And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.
Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
Yes, it would seem that when the data provided by science changes it is correct to change theory and then the appropriate conclusions along with it.
I did get a wry grin when there was reference in the article about how the older date was “settled science.”
In our day and age, we know so little that there is no such thing as “settled science.” Only the ignorant among us would think that.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
And you have the real story, instead of fairy tales, I take it? Care to tell us of your scientific studies and conclusions?
The real story is in Genesis. You should read it. You read it and tell me what it says about the age of the earth.
Further, you should understand.... and maybe you do, the Bible is about God and Man....it is not, nor intended to be an primer on astrophysics and origins of the universe. The Bible is about something much more important and much relevant than the origin of the universe.
But, if you don’t get it, well the, you don’t get it.... at least not yet......Keep after it.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.
Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.
Why are you going on about PHD'S and theologians and creationism all of a sudden? The OP posted an article about how several new dating methods may(or may not) be more accurate and if so could change the commonly accepted age of the universe. He believes that this is not science, although he didn't offer any scientific theories of his own. I stated that this was indeed science being done properly, since they admitted new technology and new evidence and thus were prepared to revise the earlier estimates if it proves out. Now suddenly you want to arque about which side has more converts? I don't give a schitt who has more converts.....you realize people will hold onto the most ridiculous, easily disproven and downright idiotic beliefs even under threat of death,right? I don't care what people believe when it comes to science, unless they have some decent evidence to back it up.Its not a contest, and I'm not saying one side is right and the other wrong, I'm simply saying that this is how science is done, it's not a mark against them.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
And until that time, you (not you specifically) declare the current belief to be absolute and deny any belief to the contrary.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.
Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Bravo, at least one person here seems to understand "the structure of scientific revolutions" and paradigm shift.
The Sun is predicted to become a red giant, expand, and make a cinder of urth in 5.4 billion years. If they're off on that at the same rate and it's only 4.6 billion years I'm gonna be pissed!!!
The Sun is predicted to become a red giant, expand, and make a cinder of urth in 5.4 billion years. If they're off on that at the same rate and it's only 4.6 billion years I'm gonna be pissed!!!
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
And you have the real story, instead of fairy tales, I take it? Care to tell us of your scientific studies and conclusions?
The real story is in Genesis. You should read it. You read it and tell me what it says about the age of the earth.
Further, you should understand.... and maybe you do, the Bible is about God and Man....it is not, nor intended to be an primer on astrophysics and origins of the universe. The Bible is about something much more important and much relevant than the origin of the universe.
But, if you don’t get it, well the, you don’t get it.... at least not yet......Keep after it.
I have indeed read it. Like you say, it's not intended to be a primer on astrophysics and the origins of the universe. I think most of it is intended to be allegorical. I too agree that there are far more important issues at hand than the alleged age of the universe. I still find all kinds of scientific investigation interesting though, and I don't understand disparaging folks who are trying to figure things out to the best of their ability just because they admit that their earlier theories or calculations may have been incorrect. It should be encouraged. I have far more respect for someone,scientist or otherwise, who can modify their thinking and opinions based on new information than someone who is so sure they have all the answers that they refuse to even honestly consider a new idea.
Imagine that ,..scientists humble enough to admit error, but wide and varied opinions by billions of Christians \on interpretation of Scripture remain just that for 2000 + yrs and counting..
but some christians tell you what you believe don't matter,.. its what God thinks of you that matters,
unfortunately no christian knows what God really thinks about them except that they are wicked and unworthy. but that don't prevent many having deluded high opinions of themselves.
its hilarious the matter of the divinity of Jesus was 'finally settled' in 325 A.D. through a council voting system fraught with vote stacking, threats and bribery.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
Nope.
You just have a reading comprehension problem. Here's a couple of paragraphs from the linked article:
Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it’s possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger.
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn’t part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe’s expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.
So, what's being reported is a new way of making the measurement, along with initial results, possible error bands, and an acknowledgement that more data needs to be gathered to refine the measurement. Yes, this is now science is done.
How can you sufficiently explain science to folks who's minds are trapped in the paradigm of backward ancient myths and superstitions?
iTs no coincidence that folks with such subjective fabled religious beliefs often compound them with modern day conspiracy beliefs.
They fear science aims to undermine Bible and thus likely the work of the devil...computer barcodes and Mother energy drink = tools of the devil.
if only they could round up the people responsible and burn at the stake , hang them or drown them like witches in Salem.
of course where desperate prayers aren't working to save their bacon..they don't mind using the evil sciences of modern medicine drugs, cartridge propellants and polymer guns.
Does anyone really know of one Christian that prefers to start praying before the idea of reaching for his gun?
“In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” Carl Sagan
How can you sufficiently explain science to folks who's minds are trapped in the paradigm of backward ancient myths and superstitions?
iTs no coincidence that folks with such subjective fabled religious beliefs often compound them with modern day conspiracy beliefs.
They fear science aims to undermine Bible and thus likely the work of the devil...computer barcodes and Mother energy drink = tools of the devil.
if only they could round up the people responsible and burn at the stake , hang them or drown them like witches in Salem.
of course where desperate prayers aren't working to save their bacon..they don't mind using the evil sciences of modern medicine drugs, cartridge propellants and polymer guns.
Does anyone really know of one Christian that prefers to start praying before the idea of reaching for his gun?
How can you sufficiently explain science to folks who's minds are trapped in the paradigm of backward ancient myths and superstitions?
iTs no coincidence that folks with such subjective fabled religious beliefs often compound them with modern day conspiracy beliefs.
They fear science aims to undermine Bible and thus likely the work of the devil...computer barcodes and Mother energy drink = tools of the devil.
And then there is Georges Lemaitre, mathematician, astronomer, physicist. Also a Catholic priest, Jesuit trained no less. He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. So when you run the clock backwards to a sinularity, 13.7 or 11.7 billion years ago, you're dealing with Lemaitre's equations. And no, he wasn't burned at the stake, or even subjected to house arrest.
Well, there's The Vatican Observatory founded in 1891 (at Castle Gandolfo for LoTR fans) And astronomy goes back further, Gregorian calendar 1582. And way back to the dark ages. Who do you think preserved scientific literary works in that time period? Monks going mad copying books all day, every day. And that was only what I've picked up in passing.
BTW what really pissed the pope off wasn't what Galileo wrote but he published before the pope was ready to grant his approval. Something not done in those days.
Hell, they can't even decide if Pluto is a planet - depends on which one you ask...
I didnt think it was considered anything less than a dwarf planet.
now lets talk about the 1960s Vatican reforms that demoted saints by taking their A-list class halos away.
folks spent centuries puffing up such legends to have them suddenly ...
now if they had just applied stringent protocols before ordaining them as saints it all could have been avoided; a waiting period, background checks, trial-grade evidence of extraordinary virtue or martyrdom, a minimum of two miracles, and finally wait for the Holy Spirit to enlighten someone at the Vatican to the fact that something did not or didn't met the criteria of a saint.
Originally Posted by MadMooner
Stupid scientists!
Next thing you know they’ll try to convince us the internet is real! Hahahah!!!!
I was told yrs ago that the hard-drive space on a computer does not actually comprise of real space as we know it.
well its there otherwise you could not fill it up with ones data, but the space the data takes up was never actually there.
Of course hard drive space is real. Each data bit occupies physical space consisting of magnetic domains. For more data either you need greater physical size or use fewer domains per bit. Of course space meaning an area within a field.
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, just enough to convince me (again) that there are some really dumb people here.
Look, the way science works is that it observes the evidence, makes a conclusion, and does some observations to test that conslucion. If new evidence shows up, the conclusion can be modified. That has happened MANY TIMES in all branches of science.
Regarding the age of the universe, it was estimated based on calculating the Hubble Constant. (If you don't know what that means, go back to high school.) New observations may change the best estimate of the Hubble constant.
But some things are so certain they will not be overturned based on any evidence. The earth is not 7,000 years old, snakes don't talk, Noah's phony flood never happened, and you can't make striped baby goats by forcing goats to look at striped sticks while they are copulating.
If you want to talk about disagreement, what about the 33,000 different Protestant demoninations, all with a different view of what the Bible actually says.
Interesting. You challenge science because they made a revision to an estimate. And you base your ridicule on a bible that has been mistranslated and revised how many times?
Look, the way science works is that it observes the evidence, makes a conclusion, and does some observations to test that conclusion. If new evidence shows up, the conclusion can be modified....But some things are so certain they will not be overturned based on any evidence.
Oh, back to religion again, then?
What you are noting is that all worldviews, at base level, must contain some presupposed certainties upon which to build the rest of their coherent view of how things are explained. Whether one calls this "preunderstandings" or "religion" or "foundational assumptions" or "ontological realities" or "fill-in-the-blank," everybody has them.
That, of course, is why scientific constants are not constant. And why Thomas Kuhn wrote his now (in)famous book.
Science has been stuck for 100 years. The only things we can measure for certain are; 1) General Relativity , 2) Quantum Mechanics
All that stuff about the age of the universe is based on Doppler shift in light. A photon's frequency is proportional to its energy. If the object is going away fast, there is a red shift. If the object is coming fast, there is blue shift. If there is such a thing as "tired light", then all their calculations about the universe don't work. It all depends on that one unverifyable thing.... that a photon does not get tired in 14 billion years of travel.
Yes, Quantum physics is the deal breaker. I pick creation in however way God imagined it to be. Quantum science takes time and space our of the equation and just confuses mainstream science about the origin of things.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
Science today is mostly alchemists hoping to find gold in carbon. Overly-sensitive spineless little creatures once full of knowledge now turned into lies.
Photon get tired? Can't imagine how that would work. Law of conservation of energy. We have some very old photons to investigate in the form of cosmic background radiation (Penzias and Wilson). Nobody's reported anything hinky about them as far as I know. Now there's your red shift - all the way to microwaves.
Photon get tired? Can't imagine how that would work. Law of conservation of energy. We have some very old photons to investigate in the form of cosmic background radiation (Penzias and Wilson). Nobody's reported anything hinky about them as far as I know. Now there's your red shift - all the way to microwaves.
CBR is very red shifted from scattering. [not the original photons]
Not sure I buy that. I get the scattering part generally, like a photon making its way out of the sun. But I don't think it's operative here. More like an photon decoupling from matter moving really fast.
Photon get tired? Can't imagine how that would work. Law of conservation of energy. We have some very old photons to investigate in the form of cosmic background radiation (Penzias and Wilson). Nobody's reported anything hinky about them as far as I know. Now there's your red shift - all the way to microwaves.
CBR is very red shifted from scattering. [not the original photons]
Not true. CBR is red shifted due to the relative velocity of (a) its source and (b) us, not scattering.
Math dudes off by 2 billion... maybe? Math dudes should abandon hubris and learn chagrin
cha·grin /SHəˈɡrin/ Learn to pronounce noun distress or embarrassment at having failed or been humiliated. "Jeff, much to his chagrin, wasn't invited" synonyms: annoyance, irritation, vexation, exasperation, displeasure, pique, spleen, crossness, anger, rage, fury, wrath; More
Interesting. You challenge science because they made a revision to an estimate. And you base your ridicule on a bible that has been mistranslated and revised how many times?
If you care to know the facts, you can read the forward to almost any new Bible. I am not talking about paraphrased types to make them easy to read. The forward will tell you they are using the oldest available manuscripts in the original languages. Some manuscripts go back to the first century. There is nothing the Bible in ancient literature.
Math dudes off by 2 billion... maybe? Math dudes should abandon hubris and learn chagrin
cha·grin /SHəˈɡrin/ Learn to pronounce noun distress or embarrassment at having failed or been humiliated. "Jeff, much to his chagrin, wasn't invited" synonyms: annoyance, irritation, vexation, exasperation, displeasure, pique, spleen, crossness, anger, rage, fury, wrath; More
Where's the hubris in admitting that previous theories may (or may not) may have been off to some degree?
Fact is you just don't like these people because they don't simply take things on faith like you do. You don't seem to have a problem running down people who's only "crime" seems to be holding a different opinion than yours.
Of course hard drive space is real. Each data bit occupies physical space consisting of magnetic domains. For more data either you need greater physical size or use fewer domains per bit. Of course space meaning an area within a field.
the information we put in does not take up actual physical space. writing or deleting from a hard drive does not increase or decrease volume. The containers that hold bytes take up space, but writing bytes only changes the orientation of the bytes.
BTW: your alleged beyond time and space realm God was found in the confines of a wooden box called the Ark, but only after He made his way down from his location on the mountain.
Any 'beyond time and space' realm must have its own time and space....unless its a Singularity. A Black Hole.
apparently Jesus has a sand clock that never runs out.
Seems he also has royal stables, cause he will be returning on a white horse.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Look, the way science works is that it observes the evidence, makes a conclusion, and does some observations to test that conslucion. If new evidence shows up, the conclusion can be modified. That has happened MANY TIMES in all branches of science.
You can bet any christian on trial for a serious crime would welcome modern forensic science proving their innocence. and any christian already imprisoned would welcome new improved less error prone science that could overturn a wrong conviction.
I wonder if there are any christians out there that would insist that prayers are the answer rather than LE using forensic science to assist in capture and conviction of the killer or rapist of their child.
The Pope recently got stuck in a Vatican lift, but it wasn't prayers that got him out , it was a team of trained firefighters.
Any 'beyond time and space' realm must have its own time and space....unless its a Singularity. A Black Hole.
apparently Jesus has a sand clock that never runs out.
Seems he also has royal stables, cause he will be returning on a white horse.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Look, the way science works is that it observes the evidence, makes a conclusion, and does some observations to test that conslucion. If new evidence shows up, the conclusion can be modified. That has happened MANY TIMES in all branches of science.
You can bet any christian on trial for a serious crime would welcome modern forensic science proving their innocence. and any christian already imprisoned would welcome new improved less error prone science that could overturn a wrong conviction.
I wonder if there are any christians out there that would insist that prayers are the answer rather than LE using forensic science to assist in capture and conviction of the killer or rapist of their child.
The Pope recently got stuck in a Vatican lift, but it wasn't prayers that got him out , it was a team of trained firefighters.
And then they thank god, whereas god put them in that position in the first place.
Any 'beyond time and space' realm must have its own time and space....unless its a Singularity. A Black Hole.
Why?
Why? Because rate of change is what we call time. If God exists and is capable of thought, that thought has a beginning a middle and an end, the thought has a rate of progress from beginning to end and the rate of progress is time....time being relative.
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Our concept of time is based on our perception of change in the physical world, it is linear and unidirectional. So outside our three dimensional world time can have no meaning. I've always fancied this quote by Spinoza: "Measure, time and number are nothing but modes of thought or rather of imagination."
Our concept of time is based on our perception of change in the physical world, it is linear and unidirectional. So outside our three dimensional world time can have no meaning. I've always fancied this quote by Spinoza: "Measure, time and number are nothing but modes of thought or rather of imagination."
You appear to have missed the part where I said that if God exists and has the capacity to think and act, each thought and action has a beginning, a middle and an end. Rather than being timeless, this is time as defined as a rate of change.
You can say that connotes some sort of order but it isn't time. Go back to the definition, a sequence of events as we perceive them. We can only perceive events in three dimensional space which is our physical universe. So the concept of time can only occur in our three dimensional universe.
There is a thought experiment where a two dimensional creature lives on a two dimensional plane. He encounters us living in three dimensions. To the two dimensional creature we seem to zip in and out of existence as we move about the third dimension. How can the two dimensional creature explain that? He can't because he cannot experience that third dimension. He may hypothesize but he will never know.
So as far as what goes on outside our three dimensions we can never know. Perhaps religion notwithstanding but that's another matter.
Of course hard drive space is real. Each data bit occupies physical space consisting of magnetic domains. For more data either you need greater physical size or use fewer domains per bit. Of course space meaning an area within a field.
Then how can you delete a bunch of stuff once the hard drive is full, then add more, but yet a forensic team can recover what was deleted?
Of course hard drive space is real. Each data bit occupies physical space consisting of magnetic domains. For more data either you need greater physical size or use fewer domains per bit. Of course space meaning an area within a field.
Then how can you delete a bunch of stuff once the hard drive is full, then add more, but yet a forensic team can recover what was deleted?
Like erasing pages of data on a piece of paper written in pencil, then penciling over it with new data. Even after erased, careful inspection can reveal what was erased and written over.
A hard drive is divided into segments - maybe I can find a picture. When you write a file to the drive it's written to one or more segments. There's an index area on the disk which associates the file name with a specific segment. From there indexing schemes vary but it all works to tell you the segments the file uses and in what order.
When you delete a file to save time all that happens is the index entry for the first segment is labeled as not being used, OK to write over. Now you can delete a file with something like the infamous Bleach Bit that Hillary used. That overwrites the whole file, bit by bit.
So if you just delete you can search the index to find the first segment, which will lead you to the next segment, etc. This was a not uncommon chore in the floppy disk days, sometimes things just go wrong. The file entry in the index started with the file name. If the file was deleted the first character of the file name was replaced with a null. Not too hard to find and fix. Beyond that if you find one segment it'll tell you where the next segment is and depending on the file system maybe where the previous segment is.
Now the Bleach Bit erase is harder. If you overwrite an entire file bit by bit you can still read a ghost image of the old file with the proper equipment. Bleach Bit and others overwrite the file a number of times with a specific pattern. This is specified by DOD for erasing secret files. Pretty much makes data recovery impossible - why Hillary isn't staying at the old graybar.
( I use the shred utility that comes with Free AVG. I trust they've implemented the DOD specification properly. But there's been nothing on my computer that would warrant a difficult and very expensive retrieval if AVG didn't get it exactly right.)
Interesting. You challenge science because they made a revision to an estimate. And you base your ridicule on a bible that has been mistranslated and revised how many times?
If you care to know the facts, you can read the forward to almost any new Bible. I am not talking about paraphrased types to make them easy to read. The forward will tell you they are using the oldest available manuscripts in the original languages. Some manuscripts go back to the first century. There is nothing the Bible in ancient literature.
Oldest available does not mean first draft. Additionally, To say the only use "the oldest available" is simply not true. What some believe to be the oldest "manuscript" of the Old Testament is piece of parchment the size of a post card. They didn't drive an entire bible of that, so completeness and textual deviance also play a role in determining what manuscripts to use. Regardless even the oldest we have available deviate from each other.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
That is less than a 10% error in a brand new field trying to determine events which obviously happened thousands of millions of years before our sun even began to condense from a cloud of gas.
I would say that even getting within 10% is pretty darned good.
Have you ever mounted a brand new scope on a brand new rifle and hit a ten inch bull at 1000 yds with the first pull of the trigger?
You can say that connotes some sort of order but it isn't time. Go back to the definition, a sequence of events as we perceive them. We can only perceive events in three dimensional space which is our physical universe. So the concept of time can only occur in our three dimensional universe.
There is a thought experiment where a two dimensional creature lives on a two dimensional plane. He encounters us living in three dimensions. To the two dimensional creature we seem to zip in and out of existence as we move about the third dimension. How can the two dimensional creature explain that? He can't because he cannot experience that third dimension. He may hypothesize but he will never know.
So as far as what goes on outside our three dimensions we can never know. Perhaps religion notwithstanding but that's another matter.
Of course it is time. Anything, a thought, an action, an event that has a beginning a middle and an end has duration. Movement or rate of change is what we define as time. Be it one, two or three dimensions of space and one of time....or vice versa.
I believe in Intelligent Creation.I believe God to be highly intelligent.I also believe that Earth is Millions if not Billions years old.I think The Bible has been twisted by Men to fit their own conclusions.I believe the stories in The Bible are factual but the time frames are not.Nothing ever handed down by man ever resembles what actually happened by the time it passes through two generations.Look how the lefties are trying to twist the History of The US.Kids now a days have no clue on what happened in the 2nd World War to the Jews.History is always being revised for the benefit of those who seek power.That has been that way from the beginning and will never change.Huntz
I believe in Intelligent Creation.I believe God to be highly intelligent.I also believe that Earth is Millions if not Billions years old.I think The Bible has been twisted by Men to fit their own conclusions.I believe the stories in The Bible are factual but the time frames are not.Nothing ever handed down by man ever resembles what actually happened by the time it passes through two generations.Look how the lefties are trying to twist the History of The US.Kids now a days have no clue on what happened in the 2nd World War to the Jews.History is always being revised for the benefit of those who seek power.That has been that way from the beginning and will never change.Huntz
history without exception is always penned by the scribes who work for the victors.
history, like the constitution gets amended from time to time for better or worse.
the truth is a moving target, we can shoot as close to the center as possible.
and of course as "power" shifts, so does the history of the world itself.
Of course it is time. Anything, a thought, an action, an event that has a beginning a middle and an end has duration. ...
The Lord himself said that he created over a number of days, resting on the seventh. The creator describes his own actions in a 3D time & space realm.
btw; No response received from christians regarding what dimensional form Jesus takes in heaven.
If a physical presence, then it makes heaven seem like a rather ordinary place, if ethereal , then someone needs to explain where the physical organic body of Jesus ended up.
maybe its been put into a cryo state waiting to be kick started for JCs return.
... read the forward to almost any new Bible. .. The forward will tell you they are using the oldest available manuscripts in the original languages...
Oldest available does not mean first draft. Additionally, ... What some believe to be the oldest "manuscript" of the Old Testament is piece of parchment the size of a post card. They didn't drive an entire bible of that,....
Hollywood will say 'based on a true story'. which could often mean very little truth [ what one can fit on a postcard] with all remaining script blanks filled in with folks taking the liberty to invoke vivid imagination of varying degree.
its not like the ancients didn't already have creative writing skills, that they previously applied to pagan mythologies. in fact Bible has terms derived from Greek mythology.
Of course it is time. Anything, a thought, an action, an event that has a beginning a middle and an end has duration. ...
The Lord himself said that he created over a number of days, resting on the seventh. The creator describes his own actions in a 3D time & space realm.
btw; No response received from christians regarding what dimensional form Jesus takes in heaven.
If a physical presence, then it makes heaven seem like a rather ordinary place, if ethereal , then someone needs to explain where the physical organic body of Jesus ended up.
maybe its been put into a cryo state waiting to be kick started for JCs return.
some folks have dared to suggest that jesus when he ascended turned into pure light - love?
the story about his ascending in bodily form was yet another roman effort to make sense, or deny the real event.
Scripture indicates Jesus was resurrected in regular tangible human form , Jesus even assures them that he is flesh and blood.
Luke 24:39 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
So at what point in time did Jesus allegedly become pure ethereal light?
He was taken up in a cloud, so his flesh body went into the first known form of cloud storage?
Of course some christians claim resurrected Jesus on earth shifted back-forth from spirit to flesh form as the need arose. Im sure the Vatican or some Protestant Evangelists have a spin on it.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
That is less than a 10% error in a brand new field trying to determine events which obviously happened thousands of millions of years before our sun even began to condense from a cloud of gas.
I would say that even getting within 10% is pretty darned good.
Have you ever mounted a brand new scope on a brand new rifle and hit a ten inch bull at 1000 yds with the first pull of the trigger?
I will not laugh at you if you have not.
You are accepting what "they" say because you don't want to accept what God's Word says. You start with the idea the Bible is not correct exactly like the Creation scientists with Ph.D.s now start with the idea "they" are not correct. Some grew up as Creationists and some became Creationists after they earned their doctorates and started working in the lab or fields.
[quote=DBT] btw; No response received from christians regarding what dimensional form Jesus takes in heaven.
If a physical presence, then it makes heaven seem like a rather ordinary place, if ethereal , then someone needs to explain where the physical organic body of Jesus ended up..
In all those crackers, or at least that's the answer if you are Catholic.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
That is less than a 10% error in a brand new field trying to determine events which obviously happened thousands of millions of years before our sun even began to condense from a cloud of gas.
I would say that even getting within 10% is pretty darned good.
Have you ever mounted a brand new scope on a brand new rifle and hit a ten inch bull at 1000 yds with the first pull of the trigger?
I will not laugh at you if you have not.
You are accepting what "they" say because you don't want to accept what God's Word says. You start with the idea the Bible is not correct exactly like the Creation scientists with Ph.D.s now start with the idea "they" are not correct. Some grew up as Creationists and some became Creationists after they earned their doctorates and started working in the lab or fields.
Wanting to believe has nothing to do with it. Either the Bible can withstand scrutiny, or it can't. Spoiler alert........It's can't.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
That is less than a 10% error in a brand new field trying to determine events which obviously happened thousands of millions of years before our sun even began to condense from a cloud of gas.
I would say that even getting within 10% is pretty darned good.
Have you ever mounted a brand new scope on a brand new rifle and hit a ten inch bull at 1000 yds with the first pull of the trigger?
I will not laugh at you if you have not.
You are accepting what "they" say because you don't want to accept what God's Word says. You start with the idea the Bible is not correct exactly like the Creation scientists with Ph.D.s now start with the idea "they" are not correct. Some grew up as Creationists and some became Creationists after they earned their doctorates and started working in the lab or fields.
It is a claim that the bible is the word of God....this is something that needs to be established before it can be rationally accepted as the word of God, and not just taken on faith.
Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!
That is less than a 10% error in a brand new field trying to determine events which obviously happened thousands of millions of years before our sun even began to condense from a cloud of gas.
I would say that even getting within 10% is pretty darned good.
Have you ever mounted a brand new scope on a brand new rifle and hit a ten inch bull at 1000 yds with the first pull of the trigger?
I will not laugh at you if you have not.
This sounds like the excuses that I used to hear about slide rules and approximation.
Ya see something. Ya make up a story about why the thing ya saw, was the thing ya saw. Ya hope simple people will have faith in it. When somebody else comes up with a better story than you, you go back ta work in a different direction. All ya need for true believers, is a story they want ta hear.
Science figured how out its possible for birds to fly through the Principles of Flight (POF) no one other than a total kook level christian would deny the science behind the established findings.
but did a person called Jesus actually walk on water and ascend into the clouds and by what verified method and means?
Science figured how out its possible for birds to fly through the Principles of Flight (POF) no one other than a total kook level christian would deny the science behind the established findings.
but did a person called Jesus actually walk on water and ascend into the clouds and by what verified method and means?
The Golden Rule is a fundamental principle that has not been refuted to this day.
It's in the Bible.
No one other than a total kook level socialist would deny the perfection of this established truism.
Science figured how out its possible for birds to fly through the Principles of Flight (POF) no one other than a total kook level christian would deny the science behind the established findings.
but did a person called Jesus actually walk on water and ascend into the clouds and by what verified method and means?
The Golden Rule is a fundamental principle that has not been refuted to this day.
It's in the Bible.
No one other than a total kook level socialist would deny the perfection of this established truism.
The Golden Rule is also in Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.
Ya make up a story about why the thing ya saw, was the thing ya saw.
Ya hope simple people will have faith in it.
When somebody else comes up with a better story than you, you go back ta work in a different direction.
All ya need for true believers, is a story they want ta hear.
You come to an intersection and there are two wrecked cars, broken glass, skid marks and people injured, you know that there was an accident but it is not clear how it happened or who was at fault, that remains to be determined. At no point is there faith involved unless you start making up stories without the necessary information, yet assume that you have the truth, it being that assumption of truth that becomes an article of faith.
Makes em more true than cold fusion, nuclear winter, life on Mars found in a meteorite, AGW, miracle drugs that kill ya, and alla the other BS that the faithful acccepted as science-backed truth.
You come to an intersection and there are two wrecked cars, broken glass, skid marks and people injured, you know that there was an accident but it is not clear how it happened or who was at fault, that remains to be determined. At no point is there faith involved unless you start making up stories without the necessary information, yet assume that you have the truth, it being that assumption of truth that becomes an article of faith.
If there was 3 witnesses to that wreck, you're gonna get 3 different stories bout what happened.
A scientist would pick one, declare it proven, and run ta get funding with it.
True faithful believers would back that scientist's delusion/conclusion on internet forums.
You come to an intersection and there are two wrecked cars, broken glass, skid marks and people injured, you know that there was an accident but it is not clear how it happened or who was at fault, that remains to be determined. At no point is there faith involved unless you start making up stories without the necessary information, yet assume that you have the truth, it being that assumption of truth that becomes an article of faith.
If there was 3 witnesses to that wreck, you're gonna get 3 different stories bout what happened.
A scientist would pick one, declare it proven, and run ta get funding with it.
True faithful believers would back that scientist's delusion/conclusion on internet forums.
I wasn't talking about witness testimony alone, often being notoriously unreliable, but the overall evidence...perhaps there was a CCTV camera, the skid marks provide information, witnesses may completely agree on some points, etc.
The point being, it takes investigation to come to the truth. Even then, some details may be lost.
They conjure up a bullshit theory, that's designed ta be attractive to a certain segment of the population, i.e., the ones that'll give scientists money.
Then request funding to study the theory.
Then jump into the "science" gig routine I posted before.
Just realized the science gig thing was based upon my observations of scientists.
So, that makes my observations of the science gig theory the overall evidence.
Of course it is time. Anything, a thought, an action, an event that has a beginning a middle and an end has duration. Movement or rate of change is what we define as time. Be it one, two or three dimensions of space and one of time....or vice versa.
One last try You started off with:
Quote
Because rate of change is what we call time. If God exists and is capable of thought, that thought has a beginning a middle and an end, the thought has a rate of progress from beginning to end and the rate of progress is time....time being relative.
The part I underlined makes for a very big assumption. One might say that by stating God thinks sequentially you must assume that God is constrained by time. Wouldn't be able to think without it.
Into the metaphysical, if God created all things, which includes time, how can he be constrained by time? He could simply un-create time. What then were the conditions before time was created? How did God "think?" Or if time had to exist before God could exist, who created time?
Of course it is time. Anything, a thought, an action, an event that has a beginning a middle and an end has duration. Movement or rate of change is what we define as time. Be it one, two or three dimensions of space and one of time....or vice versa.
One last try You started off with:
Quote
Because rate of change is what we call time. If God exists and is capable of thought, that thought has a beginning a middle and an end, the thought has a rate of progress from beginning to end and the rate of progress is time....time being relative.
The part I underlined makes for a very big assumption. One might say that by stating God thinks sequentially you must assume that God is constrained by time. Wouldn't be able to think without it.
Into the metaphysical, if God created all things, which includes time, how can he be constrained by time? He could simply un-create time. What then were the conditions before time was created? How did God "think?" Or if time had to exist before God could exist, who created time?
Is it an assumption that a thought or an event has a beginning a middle and an end? Can a thought begin a the end and finish at the start? Can you come back from work in the afternoon before you start out in the morning? The progression of an event is the rate and progression of time.
Yes it is, outside of our universe. Just because that's the way it works living in our three dimensions doesn't mean that's the way it works elsewhere. Since you can have no knowledge of what happens outside of our universe how could it not be an assumption
Ok, so logic and reason does not exist outside our universe, in gods world the end can be the beginning and the middle can be the end and despite things happening, there is no time, everything is frozen in time, yet happening randomly....gotcha!
If there was 3 witnesses to that wreck, you're gonna get 3 different stories bout what happened.
A scientist would pick one, declare it proven,...
Scientific minds consider and correlate objective evidence like; CCTV, onboard cameras, mobile activity, driver toxicology , meteorological and environmental conditions , mechanical condition or failure , skid patterns, stuck speedometer needles,...etc, etc.
simply because numerous eyewitness accounts from 30 minutes ago can all be erroneous, now think of the ones passed down the line from impressionable superstitious minds from 2000 yrs ago.
thankfully Air crash investigations , and road vehicle, aircraft and military hardware developmental testing also follow the scientific approach.
Yes it is, outside of our universe. Just because that's the way it works living in our three dimensions doesn't mean that's the way it works elsewhere. Since you can have no knowledge of what happens outside of our universe how could it not be an assumption
Time is the rates of change within the physical dimensions of height, width and depth. This applies to two dimensions or more. Time is inseparable from space, ie, timespace. Check out general relativity.
I work with a guy to whom God speaks and gives pretty direct orders and information. If God cared to do the same with me, maybe I'd believe in him. I've always wondered why God doesn't think of us all as equal.
I work with a guy to whom God speaks and gives pretty direct orders and information. If God cared to do the same with me, maybe I'd believe in him. I've always wondered why God doesn't think of us all as equal.
The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.
So if he aint got need to instruct you, kick your stubborn ass or drag you by the scruff .. It may be a very good sign.
Originally Posted by 16bore
It’s all a mystery wrapped in a infinite enigma. There arent enough facts to proves anything on anyone and it’s so convoluted that there’s no answer.
It’s all filler for a bored society where time is the only constant.
I had to steal this from a totally different thread topic , since it equally applies to the mythology of the religious crowd.
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
Different Hebrew and Greek words are translated as "Hell" in most English-language Bibles. They include:
Sheol, Hades, transliterated do not typically refer to the place of eternal punishment, but to the grave, the temporary abode of the dead, [the underworld].
"Gehenna" "Hell" or "Hell fire" in many English versions.
The Greek verb ταρταρῶ (tartarō, derived from Tartarus)), which occurs once in the New Testament (in 2 Peter 2:4), is almost always translated by a phrase such as "thrown down to hell". A few translations render it as "Tartarus"; of this term, the Holman Christian Standard Bible states: "Tartarus is a Greek name for a subterranean place of divine punishment lower than Hades."[2 Peter 2:4]
(no doubt a disappointment to fire & brimstone christian types)
When Hebrew Torah scripture was translated into Greek in Alexandria (Septuagint) 3rd century BC
they replaced Hebrew words like 'Sheol', with 'Hades' which comes from Greek pagan mythology which refers to the pagan mythological underworld....N.T. English translation scriptures commonly use the words HADES or HELL. as evidenced in Luke and Matthew.
nOt irrelevant , because you said 'condemned to hell' which depends on which version of hell one believes in,
either;.. eternal burning damnation in hell (Christian jag-X type) or Hebrew hell (book of Job) which is a restful sleepy still and quiet state holding yard, (which God has the keys to) till released for judgement. then you either go to heaven or get totally destroyed-annihilated by being consumed in the lake of fire.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
In all those crackers, or at least that's the answer if you are Catholic.
had my share of 'body of christ' wafers, now if they just infused them with some butter and maple, you'd have a lot more people going to confession.
Allergy Warning!!...The Vatican emphatically states Sacramental bread MUST contain gluten.
I have not read thorough this entire thread, but it seems ironic that creationists are always quick to point out how scientists are changing their theories, but how many different religions do we have? How many flavors of christianity do we have at present? I will give you a hint, more than one.
Okay, lets assume the "get totally destroyed-annihilated by being consumed in the lake of fire" type hell - now answer the question: godless infant dies of cancer and goes to this hell - why?
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
in cultures and neighborhoods where kids grow up much faster than others, it seems they can skate through and get away with a lot of schitt before they reach 20...
mY understanding is that God will assess each individually which means ages can vary.
Or God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could simply have created suitable subjects or companions without all the fuss, drama, evil, suffering, hell and damnation.
I think that Church hierarchy of the middle ages justified torturing 'heretics' using the rationale that it is better for the soul of the victim to suffer finitely under the gentle hand of the church than be subject to eternal torment under the God of Love.
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. Tha t's one cruel puppet master.
How about car wreck, wars, famine, or just being left in a hot car. Is that any less tragic?
~The Riddle of Epicurus~ 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?
No, not at all. My example was selected to remove as much "human intervention" effects as possible. Your examples include human negligence or deliberate action (except famine) which are hard to pin on god.
So if the results are equally vile why not stop that too? So why not no kids, or nobody else for that matter, is allowed to die until they have the opportunity to accept Jesus? Traditionally the age of reason was 7 years, incapable of truly accepting Jesus before that.
An extreme question but something that needs to be answered in forming a universal principl on suffering.
Traditionally the age of reason was 7 years, incapable of truly accepting Jesus before that.
traditionally.....so when did the church actually establish and put into effect... Canon. 97 §2. "A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason"
Was it as late as the earlier part of the 17th century?
Hell I don't know and moreover don't care. Probably comes from Jewish law. But it's tangential to the issue, pick whichever age you like. Pretty much common sense. In American law the age varies by state. In my state a child cannot be held responsible for his actions before the age of ten. (Parents may be liable through the tort of negligent supervision)
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
I think it's pretty evil to punish innocent descendants and babies for thousands of years just because you're mad at Adam for stealing an apple.
Hell, why didn't you just put a fence around the apple tree? Couldn't you just grow another apple?
And when you decided to stop punishing everyone for something they didn't do, it's really evil that you, who are supposedly omnipotent, couldn't think of anything but torturing your son to death.
All of which goes to show the absurdity of the Book of Genesis.
So you're better off killing the kids before they become "eligible" for hell
You might be. There's more to Scripture than that. We are told to rear up our children in the fear of the Lord so they bring up children in the fear of the Lord.
I think it's pretty evil to punish innocent descendants and babies for thousands of years just because you're mad at Adam for stealing an apple.
Hell, why didn't you just put a fence around the apple tree? Couldn't you just grow another apple?
And when you decided to stop punishing everyone for something they didn't do, it's really evil that you, who are supposedly omnipotent, couldn't think of anything but torturing your son to death.
All of which goes to show the absurdity of the Book of Genesis.
Or you are commenting on things you have little knowledge of.
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
I think it's pretty evil to punish innocent descendants and babies for thousands of years just because you're mad at Adam for stealing an apple.
Hell, why didn't you just put a fence around the apple tree? Couldn't you just grow another apple?
And when you decided to stop punishing everyone for something they didn't do, it's really evil that you, who are supposedly omnipotent, couldn't think of anything but torturing your son to death.
All of which goes to show the absurdity of the Book of Genesis.
Or you are commenting on things you have little knowledge of.
Nope. He's got it about right.
It is you who know nothing about morality because your blind faith in your religion broke your morality.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
Why would God curse the universe if he made It?
And where in the Bible does it specify the age of 20? Are you saying that an MS-13 member is free to commit felonies if he's 19 years old?
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
i just hate it when the plus and minus level of error can exceed 1 billion years.
just one free trip around the sun each year is a long time.
i sometimes wonder if we will ever come to a consensus?
I don't think so Gus.
Here's why.
Scientific Method:
Step 1 - Question. The "thing" that you want to know. The question you want to answer. Step 2 - Research. Conduct research. ... Step 3 - Hypothesis. Step 4 - Experiment. Test the hypothesis. Step 5 - Observations. Data you collect during the experiment. Step 6 - Results/Conclusion. Step 7 - Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate.
That last word in the last step is the stickler. Your conclusions MUST be able to be Replicated...under the SAME conditions.
This is a problem for both sides of the issue. One cannot replicate creation or evolution, nor can we create the same conditions in which either event, or series of events supposedly took place.
It seems to me that the arguments...on both sides...involve Faith and Dogma. Dogma in the sense that one must accept the proposition. And, Faith in the sense that one must believe the proposition.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
Did God know they were going to do that?
And, did they have a choice in the matter?
It is amusing to me...sadly amusing...that when one tries to discuss evolution, the issue always seems to devolve into an argument questioning the character of an existent or nonexistent God. Yet those same people seem willing to accept the cold hard fact that only the strong survive. And, even without the existence of a God, millions if not billions of people have died in mass via disease, famine, pestilence, natural occurring climate or global events...ect.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
Given omniscience the outcome was known before the stage was even set.
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
Did God know they were going to do that?
According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
Why would God curse the universe if he made It?
And where in the Bible does it specify the age of 20? Are you saying that an MS-13 member is free to commit felonies if he's 19 years old?
If you are seriously asking for documentation I wrote an essay about it. I will private message it or post it here, whichever you prefer; if you say so. All MS-13 members is free to choose what he does. At age twenty God imputes guilt.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
Did God know they were going to do that?
According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
All I know is when little sis came home from private christian school spoutin' off about Jesus knows how many hairs are on your head, well that was the last semester at private school. So I asked Jesus, but the lawn guy didn't speak English. And so I wondered, why is God's only son mowing lawns for dirt pay?
And I'm so disappointed that when some of you croak, you'll never know you were wrong. I'll never know I was right either.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
[According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
So then God must have intended it that way.[/quote]
Of course! Do you think anything else is consistent with the Bible?
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
Hell I don't know and moreover don't care. Probably comes from Jewish law. But it's tangential to the issue, pick whichever age you like...
Does the Vatican so loosely say 'pick which ever age you like'..?
Also odd that you don't know the actual background of what you called a tradition for catholics. nor know how old the tradition is.
In others words its entirely possible the church just pulled 'seven' out of their ass when it suited them, and anyones wild guess when they did that...could have been 1054, 1627 or 1917...
In any case we have our CF Ringo who puts it at 20 yrs, the Vatican at seven.
Unfortunately Bible does not specify an age, nor does it say 'pick any age you like'.
Christians are like drunk clowns playing pin the tail on the donkey.
[According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
So then God must have intended it that way.
Of course! Do you think anything else is consistent with the Bible? [/quote]
Well only if you read it literally, when God is constantly surprised and disappointed by what he finds humans doing.
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
actually Adam also had the responsibility of the garden.
Genesis 2:15 "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."
You people are running around in circles saying silly things. For one thin Adam and Eve only had one responsibility and that was to not eat from that one tree but what did they do? What you people are doing.
actually Adam also had the responsibility of the garden.
Genesis 2:15 "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."
Who tended it after Adam and Eve were shown the gate? (They always leave out details like that that leave me wondering.)
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
20? That must be a great relief to many members of the Khmer Rouge.
[According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
So then God must have intended it that way.
Of course! Do you think anything else is consistent with the Bible?
Well only if you read it literally, when God is constantly surprised and disappointed by what he finds humans doing.[/quote]
Show me chapter and verse where God is surprised, please.
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
.... The good shepherd only needs to guide the sick, lost and wayward sheep.....
So why does he let babies and children die of cancer before they have a chance to accept jesus as their saviour thereby condeming them to hell. That's one cruel puppet master.
What you call "cruel puppet master" is actually an Infinitely Wise God Who cursed the universe. If you actually read the Bible carefully you would know God is no respecter of people. Age is not considered as far as the consequence of Adam's sin.
About the kids, careful study of God's Word shows God has an age when He imputes guilt. That age is twenty. Below that all souls are saved from hell. Above that they are responsible to accept God's Gift of His Son to be saved from hell.
Why would God curse the universe if he made It?
And where in the Bible does it specify the age of 20? Are you saying that an MS-13 member is free to commit felonies if he's 19 years old?
If you are seriously asking for documentation I wrote an essay about it. I will private message it or post it here, whichever you prefer; if you say so. All MS-13 members is free to choose what he does. At age twenty God imputes guilt.
How about the short version, just give the chapter and verse that stipulates 20 years of age.
[According to God's Word Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. So yes God knew it. After all, God knows what we think and do before we think and do it.
So then God must have intended it that way.
Of course! Do you think anything else is consistent with the Bible?
Well only if you read it literally, when God is constantly surprised and disappointed by what he finds humans doing.
Show me chapter and verse where God is surprised, please. [/quote]
As early as Genesis 6. Instances all throughout the Old Testament of God becoming angry with something the people do and seeking to destroy them. You don't become angry and destroy something if you made it to perform in the manner that it does, and know full well that it's going to do it. Jeremiah 3 has a couple more instances where God thought the people would do one thing and did another. I recall one instance in the Old Testament where God once again set out to destroy the Israelites for some reason, but Moses and I believe Aaron burnt incense, and I guess that soothed him....that doesn't seem like the actions of an omnipotent and omniscient God.
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
We do know God was personally regretful and disappointed in what he had done.
tis a bit strange God would be effected in such way if all was going to divine plan.
Genesis 6: (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You didn't show me where God was surprised. Your post reeks of anthropomorphism.
Then what would you call it when you expect one result, but instead get a different one and get really angry about it? Maybe surprised is not the right word, but seems close enough. The point being, the God of the old Testament does not seem to be omniscient.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
Nope, you’re wrong .......again.
You don’t know or understand God’s Word. You set up this notional idea that “All humans are supposed to be ‘God’s children’....”.... then knock it down. How did you come to this....supposition....?
Jesus clearly teaches otherwise and no, there is no biblical contradiction. These contradictions you “see” result from your own lack of understanding.
Nope, not ignoring verses at all.... you clearly do not understand context..... for example... to whom is Jesus speaking in the verse reference you mentioned? It makes a difference.... but, you do not see and the result is just more meaningless squawking.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
So forget the verses..... can a man be seen as a man of love and also as a man of war?
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
You accept what others tell you or from reading yourself about what is not true because you don't want The Bible to be true. You can't help yourself from doing it.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You are showing your ignorance of God's Word and using a mistake often used. God's Word tells us there are children of God and children of Satan.
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
You accept what others tell you or from reading yourself about what is not true because you don't want The Bible to be true. You can't help yourself from doing it.
I've seen this statement made several times on various religious threads here "you don't want the Bible to be true", and it puzzles me a bit. Have you read the Book of Mormon? The Koran? The Vedas? Did you want them to be true? If you read any of them and didn't believe them, could you not also be accused of not wanting to believe them? In my opinion, someone reading the Bible or any book claiming truth for that matter, should not go in wanting to believe or disbelieve, but to be as unbiased as possible.
Interesting subject...................However imo, no scientist, astrophysicist or astronomer can accurately determine the age of the universe. And even if they could by whatever process, ie formula, theory or by whatever. then their findings would need further verification and scrutiny, which that process in and of itself would be inconclusive.
Several years ago two astronomy geeks, one from Harvard and one from Yale, estimated the universe to contain some 300 billion-trillion stars based on mapping and other criteria. In dealing with the universe such as age, distances, quantities and such, estimates can be the only guide. Earthly science by man cannot offer absolutes in certain categories where the universe is concerned..
An interesting #,,,,,,, 300 billion-trillion.......Take an area the size of the continental US (lower 48 states); about 3,119,500 square miles.........The next time you happen to be at your kitchen or bathroom sink, slow your flow down to a drip, drip, drip, drip..........300 billion-trillion individual droplets of tap water would fill an area the size of the lower 48 states,,,,,,approx 6,000 feet deep.........................
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
You accept what others tell you or from reading yourself about what is not true because you don't want The Bible to be true. You can't help yourself from doing it.[/quote]
I've seen this statement made several times on various religious threads here "you don't want the Bible to be true", and it puzzles me a bit. Have you read the Book of Mormon? The Koran? The Vedas? Did you want them to be true? If you read any of them and didn't believe them, could you not also be accused of not wanting to believe them? In my opinion, someone reading the Bible or any book claiming truth for that matter, should not go in wanting to believe or disbelieve, but to be as unbiased as possible.[/quote]
No on is unbiased. Before I became a Christian at age thirty, read the Bible and didn't believe it. I also read the Book of Mormon and thought it was worse. Never read the Koran. I heard in a lecture it is 28% lacuna so it has no validity to me. I never heard of the Vedas.
Agreed, its difficult to be unbiased, and most people probably will be one way or another. Still, it would be best to be as unbiased as possible going in, which is why the statement "you don't want to believe" doesn't really make sense to me as a criticism, because there is no reason one should want to believe.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
It's part of the Big Bang Theory and was observed by Penzias in 1964. He won the Nobel Prize for that.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
And it's not expanding at the edges. All of the space of the universe is expanding.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
Nope, you’re wrong .......again.
You don’t know or understand God’s Word. You set up this notional idea that “All humans are supposed to be ‘God’s children’....”.... then knock it down. How did you come to this....supposition....?
Jesus clearly teaches otherwise and no, there is no biblical contradiction. These contradictions you “see” result from your own lack of understanding.
Nope, not ignoring verses at all.... you clearly do not understand context..... for example... to whom is Jesus speaking in the verse reference you mentioned? It makes a difference.... but, you do not see and the result is just more meaningless squawking.
The issue is not "Gods word" which is an unproven claim, but basic logic. It is logic that determines the contradiction. The contradiction is there whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Folks in the ancient rural sector middle East believed in an Asherah wife of God,
but reformist monotheistic city folk had an agenda to go about changing their way of thinking and believing.
restructuring mythology / manipulating minds.. to suite ones own power play interests.
Hmmm... where and how many times have we seen that before?
Vikings/Norse were happy raiding, trading and slaying [as pagans], but one tyrannical norse king felt they needed to be united under one king and also Christianity....to his immense personal benefit of course, while still ruling as a ruthless tyrant...
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You are showing your ignorance of God's Word and using a mistake often used. God's Word tells us there are children of God and children of Satan.
That's a Christian belief. Judaism has a different view of Satan. Plus we are told that God creates some people specifically for destruction. God, as the story goes, is responsible for everything, including evil. Luckily, its just an ancient middle eastern creation myth.
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
It's part of the Big Bang Theory and was observed by Penzias in 1964. He won the Nobel Prize for that.
So it "comes from science."
This is absolutely ridiculous. It contradicts Hubble's redshifts. In the 1920's his discovery showed the Milky Way is in the center of the universe. This was again observed in the 1970's and again in the 1990's. If there is a center there is an edge to this expanding universe.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You are showing your ignorance of God's Word and using a mistake often used. God's Word tells us there are children of God and children of Satan.
That's a Christian belief. Judaism has a different view of Satan. Plus we are told that God creates some people specifically for destruction. God, as the story goes, is responsible for everything, including evil. Luckily, its just an ancient middle eastern creation myth.
Not surprising, you're both wrong as has been demonstrated.
And there is no center of the universe. Galaxies are all moving away from each other (Hubble expansion) so wherever you are is the center of the universe, everything is moving away from that point. So if everywhere is the center there can be no center.
Ever blow soap bubbles as a kid? Imagine a bug can be on the bubble without breaking the bubble. As the bug runs along the bubble as you're blowing the bubble bigger when does he reach an edge? No matter how fast he runs.
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You are showing your ignorance of God's Word and using a mistake often used. God's Word tells us there are children of God and children of Satan.
That's a Christian belief. Judaism has a different view of Satan. Plus we are told that God creates some people specifically for destruction. God, as the story goes, is responsible for everything, including evil. Luckily, its just an ancient middle eastern creation myth.
You are hoping.
Nothing to do with me or what I may or may not hope for. It is what the bible says, what Judaism teaches and what history tells us.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
It's part of the Big Bang Theory and was observed by Penzias in 1964. He won the Nobel Prize for that.
So it "comes from science."
This is absolutely ridiculous. It contradicts Hubble's redshifts. In the 1920's his discovery showed the Milky Way is in the center of the universe. This was again observed in the 1970's and again in the 1990's. If there is a center there is an edge to this expanding universe.
NO IT DOESN'T, you moron.
Red shift is created by velocity of objects WITHIN the universe.
The 1920s observations showed that there were two possibilities (a) that we were at the center of the universe OR (b) the universe is expanding. It was shortly discovered that it was expanding.
I have no idea what you are talking about re 1970s or 1990s.
Arguing with you is like the US military arguing with New guinea natives during WWII. The natives observed planes landing at landing strips and sought to con=struct eimilar "traps" to catch the "big birds" that brought all the goodies.
Not surprising, you're both wrong as has been demonstrated.
And there is no center of the universe. Galaxies are all moving away from each other (Hubble expansion) so wherever you are is the center of the universe, everything is moving away from that point. So if everywhere is the center there can be no center.
Ever blow soap bubbles as a kid? Imagine a bug can be on the bubble without breaking the bubble. As the bug runs along the bubble as you're blowing the bubble bigger when does he reach an edge? No matter how fast he runs.
You are going against observed astronomy. Ever hear of the Sloan research and Hubble's concentric spheres of galaxies? It's called quantized red shifts. Hubble said he didn't like it because it appeared display design. There are distinct groupings of galaxies in spheres around the Milky Way approximately 2,000,000 light yeas apart. With the Milky Way at the center we are like a pea inside a marble inside a ping pong ball inside a golf ball, etc, etc for 13 billion light years of spheres of galaxies. If the Milky Way was off center by even 0.0153% the spheres would blur together and we would not be able to see what Hubble discovered in the 1920's; and was verified in the 1970's and again in the 1990's. That is real science.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
All real scientists are creationists. That's why every year evolutionist Ph.D. scientists become creationists; not the other way around. They discover the fallacy.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
All real scientists are creationists. That's why every year evolutionist Ph.D. scientists become creationists; not the other way around. They discover the fallacy.
Ok that is complete BS...not all scientists even study this field. How do you know how many Ph.D scientists switch which side of the argument they are on? Could it also be that creationists might be far more reluctant to change their views do to the threat of their soul burning in hell forever if they dare to question the issue?
I'm not at all sure that man is simply a more highly evolved animal, it seems to me we are too different than any other creature in too many ways for that to be the case, but those differences are not so much physical. I don't care if evolution perfectly describes how our bodies developed, but there is a whole lot more to us than body, and that's where the big differences lie.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
All real scientists are creationists. That's why every year evolutionist Ph.D. scientists become creationists; not the other way around. They discover the fallacy.
Ok that is complete BS...not all scientists even study this field. How do you know how many Ph.D scientists switch which side of the argument they are on? Could it also be that creationists might be far more reluctant to change their views do to the threat of their soul burning in hell forever if they dare to question the issue?
I'm not at all sure that man is simply a more highly evolved animal, it seems to me we are too different than any other creature in too many ways for that to be the case, but those differences are not so much physical. I don't care if evolution perfectly describes how our bodies developed, but there is a whole lot more to us than body, and that's where the big differences lie.
there is that. don't want to get us off tract. but likely humans are not even native or original to urth. we're here from elsewhere, almost certainly.
we're poorly adapted, but doing our best in the face of the difficulties.
the fact that at least some of us can fly to the moon, and related means we're unlike any other species of mammal on the earth. we can even send robot probes across the solar system, and maybe beyond.
once we get a definitive definition of us humans, then we can better understand our motives, beliefs, and intentions.
Ever hear of the Sloan research and Hubble's concentric spheres of galaxies? It's called quantized red shifts.
No I didn't hear of that drivel and neither did any other legitimate scientist. So I googled it. Guess what? It comes from the Creation Science Institute.
The Creation Science Institute is a bunch of loons who say, "I want to believe something so I'll make up some evidence to support it."
Real scientists say, "I have discovered some evidence so I will put forth a theory to explain it and then test the theory by seeing if what it predicst is true."
See the difference?
Why do you think we're so dumb that we would believe stuff from the Creation Science Institute? You must be embarrassed and ashamed of your own beliefs. Otherwise you woud not try to hide the source of your wackdoodle theories.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
All real scientists are creationists. That's why every year evolutionist Ph.D. scientists become creationists; not the other way around. They discover the fallacy.
I gott'a put Ringy on ignore. I actually loose IQ points when I read one of his responses. (Got precious few to loose so gotta be judicious.)
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Not surprising, you're both wrong as has been demonstrated.
And there is no center of the universe. Galaxies are all moving away from each other (Hubble expansion) so wherever you are is the center of the universe, everything is moving away from that point. So if everywhere is the center there can be no center.
Ever blow soap bubbles as a kid? Imagine a bug can be on the bubble without breaking the bubble. As the bug runs along the bubble as you're blowing the bubble bigger when does he reach an edge? No matter how fast he runs.
You are going against observed astronomy. Ever hear of the Sloan research and Hubble's concentric spheres of galaxies? It's called quantized red shifts. Hubble said he didn't like it because it appeared display design. There are distinct groupings of galaxies in spheres around the Milky Way approximately 2,000,000 light yeas apart. With the Milky Way at the center we are like a pea inside a marble inside a ping pong ball inside a golf ball, etc, etc for 13 billion light years of spheres of galaxies. If the Milky Way was off center by even 0.0153% the spheres would blur together and we would not be able to see what Hubble discovered in the 1920's; and was verified in the 1970's and again in the 1990's. That is real science.
In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for redshift quantization in a sample of 1647 galaxy-quasar pairs from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey:
"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."[28]
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
Nope, you’re way off target. Just what I would expect for you. Take a look at Wikipedia.... Zoroastrianism does not even enter the record until 5 centuries BC.
Secular scholars are trending to the 650 BC date and the notion that he lived in1700 BC is not supported.
Modern scholars believe that Zoroaster must have lived at some point between c. 1500 and c. 600 BCE. The 600 BCE limit is based on the fact that the Avesta does not contain a single reference to a ruler of the Achaemenid Empire, which was the dominant power in Persia beginning in 550 BCE. The Avesta is believed to have been composed in eastern Persia, which is why one would expect these texts to mention an Achaemenid ruler if its composition was later than 550 BCE. The earlier date in the range, 1500 BCE, is based on linguistic evidence found in the Avesta. This work is composed of several different texts and one of these texts, the Yasna, is considered to be the oldest of the Avestan texts. Its language is Old Avestan (sometimes called Gathic Avestan), which is grammatically comparable to the language of the Indian text known as Rig Veda, since the languages of Persia and India belong to the same language family (the Indo-European Languages family). It is therefore believed that the Rig Veda and the Avesta are about the same age, dating to c. 1500 BCE. The range of speculation for Zoroaster’s life is wide. Saying that he lived in around 1000 BCE, give or take a century or so, is an estimation that would be acceptable to most scholars.
Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago. The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1200-1500 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda.
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
Nope, you’re way off target. Just what I would expect for you. Take a look at Wikipedia.... Zoroastrianism does not even enter the record until 5 centuries BC.
Secular scholars are trending to the 650 BC date and the notion that he lived in1700 BC is not supported.
As for the legends of Zoroaster himself, considering the range of claims considering when and where he was born, I consider it unlikely he existed as a discrete individual, but Satan was borrowed from the Zoroastrians during the first diaspora in Babylon, we have the evidence of how their text evolved during and after their stay.
There's been many rewrites and evolution during the 2500 years of your religion, and even more if you include the history of it's predecessors that lead up to it.
If ya cut out alla the bullshit, that makes a lotta sense.
As long as your feeble mind finds comfort with talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds ...
one night you will see Santa fly across the sky and come down your chimney, you just have to believe it enough.
If ya cut out alla the bullshit, that makes a lotta sense.
As long as your feeble mind finds comfort with talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds ...
Never claimed ta believe any a that.
Truth is, if any of the "scientific" bullshit you true believers post actually made any sense, you wouldn't hafta try and discredit theology in support of it.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical.
Tryin ta argue that somethin else may make less sense, doesn't prove that what you have faith in, makes sense.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.
Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.
But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.
And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.
Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.
But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.
And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.
No. We have various lines of evidence, with beliefs apportioned to the quality of various lines.
Where a theist may be required to believe something just because it's in their holy book, a skeptic is under no obligation to believe something just because it appears in a peer reviewed journal. The article sited in this thread is an interesting start to a new line of evidence, but by no means is it a new final word.
No. We have various lines of evidence, with beliefs apportioned to the quality of various lines.
Yet you've spent considerable time in this very thread, not to mention a hundred others, denigrating "various" differing, but similar, theological beliefs.
Which the believers of those various beliefs, have apportioned relative to their assessment of the quality of various lines.
If "they're" less intelligent for those beliefs, as you righteously allege, they're only different in kind, not degree.
No. We have various lines of evidence, with beliefs apportioned to the quality of various lines.
Yet you've spent considerable time in this very thread, not to mention a hundred others, denigrating "various" differing, but similar, theological beliefs.
Which the believers of those various beliefs, have apportioned relative to their assessment of the quality of various lines.
If "they're" less intelligent for those beliefs, as you righteously allege, they're only different in kind, not degree.
Just because someone disagrees with me on this single proposition, that doesn't mean they are not intelligent. There are theist on this site with whom I probably agree with 90%+ of the time. A persons intelligence should be judged on the their body of work, not a single question.
Regardless it doesn't matter who put forth a given proposition, each must stand or fall on it's own merits by meeting it's own burden of proof.
Unfortunately, some people here just aren't very well versed in logic and the evaluation of evidence.
well you either believe in talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds....or you don't.
..if you don't believe such , then how can it not be considered nonsense by you?
Ok that is complete BS...not all scientists even study this field. How do you know how many Ph.D scientists switch which side of the argument they are on? Could it also be that creationists might be far more reluctant to change their views do to the threat of their soul burning in hell forever if they dare to question the issue?
They don't switch because the same reason the evolutionists switch. They use science without the pressure of blind faith.
Originally Posted by xxclaro
I'm not at all sure that man is simply a more highly evolved animal, it seems to me we are too different than any other creature in too many ways for that to be the case, but those differences are not so much physical. I don't care if evolution perfectly describes how our bodies developed, but there is a whole lot more to us than body, and that's where the big differences lie.
We agree on the idea we are more than physical. I do care if evolution is not true. Evolution is not compatible with the First Chapter of the Bible. God's Word says if Jesus didn't rise from the dead Christians are the most to be pitied.
well you either believe in talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds....or you don't.
..if you don't believe such , then how can it not be considered nonsense by you?
Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.
It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.
I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.
Modern scholars believe that Zoroaster must have lived at some point between c. 1500 and c. 600 BCE. The 600 BCE limit is based on the fact that the Avesta does not contain a single reference to a ruler of the Achaemenid Empire, which was the dominant power in Persia beginning in 550 BCE. The Avesta is believed to have been composed in eastern Persia, which is why one would expect these texts to mention an Achaemenid ruler if its composition was later than 550 BCE. The earlier date in the range, 1500 BCE, is based on linguistic evidence found in the Avesta. This work is composed of several different texts and one of these texts, the Yasna, is considered to be the oldest of the Avestan texts. Its language is Old Avestan (sometimes called Gathic Avestan), which is grammatically comparable to the language of the Indian text known as Rig Veda, since the languages of Persia and India belong to the same language family (the Indo-European Languages family). It is therefore believed that the Rig Veda and the Avesta are about the same age, dating to c. 1500 BCE. The range of speculation for Zoroaster’s life is wide. Saying that he lived in around 1000 BCE, give or take a century or so, is an estimation that would be acceptable to most scholars.
Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago. The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1200-1500 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda.
The oldest text of the Avesta is something like 330 AD...... Zoro is credited at the author and he does not enter the historical record until 500 BC or so.
If you prefer to believe otherwise is your choice.
Anybody can look this stuff up, no one needs to take my opinion....nor the opinions of as or sm..... do your own research and the decide what you will believe.....
As always, there is truth and there is falsehood....
Btw.... you can find scholars that argue decisively that “judaism” predates zoroastrianism and some will say that Zoroastrianism not even a monotheistic religion......
Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.
It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.
I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.
FFS spare the CF your spin , when you don't believe things you have in the past not been shy to call it BS.
whether its about state or federal law, or bIblical text, it should make no difference.
well you either believe in talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds....or you don't.
..if you don't believe such , then how can it not be considered nonsense by you?
Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.
It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.
I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.
I agree, no need to denigrate anyone for their beliefs. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the stories of Genesis to be fact, as written,or allegorical? I find this is the thing that really seems to separate people, the ones who beleive it is real history and the ones who believe it's allegory/parables. I don't mean to denigrate those who believe it's true stories word for word,my whole family falls into that camp and they are good,smart people, I'm just curious where people stand on this.
I agree, no need to denigrate anyone for their beliefs. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the stories of Genesis to be fact, as written,or allegorical?
IMO, everything that is contained within what people call the Bible, in all its variations, can be considered allegorical, framed for the purpose of edification.
Although, what is described therein might have happened exactly as described, and could still fulfill the purpose of edification.
IOW, the actual circumstance of the incident or behavior related is less important than the concept communicated by the recounting of the circumstance, as an object lesson.
well you either believe in talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds....or you don't.
..if you don't believe such , then how can it not be considered nonsense by you?
Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.
It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.
I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.
Parables for what? What is the creation account, God created the heavens and the earth, a parable for? What is the ressurection story, etc, etc, a parable for?
I agree, no need to denigrate anyone for their beliefs. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the stories of Genesis to be fact, as written,or allegorical?
IMO, everything that is contained within what people call the Bible, in all its variations, can be considered allegorical, framed for the purpose of edification.
Although, what is described therein might have happened exactly as described, and could still fulfill the purpose of edification.
IOW, the actual circumstance of the incident or behavior related is less important than the concept communicated by the recounting of the circumstance, as an object lesson.
Ive never heard the virgin birth or resurrection and ascension as being considered merely parables.
What you've "heard of" isn't an argument for or against anything.
They might have happened, or might not, no one alive knows.
But even if they *were* parables, they communicate concepts that, if accepted, can change a person's behavior in what society at large would consider a positive way.
Which could be, but does not *have* to be, the way the Bible can be interpreted.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.
Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.
But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.
And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.
As to defining the age of the universe, how much accuracy would you demand of the answer?
How many significant digits do you expect?
Do you understand the definition of significant digits? This is how scientists communicate information. The number itself defines the accuracy of the estimate. So when a number such as 1.37 times ten to the tenth is written, one knows the error is expected to be in the order of hundreds of millions of years. A rational person understands the concept of estimates and corrections as data is refined.
Modern and future studies may refine estimates to as low as 1.0 times ten to the tenth, or perhaps as high as 1.6 times ten to the tenth. But that does nothing to invalidate the science behind the estimates.
Those doing the laughing at science are the bigger fools.
Ive never heard the virgin birth or resurrection and ascension as being considered merely parables.
What you've "heard of" isn't an argument for or against anything.
They might have happened, or might not, no one alive knows.
But even if they *were* parables, they communicate concepts that, if accepted, can change a person's behavior in what society at large would consider a positive way.
Which could be, but does not *have* to be, the way the Bible can be interpreted.
What exactly does a creation story and a God that created the universe and all that goes with it convey to us as a parable?
scientists can and do admit to being wrong, whilst creationists remain adamant
Yeah right. Einstein's special relativity was universally accepted and Einstein lauded the week after it was published.
hilarious from someone who doesnt even have a clue from where your Catholic faiths canonical age law originated or when such law was implemented...nor can any of the other babbling head CF christians pinpoint such age in the Bible.
and you are same christian that claims God is beyond 3D time and space realm , in complete contradiction to scripture. and the same christian that claims the calamities of Job were natural and not moral..again in complete contradiction to scripture.
but You can just throw all that in the too hard basket and just keep believing 'what ever you want' ..as you yourself have suggested.
Ive never heard the virgin birth or resurrection and ascension as being considered merely parables.
..
They might have happened, or might not, no one alive knows.
But even if they *were* parables,....
what is the reason you don't believe in such events taken as FACT by christians?
(iF one don't believe 'He has Risen' then a person don't cut it as a christian pure and simple. believing the resurrection can be reduced to mere parable also don't cut it)
and for to you to suggest they could be mere parables rather than fact, is kind of cheapening or ridiculing the basis of christian faith, but feel free to go all coy and into denial.
scientists can and do admit to being wrong, whilst creationists remain adamant
Yeah right. Einstein's special relativity was universally accepted and Einstein lauded the week after it was published.
hilarious from someone who doesnt even have a clue from where your Catholic faiths canonical age law originated or when such law was implemented...nor can any of the other babbling head CF christians pinpoint such age in the Bible.
and you are same christian that claims God is beyond #D time and space realm , in complete contradiction to scripture. and the same christian that claims the calamities of Job were natural and not moral..again in complete contradiction to scripture.
but You can just throw that in the too hard basket and just keep believing 'what ever you want' ..as you yourself have suggested.
That is so wrong I wouldn't know where to start. But you're impervious to rational argument anyway, switching to ad hominem attacks when things don't go your way. Keep on trolling.
That is so wrong I wouldn't know where to start. But you're impervious to rational argument, switching to ad hominem attacks when things don't go your way. Keep on trolling.
Simply reminding you of what you have posted in the past are not attacks.
and rational logical folk would be able to pinpoint the origin and history behind the canonical laws of the Roman catholic church they belong to.
Originally Posted by Starman
Re: Evolution is a myth? Please explain: #14014378 07/31/19
Originally Posted by nighthawk
. . A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him, he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
.
Originally Posted by Starman
Re: Evolution is a myth? Please explain: [Re: nighthawk] #14041146 08/11/19
Originally Posted by nighthawk
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
NO , it seems you fail to realize Job suffers evils/calamities as result of both physical and moral evil brought on directly by an arrangement between God and Satan.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
switching to ad hominem attacks when things don't go your way. Keep on trolling.
Ad hominem?...lol...
desperate over sensitive Christians falsely assuming victim status at the drop of a hat ..nothing new about that.
DBT,...Well just like you have said (words to the effect) Christians manage to weave a tangled web for themselves.
IF its not Bible contradicting Bible , being ambiguous or simply void of sufficient information, then Its christians in denial or contradicting Bible scripture, ....and/or ducking ,weaving, distracting, fabricating (any or all) as may conveniently suite.
When such discussions come up on the CF, there's usually a circus clown car that the theological minded types poor out of.
. A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him,he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
Good example, that's Metaphysics 101, pure logic, which you can't or won't understand.
As far as your contention that God created evil I tried explaining the error in that statement with a metaphysical argument and a translational argument which was supported by numerous sources from a variety of denominations. All I got from you was a restatement that God created evil. Felt kinda like banging my head against a wall but maybr somebody reading along got it. You seem to think your interpretation of scripture is right and all other interpretations are wrong and not worthy of consideration.
And now I'm told that conventional scientific thought is all wrong and not supported by the evidence. What the hell does the scientific community as a whole think matter anyway if it doesn't fit your agenda.
Speaking of evidence, I supplied you with evidence that God exists. You simply ignored it because it's inconvenient and because the evidence does not constitute an ontological proof. Ignoring that theologically an ontological proof is not possible.
That's my opinion, and I give my rationale, but you don't want to discuss, just troll. One way you do that is change the subject to something tangential and of little consequence to the issue under discussion,
And if you knew anything about cannon law you'd know it's incredibly arcane. What Catholics need to know is in the catechism, complete with biblical citations which justify the teaching.
That's my opinion, but you don't want to discuss, just troll.
you have already decided others are in error, the only thing you want to discuss is conversion to your opinion supported with convoluted explanations...an ages old catholic spin tactic.
Here's a list of evidence I lifted from the contents of a reference Here. You may (undoubtedly will) find the evidence unconvincing but denying its existence is absurd.
THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR The Big Bang The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof Evidence From Entropy Something, Nothing, and Creation Fine-Tuning
PHILOSOPHICAL EVIDENCE OF GOD A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysical Proof of God A Lonerganian Proof of God
An ontological proof of a creator would eliminate the concept of free will but you don't seem to believe in that anyway. We are all driven by our environment, just like plants. And how satisfying is that.
Hilarious. The big bang, entropy, etc, says absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator, yet alone being evidence for one. The universe may be cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc.
Ontology proves nothing. You can formulate an ontological argument for how many Angels can dance on a pin head for all its worth.
You're right, it's not evidence if you can invent an alternate explanation. Your honor, I move to exclude all evidence against my client as speculative and irrelevant because a space alien may have killed the victim by materializing the knife in his back from a space ship. And the entire field of Philosophy (including Logic) is of no value. All smoke and mirrors don't ya know.
Why would ontological proofn of a creator eliminate the concept of free will? I think a creator is at least a possibility, and a very interesting one at that, but don't see how that would eliminate free will.
Short answer, from the philosophy of Ethics: A person will choose what he perceives will result in a preponderance of satisfying consequences. If you had absolute knowledge of God, no doubts whatsoever, would you ever choose to do something to piss Him off with the certainty of an eternity in hell? That could not possibly lead to a preponderance of satisfying consequences and would be irrational. You would never choose to take a bite of the apple. Or not to. There would be no decision to be made.
On the other hand without perfect knowledge there's a decision to be made. Do I do something which is fun but may offend God if He exists. Or do I forego pleasure in hopes of being rewarded in heaven. Where do the preponderance of satisfying consequences lie? Could choose either way.
In a nutshell. Ethics was a 3 credit college course with prerequisites.
You're right, it's not evidence if you can invent an alternate explanation. Your honor, I move to exclude all evidence against my client as speculative and irrelevant because a space alien may have killed the victim by materializing the knife in his back from a space ship. And the entire field of Philosophy (including Logic) is of no value. All smoke and mirrors don't ya know.
Nobody is claiming that there is a multiverse or that the universe is cyclic, these are put toward as possibilities, not facts. It was your claim that there is evidence for the existence of a God, citing the big bang, entropy and ontological argument as evidence....which it is not.
Why would ontological proofn of a creator eliminate the concept of free will? I think a creator is at least a possibility, and a very interesting one at that, but don't see how that would eliminate free will.
'Free will' first needs to be defined. The ability to make decisions is not free will. Decisions are made according to a set of criteria in relation to options that are available, a cost to benefit ratio.
The problem with that argument is that it presupposes that if there is a God, he must be the God of the Christian Bible. I'd say that even if we could prove with 100% certainty that there is a creator, we're still no closer to figuring out who or what that God might be. The possibilities are almost endless. It could be a highly advanced alien civilization that engineered this whole thing. Maybe there is one creator god but nothing like the Christian god at all.
Point being, alot of people say they don't believe God because the version of God that they are familiar with doesn't sound believable to them. I'll admit when I think of God I default to the standard western Christian God in my mind, but really there is no reason to assume that's more likely to be correct than any other, far as I can see.
No, only requires a god of some sort. If you know this god, all powerful creator, with certainty are you going to intentionally piss him off knowing you're going to land in an eternity of unpleasantness? .That would be crazy. Since one of two paths is irrational there becomes only one path. And that is not a choice. You must obey god.
Could be Vishnu, you don't want to be eternally recycled and you would abandon materiality without having a choice.
No, only requires a god of some sort. If you know this god, all powerful creator, with certainty are you going to intentionally piss him off knowing you're going to land in an eternity of unpleasantness? .That would be crazy. Since one of two paths is irrational there becomes only one path. And that is not a choice. You must obey god.
Could be Vishnu, you don't want to be eternally recycled and you would abandon materiality without having a choice.
How do you know what he does or doesn't want though, or what sort of reward/punishment system he might have? The Vikings thought the Gods wanted them to do battle for their amusement, and would be rewarded for dying in combat. For all we know, even if there is a God, that God might not really care what we do at all, might just have set the ball rolling and is sitting back to see how it plays out.
No, only requires a god of some sort. If you know this god, all powerful creator, with certainty are you going to intentionally piss him off knowing you're going to land in an eternity of unpleasantness? .That would be crazy. Since one of two paths is irrational there becomes only one path. And that is not a choice. You must obey god.
Could be Vishnu, you don't want to be eternally recycled and you would abandon materiality without having a choice.
How do you know what he does or doesn't want though, or what sort of reward/punishment system he might have? The Vikings thought the Gods wanted them to do battle for their amusement, and would be rewarded for dying in combat. For all we know, even if there is a God, that God might not really care what we do at all, might just have set the ball rolling and is sitting back to see how it plays out.
Well, one could sit down to read the book of John. Might take 4-5 sit downs. Each time, before reading, ask God to show you something.
Don’t worry about anything except the prayer, then invest some thought in what you read.
Go back to the top. The premise is that you have perfect knowledge of god, know what he wants with absolute certainty and he has absolute power over you. Knowing this with certainty, would you act in a way which would make him demonstrate that power to your discomfort? That would be irrational. Without being crazy would you choose to put your hand in a fire?
Again, this argument does not require any particular god.
Go back to the top. The premise is that you have perfect knowledge of god, know what he wants with absolute certainty and he has absolute power over you. Knowing this with certainty, would you act in a way which would make him demonstrate that power to your discomfort? That would be irrational. Without being crazy would you choose to put your hand in a fire?
Again, this argument does not require any particular god.
Oh ok I get what you are saying....yeah in that case I'd agree with you, it would be totally irrational. My position was simply that even proving a God would not necessarily negate free will, but if one had perfect knowledge then that would certainly change things.
My position was simply that even proving a God would not necessarily negate free will, but if one had perfect knowledge then that would certainly change things.
Wouldn't it though! Life would be easier. I look at free will as being both a wonderful and terrible gift, Definitely a kick out of the Garden of Eden.
My position was simply that even proving a God would not necessarily negate free will, but if one had perfect knowledge then that would certainly change things.
Wouldn't it though! Life would be easier. I look at free will as being both a wonderful and terrible gift, Definitely a kick out of the Garden of Eden.
No kidding! But then, what would we talk about on the Campfire? I find it all endlessly fascinating, so many different ideas and beliefs, none exactly the same but many kinda trending in the same direction.
The core requirements of the college I went to included 15 hours of Philosophy and 6 hours of Theology. Us accounting and business majors figured what the hell, slog through it. Actually those turned out to be the subjects that most affected my life. Accounting is 8/5 and Philosophy/Theology is 24/7. Wish I'd paid more attention but it WILL make your head hurt.
But it makes for a LONG discussion, you really should start with the underpinnings of Western Philosophy, back to the ancient Greeks and the meaning of existence.
while in general and on average i've been a purveyor of the ancient hebraic belief system, no doubt the greeks with their 100 or more gods, and the egyptians with their all powerful pharoah, or godman on urth, have had a tremendous impact on us post-modern humans who now walk the urth and purport to rule it.
what a fusion! some might call it heresies stacked on top of heresies. but here we are, and the cumulative taxes are set at a rate that most are willing to pay without bloodshed.
at least we've reduced the number of greek gods down to a more manageable number.
There's something distinctive about humans. The ancient Greeks (Plato) identified it as a yearning for what is beyond our reality, transcendent virtues: Perfect truth, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect beauty, the desire for perfect being/home. Some would say such desires are evidence of a transcendent part of our being, or soul. In any event such desires because of their transcendent nature require a deity. So start with the obvious, old Sol, and progress as human thought becomes more sophisticated. So yeah, we've accumulated quite a pile of discarded gods. If I remember correctly, if you were dissatisfied with the selection of Roman household gods you got to make one up.
![[Linked Image]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYv1QJ9XkAAlMB3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from zorro.com]](https://www.zorro.com/wp-content/uploads/cc_resize/Zorro02MayhewCov-600xAUTO.jpg)