Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
There's no such thing.
Contentious threads eventually end up with some twit going OTT and getting removed...or the thread closed....so I'm here just in case.
Sadly [as I said] I end up sifting through dross....hoping people will just 'move on' as the issue is really a lost cause. It's pretty much a dead cert that no-one will read something here and shreik 'eureka!!!! at last the answer'.
If someone's LOOKING for one....it is equally as likely to be here is in the bottom of a whiskey glass.
I don't care for either 'end' of the topic really. You either believe in God...or you don't....you either accept that along with a coexistence of science as human understanding or you don't.
You WON'T alter anyone's opinion either way, and certainly not with effusive ebullience from any side of the 'fence'.
That's deep Jafo....and you have a rough job, I feel for you.
The problem David is that the subject of god outside of religion is impossible to discuss IMO. At some point it is going to come up … how or why? And as far as I know without the bible(s) and the religions … or the sciences (for the fools) … there is no way good way to argue for god except for some ‘personal’ experience. All I will say about that is that we have many hospitals crammed with people who have had their own singular experiences of unknown origins.
And just because a moderator morphs into an actual communicative human being on occasion (hahaha) … he is not allowed his two cents worth too. What is inappropriate with telling a blowhard that they have heard enough already. This crap reminds me of Lula … only secular wording is used instead … the intent is the same. It is obvious to me why people who seem to thrive on ‘battling science’ in order to promote their mysticism, are confused … the battle has already been decided … and these kinds of people are just feebly trying to get back in. If you guys cannot coexist with science then you are sealing your own fates … the sciences are not going away … they are just going to get better.
While I agree with this statement in general, I don't think that is what's happening here. It can be unclear when a mod has their mod hat on/mod hat off at times.
MHO, but I think this thread needs to just die. All parties have already said they don't care to be here. Let's do everyone a favor. RIP and shake away this thread like an old drug habit.
Have I launched a SINGLE personal attack at anyone while I've been on these forums?
Don't worry about me Jafo, I don't get emotional with this stuff, its just science.
I'm not making you read it, I am answering questions (and accusations) that have been leveled at me. I've already said I studied this crap for a long time.... I feel I can share what I've found over the years if I want to.
I'm not searching for the meaning of life, I've found it, a while ago, but I don't think I went into that here at all, did I? Nor am I talking about RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS! I am taking about GOD and SCIENCE. GOD AND SCIENCE
And btw, MOST of this evidence conflicts with evolution science. Degradation flies strait in the face of evolution...
If you all can't handle the conflicting science... I don't think I'm the one with the problem....
I think you have been more reactionary and personally offended by comments not meant to be taken personally than any other participant in this conversation so far (go back and really look at your posts).
I'm very capable of defending my own personal views and I don't mind counter arguments to them--but the problem with the conversation here is when my own views stated in any manner, they are immediately referenced as "religion" and then its hotly insisted on being "debated" (for no worthwhile reason at all) on those terms. It's no different than if every time I said, "I really like dogs." someone immediately jumped up and said, "AHA! So why is it you have this deep seated hatred of CATS then!?". To simplify that for you, "dogs" can represent any thing I say and "cats" can represent you immediately bringing up "stupid religion"...for the millionth time or so.
I haven't given up on anything other than pointless arguing and if you really want to ask me a sincere question you know how to reach me and I am genuinely happy to answer. Just separate ahead of time what I have said, from what someone else said and what you imagine I said first.
I do it all the time and so do many others. The majority of people are capable of doing this most of the time if it's part of a sincere discussion. It just depends on how comfortable someone is with their own beliefs, whether or not they have an agenda and an axe to grind and how secure they about themselves that determines whether they can do it or not.
I'm quite the advocate of science and haven't said anything to indicate otherwise--you just keep making a mashup of posts by "us" (i.e., all the other people on here you disagree with, who I don't even know and who have completely differing opinions from my own) and then attributing any of statements by any and all of them as applying to "me".
I have no problem with a moderator being part of the conversation either--just backing up his views on the topic combined with mentions of his position as a moderator is tacky. I'm not at all trying to leverage him out of the conversation (lol--it is more likely to result in the reverse).
So in short, you can't please everyone all of the time and there's no point in wasting time filling a bucket with water for a person holding a bucket with no bottom in it.
Wherever you're at...well there you are.
Ok, back to Biology and its obvious problems with evolution theory.The biggest problem with evolution in biology is that an Evolutionist looks at a creature and sees adaptation, where as Science can see it as a Design.Take the human ear for example. Evolution claims that the 3 tiny bones that make up the ear "evolved" from the jaw bone over millions of years. But how could this be? Any mutation that doesn't serve a purpose (like separate bones coming off a jaw) would be lost in the replication process I went over already. And the fossil record doesn't support a gradual shift.... There are no "in between" species that have been proven to exist... only a different variety of species. The complexity of the human ear simply could not have come from mutation. All the chemical, mechanical and electrical systems that are needed for it to work could not evolve independently. So what about the "missing link?"Contrary to the Evolutionist, the missing link between man and ape is still missing. The famous Lucy fossil skull is simply a more upright ape, similar to chimps. This misrepresentation is further brought to light, in the fact that Lucy species skulls have been found in the same layer as modern man skulls. The SAME layers! One must deduce that they had to coexist with modern humans. and died out from some disease, or environmental reason. Much like how modern man looses many species due to rainforest deforestation. Much more evidence is there for those who want to find it, and this evidence all contradicts the Evolutionist theory of a common ancestry and adaptive evolution.Now look at bees and flowers. Both developed independently of each other, both from different ancestors, and, according to evolutionists dating, both at different times (40+ million years difference). The one problem with this timeline from Evolutionists is that flowers are interdependent on pollination. But bees didn't develop at the same time... and if this is true, then most, if not all flowering plants would have died out from lack of pollination. If we look at modern creatures, there are many more symbiotic relationships between species that cannot be explained with evolution science. Flight is another big problem with Evolutionists. There have yet to be ANY fossil records of the missing link between reptile and bird. Think about it... A bird would have to have feathers or stretched skin, hollow bones, and larger lungs/stronger and different designed shoulder muscles to be able to fly. By natural selection, any partial deformity that would bring a creature to that state, without even one of these traits, would be eaten by the closest predator. The science of biological flight had to happen at the same time, for it to have worked. Birds are vastly more complicate that this even, but Evolutionist insist that they evolved from reptiles, even though no fossil record has been found. but the answer is obvious, Birds are designed to be birds.Now on to the fun stuff Sexual genetic deterioration is the deterioration of the DNA code in close family interbreeding. In ancient times, it has been shown that many brother/sister relationships occurred. Families would routinely intermarry and procreate, and no real problems occurred from this. However, modern families cannot do that without risking massive birth defects. The DNA code of humans have been replicated to the point of imbalance. So ancient humans had "purer" genetic code than modern humans. If we look at all the cancers, defects and shorter lifespans of humans now, we can see how the DNA replication of Humans is loosing more information as time marches on. If we plot this DNA deterioration on a graph, we can deduce that humanity isn't as old as Evolutionists try to claim.... humanity is only 6,000 years old, according to DNA deterioration. This much DNA deterioration would cause humans to be extinct long ago, if humanity is millions of years old.Ok, that is enough for now. I will have one more post on the biological evolution science issues, and then we can sift to Geological science.
I will write a sum up on it all after all my evidence has been presented. Feel free to take issue with any of it, but remember... it is science too. So I'm not going to debate your feelings or religion...
Give me science and God, not religion.
If we plot this DNA deterioration on a graph, we can deduce that humanity isn't as old as Evolutionists try to claim.... humanity is only 6,000 years old, according to DNA deterioration.
Crikey you made my day. Humanity is only 6000 years old, that is too funny. Better not tell the Aboriginals of Australia who have been there about 70,000 years ago. The reason christians go on about 6000 years is because some muppet decided to go through the genealogy from Adam to Jesus and count up the years.
This shows the bias from the start: "whereas Science can see it as design" is really more like "whereas Creationists can (only) see it as design."
It is easy to to take issue with everything you present. For example: Only bees and flowers? You must be joking. How about abiotic pollination, cross pollination, or the wide variety of pollinators that exist? Roughly 200,000 varieties of animal pollinators are in the wild. Are you simply starting with the assumption that Evolution is false to come up with conclusions that are easily debatable at the click of a mouse? A little google action easily shows that your CANNOTS actually do have explanations which show how certain things actually CAN or could have happened.
It's really not worth debating these things in such a forum because many of us know where to look on the web to find actual scientific information that directly contradicts your cannots, and how things that are so obvious to you (and whoever you have copied your "scientific" information from) are not so obvious at all.
Actually, that goes back to the books of Moses, so it's more Jewish than Christianity.
Also you have to back up your claim that the aboriginals were there for 70,000 years, or you're not practicing science any more than anyone else.
This is the internet. Your conclusions are easily debatable at the click of a mouse, too, so I fail to see your point.
Which conclusions are you speaking of?
How is this contrary to Evolutionist theory? This is well known amongst evolutionists.
Well....while those who debunk the entire 'theory' of evolution are at it they can also discount carbon dating .... geology and every other science and rely solely on fantasy.
What amuses is their use of BITS OF science to debunk the rest of it.
Selective belief....selective understanding.
Good try.
You pick. Pick any conclusion you want, I will wager that debunking it on the internet is a few simple mouse clicks away.
Extensive debunking of carbon dating--and, for that matter, all dating based on radioactive half-life--has already been done. You can go your local forensics body farm and carbon-date bones from human beings alive 30 days ago--and discover they've been dead for the last 15,000 years. A few years ago, there was a canyon in Texas that formed literally overnight (well okay, it might have been daytime part of the time...). The reason we know is because people remember it not being there before...and then the floods receded, and there it was. Had no one been there before, the "experts" would have been claiming it formed over the course of millions of years.
All this to say, you have to support your claims, too. You are taking a lot of presumptions to be axiomatic, and in so doing, you are just as guilty as the creationists you are discrediting. And just as a disclaimer, I am undecided when it comes to either creationism or evolutionism.
Why either or?...quite a few people believe in both.
SivCorp; all you seem to want to do is trash evolution, as if that would somehow prove god exists to the rest of us … it cannot … it wouldn’t. Most seem to know that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with god … but the real intelligential are not so gullible as to try and combine the two. As intelligent as you like to appear, I will form my views from published and peer reviewed ‘experts’ with a reputation for the truth … not a notoriety who pops up on a ridiculous post like this one … and claims to know the real truth. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting you if this is true … but you will never get there by ‘publishing’ on rags like this (thread) for sure.
Is there some reason why ‘splitting’ cannot occur … oh never mind … I agree with Hawkins who stated in HIS book “The Blind Watchmaker”, phyletic gradualism is just a ‘straw dog’ for the interrupted equilibrium advocates? You seem to be confusing values and facts. Ramble on till you un-ruffle your own feathers then … seems like you are going to anyway.
You are talking to atheists (me anyway) and I (we) don’t believe in the existence of god … is there any wonder why all your ‘just becauses’ are seemingly falling on deaf ears. I don’t know how to have a discussion just about god particularly when one side takes him for granted and the other side doesn’t believe there is something there to discuss in the first place??? David, there is nothing sincere in a discussion where you get to just state god is real … and we have to argue from there … you must prove god is real and a statement to the fact is not enough. There are no tradeoffs here … there is no starting point. In a very surreal sense, I suppose we are all ‘sincere’ scholars and seekers of truth, but atheism is but one natural unforced outcome of that search. We are not all teachers or writers or engineers or theologians, though, so we may not have done as much research on this as say Sam Harris does when he writes a book.
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginals_of_Australia
Everything in Christianity is based on Jewish folklore and culture (or against it) ... or did they mystically plop a gaggle of Christians into their midst prepackaged with … the rest of the story...?
Ah.... Chariots of the Gods..... the SCIENCE [fiction] answer to GOD.
So THAT'S what this thread is all about.....
I certainly am.... I'm too impatient to wait for others to create the fun so here we go.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Nice, you are all paying attention after all
I dropped that crazy number on you to see if you all where reading everything... Good show
Personally, I don't see an exact age that can be calculated, but I do think that humanity is not the millions of years old that some scientist claim.
I'll address the individual issues you all bring up in a bit. Probably later tonight.
Well I guess it time to unleash the awesome power and knowledge of the Canadian Rock Band
The all knowing, all seeing "Bare Naked Ladies"
Ancient Aliens Season 1 Episode 2(FULL)
as write on http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter4.html :
An often-used logical fallacy is ad hoc reasoning, or an explanation offered after the fact. It’s a common apologetic practice to fall back on an alternative solution once the foundation of the original position has crumbled. For example, a Christian might state, “There’s great evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old.” Once someone exposes the error in such a blatantly false statement with the overwhelming counterevidence, the Christian might then say, “God made it look that way to mislead those who rely on their own opinions rather than having faith in his word.” The speaker has totally dropped the original indefensible claim and substituted it with an alternative explanation, one that only makes sense after the fact. In other words, the speaker is justifying the problem with an invented solution in order to protect his position.
The only chariot that i know is from Thor... you know, the friendly naked grey alien with big black eye from Stargate SG1... hey, i think that there is a mod for Soase with these god's chariot... and it is well know that US have kill God at Roswell...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
