Religion: Pros and Cons

[bigben2k]

I agree with you Airspirit, but what you went through is part of the living/learning process: some people never even get to that point. Count yourself lucky!

You're also correct in pointing out that it's really sad to see people act without thinking.

My wife is anchored in a Southern Baptist upbringing, and just doesn't have the patience to even consider anything else. She's got her own struggles, and daemons...

[1398342003]

Originally posted by pHaestus
This is a famous riddle from a greek philosopher:

"Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"

-Epicurus

I think he gave us free will. We choose. He will destroy evil in his own time. (death)

Originally posted by airspirit
It is interesting to note that most of the miracles described therein either never happened, or was written decades or centuries after the fact. There is no record of a worldwide flood.

Can you prove that?

Cristoff, WTF are you smoking?!?!?! SAVED FROM THE TRIBULATION.

[cristoff]

What? lol... Nothing. I don't do that and really no one should.

Anyways, scientifically and historically the bible is correct. There were miracles performed, of course by Jehovah god's son Jesus.

Oh and Jehovah's Witnesses are not a Cult. That is apostate propaganda that is untruthful. If you have every even set foot in a Kingdom hall and actually met with people and got to know them, you would understand how grounded and peaceful everyone is. Suredly, I am not the one going around not thinking before I am writing. And in fact Jehovah's Witnesses encourage everyone to read the bible daily, search for truth for yourself through the bible. I have stated that before, but obviously you didnt see it. Sorry...

But we must remember. God is the one that made us. Shouldnt we follow him the way he asks of us and not find a religion or any belief that just suits us? The whole earth is hard evidence that it was created.

And really is it hard to believe that god inspired the bible? Men send messages and pictures from space. Suredly god who created all things can be able to.

One of the greatest evidences of the bible's truth is the prophecy's. Bible prophecy explains the meaning of world conditions

Many world leaders acknowledge that mankind is on the brink of disaster. The Bible foretold the conditions of the world now long ago; it explains their meaning and what the outcome will be. (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Luke 21:25-31) It tells what we must do in order to survive the impending world destruction, with the opportunity to gain eternal life under righteous conditions here on earth.—Zephaniah 2:3; John 17:3; Psalms 37:10,11,29.

Let's take it... here...
1st prophecy: Isaiah 44:24, 27,28; 45:1-4: “Jehovah, the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’ This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: ‘Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.’” (Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E.)

Now fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah’s temple there. From The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229.

Next...
Prophecy: Jer. 49:17,18: “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ Jehovah has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Jeremiah’s recording of prophecies was completed by 580 B.C.E.)

And fulfillment: “They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabæan leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70_A.D. The name Iduaea [Edom] disappeared from history.” (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) Notice that the fulfillment extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.

And lets see... this one...
The prophecy: Luke 19:41-44; 21:20,21: “He [Jesus Christ] viewed the city [Jerusalem] and wept over it, saying: ‘The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.’” Two days later, he counseled his disciples: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw.” (Prophecy spoken by Jesus Christ in 33 C.E.)

And the fulfillment: Jerusalem revolted against Rome, and in 66 C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to flee from the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Crusé, London, 1894, p. 75) Then around Passover time of the year 70 C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land.”—The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962), J. A. Thompson, p. 299.

So what about scientifically? Well how about the origin of the Universe? In Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In 1978, astronomer, read SCIENTIST, Robert Jastrow wrote: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”—God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
Next, the shape of planet earth. Well in Isaiah 40:22: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of “the circle” of earth’s horizon.

What about the bible itself? Its internal harmony is significant
This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.

Some more information about the bible being accurate and God being real. The New Scientist magazine said: “The lay view persists—of scientists having ‘disproved’ religion. It is a view that commonly expects scientists to be nonbelievers; that Darwin put the last nails in God’s coffin; and that a succession of scientific and technological innovations since have ruled out the possibility of any resurrection. It is a view that is wildly wrong.”—May 26, 1977, p. 478.

A member of the French Academy of Sciences stated: “Natural order was not invented by the human mind or set up by certain perceptive powers. The existence of order presupposes the existence of organizing intelligence. Such intelligence can be none other than God’s.”—Dieu existe? Oui (Paris, 1979), Christian Chabanis, quoting Pierre-Paul Grassé, p. 94.

Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table points to obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance.

Well lets do another illustration, when we see a camera, a radio, or a computer, we readily acknowledge that it must have been produced by an intelligent designer. Would it be reasonable, then, to say that far more complex things, the eye, the ear, and the human brain, did not originate with an intelligent Designer?

You did want factual scientific information? True science and True religion go hand in hand.

Some more information, you so kindly asked for. In the days of Noah, the Bible says, a great flood covered earth’s highest mountains and destroyed all human life that was outside the huge ark that Noah built. (Genesis 7:1-24) Many have scoffed at this account. Yet seashells are found on high mountains. And further evidence that a flood of immense proportions occurred in the not-too-distant past is the great number of fossils and carcasses deposited in icy, mucky dumps. The Saturday Evening Post noted: “Many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved.”

This fits in with what happened in the great Flood. The Bible describes it in these words: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” The downpour “overwhelmed the earth,” being accompanied no doubt by freezing winds in the polar regions. (Genesis 1:6-8; 7:11,19) There, the temperature change would be the most rapid and drastic. Various forms of life were thus engulfed and preserved in frozen muck. One such may have been the mammoth that was uncovered by excavators in Siberia and that is seen in the accompanying illustration. Vegetation was still in its mouth and stomach, and its flesh was even edible when thawed out.

The closer the Bible is examined, the more astonishing is its remarkable accuracy. As noted on pages 36 and 37 of this book, the Bible gives the stages of creation in the very order science now confirms, a fact hard to explain if the Bible were simply of human origin. This is another example of the many details in the Bible that have been confirmed by increasing knowledge. With good reason one of the greatest scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, said: “No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible."

What about evolution of our supposed ancestors? Well, suredly from the bible we arent from apes. However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects, sheer invention.” Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”
In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.
Well then what in the world were they? Well, if “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.” Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.” But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals. Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time) “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times) “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins) But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

Then what happened? Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.” What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.” Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”
However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.
Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.
For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines are actual human ancestors.” The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.” And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming the missing link had at long last been found.”
But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.” Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.” Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines were not men.” Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”

If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.” Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of Homo sapiens.” However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.
Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy.
Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

What About the Dates?

Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?
Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”
For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.
Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W.F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”

I am not here to debate. Consider my posting on this thread done. It silly to argue, reasoning with the unreasoning. Those searching for truth find it. You, my friend, are searching for answers that you want, not truth. And really airspirit, I dont feel sorry for you, you've chose the path you want, as we all have free will. I feel sorry for the many others that don't know truth and your unhelpfulness towards truth will cause them to stumble and maybe even loose life. You did want scientific information right?

( oh, any scriptures that weren't cited, you should and are encouraged to probably look them up to gain a proper understanding of what is written, and I know you don't like to do that airspirit, but I looked up scientific information for your basis...)

[airspirit]

Everything you said is utter BS. There are always rumors in the cult/fundamentalist circuit that all this science is backing them up (the mormon church has a whole team of scientists that are out there to prove their ridiculous claims right and every few months they have a breakthrough ... until it is shown that they are full of crap, though that part isn't shared with the faithful cultists), and they are always without basis in fact, or in the most favorable situations (for you cultists), they are exaggerated to ridiculous proportions (isn't lying a sin? oh, but that only counts to those not in the cult). Try to verify the BS you hear from reputable sources before you make yourself look like an idiot. You're on a tech forum, not a forum about the Crystal Children and their psychic alien friends! We tend to be educated and above your lowbrow BS here.

Radiocarbon dating has not come under the type of scrutiny you're talking about. They found that certain things were off as much as 5-15% in some of the earliest measurements (in our time period) due to earlier inaccuracies in the method. What you're repeating is the propaganda they fed you. Good for you: you're a perfect little cultist. Oh, and reading the bible with a church mandated guidebook to interpret every word for you ISN'T independent bible study. Independent means you think on your own. Must I spell everything out for you, or must you insist on trying to obfuscate the truth (cultish behavior when threatened, check!).

If you want to understand why you are wrong from an exact, scientific, and absolutely irrefutable method, look at the speed of light. It is something that is measurable, right? We have done it many many times. This is not something that even the most insane can argue. You with me, or have I blown your underworked little peabrain yet?

Okay, now, count the amount of stars in the sky. Done yet? Oh, I'm sorry, but none of us have that much patience. We're talking billions. See the galaxies that are hundreds of light years across? Now, our sun is 8 light minutes approximately from the sun, IIRC. You feel how much heat we are getting from it? Imagine if all of those billions of stars were within 6000 light years from us (btw, the closest star is 4.2 light years away, IIRC). We would be in perpetual daylight on a charred rock. That is a lot of energy.

Okay, but I'll save you the armageddon imagery, since that isn't the point here (though by itself could be). We can measure the distance to stars through mathematics during different stages of our measurable orbit from the sun. You can measure the radius from the sun in light minutes, deriving our orbital diameter. From this you can solve the distance from various stars depending on their movement in the sky. This is a precise science that can NOT be refuted. In fact, the hubble telescope has seen imagery from billions of years ago. This is not science fiction. This is not satanic propaganda. This is fact. This is reason. This can NOT be faked. Take a look at the sky and behold the truth that the world is more than 6000 years old. The fact that you are not a chunk of cinder is evidence of it as well, but that is something that a good little cultist might want to argue. The fact that we can measure distance beyond 6000 light years is something that can not.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jehovah god must have put all this evidence contradicting his "ONE TRUE CHURCH [tm]'s" (cult alert) claims out there because he really doesn't like reasonable worshippers, and only wants those that will turn their logic centers off and blindly follow whatever the Watchtower Inc. will feed them. Yeah ... whatever dude. If god only wants to save the ignorant and brain dead, he can go fsck himself.

[1398342003]

I meant it as a kind of "That's crazy man." Sorry.

[pHaestus]

Ah good. I can avoid speaking more personal beliefs (no good can come of that) and get back to things that are more objective. It is ironic that you mention chemistry and the diversity of elements as part of the wonder of creation. You realize that the formation of elements via fusion reactions in stars that are burning either H2 or He (as well as going supernova) can be directly studied with modern spectroscopy and validated and is pretty decent validation that a "singularity" (ie big bang) is quite possible? Silly Nobel Lauriates; they should have checked scripture before they made their observations.

To attack radioactive decay as a way to measure time is pretty funny. There is certainly an uncertainty associated from backcalculating time from a first order reaction, but nothing that would result in a discrepancy like 6000 vs 450000000000 as a result. The issue is one primarily of changes in temperature and how to approximate. To deal with this, the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 in glaciers and oceans has been found to be a much more accurate measurement of geologic time . That is because O16 and O18 partition in liquid and ice phases as a known function of temperature. In short, noone who does geology is even using carbon dating for precise estimates of the earth's age any more.

Kinda funny that religious folk attack scientists for putting error bars on their results; and other scientists attack them if they don't

[airspirit]

You have to love the "scientists" he quoted in his statement. I too can become a world renowned nuclear physicist, astronomer, historian, biologist, chemist, and clock repairman by sending $20 to one of the non-accredited schools I get spam for 30 times daily. They also have scientists that believe in leprechauns, but that doesn't make it true. The difference between real science and cult style sci fi is that my type uses evidence and your type pays scientists to say whatever they need the puppet to say without any evidence.

You, sir, are a fool. Read real published science from real universities and such (excluding BYU religious studies), not published science from the tract mill at your local watchtower propaganda center. There is a difference of more than just opinion. There is a difference in what is verifiable and what is fabrication for pay. Again, isn't lying against your rules? Or does this only apply to outsiders?

[1398342003]

Airspirit, would you mind refraning from making insulting statements about organized and disorganized religion. Please attack the statments and evidence, not the poster.

[saleen]

If Evolution is true where are the half-ape-man hybrids? Where are the links in the chain of the Evolutionary process? The fossil record has absolutely no evidence of this. (the few examples were faked and/or disproven)

Evolution makes sense on paper but in the Real World it just doesn't stack up.

Evolution is baseless, every major Evolutionary claim has been disproven and the rest will be in due time.

Atheists and non-theists need a new religion (say what you want but Evolution is a religion) because Evolution takes a heckuva lot of faith to believe.

My mother had one leg much longer than the other. She was having horrible back pain. Before her eyes it was lengthened to the same length as her other leg. I have also personally seen miracles happen. these Instances make it very hard for me to question my faith.

I won't lie, I do question my faith at times. But I always come back to the same conclusion. Jesus Christ is real, and the only real God.

[bigben2k]

Welcome to the forums Saleen!


Guys, haven't you seen demonstrated again, that the belief in a divinity comes from an arrogance that states that it's too complex not to be coming from a higher intelligence? I told you...

The Big Bang is still a theory, and actually, there are many other theories. The point however, is that they are theories, based on facts. They are not part of the body of accepted human knowledge, because there is no irrefutable proof. Just like Einstein, many of his theories have been proven wrong.

Some have theorised that the universe is expanding, and will eventually contract. Some say it's perfectly still. some of those that say it's moving have expanded it to state that the universe's boundary is moving at a speed greater than that of light!

We are however trying to get to an understanding, because it's also in our nature to be curious.

There's been some recent discoveries, about black holes that turned out to be rather surprising: our own galaxy is turning into a black hole, and there are far, far many more black holes than were previously thought. Maybe that's armageddon, maybe that's a hurdle that God put in our path for us to leap over, but regardless, we will survive. (not to worry, your great-great grandchildren won't live to see that day: it's way, way ahead in the future!)

There are still many, many things that science is unable to explain. The strangest of limitations is preventing us from giving clear explanations about all these alleged UFO sightings. When you look at the sheer size of breathable air on this little ball of dirt, it then becomes obvious that it's an area of knowledge that's for us hard to comprehend, because we have not dedicated the required resources to investigate them, so many things still happen that we're unable to explain.

One thing that was explained, is this so called alien abduction. It may still be a theory, but is acceptable (to me): low frequency magnetic waves, which typically appear shortly prior to an earthquake, are suspected to affect our brains in such a way that it makes any vision (or dream) seem very real. There is backup on this effect, but the human brain itself is still a mystery!

Science is limited, but has reached a point where it will clash with some religions.

Recent archeoligical discoveries identified a cataclismic (sp?) flooding of the Black sea, which may have been recorded in some history records, under different forms...

The problem with a faith base, is that many things can be interpreted in many different ways and yet again, without any proof: it's still just a belief. Scientifically, that's called a theory, except that science will have facts as backup.

It's also possible to theorize, or predict, future events. Based on a mix of facts and instinct, it's really not hard at all to predict future events. Nostradamus comes to mind, and although he might have been wrong in a few instances, or off in others, some of his predictions can arguably said to have come true.

[pHaestus]

saleen:

Everything you said was an unsubstantiated claim that is masquerading in your mind as "fact". There wasn't a single incontrovertible fact in that.

Ben: Sure the big bang is just a theory and there are even some problems with it, but nonetheless the formation of heavier elements via fusion in stars is well documented and explains the periodic properties of the elements quite well. Alternatively, I guess "God made all the elements when he was making the zebras and the fishies" works too. I wish god would take care of some of my ab initio modeling for me; thus far I have had to rely on quantum mechanics to get results.

[bigben2k]

My wife was writing a paper a couple of days ago, for her business class. In some of her source material, about setting up controls, it stated that they're required because greed and dishonesty would prevail without them, as they would in society.

Puzzling, isn't it?

[airspirit]

There are many examples of "half-apes" if you want to call them that. Chimpanzees and Bonobos are two that come to mind right now. They are so close to humans that some are thinking that they need to be reclassified into our genus. Historically, there is Lucy (australopithicus), Homo Habilus (not too much more than a slightly more erect chimp), Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man (close cousin, but branched off of our lineage ... due to the ******d bowing of the femur, they could not walk upright as easily as we could, and walked in a stooped posture more akin to our earlier ancestors), and many more further back. The mountain gorillas are another branch that didn't just go as far as we did. So are the other assorted monkey branches. You can see chimps making and using tools today: the simplest involves a molded "fishing hook" for use in catching termites. Of course, none of this probably matters to you because you won't allow yourself to believe anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world. For more information and clarification, see my xenophobia post earlier in this topic. For all the make believe that Cristoff left in his earlier post, there has been no refutation of the historical record of man. There was no deception involved. You said that there was deception and fraud: where exactly did you get this information? According to the scientific community this evidence is validated and beyond reproach. I don't know where you are getting the silly ideas that all the scientific research we have is a proven fraud because it is not. Perhaps that is what your crazy friends may think (rumors fly inside of cults to help keep the cultists firm in their erroneous beliefs), but it is not fact.

The problem with religious types, as you can see by the number of identical posts in this topic ("Evolution can't be right because there is no _________ " where _______ is whatever the current pop religious culture drops in unvalidated that particular week), even though we have repeated multiple times how it COULD be possible, and ways you could DEMONSTRATE how it happened and is still happening. For all of the myths and fairy tales about the missing link (there isn't a missing link: it is all there all the way back to simple apes, though the zealots won't be satisfied until we have a 100% accurate family tree all the way back to single celled organisms), the world existing for only 6000/15000/32000 years (when you can demonstrate otherwise simply by looking up ... I'm still waiting for Cristoff to wrap his mind around that, though I don't think there is a stock and approved[tm] answer in any of his Personal Thought[tm] books), or that any of the biblical miracles actually happened, there is nothing to back up your claims except the "educated" opinions of people that are in the employ of a religious group or "religious scientists" (this is truly an oxymoron) that go out of their way to twist and warp evidence to their claims (and are inevitably and inexorably proved to be quacks, like the FARMS people at BYU).

[gone_fishin]

Jehovas witnesses are a cult if there ever was one. Started at the end of the 1800's. If anyone is interested google up some of their rules, the women must submit to the elders is a good one (no wonder they don't have windows on their kingdom halls).

[pHaestus]

Well have we settled this all yet? Seems like it would all be resolved by this many posts

har har har

[1398342003]

And all of the in-between animals lay over and died.

[pHaestus]

So is this just going to be random insults and unsubstantiated comments now, or will a genuine discussion continue? I would suggest references and proper citation would keep this much more civil. If there is NO reference available, then what does that say about one's scientific "evidence"?

www.sciencedirect.com is good if you are in college; should get the abstract in any case.

[utabintarbo]

Well, just to put a bow on things.....

It would seem that those among us who would have us believe in a supernatural being to which we owe fealty have no better evidence than the (rather dubious) attempt to refute one scientific theory, then claim all science is crap! While I will not bother to bring out the logical errors in such an argument (they should be evident to one who cares to know), I will only point out that there is still no proof of the existence of such a being, and (more to the point of the thread) no evidence of any measurable benefit to any reliance on faith as a means of deriving knowledge. Other than control of the fate of others, that is. Figures.....

Bob

[1398342003]

The problem is the lack of satisfactory proof of God's existance, or lack thereof.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by 1398342003
The problem is the lack of satisfactory proof of God's existance, or lack thereof.

This is the problem? Sounds like the solution is incorporated into your restatement of the problem!

Bob

[winewood]

I have found that it is not always those who speak last who are right, but those who have spoken in a way to bring understanding, read the reception, and it when it was not recieved beyond that point, refrain and rest. Why don't we stop "pissing in the wind" on this?
Making jabs on someones core values without a recieved arguement cannot help anything or anyone.

[1398342003]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
This is the problem? Sounds like the solution is incorporated into your restatement of the problem!

Bob

With no (satisfactory) proof in either direction, it's a choise to believe what you want. If Christians are right, we go to heaven. If the secular people are right, we die and that's the end.

[MadDogMe]

Again and again I ask why can't evolution exist WITH spirituality?. Why does it have to be one or the other. Evolution can happen in leaps, it does'nt always take an age!. There is EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere. Every single breed of dog evolved from the Wolf. Why does man think he's so special?. You think animals don't have souls as well?, don't have an 'onwards and upwards' spiral?. It's all part and parcel, you can't have heaven without earth!...



I'm interested in peoples actual experiences with the occult, the ones that form their beliefs. I've had spiritual experiences, I've had brushes with presience and I run away from telepathy every freakin day!...

How many people here live in a state of spiritual being?...

How many of you walk the Earth like I do?...

How many have ever achieved spirituality? (been a ghost for the forium thickies, wait!, Shit!, that's me!...). even if for a fleeting moment...

How many that achieved spirituality found it to be 'Heaven'?...

How many found it disturbing?...

I don't actualy believe in 'god' as an omnipresent being. Maybe one entity started the ball rolling in the begining but if so he popped off somewhere on the way . I deplore organised religeon as well, if you want a good religion look to a native one, one untouched by greed and manipulation. Australias Aboriginee belief would be a good place to start. Budism is'nt too far of the beaten track either . But don't start me on Christianity . I'd like to burn the whole damned lot that organised it at the stake (joke!!... maybe) ...

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by 1398342003
With no (satisfactory) proof in either direction, it's a choise to believe what you want. If Christians are right, we go to heaven. If the secular people are right, we die and that's the end.

2 issues:

1. As long as it is stipulated that it is a belief, and not substantiated by any objective evidence. I do not believe that there is no God, I simply choose not to believe that one exists despite the lack of evidence.

2. The issue is not what happens after we're dead, the issue lies in the way we are asked to live. When I am asked to suspend my ability to reason, in order to believe in a supernatural being, and then act according to Ways handed down from Him (as told by His Priest-minions), I am entitled to a wee bit of skepticism. One must question what is being asked of him/her, eh?

Bob

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
...The issue is not what happens after we're dead...

Actually, that's very much the issue!

For the masses, who didn't get the scientific knowledge (for whatever reason), there is, what I like to think of, an instinctive need to believe that life has a purpose, and so, death comes to be believed as a "transition to another existance". It's the basis of all forms of Mysticism, and goes back thousands of years.

It's not hard to see why it happens, and it doesn't make it correct, but it's there, it's been around for a very long time, and it's going to stick around for a while.

Personally, I believe that most leaders of people understand this very well. Further, I also believe that these leaders don't commonly share that understanding, and that a few very perceptive people are able to pick up on this, and come up with a whole bunch of wild conspiracy theories, of secret or underground societies or groups of elite people, that control the world.