to begin with, the contradictions dont register or don't matter because science can explain them away! Without a creator, you will always be seeking that one, all satisfying answer. You will never find it...

I don't understand your point here - please elucidate.

Couldn't find my original post and I don't remember the context or the point I was implying. :lol:

Not technically accurate, but I get your drift. Why do assume that there is a "limit" to what science can find/know/achieve?

Because there are limits to what the laws allow. We will not surpass those laws.

I don't "believe in" it - I observe it. And Messrs Newton and Einstein have formulated very sound explanations as to how and why...

No, they developed theories that explain the observed effects of gravity. For example, Einstein theorized that gravity bends space. He theorized that larger (more massive) objects bend space more. He did not explain how or why this happens. How do massive objects bend space?? :think: :think: I got nothing...

I certainly don't think it is...but you do! You rely upon that book as a complete explanation as to how all that you see around you was formed - all it's lacking is the evidence to back it up!![/QUOTE]

On the contrary! I have never considered the bible a science book. In a sense, yes, it has the answers, in that "God did it," but it doesn't explain how God did it, I don't believe we would understand it if it did. I have no problem with science explaining things or searching for answers, I just believe that God created the rules and laws science abides by, again, science and God are not mutually exclusive.

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally posted by biggles53
And Messrs Newton and Einstein have formulated very sound explanations as to how and why...


No, they developed theories that explain the observed effects of gravity.

This post suggests that you don't understand that a theory IS a sound explanation of how and why an observed effect occurs.

[Marleysdaddy]

To clarify...when I wrote
If, in the future, we do encounter a phenomena which doesn't fit a one of the "laws", we will CHANGE the law.
I think you misunderstood me.

If this scenario I posed occurred, we humans wouldn't be changing how things work in the natural world, we'd be changing the law (which we humans wrote) so that it better reflected what actually happens in nature.

For example, "Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

If we ever encountered an experiment where PV did not equal k, then that would mean Boyle's Law was incorrect, not that something in nature had actually changed.

Does that help?

[optrader]

This post suggests that you don't understand that a theory IS a sound explanation of how and why an observed effect occurs.

No, We can observe for example, that gravity bends light. We can measure how much the light is bent and then extrapolate from such how a different size mass will bend the same light. This is a sound explanation of the effect of the light being bent, it does not explain WHY gravity bends light or HOW it works. We know that a mans' sperm, when it fertilizes a womans' egg, will produce a separate, self aware human being. We can observe the fertilization, and the development of the zygote, embryo, etc. until birth. We can not explain HOW this organism, a product of two different non-sentient substances, becomes a living, conscious being. In fact, in the latter case, we do not even know WHEN an unborn child becomes self aware or begins to experience pain. If we could, by science, definitively nail this down, I suspect abortion supporters wouldn't have much of an argument.

I am not trying to open up the creation/evolution or the pro-life/pro-choice argument, I'm pointing out that just because we can observe, measure and make accurate predictions based on such IS NOT always the same as explaining the hows or whys :naughty:. I actually do understand what a theory is...

[optrader]

Humans constructed the "laws", and they are only "laws" because we haven't yet encountered a case in which they didn't hold.

If, in the future, we do encounter a phenomena which doesn't fit a one of the "laws", we will CHANGE the law.

Laws are given by God, as such, they can't be changed. We can however, discover new laws that work within the laws we have previously discovered. Did the invention of the airplane or rocket change the laws of gravity? No, but it did bring about the realization of the laws of aerodynamics which work in harmony with the laws of gravity. Perhaps not the best example, I'm not an engineer, but you get what I mean here...

[Marleysdaddy]

No, We can observe for example, that gravity bends light. We can measure how much the light is bent and then extrapolate from such how a different size mass will bend the same light. This is a sound explanation of the effect of the light being bent,
That's not a sound explanation...those are merely observed data (measurements) and extrapolations based on those data
it does not explain WHY gravity bends light or HOW it works.
Of course not...the THEORIES of General & Special Relativity and Gravitation DO.
I'm pointing out that just because we can observe, measure and make accurate predictions based on such IS NOT always the same as explaining the hows or whys
The observations and measurements are the raw data...the predictions are based on the THEORY, which always explains at least one 'how' or 'why'

Theories are explanatory statements based on observations and measurements

[Marleysdaddy]

Laws are given by God, as such, they can't be changed.

This basically ends our discussion.

[optrader]

This basically ends our discussion.

I always enjoy our exchanges, but we do have different "absolutes."
I respect science, but accept the notion that God is the absolute.

[Dregun]

My point was, scientist who believe in a "God" will always be in pursuit of knowledge that they believe can define "God" or prove that "God" exists. While some might think this is exactly what a "non" believing scientist would be because his/her pursuit of knowledge is to disprove of "Gods" existance...this is false. A scientist without obligations or beliefs in a "God" does not need to prove that "God" exists for the pursuit of knowledge, instead it is the pursuit of knowledge that drives the individual. While I may have painted a very large stroke in grouping "Believers" with bad scientists that wasn't my full intention. Some great discoveries have been contributed by individuals who hold a belief in "God"; however it is thier belief that inhibits them from pursuing and accepting theories or evidence that further proves "God" (as written) does not exist.

I remember a saying that may not have been this, but still had the same line of thinking. "You can take the bible away from the man but you can't take the man away from the bible"

Meaning that even without the bible, believers will always have the bible with them and it will affect their ability to be true scientists. Everytime they are on the brink of discovery they will have something in them that asks "will this help to disprove the existance of God". This is the basic flaw that seperates "Great Scientists" from average scientists because a great scientist doesn't have Doubt! A great scientist doesn't ask "what will this do to my faith?" or "how will my findings upset the facets of religon?". A non believer faced with evidence of a "God" will then "believe" as evidence has shown him/her too. Believers will simply hide behind religon to find a reason why "God" wanted us to find that or it was "God's" intention for it to be that way. Those doubts prohibit the scientist from asking the real questions and persuing the full truth because deep down they have guilt, they have doubt.

We are never going to have all the answers to life's mysteries but we still have to pursue that knowledge; thats how we evolved, invented fire and stood upright.

Someone earlier mentioned something about
Something comes from nothing.
Something comes from god-creator.
Something comes from blarghmph.

And, boiled down, (A) "something comes from nothing" is less illogical than (B) "something comes from god, which comes from nothing."

This idea seems very flawed, as both A and B are the exact same thing in the end..."Nothing". A could have very well easily been "Something comes from Big Bang" therefore "Something comes from big bang, which comes from nothing is more logical then "something comes from god, which comes from nothing". Simply because one can set out to prove (A) but would be impossible to prove (B).


It may seem as though I am bashing religon, while I don't practice it and find it irrational to hold those beliefs I do respect some of the aspects that religon can and has brought us. If believing in Jesus, Satan or even the Spaghetti monster helps people to treat fellow humans (and animals) better then I'm all for it. If the belief in a "God" convinces others that life is valuable then great, unfortunatly it takes more then a book, belief and fear of damnation even for those who do believe; to act civil.

[Marleysdaddy]

Optrader,

The evil computer gnomes have sabotaged me, but look at post #107 - I tried to quote myself to clarify things for you, but now everything is messed up.

[Marleysdaddy]

My point was, scientist who believe in a "God" will always be in pursuit of knowledge that they believe can define "God" or prove that "God" exists.

I hope not...science can't "prove" the existence of ANYTHING.

[Finality]

...
Someone earlier mentioned something about

This idea seems very flawed, as both A and B are the exact same thing in the end..."Nothing". A could have very well easily been "Something comes from Big Bang" therefore "Something comes from big bang, which comes from nothing is more logical then "something comes from god, which comes from nothing". Simply because one can set out to prove (A) but would be impossible to prove (B).
...
I think you may have misread my statement.

I said "less illogical" for the same statement that you are saying is more logical. Less illogical means the same thing as more logical, doesn't it? :) More awkward, perhaps, but the order I wanted to place them required the awkwardness, I guess.

Plus, I would argue that the Big Bang is the same as "something" so that's just saying "something comes from something, which comes from nothing," which I didn't say because of redundancy. The statement "something comes from god, which comes from nothing" is slightly different, because creationists/theists do not believe that god is either the same as something or nothing. The theistic god is super-something or something-else (aka supernatural).

Injecting god into something comes from nothing adds meaningless complexity.

[Samm]

Well science only yields theories, so I thought you'd be frustrated that it never yielded "answers"
Science takes those Theories and gives Answers and Creates things as well. A scientist is why you are able to chat here. The Big Bang theory is still a Theory so they have to prove it to me. And it's true, theory isn't the answer, it's a thought.

All of science is no more than Theory. There is NO knowledge that is so absolute that it cannot be replaced by better evidence. That is a cornerstone of the Scientific Method. The possibility that things are not as they appear to be is always present no matter how much is known on the topic. To be consistent, if as you say you do not believe in the "Big Bang" because it is "only" Theory, then you must also not believe in any of the rest of the knowledge that Science has provided. Question it for sure, (science thrives on skepticism) but to reject it simply because it is a developing Theory is not a valid scientific response.

[Samm]

I think this is a straw man...the most a scientist says is 'there is no evidence that a god exists'

Science is not in the business of saying what can or can't exist...that kind of ontological discussion belongs to philosophy :)

Correct...

“Science is a quest for understanding nature’s reality. Religion emphasizes the ethical dimension. So these two are different fields. We need both. We need science, and we need religion…”

“… The theistic religious traditions say “Here is God, the Creator.” Nontheistic traditions say, “There is not necessarily that kind of central authority.””

Dalai Lama – AARP interview March/April 2006 issue.

[biggles53]

I assume that if God created a universe in an aged condition, then some of the stars would be similarly aged and thus would explode at creation. No deceit would be involved then for God to put the light that reached earth in such condition to show these stars as exploded.

Think about what you're trying to assert here...

If you believe that your god created everything that we see in this universe, then you also believe that he created those very distant stars which we are able to observe...right?

Now, regardless of whether he created them in an "aged" condition (another piece of deception?), in order for us to see them, the light they produce has to travel to us first. Our own sun takes about 8 or 9 minutes (I think) for its light to reach us - those distant stars take millions of years. So, if your god poofed everything into existence just 6000 or so years ago, there is a major problem of how we can see light that has been travelling to us for millions of years.

If you further assert that he put the light 'in place' at creation, this still does not explain how the subsequent light rays could get here so quickly, unless you are prepared to assert that all those subsequent rays were similarly put 'in place' at creation. This would mean that what we observe in the night sky is not real - it never happened - and that your god is the mastermind of a huge hoax.

You sure you want to view him in that 'light'?....:cool:



It doesn't, my point is scientists are always looking to science for answers and science will never provide all the answers.

And your problem with this is....???



What provides you with satisfaction, the seeking of answers or the answer itself?

Both.


You pre-suppose that the "science" presented is a fact. If it is inaccurate or can't be proven, present an alternative theory and let people decide for themselves.

This is a recording...."Science does NOT attempt to PROVE anything - it produces theories which explain observed phenomena".


The claim that life was spontaneously created by lightning or from a comet collision etc., is pretty extraordinary. There are countless conditions that had to be met and sustained over billions of years. Given the turmoil that our planet underwent for those billions of years, it is quite a fantastic claim that any life created by accident wasn't likewise destroyed by accident. That is the claim of "science." IMO, lots of contradictions...

The theories that explain the appearance of life on this planet are supported by EVIDENCE. The assertion that it was poofed into existence by a god is supported by NONE...




It has been theorized that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or at least some birds from some dinosaurs. If dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by an asteroid collision, this greatly reduces the amount of time that birds would have to evolve. In fact, there have been many extinctions that would have interupted the evolutionary process. You must develop alternate theories to explain these breaks in the billions of years it is claimed it took for us to evolve from that first single cell organism created by that lightning bolt. You do so, because you believe in evolution to begin with, the contradictions dont register or don't matter because science can explain them away! Without a creator, you will always be seeking that one, all satisfying answer. You will never find it...

Again, we have EVIDENCE to support the explanation that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.


No, they developed theories that explain the observed effects of gravity. For example, Einstein theorized that gravity bends space. He theorized that larger (more massive) objects bend space more. He did not explain how or why this happens. How do massive objects bend space?? :think: :think: I got nothing...



I'm sorry, but you seem ignorant of Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. Contained within those theories ARE explanations of the "how and why"....

On the contrary! I have never considered the bible a science book. In a sense, yes, it has the answers, in that "God did it," but it doesn't explain how God did it, I don't believe we would understand it if it did. I have no problem with science explaining things or searching for answers, I just believe that God created the rules and laws science abides by, again, science and God are not mutually exclusive.

You believe that your god created all that we see - that he did it over a 6 day period - that it was done in a particular order - you believe that he created light - you believe that he created man from dust, and that he subsequently created woman from that man.

You're using the Bible as a very simplified science text.....

[optrader]

To clarify...when I wrote

I think you misunderstood me.

If this scenario I posed occurred, we humans wouldn't be changing how things work in the natural world, we'd be changing the law (which we humans wrote) so that it better reflected what actually happens in nature.

For example, "Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

If we ever encountered an experiment where PV did not equal k, then that would mean Boyle's Law was incorrect, not that something in nature had actually changed.

Does that help?

Much better!

[Marleysdaddy]

T
This is a recording...."Science does NOT attempt to PROVE anything - it produces theories which explain observed phenomena".


I think I'm going to need to switch back to my old signature :D

[optrader]

Think about what you're trying to assert here...

If you believe that your god created everything that we see in this universe, then you also believe that he created those very distant stars which we are able to observe...right?

Now, regardless of whether he created them in an "aged" condition (another piece of deception?), in order for us to see them, the light they produce has to travel to us first. Our own sun takes about 8 or 9 minutes (I think) for its light to reach us - those distant stars take millions of years. So, if your god poofed everything into existence just 6000 or so years ago, there is a major problem of how we can see light that has been travelling to us for millions of years.

If you further assert that he put the light 'in place' at creation, this still does not explain how the subsequent light rays could get here so quickly, unless you are prepared to assert that all those subsequent rays were similarly put 'in place' at creation. This would mean that what we observe in the night sky is not real - it never happened - and that your god is the mastermind of a huge hoax.

You sure you want to view him in that 'light'?....:cool:





And your problem with this is....???





Both.




This is a recording...."Science does NOT attempt to PROVE anything - it produces theories which explain observed phenomena".




The theories that explain the appearance of life on this planet are supported by EVIDENCE. The assertion that it was poofed into existence by a god is supported by NONE...






Again, we have EVIDENCE to support the explanation that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.




I'm sorry, but you seem ignorant of Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. Contained within those theories ARE explanations of the "how and why"....



You believe that your god created all that we see - that he did it over a 6 day period - that it was done in a particular order - you believe that he created light - you believe that he created man from dust, and that he subsequently created woman from that man.

You're using the Bible as a very simplified science text.....


I do understand the points you were making. Until recently, I believed the word "was" in Genesis, could be mistaken for "became."
This puts a whole new slant on creation. Instead of "and the earth WAS without form and void" it would read "and the Earth BECAME without form and void." Brother Abe, informed me this is not the case, the 2 words are not interchangeable.

It wasn't my intent to prove creation. I can't. My point is that non-believers use science to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, at least as described. I can not answer the "light dilemma" though I was within the last few days, directed to a sight that offered a plausible scientific explanation that does, and maintains the time frame of the Bible. Is is possible, when Moses wrote of Gods' creation of the "heavens" something other than every last atom in every last star we see was what he understood? I will grant that possibilty.

When you start with the premise "your God is a liar", it is clear you don't understand His character. It isn't that He would lie, but rather that we lack the ability to understand what He does and try and condense His doing into something we do understand. For example, did the flood cover every last square inch of the earths surface or only the known, inhabited part. Moses did not know how big the world was, was he lying when he then says the world was covered by water? Scintists have discovered water lines way up in mountain ranges all over the world.

God has no reason to lie. I start with the premise that He created a framework of laws on which to base the order of the universe. We are limited to staying within those laws. It's possible we have not discovered them all yet. If God did create those light rays that we are receiving, He did so in a way far beyond our limited minds could understand , the fact that I can not give you a plausible scientific reason that fits within our current understanding is not proof that God is a liar.

In the origin of life, what "evidence" can you produce? We are here, that is a fact. Was it a bolt of lightning or space seed?
How does a developing fetus suddenly go from a non-sentient blob of cells without self awareness or the ability to feel pain to a sentient being? What CAUSES that sudden spark of awareness? Science has no answers. In your view, life from lifelessness took billions of years to come about. It took precisely the right combination of ingredients in that primordial ooze, at exactly the right temperature, and to use your word, "POOF" a bolt out of the blue! Yet in a womans womb, the exact same process take less than nine months. I'm not talking about the development of the fetus but that "Poof" moment when self awareness begins. In fact, we debate whether that blob of cells is actually alive! (Here's a clue though, dead things don't grow and develop!, don't tell anyone though...)

We, with all our science, can't so much as create a blade of grass. Take a grass seed, analyze all the chemicals in it and then from scratch, create a seed that will grow grass.Shouldn't be too tough for science. This is what I mean when I ask HOW? I can't answer the how on what God does. I do respect the things science has discovered, but there are many things that science can not do, this is the void that God fills!

[sgtmac_46]

It's turtles......all the way down.

[Marleysdaddy]

My point is that non-believers use science to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, at least as described.
All science says is 'there is no evidence of the existence of a god'...just like science says 'there is no evidence of the existence of pink unicorns'
We, with all our science, can't so much as create a blade of grass. Take a grass seed, analyze all the chemicals in it and then from scratch, create a seed that will grow grass.Shouldn't be too tough for science.
Actually, creating life from non-life is very tough...people have been working on it for over 50 years, but we think it took possible billions of years to occur naturally.

You should read up on all the GMO's that companies like Monsanto have developed...I think you'd be surprised at what we can do.

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

[sgtmac_46]

All science says is 'there is no evidence of the existence of a god'...just like science says 'there is no evidence of the existence of pink unicorns'

Precisely........the burden of proof for pink unicorns is on the guy who claims they exist.......not for everyone else to disprove there are pink unicorns.

[CaptC]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea

The answer is in The Bible if you read closely. It is stated that 1000 years is like unto 1 day for God.

Using that guideline it took God 6000 years to create the earth as we know it. Adam and Eve (not the 1st humans, but the 1st Hebrews) were created something on the order of 7009 years ago as we count years.

(Personal note: The creation of mankind took place 1000 years BEFORE Adam and Eve, using the same reasoning.)

Therefore under these guidelines the earth is somewhere on the order of 13,000 years old.

[optrader]

The answer is in The Bible if you read closely. It is stated that 1000 years is like unto 1 day for God.

Using that guideline it took God 6000 years to create the earth as we know it. Adam and Eve (not the 1st humans, but the 1st Hebrews) were created something on the order of 7009 years ago as we count years.

(Personal note: The creation of mankind took place 1000 years BEFORE Adam and Eve, using the same reasoning.)

Therefore under these guidelines the earth is somewhere on the order of 13,000 years old.

Just curious, which bible are you reading that says Adam and Eve were Hebrews or that there were people created before them?

[optrader]

Precisely........the burden of proof for pink unicorns is on the guy who claims they exist.......not for everyone else to disprove there are pink unicorns.

I don't get this line of reasoning. Why do you assume that Christians, or any believer in God are burdened to proove God existence? I have no horse in that race, nothing in scripture compels us to prove to non-believers that God is real. That revelation is a personal thing and is promised to those who seek. We are only charged to spread a message, true, I hope everyone accepts that message, but it is not MY burden if you don't...

[notluzn]

Maybe Adam and Eve were the first Christians and not the first humans.

[Marleysdaddy]

I don't get this line of reasoning. Why do you assume that Christians, or any believer in God are burdened to proove God existence? I have no horse in that race, nothing in scripture compels us to prove to non-believers that God is real. That revelation is a personal thing and is promised to those who seek. We are only charged to spread a message, true, I hope everyone accepts that message, but it is not MY burden if you don't...

He was speaking generally...when someone makes a claim of 'X', it is their responsibility to show evidence supporting 'X', it is not the responsibility of everyone else to show evidence supporting 'not X'

Does that help?

[CaptC]

Just curious, which bible are you reading that says Adam and Eve were Hebrews or that there were people created before them?

Read GENESIS ch.1 vs.27-31. Then read GENESIS ch.2 vs. 1-7. There is the proof that Adam and Eve were NOT the 1st humans on earth.

As for them being the 1st Hebrews - I used that word instead of Jews.

[Marleysdaddy]

Read GENESIS ch.1 vs.27-31. Then read GENESIS ch.2 vs. 1-7. There is the proof that Adam and Eve were NOT the 1st humans on earth.



A story, in a book, does not constitute 'proof'.

If the dates in the Bible are correct, Adam and Eve would have lived on this planet less than 20,000 years ago.
Genetic evidence indicates that humans first lived on this planet about 200,000 years ago.

That suggests that Adam and Eve (if they existed) were not the first humans on Earth.

[Thor]

Therefore under these guidelines the earth is somewhere on the order of 13,000 years old.

Then how do you explain all those pesky fossils that are dated to MILLIONS of years old? How do you explain rock formations that couldn't have possibly reached their current state in a short time span of only 13,000 years?

[Samm]

Maybe Adam and Eve were the first Christians and not the first humans.

That would make the Earth only 2000 years old... :think:

[CaptC]

Then how do you explain all those pesky fossils that are dated to MILLIONS of years old? How do you explain rock formations that couldn't have possibly reached their current state in a short time span of only 13,000 years?
"and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of it." There was no time line for that epoch, thus the fossils.

[CaptC]

A story, in a book, does not constitute 'proof'.

If the dates in the Bible are correct, Adam and Eve would have lived on this planet less than 20,000 years ago.
Genetic evidence indicates that humans first lived on this planet about 200,000 years ago.

Science also proved that airplanes and bumblebees cannot possibly fly. :naughty:

That suggests that Adam and Eve (if they existed) were not the first humans on Earth.

I never claimed they were and if you read of Cain's expulsion you will find that he went east of Eden, took a wife and procreated.

Using the hypothesis (That came from the Roman Catholics) that Adam and Eve were the very 1st humans,where did Cain get a wife? He had no siblings other than Abel. :think:

[Samm]

"and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of it." There was no time line for that epoch, thus the fossils.

Fossils of what? That "epoch" was prior to "the creation" of life.

[Marleysdaddy]

Science also proved that airplanes and bumblebees cannot possibly fly. :naughty:


Science can't "prove" anything

Observational evidence indicates that airplanes and bumblebees can fly...scientific theories about aerodynamics, the physics of powered flight, etc. can explain how airplanes and bumblebees can fly.

[Alaric]

Science also proved that airplanes and bumblebees cannot possibly fly. :naughty:

That is an old wives tale. While it may have been true a hundred years ago, it is not true now, and has not been true, for a very long time. But old wives tales have a way of persisting because gullible and uninformed people repeat them. The physics behind it is well understood. Not only do we know they can fly, we understand exactly why. The flapping wing creates a vortex above the bee's wing on the front edge. As the vortex travels across the wing it creates a condition called dynamic stall, producing more lift than a conventional airfoil is capable of producing. The wings reproduce dynamic stall every five thousandths of a second. There is no mystery what so ever about why a bee can fly.

Best to forget the old wives tale.

[Alaric]

Maybe Adam and Eve were the first Christians and not the first humans.

I don't think they were the first humans. Humans were around for three hundred thousand years, and hominids for three million years.

However, regarding Adam and Eve, there is something that I think is significant in the Genesis legend: they were the first humans to be married, and they were married by God, thus creating the first husband and wife. Notice how the focus on Gen 2 is the marriage of Adam and Eve, that they are "one flesh" and notice how "one flesh" is used throughout scripture in reference to the husband/wife marriage. I don't for one second believe that Eve was made from a rib, that is symbolic of one flesh, side by side and equal, and mentioned only briefly, but several verses focus on them being one flesh, companions, help-meets, and cleave (glue) to one another. Adam was also the first man to be given a law by deity, symbolized by the two trees and opposing choices. The rest is mentioned almost as a side note, but the marriage is significant.

The lesson to be learned there is the relationship of the husband and wife and their relationship to deity, not how they were made. That part of Genesis is of value to everyone, not just YECs. When someone chooses to interpret it literally they miss the opportunity to ask themselves "what can this represent and what can I learn from it?" They cheat themselves out of the richness of the story, whether its real or myth.

The bible student will do well to ask what life lessons he can learn from the creation story, not what science lessons he can glean from something that actually says nothing whatsoever about the process of how man came to be.

[optrader]

Science also proved that airplanes and bumblebees cannot possibly fly. :naughty:



I never claimed they were and if you read of Cain's expulsion you will find that he went east of Eden, took a wife and procreated.

Using the hypothesis (That came from the Roman Catholics) that Adam and Eve were the very 1st humans,where did Cain get a wife? He had no siblings other than Abel. :think:

Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean Cain had no other siblings.

[optrader]

Cap- Why do you make your font size so small? Some of us have a hard time reading it! :lol:

[Alaric]

...where did Cain get a wife? He had no siblings other than Abel. :think:

One rabbinic traditions teach that Cain's wife was the daughter of Abel. That means Cain and Able were full grown men. Able would have had to marry another daughter of Adam and Eve to have a daughter of his own. According to the tradition, Cain slew Abel so that he could inherit Abel's flocks through his marriage to Abel's daughter.

[Samm]

Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean Cain had no other siblings.

Are you saying Cain married his sister? :eek:

I thought that sort of thing was a big no no in the Bible.

[StoneScratcher]

I don't think they were the first humans. Humans were around for three hundred thousand years, and hominids for three million years.

However, regarding Adam and Eve, there is something that I think is significant in the Genesis legend: they were the first humans to be married, and they were married by God, thus creating the first husband and wife. Notice how the focus on Gen 2 is the marriage of Adam and Eve, that they are "one flesh" and notice how "one flesh" is used throughout scripture in reference to the husband/wife marriage. I don't for one second believe that Eve was made from a rib, that is symbolic of one flesh, side by side and equal, and mentioned only briefly, but several verses focus on them being one flesh, companions, help-meets, and cleave (glue) to one another. Adam was also the first man to be given a law by deity, symbolized by the two trees and opposing choices. The rest is mentioned almost as a side note, but the marriage is significant.

The lesson to be learned there is the relationship of the husband and wife and their relationship to deity, not how they were made. That part of Genesis is of value to everyone, not just YECs. When someone chooses to interpret it literally they miss the opportunity to ask themselves "what can this represent and what can I learn from it?" They cheat themselves out of the richness of the story, whether its real or myth.

The bible student will do well to ask what life lessons he can learn from the creation story, not what science lessons he can glean from something that actually says nothing whatsoever about the process of how man came to be.

Nicely put and interesting to read! Thank you.

[CaptC]

According to the tradition, Cain slew Abel so that he could inherit Abel's flocks through his marriage to Abel's daughter.

According to who's tradition? Every church, Bible scholar, and Rabbi I know, teaches that Cain slew Abel because he (Cain) was jealous of Abel's offering to God being favored over his own. :think:

[Thor]

"and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of it." There was no time line for that epoch, thus the fossils.

This answer makes no sense to me. Please elaborate.

[optrader]

Are you saying Cain married his sister? :eek:

I thought that sort of thing was a big no no in the Bible.

Consider that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were one generation from perfection. Sin has greatly degraded us both mentally and physically, this degradation applies to our DNA. I suspect God eventually prohibited incest not only because the degradation of our DNA would cause problems if two closely related people, (or animals) produced offspring, but because as the population of the world began to grow, enough diversity in the gene pool became available to make it unnecessary.

Like alot of things, scripture doesn't address this issue. I tend to believe that the direct creation of other human beings would have been significant enough to mention in the Bible. Since only Adam and Eve are mentioned, I believe the only way that Gods'command to be fruitful and multiply could be carried out would be for brother and sister to marry.

[Samm]

Consider that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were one generation from perfection. Sin has greatly degraded us both mentally and physically, this degradation applies to our DNA. I suspect God eventually prohibited incest not only because the degradation of our DNA would cause problems if two closely related people, (or animals) produced offspring, but because as the population of the world began to grow, enough diversity in the gene pool became available to make it unnecessary.

Like alot of things, scripture doesn't address this issue. I tend to believe that the direct creation of other human beings would have been significant enough to mention in the Bible. Since only Adam and Eve are mentioned, I believe the only way that Gods'command to be fruitful and multiply could be carried out would be for brother and sister to marry.
If Adam and Eve were perfect, they would not have sinned.

Nothing you have rationalized above, as you have honestly acknowledged, is supported by scripture, therefore it is pure speculation and only serves to highlight the problems with using the Bible as a God given infallible source of fact when in reality it is nothing more than than a collection of the words of men just like yourself.

[optrader]

[QUOTE]If Adam and Eve were perfect, they would not have sinned.

Babies are perfect...until they're not.

Nothing you have rationalized above, as you have honestly acknowledged, is supported by scripture, therefore it is pure speculation and only serves to highlight the problems with using the Bible as a God given infallible source of fact when in reality it is nothing more than than a collection of the words of men just like yourself.

Do you know of another "God given infallible source of fact" I could reference to support the Bible? I've been trying, without success, to find one.

I wish I was "just like" the authors of the Bible, they were directly inspired. I make no such claim, I'm just a thorn in the side of reason!

BTW, I find it interesting that you capitalize "God." Anything subliminal there?

[Samm]

Babies are perfect...until they're not.
That's nonsense... babies are born with most of their physical imperfections... and many of their cognitive imperfections as well.

The jury is still out whether Liberals are born with that affliction... ;)

Do you know of another "God given infallible source of fact" I could reference to support the Bible? I've been trying, without success, to find one.

I wish I was "just like" the authors of the Bible, they were directly inspired. I make no such claim, I'm just a thorn in the side of reason!

The theological claim is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore is the Truth. My contention is that the Bible was written by men (inspired or not) who called it the word of God to give it credibility and assume the mantle of God's (alleged) infallibility. i.e. It is the word of God simply because men claimed it to be the word of God. You cannot find a supporting God given document because one does not exist... they were all written by man.

And appropriate that you use the word reason... Martin Luther espoused that reason was the bane of religion. It is reason that is the thorn in the side of theology. ;)

BTW, I find it interesting that you capitalize "God." Anything subliminal there?

I capitalize God because that is how the Christian God is distinguished in text from pagan gods. Furthermore, I respect the beliefs of religious people to the extent that I do not wish to insult them (including you) even though I may debate the premises of their beliefs. I was raised and Confirmed in the Lutheran Church; while that was admittedly many years ago, I am not completely ignorant on the subject.

[Alaric]

(annoying font deleted) Every... Bible scholar, and Rabbi I know, teaches that Cain slew Abel because he (Cain) was jealous of Abel's offering to God being favored over his own.

Then you should probably get out and meet a few more bible scholars and rabbis (though there is no reason to suppose that a random rabbi will know any more than rev. BillyBob Jeff who secretly actually flunked out of divinity college). Or if you're less comfortable with chatting up a Rabbi try the introverted approach and Google "why cain killed abel" or "cain's wife" or if that doesn't work try a different search combination. There are dozens of varieties of this story through out different cultures.

The Midrash for example tells that Cain and Able each had twin sisters and each twin sister was given to the other for a wife. Some stories name the sisters as Aclima and Jumilla (sp?). The different accounts run the gamut for motive from jealousy over an offering to jealousy over wives or jealousy over flocks.

Don't suppose that Genesis is the only version of the legend surviving to this day - if you do you cheat yourself out of some rich literary traditions for the relatively bland and obfuscating version in Genesis. I am not saying that you have to believe any of those traditions has any authority, you are free to believe the Bible is God's sole word to man and He hasn't uttered so much as a peep to anyone else. I am saying there are other traditions that tell a more interesting story that fills in some of the blanks.

[Alaric]

The jury is still out whether Liberals are born with that affliction...

No, the Bible provides the answer. :))

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Then along came Guizot, who gave us this gem widely misattributed to Churchill.
"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Finally Bill Cosby provided the last puzzle piece when he explained that children are brain damaged.

So its really quite simple: liberals cling to childish ideals because they have no brain.

[dittoheadAZ]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea

Try these; you'll get an explanation of why the Earth is NOT only a few thousand years old:
www.godandscience.org
www.reasons.org

I also posted an extension of the "light-in-transit" argument which not only trashes the young-Earth "appearance of age" argument, but completely does away with the need for galaxies to even EXIST, if their argument could somehow be correct. It also proves that if their argument is correct, then God is intentionally deceptive in creating a Universe that intentionally contradicts what the YECs would insist is "reality". It dealt with the supernova explosions visible in the Andromeda galaxy - you can probably find it by searching the Religion forum for "Andromeda", "supernova", and "reddening". (Not sure how good the search engine is with multiple words not in a phrase.)

[dittoheadAZ]

Very simple conceptually. God created the universe with the light rays from all the start already in place. It's the same concept as Adam's navel.

Then why insist that galaxies exist? And why all the supernova explosions visible in the Andromeda Galaxy?

Do you really believe that we are seeing explosions of stars that never existed in a galaxy that may not exist either?

[dittoheadAZ]

No, the Bible provides the answer. :))

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Then along came Guizot, who gave us this gem widely misattributed to Churchill.
"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Finally Bill Cosby provided the last puzzle piece when he explained that children are brain damaged.

So its really quite simple: liberals cling to childish ideals because they have no brain.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

If I was still updating the Post of the Day thread (alas, for time constraints), that would be today's!

[RKing]

Wow, then your god sure went to a lot of trouble to try to fool everybody into thinking that the earth is older than ~6000 years. I mean, creating light in place, putting fossils into rocks, changing the laws of physics so carbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) would make things look much older than they are. Are you sure he isn't trying to lie to us about when creation took place?
Physics actually state's that time and space are relative. If the universe is changing in size, then so is time, which could result in erroneous carbon dating results the farther back we go. Chemists don't like this idea, but phycisysts are more readily susceptible to it. Funny thing is Einstien was heavy into Jewish Mysticysm, which has quite a lot to say in regards to science, math, physics, and the nature of the universe. Science is only our feable attempt to understand God's observable Laws.

[I am the Eggman]

Physics actually state's that time and space are relative. If the universe is changing in size, then so is time, which could result in erroneous carbon dating results the farther back we go. Chemists don't like this idea, but phycisysts are more readily susceptible to it. Funny thing is Einstien was heavy into Jewish Mysticysm, which has quite a lot to say in regards to science, math, physics, and the nature of the universe. Science is only our feable attempt to understand God's observable Laws.

Problem #1: Carbon dating is not the only method of radiometric dating.

Problem #2: Einstein by his own admission, from his own writings, believed in nature as "god", he quoted his belief as being in Spinoza's god.

[James Juno]

Physics actually state's that time and space are relative. If the universe is changing in size, then so is time, which could result in erroneous carbon dating results the farther back we go. Chemists don't like this idea, but phycisysts are more readily susceptible to it. Funny thing is Einstien was heavy into Jewish Mysticysm, which has quite a lot to say in regards to science, math, physics, and the nature of the universe. Science is only our feable attempt to understand God's observable Laws.

Einstein is rolling in his grave right now.

[RKing]

Einstein is rolling in his grave right now.
Give me your time being a constant argument..
Is this the forum to argue Newton vs Einstein?

[davetexas]

That's nonsense... babies are born with most of their physical imperfections... and many of their cognitive imperfections as well.

The jury is still out whether Liberals are born with that affliction... ;)



The theological claim is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore is the Truth. My contention is that the Bible was written by men (inspired or not) who called it the word of God to give it credibility and assume the mantle of God's (alleged) infallibility. i.e. It is the word of God simply because men claimed it to be the word of God. You cannot find a supporting God given document because one does not exist... they were all written by man.

And appropriate that you use the word reason... Martin Luther espoused that reason was the bane of religion. It is reason that is the thorn in the side of theology. ;)



I capitalize God because that is how the Christian God is distinguished in text from pagan gods. Furthermore, I respect the beliefs of religious people to the extent that I do not wish to insult them (including you) even though I may debate the premises of their beliefs. I was raised and Confirmed in the Lutheran Church; while that was admittedly many years ago, I am not completely ignorant on the subject.


B.I.B.L.E. Basic instructions before leaving earth

The bible was written to Gods people.Only so much can be explained.Gods word is not entirely 'mental'. God is Spirit and his book is a spiritual book

[RKing]

Problem #1: Carbon dating is not the only method of radiometric dating.

Problem #2: Einstein by his own admission, from his own writings, believed in nature as "god", he quoted his belief as being in Spinoza's god.
Agreed, but any dating is based on the assumption that time is a constant....Is it?? Personally, I dont want to jump to any pre-mature conclusions.

[Finality]

...
Is this the forum to argue Newton vs Einstein?
Isn't every forum?

[James Juno]

Give me your time being a constant argument..
Is this the forum to argue Newton vs Einstein?

What does any of this have to do with your claim that Einstein was a Jewish mystic?

[RKing]

What does any of this have to do with your claim that Einstein was a Jewish mystic?
It doesn't, I do not have any hard evidence that he subscribed to Jewish Mysticism, just coincidence in some of his statements regarding theology. Just curious who was paying attention.

[optrader]

[QUOTE]That's nonsense... babies are born with most of their physical imperfections... and many of their cognitive imperfections as well.

I'm not talking about physical or mental imperfection. I am talking about the fact they are born as blank slates, they are totally innocent with no guile and deceit in them. They lose this as they are exposed to the world. The world is full of imperfect sinners. I'm being kind here, you know the world is full of sick twisted individuals. Sadly, these too play a role in our children losing this innocence.

There was no malevolence in Eden. Adam and Eve had fantastic intellect, they did commune directly with God and were in His presence, they were created "a little lower than the angels," after all.
They were innocent and as blank slates. All they knew was what God told them. Satan, in the form of the serpent was allowed to enter Eden and everything changed, for Adam and Eve, and for the rest of mankind as well.

The jury is still out whether Liberals are born with that affliction... ;)

I find it hard to believe God would allow such a horrendous fate to befall innocent babies. I blame the parents...


The theological claim is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore is the Truth. My contention is that the Bible was written by men (inspired or not) who called it the word of God to give it credibility and assume the mantle of God's (alleged) infallibility. i.e. It is the word of God simply because men claimed it to be the word of God. You cannot find a supporting God given document because one does not exist... they were all written by man.

If it was not inspired, then you are correct, it is the word of man. If it is inspired, it is the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

If we, as Christians, reject this. We are lost, for we have no reliable means to discern Gods' will.

And appropriate that you use the word reason... Martin Luther espoused that reason was the bane of religion. It is reason that is the thorn in the side of theology. ;)

Martin Luther was a brilliant man, whom I believe was inspired by God. I agree with Him. When we substitute our own imperfect reason, put forth by our own selfish nature, we find ourselves at odds with God. Doesn't the same thing happen when our children substitute their own reason for ours? For example, if we tell our teenage daughter "No, you can't go to an unsupervised party and stay out till 4 AM." what happens, or what could happen, if she "reasons" we are wrong and unfair and goes anyway?

I capitalize God because that is how the Christian God is distinguished in text from pagan gods. Furthermore, I respect the beliefs of religious people to the extent that I do not wish to insult them (including you) even though I may debate the premises of their beliefs. I was raised and Confirmed in the Lutheran Church; while that was admittedly many years ago, I am not completely ignorant on the subject.

I'm not easily offended, and as you may have noticed, I like to poke a little fun now and then.. I do appreciate the respect, I try and extend it to others as well. You may assault the premises of my beliefs should you feel the urge. :)

[RKing]

[quote=Samm;54449641]

I'm not talking about physical or mental imperfection. I am talking about the fact they are born as blank slates

I prefer Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint on tabula rasa, and find twin studies and studies of adopted children more compelling than the idea of a blank slate. The case of David Reimer is particularly interesting.

But I respect your beliefs:)

[notluzn]

I heard something that the universe we see is not all of it. Just because it's claimed to be 13 billion years old is only because we can't see further. the Light hasn't reached us yet. Another billion years, the light from 14 billion years will finally make it to us.

Also, scientist don't know the other 2/3 of the matter in the universe. Darkatter doesn't even register on our periodic table.

Why not accept that there is nothing there but emptyness? They also say that there is a Black Hole at the center of every galaxy so that it's self would mean the universe would be way more than 13 billion years old. I wold say 100'eds of billion years old or maybe it's just infinite years old.

[StoneScratcher]

If you run backwards as fast as light, holding a flashlight straight out from your chest, you'll always be in the dark.

[James Juno]

It doesn't, I do not have any hard evidence that he subscribed to Jewish Mysticism, just coincidence in some of his statements regarding theology. Just curious who was paying attention.

I'm confident in claiming you're misreading Einstein.

[RKing]

I'm confident in claiming you're misreading Einstein.
You would not be alone in that statement, I've heard that before. However, we are all entitled to our somewhat unfounded beliefs. Scientists call it a hypothesis, and religous people call it faith. Unfortunately we can't test and prove everything.

[Samm]

I prefer Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint on tabula rasa, and find twin studies and studies of adopted children more compelling than the idea of a blank slate. The case of David Reimer is particularly interesting.

But I respect your beliefs:)

Please learn to quote properly... as posted, that appears to show that quoted statement to be attributed to me rather than optrader. Hint... preview the post before posting it.

[James Juno]

You would not be alone in that statement, I've heard that before. However, we are all entitled to our somewhat unfounded beliefs. Scientists call it a hypothesis, and religous people call it faith. Unfortunately we can't test and prove everything.

You insinuate that scientific hypotheses and religious faith are synonymous. They aren't.

Anyway, you are correct to imply that our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. Best to leave it at that.

[Samm]

I'm not talking about physical or mental imperfection. I am talking about the fact they are born as blank slates, they are totally innocent with no guile and deceit in them. They lose this as they are exposed to the world. The world is full of imperfect sinners. I'm being kind here, you know the world is full of sick twisted individuals. Sadly, these too play a role in our children losing this innocence.

There was no malevolence in Eden. Adam and Eve had fantastic intellect, they did commune directly with God and were in His presence, they were created "a little lower than the angels," after all.
They were innocent and as blank slates. All they knew was what God told them. Satan, in the form of the serpent was allowed to enter Eden and everything changed, for Adam and Eve, and for the rest of mankind as well.
For the sake of this discussion, I will buy that, but then the premise that they were not necessarily genetically perfect is still a valid one. There is no scripture that supports the concept of divine perfection; that too is a creation of man.

I find it hard to believe God would allow such a horrendous fate to befall innocent babies. I blame the parents...
I don't know about that... my father was a Roosevelt Democrat. ;)

If it was not inspired, then you are correct, it is the word of man. If it is inspired, it is the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

If we, as Christians, reject this. We are lost, for we have no reliable means to discern Gods' will.
I understand why you believe it, I am simply pointing out the fatal flaw in that reasoning. Timothy's statement is completely worthless as evidence. You cannot prove the words you write are true simply because you further claim that you were inspired by the entity you are writing about to write them.

It is exactly the same circular reasoning as the claim in the Preamble that certain "inalienable rights" assigned to man are God given. Those words are written by inspired men, but it does not make their statement true. Now whether or not they are true is an entirely different matter. You have to be dead to have the answer to that one.

Martin Luther was a brilliant man, whom I believe was inspired by God. I agree with Him. When we substitute our own imperfect reason, put forth by our own selfish nature, we find ourselves at odds with God. Doesn't the same thing happen when our children substitute their own reason for ours? For example, if we tell our teenage daughter "No, you can't go to an unsupervised party and stay out till 4 AM." what happens, or what could happen, if she "reasons" we are wrong and unfair and goes anyway?
That is not the "reasoning" that Luther was speaking of. What he was saying was that we should take the word of God on face value because it was the word of God (see argument against this premise above) and that it was the work of the devil to use reasoning to discredit it. Odd concept coming from a man who used reasoning to justify his defiance of the Pope.

I'm not easily offended, and as you may have noticed, I like to poke a little fun now and then.. I do appreciate the respect, I try and extend it to others as well. You may assault the premises of my beliefs should you feel the urge. :)

Deal. :hug:

[RKing]

Please learn to quote properly... as posted, that appears to show that quoted statement to be attributed to me rather than optrader. Hint... preview the post before posting it.

I apologize

[RKing]

You insinuate that scientific hypotheses and religious faith are synonymous. They aren't.

Anyway, you are correct to imply that our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. Best to leave it at that.
Not synonymous, just require faith that something exists. A lot of money spent on particle accelerators, in the hopes to find what, Higgs Boson. What's it's nickname again? All great scientists have taken a leap of faith at some point or another. Maybe not religious, but a leap of faith that thier hypotheses is correct (yes, with pre-liminary data to back it up)---I think the point you are trying to make, is the absence of data supporting religion.

[Samm]

I apologize

None required... I did not take that as a affront. It's just that messing up the quote protocal makes the thread hard to follow. The big thing is to preview so that you can see what your post will look like and give you a chance to fix things. You are new here (welcome by the way); it takes a while to learn all the ropes of using the site. Heck, there are features that I still haven't figured out how to use. ;)

[optrader]

[QUOTE]For the sake of this discussion, I will buy that, but then the premise that they were not necessarily genetically perfect is still a valid one. There is no scripture that supports the concept of divine perfection; that too is a creation of man.

I accept the premise that an omnipotent God could certainly create genetically perfect people. I ask why He would do otherwise? He created us a little lower than angels and Adam and eve could stand directly in His presense, this has not been done by Humans since Eden.

The Bible says much about perfection. Too much to list but I would you to suspend your disbelief and answer a few questions. How was it possible for Adam to live 930 years? Remember, he and Eve would have lived forever, free of aging and sickness before they ate of the tree. Until the time of the flood, such longevity was the norm. what changed. God did shorten our lifespans, but prior to Gods' action what factors allowed such life spans? Could DNA have played a role?

I don't know about that... my father was a Roosevelt Democrat. ;)

My deepest sympathies. :frown: Today, liberalism can be prevented if caught at an early age. Regular exposure to such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter can slow and even reverse this dread malady. Please protect your children. Avoid exposure to other liberals as it is highly contagious. If they must come in contact with a sufferer, blocking the ears with cotton may help. Home school if at all possible!
Sadly, there is little hope for those in advanced stages of liberalism. this disease attacks and destoys the reasoning centers of the brain. :eek: On a positive note, the afflicted do seem rather blissful in their ignorance... (my apologies, I really tried to resist:lol:)

I understand why you believe it, I am simply pointing out the fatal flaw in that reasoning. Timothy's statement is completely worthless as evidence. You cannot prove the words you write are true simply because you further claim that you were inspired by the entity you are writing about to write them.

It is exactly the same circular reasoning as the claim in the Preamble that certain "inalienable rights" assigned to man are God given. Those words are written by inspired men, but it does not make their statement true. Now whether or not they are true is an entirely different matter. You have to be dead to have the answer to that one.

I agree here, but scripture is what we have. It is faith that sustains our beliefs. I accept the notion that outside the Bible, many things we believe are incredible.

That is not the "reasoning" that Luther was speaking of. What he was saying was that we should take the word of God on face value because it was the word of God (see argument against this premise above) and that it was the work of the devil to use reasoning to discredit it.

I agree with Luther here. Satan has unlimited use of deception and wishes to take as many of us down with him as he can. Discrediting the word of God is his most effective means of achieving this end.

Odd concept coming from a man who used reasoning to justify his defiance of the Pope.

You must believe all Christians accepth the infallibility of the Pope to think this is an odd concept. We Don't.

Deal. :hug:

Absolutely!

[notluzn]

I would say it is safe to say that use Humans know little about the universe and god. We cannot speak for either one nor can we know .001% about there truths.

Dream about the Universe and Have Faith that God is here.

[Why Theory?]

A few months ago I had though along the lines of 'if stars/other galaxies etc are millions of light years away then how can we say earth is only a few thousand years old'

I googled alot and found this page (christiananswers.net actually has some really good info all with scientific backing):
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

but unfortunately this page is still not very satisfying. I was wondering if anyone else had more insight into the idea

The answer is simple, and can be answered using what scientists misname as string theory. The Theory of the Holy Noodle is what it really is. All matter is created in The Flying Spaghetti Monster's image, as the basic building blocks of matter and energy are actually quivering noodles.

Once you realize that, you can refer to the Prophet Heisenberg, and his uncertainty principle helps describes it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, holy be His Noodly Appendages, changes the results of all experiments so that the earth and universe appears to be much older than it is. Our Holy Scriptures describe in great detail how and why he does this.

----------------------
The Ontological Argument for FMS: P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection P2. Existence is a perfection. C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

[Samm]

I accept the premise that an omnipotent God could certainly create genetically perfect people. I ask why He would do otherwise? He created us a little lower than angels and Adam and eve could stand directly in His presense, this has not been done by Humans since Eden.

The Bible says much about perfection. Too much to list but I would you to suspend your disbelief and answer a few questions. How was it possible for Adam to live 930 years? Remember, he and Eve would have lived forever, free of aging and sickness before they ate of the tree. Until the time of the flood, such longevity was the norm. what changed. God did shorten our lifespans, but prior to Gods' action what factors allowed such life spans? Could DNA have played a role?
Ah, you see... I have you there. I do not for an instant believe that Adam lived 930 years. In fact, I think that it is highly probable that Adam and Eve et al were nothing more then a fable created by early "scholars" (along with the story of the creation of the heavens and earth) to explain the unexplainable... how man came to be. There is far more historical evidence to suggest this scenario than the outlandish tale of Genesis.

My deepest sympathies. :frown: Today, liberalism can be prevented if caught at an early age. Regular exposure to such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter can slow and even reverse this dread malady. Please protect your children. Avoid exposure to other liberals as it is highly contagious. If they must come in contact with a sufferer, blocking the ears with cotton may help. Home school if at all possible!
Sadly, there is little hope for those in advanced stages of liberalism. this disease attacks and destoys the reasoning centers of the brain. :eek: On a positive note, the afflicted do seem rather blissful in their ignorance... (my apologies, I really tried to resist:lol:)
It was not as bad as all that... mail youth tend to rebel against their fathers thus my escape from Progressivism (not Liberalism - my father was no Liberal) was not particularly unusual. But I disagree that Liberalism can be reversed by passive intervention... I think it is a genetic predisposition that can only be reversed by repeated blows to the back of the head. ;)

I agree here, but scripture is what we have. It is faith that sustains our beliefs. I accept the notion that outside the Bible, many things we believe are incredible.
The difference being, that outside the Bible, those many things that you and I cannot fathom because they are beyond our knowledge (or ability to understand) are fairly well understood by a handful of very bright individuals who specialize in those areas. In other words, there is evidence for those things that we know about, but do not understand, but on the other hand, no evidence beyond ones mind exists to "prove" the mysticism spelled out in the Bible.

I agree with Luther here. Satan has unlimited use of deception and wishes to take as many of us down with him as he can. Discrediting the word of God is his most effective means of achieving this end.

Yes; Thus reason becomes the thorn in the side of faith... always testing it. In my case, reason won out over faith, yet I do not believe I am "owned" by the Devil. Perhaps Luther was wrong about that part.

You must believe all Christians accepth the infallibility of the Pope to think this is an odd concept. We Don't.
That was not my point. My point was that Luther warned against reason because of its potential to erode faith, yet he used reason to rationalize his rebellion against the Pope. I suppose he recognized that so made the former declaration lest believers less strong than he might be consumed by logic and dump him too.

[RKing]

The answer is simple, and can be answered using what scientists misname as string theory. The Theory of the Holy Noodle is what it really is. All matter is created in The Flying Spaghetti Monster's image, as the basic building blocks of matter and energy are actually quivering noodles.

Once you realize that, you can refer to the Prophet Heisenberg, and his uncertainty principle helps describes it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, holy be His Noodly Appendages, changes the results of all experiments so that the earth and universe appears to be much older than it is. Our Holy Scriptures describe in great detail how and why he does this.

----------------------

The Ontological Argument for FMS: P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection P2. Existence is a perfection. C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

:):):)
You are a wordsmith!

[Why Theory?]

:):):)
You are a wordsmith!

Do not credit me. I give all the glory to FSM, hallowed by His name.

His word, written a really long time ago by a bunch of ancient dudes (or at least FSM made it look that way, which is in effect the same thing) is completely clear and easy to understand and has been validated by every possible scientific experiement that the Quanum Mechanics Prophets have performed (or FSM made the results obtained by the QMP's turn out that way, which in effect is the same thing).

Can I get an Arrrrr?

----------------------


The Ontological Argument for FMS: P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection P2. Existence is a perfection. C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

[dave rogers]

If you don't choose to believe in God thats your business. God still exists. You may influence your family and friends to ignore the obvious. They won't be thanking you after they die and face God and their fate though.People have tried to disprove God for a long time and will long into the future. Christians don't worry about it like athiests. We know the truth. We know it like we know anything.Yes we accept certain things on faith. Athiest accept far more on faith. An infinite amount more. We actually feel sorry for ya'll wallowing in your ignorance. Wisdom of men is foolishness with God.

[notluzn]

If you don't choose to believe in God thats your business. God still exists. You may influence your family and friends to ignore the obvious. They won't be thanking you after they die and face God and their fate though.People have tried to disprove God for a long time and will long into the future. Christians don't worry about it like athiests. We know the truth. We know it like we know anything.Yes we accept certain things on faith. Athiest accept far more on faith. An infinite amount more. We actually feel sorry for ya'll wallowing in your ignorance. Wisdom of men is foolishness with God.
I believe in God but not really the Bible. Also, people have imaginary friends. Are they lying about it and why are they called crazy?

Also, there is actually no faith in being an Athiest. Faith is only for religion.
I also believe that because of all these seperate beliefs in Christianity, they pushed people away because one believes in this and the other believes in that. HOW? People see ministers getting very rich friving BMW's and Porsches and thats not a good thing. All of them should only have enough to live and thats it.

Science has helped the Church see that the earth is Round and that the Earth revolves around the Sun and so on and so on. Nothing wrong with that. God gave us Freewill and alot of things to do like Exploring the Universe. He did not create a planet on the other side of the Universe for nothing. God won't destroy the earth. Man has the Freewill to do it himself.

In the end, God can not be forced on the people that don't have faith in him.

[dave rogers]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.

[badkarma]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.
Faith in what, exactly?

[sgtmac_46]

If you don't choose to believe in God thats your business. God still exists. You may influence your family and friends to ignore the obvious. They won't be thanking you after they die and face God and their fate though.People have tried to disprove God for a long time and will long into the future. Christians don't worry about it like athiests. We know the truth. We know it like we know anything.Yes we accept certain things on faith. Athiest accept far more on faith. An infinite amount more. We actually feel sorry for ya'll wallowing in your ignorance. Wisdom of men is foolishness with God.

Yeah, but what if you pick the wrong version of God to believe in? A lot of folks seem pretty darned convinced of a lot of different variations.......because here's the problem........even IF there is an acknowledgment that the universe suggests A God.........there is far less evidence to prove WHICH A 'God'.........IF any current religious belief system even represents him at all!

Proving divine creation.....IS NOT the same as proving a particular belief system is THE belief system of that divine creator! The reality is that it's CERTAIN that MOST believers on the planet are DEAD WRONG! Because they can't all be right. The Islamists AND the Jews CANNOT be both right.......the Catholics AND the Pentecostals CANNOT both be right......so the MAJORITY of true believes (if not ALL) logically must be mistaken.

I still say it's TURTLES.....turtles all the way down. ;)

[Samm]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.

Your understanding of the meaning of "faith" is distorted. One does not need faith to not believe in something, particularly something esoteric like an unseen mystical God for which there is no evidence beyond the words of men.

[notluzn]

Athiests do need faith to believe there is no God. That there is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.
Faith is a Personal thing with a belief in a higher being "God". I have Faith in God because of everything I've seen. But in my honest opinion, I believe that because of the different churches, people lost faith.

[biggles53]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.

What piffle!

As an atheist, I say I withold belief in all gods because there is no evidence to support their existence. I do NOT make the statement that "There is no god."

What "faith" is there in that?? I simply state that there is no evidence. Now, if I'm wrong, please show me the evidence........

[I am the Eggman]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.

I don't need faith not to believe in an invisible english speaking flying pig named Bruce.

I don't need faith not to believe in your magic man in the sky.

[Finality]

I don't need faith not to believe in an invisible english speaking flying pig named Bruce.

I don't need faith not to believe in your magic man in the sky.
Well, you might need faith not to believe in the first one you listed. The Bruce supplies an awful lot of bacon, it's hard not to believe in it.

[Marleysdaddy]

Personally, I dont want to jump to any pre-mature conclusions.

like belief in an invisible supernatural deity? :think:

[Thor]

If you don't choose to believe in God thats your business. God still exists.

And you know this.... how???

You may influence your family and friends to ignore the obvious.

What, exactly, is "obvious" about the existence of an unseen, undetectable and unresponsive supernatural being?

They won't be thanking you after they die and face God and their fate though.

And here we have the usual threat. If you live a moral life and try to help others when you can, why is it that the deciding factor in how you spend eternity is whether or not you believed in the existence of a particular deity?

People have tried to disprove God for a long time and will long into the future.

It is impossible to "disprove God", just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of pink unicorns. The vast majority of atheists do not try to disprove "God". We merely make observations that contradict the alleged existence of an omnipotent and benevolent deity.

Christians don't worry about it like athiests.

Who says atheists "worry about it"? As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to "worry" about.

We know the truth. We know it like we know anything.

No, you don't. You know what you were taught by the church and probably your parents. What makes you think they're right?

Yes we accept certain things on faith.

You mean things like a virgin birth? A man walking on water, healing the sick with a touch of his hand and rising from the dead? A global flood that killed every living thing except for a handful of people and creatures on an ark? A man who lost his strength because his hair was cut? A river turning into blood? Talking animals?

Athiest accept far more on faith. An infinite amount more.

Atheists accept nothing on "faith". That's kind of what makes us atheists.

We actually feel sorry for ya'll wallowing in your ignorance.

I refuse to believe incredible claims that have no evidence to support them. How this makes one "ignorant" escapes me.

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by dave rogers
Athiest [sic] accept far more on faith. An infinite amount more.


Atheists accept nothing on "faith". That's kind of what makes us atheists.


Thor, that could be made into a snazzy t-shirt ;)

[Thor]

Thor, that could be made into a snazzy t-shirt ;)

Interesting thought....

I have a friend who is also an atheist and we have kicked around getting T-shirts that tweak religion. He wants to do a parody of the shirts that say "John 3:16". Maybe one of these days we'll actually do it.

[Why Theory?]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God. Yes they definitely need faith.
Dude, why would you believe in a terrible god. Heck, I wouldn't even believe in a mediocre god. I was looking for the coolest, most awesome god I could find and found the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now that's one great God. He's so good he doesn't even care if you believe in him, not like some gods that are either so jealous or so insecure in their own self images that they punish you forever if you don't continually praise them.

And dude, our Heaven has The Beer Volcano and The Stripper Factory. It doesn't get better than that.

Dude, you really should dump that terrible god and find something better.

[James Juno]

Dude, why would you believe in a terrible god. Heck, I wouldn't even believe in a mediocre god. I was looking for the coolest, most awesome god I could find and found the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now that's one great God. He's so good he doesn't even care if you believe in him, not like some gods that are either so jealous or so insecure in their own self images that they punish you forever if you don't continually praise them.

And dude, our Heaven has The Beer Volcano and The Stripper Factory. It doesn't get better than that.

Dude, you really should dump that terrible god and find something better.

Dude.

[Marleysdaddy]

Dude.

Indeed, he does abide :D

[Thor]

Athiests do need faith to believe their is no God. That their is no accountadility to a Living terrible God.

You speak of atheists "wallowing" in "ignorance". Yet, you seem to be ignorant of the difference between "there" and "their".

Also, the vast majority of atheists do not say that there is no god. Most atheists (including me) simply say that there is no evidence to indicate that a god exists.

[Samm]

And you know this.... how???



What, exactly, is "obvious" about the existence of an unseen, undetectable and unresponsive supernatural being?



And here we have the usual threat. If you live a moral life and try to help others when you can, why is it that the deciding factor in how you spend eternity is whether or not you believed in the existence of a particular deity?



It is impossible to "disprove God", just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of pink unicorns. The vast majority of atheists do not try to disprove "God". We merely make observations that contradict the alleged existence of an omnipotent and benevolent deity.



Who says atheists "worry about it"? As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to "worry" about.



No, you don't. You know what you were taught by the church and probably your parents. What makes you think they're right?



You mean things like a virgin birth? A man walking on water, healing the sick with a touch of his hand and rising from the dead? A global flood that killed every living thing except for a handful of people and creatures on an ark? A man who lost his strength because his hair was cut? A river turning into blood? Talking animals?



Atheists accept nothing on "faith". That's kind of what makes us atheists.



I refuse to believe incredible claims that have no evidence to support them. How this makes one "ignorant" escapes me.

As an Agnostic who has been both a Christian and an Atheist (in that order) in my lifetime, I can honestly say that your discussion with Dave epitomizes the lack of understanding that Christian's have regarding Atheists.

[dave rogers]

How did life begin? Look at the introcacies of life. The variations of life. Reproduction, speech, the universe, eyesight, in all its variations. Dude you really think it wasn't created by a far greater intelligence then our own. The Biblical version of creation makes sense. I don't pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to believe. I simply accept it as the Word of the one true God. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord weather you think you will or not. He loves you and died for you.

[dave rogers]

Did ya'll know that the missing link that so many so called scientists are looking for is the connection between fiction and nonfiction. The big bang theory. REALLY? How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. Maybe you say the stars, planets, cosmos always existed. Maybe you think just gasses existed. Well how did that happen? Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise. How did somthing that came from nothing come alive. If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension.

[dave rogers]

Frankly I'd be terrified to think God didn't exist. Mankind depends on Him a much as ever. Knowing he's in control allows me to sleep at night.

[dave rogers]

By the way you do need faith to not believe in something. You can have faith that a terrorist can be negotiated with and have better results then if we kill the lowlife. You can have faith that if you raise your child to be a free spirit and indulge his every desire/wish that he/she won't end up a disfunctional mess. You can have faith that there are no moral absolutes and live out your life making up your own morality. Good luck with that. Without God life doesn't make sense. With God life makes perfect sense.

[Why Theory?]

How did life begin? Look at the introcacies of life. The variations of life. Reproduction, speech, the universe, eyesight, in all its variations. Dude you really think it wasn't created by a far greater intelligence then our own. The Biblical version of creation makes sense. I don't pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to believe. I simply accept it as the Word of the one true God. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord weather you think you will or not. He loves you and died for you.

Dude, it's FSM all the way. I mean, you yourself said he was a terrible god.

And what happened around the year 1? Before that, he goes telling everyone he's one. For 4000 years, he's the one god, there are no others. Then, suddenly, 2000 years ago he develops multiple personality disorder? I mean, the guy even prayed to himself. What's up with that?

And that dying thing. Give me a break. Here's a hint, if someone can kill your god, he ain't much of a god.

Dump him and go with The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Can I get an Arrrr!

[Finality]

Did ya'll know that the missing link that so many so called scientists are looking for is the connection between fiction and nonfiction. The big bang theory. REALLY? How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. Maybe you say the stars, planets, cosmos always existed. Maybe you think just gasses existed. Well how did that happen? Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise. How did somthing that came from nothing come alive. If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension.
The universe couldn't come from nothing, but god can come from nothing?

The universe couldn't always exist, but god could always exist?

Meaningless complexity doesn't convince me.
By the way you do need faith to not believe in something. You can have faith that a terrorist can be negotiated with and have better results then if we kill the lowlife. You can have faith that if you raise your child to be a free spirit and indulge his every desire/wish that he/she won't end up a disfunctional mess. You can have faith that there are no moral absolutes and live out your life making up your own morality. Good luck with that. Without God life doesn't make sense. With God life makes perfect sense.
Your examples are not "not believ[ing] in something." Your examples of faith are still believing in something.

Believe X is not Y, is not the same as Not believe X.

Life makes sense just fine without god. Thanks for your perspective though.

[texan_rep]

Did ya'll know that the missing link that so many so called scientists are looking for is the connection between fiction and nonfiction. The big bang theory. REALLY? How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. Maybe you say the stars, planets, cosmos always existed. Maybe you think just gasses existed. Well how did that happen? Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise. How did somthing that came from nothing come alive. If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension.

The Big Bang theory makes perfect sense. 6-day creation does not.

And this is a Christian telling you this.

[Marleysdaddy]

How did life begin?
We have several ideas...google 'abiogenesis'
Look at the introcacies [sic] of life. The variations of life. Reproduction, speech, the universe, eyesight, in all its variations. Dude you really think it wasn't created by a far greater intelligence then our own.
Yes
The Biblical version of creation makes sense.
But it doesn't explain all the evidence

[Marleysdaddy]

Did ya'll know that the missing link that so many so called scientists are looking for is the connection between fiction and nonfiction.Did you know that there are millions of so called "missing links"?
The big bang theory. REALLY? How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. That's not what the Big Bang Theory says...

Maybe you say the stars, planets, cosmos always existed. Maybe you think just gasses existed. Well how did that happen? Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise.
Are you claiming that it is illogical to believe in an eternal god?

If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension.
Science doesn't prove anything...and it certainly can't even comment on an invisible, undetectable god. Science works with evidence, and provides explanations of that evidence.

[badkarma]

Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise. How did somthing that came from nothing come alive.
You have stated it is illogical to believe that something came from nothing, so please explain where God came from.

[Thor]

How did life begin?

Abiogenesis.


Look at the introcacies of life. The variations of life. Reproduction, speech, the universe, eyesight, in all its variations.

Yes, evolution is an amazing thing, isn't it?

Dude you really think it wasn't created by a far greater intelligence then our own.

No, I do not think we were created by some "greater intelligence".

The Biblical version of creation makes sense.

The Biblical version of creation makes no sense when you observe the physical evidence.

How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.

You're right. Something can't come from nothing. But.... isn't that what YOU believe? That some supernatural being waved his hand and created the universe out of nothing?

If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension.

Please cite a reference where science has "proven" these things. I'm betting you can't.

Frankly I'd be terrified to think God didn't exist. Mankind depends on Him a much as ever. Knowing he's in control allows me to sleep at night.

God is "in control"? He did a pretty lousy job of controlling Hurricane Katrina. Unless, of course, he wanted to destroy a city and leave thousands of people homeless.

By the way you do need faith to not believe in something

We seem to have different ideas of what it means to "have faith".

Without God life doesn't make sense. With God life makes perfect sense.

Then explain why children get cancer. Why babies are born with horrifying birth defects. Why natural disasters decimate entire areas and leave people dead and homeless.

I would say that if there IS a god life makes no sense. If there is no god life makes perfect sense.

[Samm]

How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.

I agree... that is the best argument against Creation that anyone could possibly come up with.

[biggles53]

How did life begin? Look at the introcacies of life. The variations of life. Reproduction, speech, the universe, eyesight, in all its variations. Dude you really think it wasn't created by a far greater intelligence then our own. The Biblical version of creation makes sense. I don't pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to believe. I simply accept it as the Word of the one true God. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord weather you think you will or not. He loves you and died for you.

This fallacy is what's known as an Argument from Incredulity. Just because YOU can't conceive of a process whereby these things arose naturally, doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way....particularly since there are gobs of evidence to support it.

On the other hand, the evidence that you have to support the idea of a creator god is................zilch!

[biggles53]

Frankly I'd be terrified to think God didn't exist.

Most religions are built on fear - you're very much part of the mainstream here....

Mankind depends on Him a much as ever. Knowing he's in control allows me to sleep at night.

And that "in control" would include this planet being regularly wracked with epidemic disease, being devestated by tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and, for good measure, the occasional impact of a major meteor to wipe out a goodly portion of life here...!

If that's "in control", then the guy at the wheel is either very drunk or asleep...!!

[dave rogers]

All the atrocities in the world you can lay at satans feet. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Satan has been causing pain and suffering every since. God is allowing satan to tempt us through a variety of illnesses, desasters, accidents, etc. It's up to each individual to choose to serve God reguardless of the trial you are dealing with. Trials build charachter. If you live a life that pleases God you would see him in your life. God is a jealous being. He hates sin. If you have sin in your life, and we all do, God wants that sin to stop. Your sin has eternally seperated you from God. Thats why Jesus had to die and be ressurrected. If you accept the fact that you are a sinner,and repent, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and accept him as your saviour you will be saved from eternal seperation from God . I pray that you will not wait. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

[dave rogers]

To his enemies God is terrible. Beyond imagining.

[Marleysdaddy]

If you live a life that pleases God you would see him in your life.

That's a convenient self-fulfilling prophecy

[sgtmac_46]

Did ya'll know that the missing link that so many so called scientists are looking for is the connection between fiction and nonfiction. The big bang theory. REALLY? How did something come from nothing. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. Maybe you say the stars, planets, cosmos always existed. Maybe you think just gasses existed. Well how did that happen? Everything has a beginning. It's illogical to think otherwise. How did somthing that came from nothing come alive. If science has proven anything it's proven not only the existence of God, but that His knowledge and wisdom defy human comprehension. Where did God come from?

Your theory pretty much refutes that as well by it's argument.

[sgtmac_46]

Frankly I'd be terrified to think God didn't exist. Mankind depends on Him a much as ever. Knowing he's in control allows me to sleep at night. And there in lay the key to belief.

[sgtmac_46]

All the atrocities in the world you can lay at satans feet. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Assuming an omnipotent and omnipresent God, who created the ENTIRE Universe and everything in it, that argument is bogus......nothing in that universe would happen WITHOUT God's explicit desire for it to happen. In that Universe there is no real free will, as EVERY entity would act out his part in accordance with how God created him to act out his part, including Satan.

In essence, Satan would be merely playing the exact role he was created to play, and his 'rebellion' would be nothing more than acting in the manner that God created him to act, do what he was created to do.

If that is the case, it would be a terrible God indeed who punished his creation for doing exactly what he created them to do......many people would be created JUST to be punished.

[dave rogers]

Prisons are full of people that disobeyed the laws of the land. They chose to commit murder. Society knew that some people would murder, rape, steal, etc. Is it societies fault for making laws they knew people would break. If you force your child to obey you who is honored. If your child chooses to obey, respect, honor you, then you are proud of your child for his/her choices. Free will is essential in pleasing God with our lives.

[sgtmac_46]

Prisons are full of people that disobeyed the laws of the land. They chose to commit murder. Society knew that some people would murder, rape, steal, etc. Is it societies fault for making laws they knew people would break. If you force your child to obey you who is honored. If your child chooses to obey, respect, honor you, then you are proud of your child for his/her choices. Free will is essential in pleasing God with our lives.

Sorry, champ, but your analogy is pretty flawed. Humans didn't build other humans from nothing.....humans are not omnipotent and omnipresent.

The God you describe, on the other hand, is. The very notion that YOU believe that God can create something any other way but EXACTLY the way he wants it denies God's infallibility.........you're not denying God's infallibility are you?

Free will is an utter illusion from the perspective of an omnipotent and omnipresent God. The very omnipotence and omnipresence of God would mean that he would know the outcome of every project he ever engaged in, including the creation of man.......man may have the illusion of free will from his limited perspective...........but God has granted him no such free will, because the very notion of such a free will would suggest that God has given us a degree of randomness he cannot predict......can't have it both ways.

[Marleysdaddy]

Sorry, champ, but your analogy is pretty flawed. Humans didn't build other humans from nothing.....humans are not omnipotent and omnipresent.

The God you describe, on the other hand, is. The very notion that YOU believe that God can create something any other way but EXACTLY the way he wants it denies God's infallibility.........you're not denying God's infallibility are you?

Exactly...the creator of a "flawed" creation isn't perfect and omniscient (unless the "flaw" was intentional)

[sgtmac_46]

Exactly...the creator of a "flawed" creation isn't perfect and omniscient (unless the "flaw" was intentional)

Quite true......any flaw within the creation would have to be the intention of a perfect creator.......ergo sin is not the creation of the Devil, but the creation of God himself.

This issue of theology is nothing new.....it was dealt with as part of Five Point Calvanism.......it was called 'Unconditional election'........that God's choice of who to save was made at the creation.....and 'Reprobation'.......that some men were predestined to be punished....as part of Calvanist predestination.

[Marleysdaddy]

Quite true......any flaw within the creation would have to be the intention of a perfect creator.......ergo sin is not the creation of the Devil, but the creation of God himself.

This issue of theology is nothing new.....it was dealt with as part of Five Point Calvanism.......it was called 'Unconditional election'........that God's choice of who to save was made at the creation.....and 'Reprobation'.......that some men were predestined to be punished....as part of Calvanist predestination.

Ahhhhh <poses with hand on chin fondly remembering studying John Calvin in college>




:D

[Thor]

All the atrocities in the world you can lay at satans feet.

Oh... so, this incredibly powerful being is incapable of stopping "Satan" from causing death and destruction.

Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

And you know this for a FACT.... how?

Satan has been causing pain and suffering every since.

Are you sure it's not the Headless Horseman?

God is allowing satan to tempt us through a variety of illnesses, desasters, accidents, etc.

Oh... I see.... "God" ALLOWS "Satan" to cause death and destruction in an effort to "tempt us". And this being supposedly loves us? What would you think of a parent who introduced his teenage son to a gang of hoodlums in order to "tempt" his kid?

Trials build charachter.

I think we would all pass on the "character building" if it precluded becoming blind, lame, paralyzed, etc...

[Finality]

That's a convenient self-fulfilling prophecy
I think that's the point of self-fulfilling prophecies. The convenience factor means you don't have to work at it at all. :)

[RKing]

I thought it was common knowledge that the heavens and earth are 6000 years old. We simply trace the generations of the Bible back to Adam and Eve. This was proven a long time ago. Oh wait, that might just be mankind. Something like that was proven a long time ago.

[dave rogers]

Are ya'll saying that you would have rather been created without freewill. Unfortunately for you the potter has power over the clay. Your problem is you can't see the forrest for the trees. You can't possibly see the big picture. All you can do is speculate. Your hard questions will never get answered no matter how creative you are in your intellectual wishful thinking. Ive read some incredibly creative books and watched some very imaginitive movies. They are just creative stories that will be popular for awhile because they are the newest thing. Very few people think they are based on reality or truth. Ask yourself this question. Do I really want to know the truth No matter where that may take me.

[dave rogers]

Remember that in America we enjoy our freedom to choose our own way of life. We all know however that freedom comes with personal responsibility. If you choose to be lazy the consequences are obvious to you. If you choose a sinful lifestyle that also catches up to you. I hope I'm talking to critical thinkers and not to a bunch of brainwashed products of our failed public school system. Are you honestly saying you'ld rather be forced to please God then have the freewill to choose to please Him.

[biggles53]

Remember that in America we enjoy our freedom to choose our own way of life. We all know however that freedom comes with personal responsibility. If you choose to be lazy the consequences are obvious to you. If you choose a sinful lifestyle that also catches up to you. I hope I'm talking to critical thinkers and not to a bunch of brainwashed products of our failed public school system. Are you honestly saying you'ld rather be forced to please God then have the freewill to choose to please Him.

You aren't listening to what people are saying to you...

If we were created by your perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing friend, then, as products of his creation, he would know every "choice" we are ever likely to make.

So, if you believe in such a being, the concept of "freewill" is a nonsense. Nothing can be truly "free" if it has been pre-destined.

Furthermore, why would you want to serve such a bully, that would punish you for actions that he already knew you were going to take, even before you even thought of them yourself..!???

[sgtmac_46]

Are ya'll saying that you would have rather been created without freewill. Unfortunately for you the potter has power over the clay. Your problem is you can't see the forrest for the trees. You can't possibly see the big picture. All you can do is speculate. Your hard questions will never get answered no matter how creative you are in your intellectual wishful thinking. Ive read some incredibly creative books and watched some very imaginitive movies. They are just creative stories that will be popular for awhile because they are the newest thing. Very few people think they are based on reality or truth. Ask yourself this question. Do I really want to know the truth No matter where that may take me. Do YOU want to know the truth is the real question......my suspicion is that you really don't.

[sgtmac_46]

You aren't listening to what people are saying to you...

If we were created by your perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing friend, then, as products of his creation, he would know every "choice" we are ever likely to make.

So, if you believe in such a being, the concept of "freewill" is a nonsense. Nothing can be truly "free" if it has been pre-destined.

Furthermore, why would you want to serve such a bully, that would punish you for actions that he already knew you were going to take, even before you even thought of them yourself..!???

Take that a step further.....not only already knew you were going to take, but created you SPECIFICALLY to take.....you fate sealed before the first man was ever created.

Oh, and for what? A 6,000 year passion play? :eh:

[sgtmac_46]

Remember that in America we enjoy our freedom to choose our own way of life. We all know however that freedom comes with personal responsibility. If you choose to be lazy the consequences are obvious to you. If you choose a sinful lifestyle that also catches up to you. I hope I'm talking to critical thinkers and not to a bunch of brainwashed products of our failed public school system. Are you honestly saying you'ld rather be forced to please God then have the freewill to choose to please Him.

I'm not product of our school system.....logic and critical thinking I have in abundance.......there is no such thing as freewill for finite beings when dealing with an Omnipotent and Omnipresent creator God......one who knows the beginning and end, first and last.

To that being, you have no more free will than a cue ball in a game of pool. He created your very genes, he controlled the FIRST event, and as a perfect being, by controlling the FIRST event, he controls all other events, just like a game of pool.

If God knew the way you would turn out then he created you to do exactly as you did..........to say otherwise denies God as the creator!


The Calvinists at least understood this......they accepted that men were predestined to be saved or damned at the creation.

[RKing]

I'm not product of our school system.....logic and critical thinking I have in abundance.......there is no such thing as freewill for finite beings when dealing with an Omnipotent and Omnipresent creator God......one who knows the beginning and end, first and last.

To that being, you have no more free will than a cue ball in a game of pool. He created your very genes, he controlled the FIRST event, and as a perfect being, by controlling the FIRST event, he controls all other events, just like a game of pool.

If God knew the way you would turn out then he created you to do exactly as you did..........to say otherwise denies God as the creator!


The Calvinists at least understood this......they accepted that men were predestined to be saved or damned at the creation.
What? I don't have free will, freedom is all a facade, like the matrix or something. Man, since I've come to this site, the world I thought I understood is disintegrating.

[Finality]

What? I don't have free will, freedom is all a facade, like the matrix or something. Man, since I've come to this site, the world I thought I understood is disintegrating.
sgtmac is saying that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have an omniscient god & have free will.

If the omniscient god now all, which includes knowing everything that has happened or will happened, past-present-future, then everything you do is predetermined, because that god already knows what you will do.

Or, you can shrug off the omniscient god and go about having your free will.

[RKing]

sgtmac is saying that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have an omniscient god & have free will.

If the omniscient god now all, which includes knowing everything that has happened or will happened, past-present-future, then everything you do is predetermined, because that god already knows what you will do.

Or, you can shrug off the omniscient god and go about having your free will.
I prefer the ant farm analogy.
or
He was bored and needed something to make him laugh.
or
We are his wind up toys.
Whatever the case, it would not be as fun if he knew what we morons were going to do.

Add--and since he can do anything, can't he create beings that he himself is unable to predict.
OOuch my brain hurts after that one.

[Finality]

I prefer the ant farm analogy.
or
He was bored and needed something to make him laugh.
or
We are his wind up toys.
Whatever the case, it would not be as fun if he knew what we morons going to do.

Add--and since he can do anything, can't he create beings that he himself is unable to predict.
OOuch my brain hurts after that one.
If you believe in a god that is not omniscient--i.e. doesn't always know what we morons are going to do--then you have much less of a problem rationalizing it. :)

[RKing]

If you believe in a god that is not omniscient--i.e. doesn't always know what we morons are going to do--then you have much less of a problem rationalizing it. :)
Life is so simple when your stupid. Ask me, I know. The drool is the only thing that is annoying.

[dave rogers]

God says the hairs on your head are numbered. Your confusing mans logic based on what we see as rational thought and comparing it to an all knowing God who created the brain you are mocking Him with. Seeking truth begins by accepting that not all knowledge is attainable. God also says He knew us before we were born. We can't understand that. How could we. To me it makes perfect sense though.

[biggles53]

God says the hairs on your head are numbered. Your confusing mans logic based on what we see as rational thought and comparing it to an all knowing God who created the brain you are mocking Him with. Seeking truth begins by accepting that not all knowledge is attainable. God also says He knew us before we were born. We can't understand that. How could we. To me it makes perfect sense though.

And surely that's the whole point! If you believe in a god who created you and knew everything about you, even before you were born, then the concept of free will is a crock! If he "knew you", then he also knew everything you were ever likely to do - your actions were pre-determined. And then you tell us that he has the hide to punish (or reward) you for those actions!

You keep him.......

[biggles53]

bump for dave...