Darwinism vs creationism

[Times Roman]

Many believe Judas not to be an evil man, but instead acting in accordance with the wishes of Jesus. for without Judas, the crucifixation could not have come about, something that Jesus not only planned for, but counted on. Read on....

In contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples


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

[--->>405<<---]

you know, I can't make up my mind.

For me, the big bang is equally as implausible as a supreme being creating the universe out of nothing.

the one satisfying thing about the quantum theory of the creation of the universe is that it needs no prerequisite in it's explanation of how we got here.

when god is cited as the creator, then there is a huge and equally important question that needs considering....

....who created god?

So the original quesition of first beginnings is not really answered by citing god as the source without considering the source of god. This doesn't mean that the quantum explanation is anymore plausible than the metaphysical explanation.

Maybe I should toss a coin?

the flaw IMO in ur thinking TR is where u put ur trust. as i see it u are presented with 2 options:

1. put ur trust in mans ability to scientifically trace/prove our existence

2. put ur trust in God who needs no explanation. it is only man who needs an explanation. we are inherently sinful from conception. our natural disposition and position puts us at enmity with God from the beginning. everything that drives us , apart from God, is motivated by evil.

i tell u bro im putting my faith and trust in the Lord.. seems like a no-brainer to me. twas not always so. when i was an alcoholic and drug addict doing everything evil i could think of to please myself (and dont get me wrong i still struggle with it now- that desire does not completely go away) God was the furthest thing from my mind. u know what the difference between me then and me now is? the ability to see things from a godly perspective some of the time instead of NONE of the time..

and i have been delivered from my addiction for going on 5 years. if it werent for my addiction i probably wouldve never found the Lord. it was the pain that it brought me and the lowliness i wound up in that made me humble enuff to consider "what if?"

it seems simple to me now but there were many years (33) where i was about as far as one could get from the Lord.

the answer to ur question "who created God?" NO ONE. as God says in revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." theres an answer to most questions u can come up with (most ).. u just have to be willing to look in the right place..

[--->>405<<---]

Many believe Judas not to be an evil man, but instead acting in accordance with the wishes of Jesus. for without Judas, the crucifixation could not have come about, something that Jesus not only planned for, but counted on. Read on....

In contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples


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

LOL.. what a crock of BS..

[Times Roman]

the flaw IMO in ur thinking TR is where u put ur trust. as i see it u are presented with 2 options:

1. put ur trust in mans ability to scientifically trace/prove our existence

2. put ur trust in God who needs no explanation. it is only man who needs an explanation. we are inherently sinful from conception. our natural disposition and position puts us at enmity with God from the beginning. everything that drives us , apart from God, is motivated by evil.

i tell u bro im putting my faith and trust in the Lord.. seems like a no-brainer to me. twas not always so. when i was an alcoholic and drug addict doing everything evil i could think of to please myself (and dont get me wrong i still struggle with it now- that desire does not completely go away) God was the furthest thing from my mind. u know what the difference between me then and me now is? the ability to see things from a godly perspective some of the time instead of NONE of the time..

and i have been delivered from my addiction for going on 5 years. if it werent for my addiction i probably wouldve never found the Lord. it was the pain that it brought me and the lowliness i wound up in that made me humble enuff to consider "what if?"

it seems simple to me now but there were many years (33) where i was about as far as one could get from the Lord.

the answer to ur question "who created God?" NO ONE. as God says in revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." theres an answer to most questions u can come up with (most ).. u just have to be willing to look in the right place..

There is no requirement I choose. My life will not be any less fulfilling if I remain undecided!

The reason I have not chosen? I don't think the choice should be based on which will gratify me the most. If that were the case, then of course i'd choose a supreme being, especially if there was a promise of a chance at eternal life. There is a reason so many chose this path on their death bed. It is not because all of a sudden they have become enlightened, but instead are seeking comfort with the hope and desire that there is more beyond the end they are so close to in their final moments.

I want to be right, not gratified or comforted. I want to know the truth. Science is the process of finding the truth, yet so many religious people in "the know" prefer to shy away from science and reason. For many, faith is a type of "blind faith".

Why is it that the church, not too long ago, were calling people heretics when they advanced the idea of the world being round, revolving around the sun, and there being many suns/planets in this universe?

Knowledge and informtion are not evil things. One should embrace new knowledge, not shun it as is common practice in the church. And if this new knowledge and information flies in the face of canon beliefs, then is is obviously the work of the devil.

So when the construct of the bible is known to be that of man, and not god as is the case with Constantine, many prefer to simply shut their eyes and pretend this knowledge and information doesnt' exist.

This is the problem i have with the institution of religion. It promotes it's own beliefs, even if it defies the truth.

[Times Roman]

LOL.. what a crock of BS..

so it is BS since it is not as you believe?

that is the extent to your analytical endeavor?

[Times Roman]

405
don't get me wrong!
I enjoy these healthy debates immensely!!

[Lunk1]

TR...let me ask this from a less partial standpoint...the likelyhood of science disproving christainity is slim to none. If you or anyone for that matter chooses to have faith, what harm can come of it?

[Times Roman]

TR...let me ask this from a less partial standpoint...the likelyhood of science disproving christainity is slim to none. If you or anyone for that matter chooses to have faith, what harm can come of it?

what is the likelyhood of Christianity disproving science? =)

there is no harm to me if someone chooses a belief system.

but how does one choose?

by default of being born into a religious family?

by proximity to the local church?

So say I believe in Christ. Does this mean to me that Jews are going to hell?

I think the Jews would say otherwise, wouldnt' you?

So the religious decision to me seems highly subjective and almost arbitrary.

So the real question to me is which rules who you are?

Are you dominated by your Right brain and are primarily emotionally based?

or are you dominated by your left brain and are driven more by analytical thought process'?

[--->>405<<---]

so it is BS since it is not as you believe?

that is the extent to your analytical endeavor?

as it pertains to that particular text yes sir it is..

when one believes in God TR u believe not only intellectually but spiritually down to the core. i dont expect u would understand nor am i able to convey it to u in a manner in which u could.

one of the many benefits of being a christian (and i may have said this already) is that i have put my faith in God and trust His Word. i am no longer a slave chasing every idea in search of truth. i have found truth. i can see this goes right over ur head. it appears u are having a hard time grasping the concept that i am satisfied with the truth of God that has found me. i have no need to look elsewhere. i know what is true. anything contrary is untrue..

itd be like finding the perfect woman (for lack of a better analogy). she fits all the physical and emotional and intellectual and sexual characteristics u have been looking for. she is perfect. why then would u continue to consider other women? there would be no need because the one u found could not be improved upon. ( and bear in mind i am speaking idealistically and assuming "you" to be one who is satisfied with a single mate..)

one of the problems with modern society as i see it is it has no real authority. everything is subjective and all is open to interpretation. "i think this, therefore, it is truth to me" runs rampant. one of the problems with this is truth can change whenever i find something better to believe in. this no longer applies to me.

ephesians 4:14,15: " 14 [g]As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness [h]in deceitful scheming; 15 but [i]speaking the truth in love, [j]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

[Dpyle]

im sure this appears to you to be being close-minded but to me it appears to be obedient to scripture. as a christian i know that i have a compass which will lead me properly down the path of life. Matthew 12:30 says: " He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."



isaiah 45:7 " 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

consider the egyptian pharaoh. he was an evil man. God used him and manipulated his actions to bring about the outcome he desired: the exodus of the israelites which ultimately led them to the promised land. romans 9:17 "
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Judas (who u referenced earlier). an evil man God used to deliver Christ to the romans for crucifixion. john 6:64 " Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him."

so to address ur question: suppose u are right (which i am not confirming nor disputing). i believe the Lord who is sovereign over everything in existence could very well have used constantine's evil actions in part to bring about the bible we read today.

so, NO it would not rattle my faith one bit, but to the contrary could possibly strengthen it.

Can I get an explanation of the contradicting quotes? How can anyone be with Him or against Him if he also creates peace and evil and manipulates others to serve his purpose? And did the pharaoh go to heaven or hell since he was doing Gods will.

TR...let me ask this from a less partial standpoint...the likelyhood of science disproving christainity is slim to none. If you or anyone for that matter chooses to have faith, what harm can come of it?

Lunk according to the above quoted scripture no one can Choose to have faith as there is no free will. It is either bestowed upon you from the beginning or it is not. From these one can gather that some are destined for heaven and some for hell in a pre determined plan.

[bikeral]

Here is the true story about how the earth and humans were created...


==
What country has the honor to say that part of their homeland is basically godly spunk? Well, Japan does. The story of Japan’s creation is the god Izanagi pushed his “jewel encrusted spear” into “the primal ooze of our planet” and, when pulling out, “spilled a salty substance” that created the Japanese island of Onogoro. If you can’t spot the innuendo there, don’t worry, it only gets less subtle from here.

The story goes that when Izanagi finally decided to stop metaphorically “raping” the underage Earth below, he took his soon-to-be wife Izanami and descended on the huge island of dried ejaculate where they married and settled. After having sex on Spunk Island the woman gave birth to eight more Japanese islands.

Izanami continued to get pregnant and squeezed out more babies into the world. One of them was Homusubi (Kagututi), the incarnation of fire. A literal fireball. Learning first hand that fire is hot, Izanami suffered the worst burning sensation down there… and basically everywhere.

Being horribly burned from the inside she suffered agony for a couple of days, losing complete control of her bodily functions (what kind of gods are they?), vomiting, urinating and shitting uncontrollably. Her dying spasms of bodily functions gave birth to new gods, a pair for each substance that flew out of her body:

The Vomit Gods: Kanayamahiko, Kanayamahime
The Urine Gods: Mitsuha no me, Wakumusubi
The Feces Gods: Haniyasuhiko, Haniyasuhime

And there you go.

[Lunk1]

I hate to consider MY pre-determined plan

Tr...is christianity TRYING to disprove science??

[Times Roman]

as it pertains to that particular text yes sir it is..

when one believes in God TR u believe not only intellectually but spiritually down to the core. i dont expect u would understand nor am i able to convey it to u in a manner in which u could.

one of the many benefits of being a christian (and i may have said this already) is that i have put my faith in God and trust His Word. i am no longer a slave chasing every idea in search of truth. i have found truth. i can see this goes right over ur head. it appears u are having a hard time grasping the concept that i am satisfied with the truth of God that has found me. i have no need to look elsewhere. i know what is true. anything contrary is untrue..

itd be like finding the perfect woman (for lack of a better analogy). she fits all the physical and emotional and intellectual and sexual characteristics u have been looking for. she is perfect. why then would u continue to consider other women? there would be no need because the one u found could not be improved upon. ( and bear in mind i am speaking idealistically and assuming "you" to be one who is satisfied with a single mate..)

one of the problems with modern society as i see it is it has no real authority. everything is subjective and all is open to interpretation. "i think this, therefore, it is truth to me" runs rampant. one of the problems with this is truth can change whenever i find something better to believe in. this no longer applies to me.

ephesians 4:14,15: " 14 [g]As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness [h]in deceitful scheming; 15 but [i]speaking the truth in love, [j]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

Mate,
You have found what is commonly referred to as "salvation"
Truth is a process, not a destination, and is being shaped all the time with new information.
So you have found a "truth", which may not be supported by the evidence.

This is the problem of saying you have found "truth". It impplies that if others have found something other than what you have found, then what they have found is not the truth, which is another way of saying, "a lie".

And this is the rub of religion. People are willing to die for their belief system, and taken to an extreme, willing to kill others if they do not share the same belief system.

On the one hand, Christianity is the religion of "love", and yet the inquisition was more than happy enough to gouge out eyes and cut off tongues if they felt someone was a heretic.

A heretic is anyone that commits heresy, and this is what is said about heresy:

A heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. In certain historical Christian, Jewish, and some modern cultures, espousing ideas deemed heretical was punishable by law.

The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις originally meant "choice", but also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live one's life. The word "heresy" is usually used within a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic context, and implies slightly different meanings in each.

Heresy was redefined by the Catholic Church as a belief that conflicted with established Catholic dogma. Eventually it took on the meaning of an accusation levied against members of another group which has beliefs that conflict with those of the accusers. It is usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or codes, although it is used by some political extremists to refer to their opponents. It carries the connotation of behaviors or beliefs likely to undermine accepted morality and cause tangible evils, damnation, or other punishment. In some religions, it also implies that the heretic is in ******** with the religion's symbol of evil, such as Satan or chaos.[1]

Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,[2] and from blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.[3] The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy or commit heresy, are known as heretics. Heresiology is the study of heresy.

[Times Roman]

I hate to consider MY pre-determined plan

Tr...is christianity TRYING to disprove science??

No.

Christianity (religion, not picking on christianity) feels threatened by science, and therefore acts defensively against science.

If you know anything about the modern scientific method, disproving science is like an oxymoron. If it can be disproven, then it wouldn't be science, now would it?

(now, some of it's conclusions could be VERY wrong, like the Big Bang!!)

[Dpyle]

I hate to consider MY pre-determined plan

Tr...is christianity TRYING to disprove science??

At this point in time Christianity doesn't try to disprove science it just blatantly says science is wrong. Science merely offers an explanation of what we can see around us.

Too many people get hung up on this debate of one disproving the other. As stated before who can say God didn't initiate evolution. Yes god created everything in 6 days and on the seventh he rested, but where does it say that a day in the life of god is 24hrs? A day for god could be millions or billions of our years.

[Times Roman]

At this point in time Christianity doesn't try to disprove science it just blatantly says science is wrong. Science merely offers an explanation of what we can see around us.

Too many people get hung up on this debate of one disproving the other. As stated before who can say God didn't initiate evolution. Yes god created everything in 6 days and on the seventh he rested, but where does it say that a day in the life of god is 24hrs? A day for god could be millions or billions of our years.

what reason is there for a supreme being to rest? =)
(wouldnt' this imply she was tired and weary?)

I'm outta here mate. gotta go pick up my daughter from school

[gixxerboy1]

I hate to consider MY pre-determined plan

Tr...is christianity TRYING to disprove science??

IMO they are trying to deny science.
And there is no way the can disprove anything. You need evidence and facts to accomplish that. If religion was based on facts and truth you wouldn't have to have faith and believe.

[Lunk1]

what reason is there for a supreme being to rest? =)
(wouldnt' this imply she was tired and weary?)

I'm outta here mate. gotta go pick up my daughter from school

Perhaps he needed some fish tacos and a cold pint!!!!!!!!!

[Lunk1]

IMO they are trying to deny science.
And there is no way the can disprove anything. You need evidence and facts to accomplish that. If religion was based on facts and truth you wouldn't have to have faith and believe.

Look who couldnt resist lol...Play nice Gixx lol!

[--->>405<<---]

what is the likelyhood of Christianity disproving science? =)

there is no harm to me if someone chooses a belief system.

but how does one choose?

by default of being born into a religious family?

by proximity to the local church?

So say I believe in Christ. Does this mean to me that Jews are going to hell?

I think the Jews would say otherwise, wouldnt' you?

So the religious decision to me seems highly subjective and almost arbitrary.

So the real question to me is which rules who you are?

Are you dominated by your Right brain and are primarily emotionally based?

or are you dominated by your left brain and are driven more by analytical thought process'?

interesting questions u posed TR. none of them i believe apply to me. a short run thru of how i was converted to faith in christ:

raised by grandmom (very catholic) who prayed all the time. probably a lot of that prayer is what kept me alive thru my yrs of running the streets chasing girls and partying. this partying ultimately ended me up in a rehab center after getting 3 dui's in 5 weeks to avoid prison.

at this center the topic of God came up from time to time. my position was and i quote myself: "what had god done that is so great? (if there is a god). what he created us and the world? BIG DEAL.."

fast forward a couple weeks. we has morning meetings in this big room with our AA big books. i sat down and opened my book to look like i was participating and what did i see on page 387? "be still and know that i am God". right there in plain text. looking back now i can see this was the beginning of God making his presence known to me.

week or so later im going to take a dump in the bathroom. decide to take an AA grapevine with me for reading material. sit down and open the mag. there it is again "be still and know that i am God." at this point i started thinking "maybe something is going on here". bear in mind thru all this i was going thru a bad breakup with an ex-girlfriend who i was planning to marry until i found out she was a liar, whore, and thief! as a result i had a few conversations with some guys at the rehab about women. one of them suggested i pray and ask God to provide me with a good woman. i actually did pray that prayer.

another week or so later here i am going to take another dump in the bathroom. this time i bring a dictionary with me. sit down and open it up. what do i see? (u know how the last and first word on each page is in bold at the top?) well the page i turned to the bold word happened to be the word "believe". bear in mind i had had a few discussions about my previous 2 experiences with other guys there so this God thing was on my mind. im sure u could imagine i was a bit awestruck when i saw this 3rd revelation. (id like to note "beer" was also on the same page which i found to be a bit interesting).

a few months go by and i get out and go home and have to live with my mom for awhile til i get back on my feet. i tell her the same story i just told u. she gets this weird look on her face and says i have somehting for you. walks inton the back of the house and comes back in with a refridgerator magnet. u know what the magnet has written on the front? BELIEVE.., (its still on my fridge).

seems more than a coincidence at this point. remember the prayer for a woman? well the first girl i meet (my current wife) happens to be the only christian girl id ever been with. id never really went to church since i was like 10 or so and all of a sudden i find myself in church with this girl. week after week here i am in church around all these christians.

meanwhile i continue in my drinking and drugging street running life. as would be expected now my life starts to deteriorate at a rapid pace. on one hand im going to church and meeting all these christians and on the other im drinking and snorting and soing all kinds of other things i shouldnt be doing.

long story (kinda short) my alcoholism gets so bad i end up drinking for 5,6,7,10 days strait. until my body just cant take any more alcohol. i get sober for 2 or 3 weeks and then decide i can drink without a problem and next thing u know its been a week again. the christian girl im with telling me im trying to fill my God shaped hole. im thinking shes crazy and doesnt know what shes talking about.

i go thru this deal for 3 yrs. finally im so beat down and have tried everything i could think of to quit i remember back to the rehab center and start thinking "what if?" eventually in my misery i cry out to a god i dont know if hes even there or not but dont know what else to do because at this point im desperate. finally a pastor i know tells me about a christian recovery program that he went to 20yrs ago. after a few more months of pain, felony arrest and conviction im put on probation. first offender. this means any violation and i get resentenced and do time.

well this didnt stop me and lets just say i came real close to going to prison. i decided to go and see "if god really exists". well i found out he does. and after all that i spent a year learning about christianity and the Lord and what the bible has to say about things. i spent hours per day for months doing nothing but reading the bible. after my year was complete i felt i had a shot at life without drugs and alcohol but with the Lord.

here i am.. 47months later..

so no.. my choice was anything but arbitrary. i think u will find as i have if u talk to enuff christians alot of em came to their faith thru pain.. not parents..

[gixxerboy1]

Look who couldnt resist lol...Play nice Gixx lol!

I'm trying. I cant count how many responses i wrote to other post and hit cancel instead of reply.

[Lunk1]

IMO they are trying to deny science.
And there is no way the can disprove anything. You need evidence and facts to accomplish that. If religion was based on facts and truth you wouldn't have to have faith and believe.

From what I know...(very little) religion has embraced a number of scientific facts. Science changes and new science replaces old. It's never definitive!

[gixxerboy1]

From what I know...(very little) religion has embraced a number of scientific facts. Science changes and new science replaces old. It's never definitive!

Science theories do change and sometimes often as we learn new things. But thats the thing the come from learning new facts. Science realizes their may be new things that we dont know about. They don't deny or dismiss them.

[--->>405<<---]

At this point in time Christianity doesn't try to disprove science it just blatantly says science is wrong. Science merely offers an explanation of what we can see around us.

Too many people get hung up on this debate of one disproving the other. As stated before who can say God didn't initiate evolution. Yes god created everything in 6 days and on the seventh he rested, but where does it say that a day in the life of god is 24hrs? A day for god could be millions or billions of our years.

it says it in the bible right here;

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

[Lunk1]

Science theories do change and sometimes often as we learn new things. But thats the thing the come from learning new facts. Science realizes their may be new things that we dont know about. They don't deny or dismiss them.

Hmmm. so science hasn't dismissed christainity??? Or has science just not been able to disprove it?

[--->>405<<---]

405
don't get me wrong!
I enjoy these healthy debates immensely!!

hey TR its all good man! im GTG..

[Dpyle]

it says it in the bible right here;

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

Thank you for that. Any answers for my previous questions?

[gixxerboy1]

Hmmm. so science hasn't dismissed christainity??? Or has science just not been able to disprove it?

look at what science says about how old earth is and what the bible says.

Science disproves it. Religion just denies it or uses some circular reasoning to make it sound like the bible was still correct.

And just because science hasnt found and answer doesnt mean one doesnt exist.

[Ernst]

This thread has degenerated to another logic vs faith argument.


This country is all about freedom of religion, right? If we were to teach creationism, to give it equal weight, why would we not give equal consideration to the many origin stories of different religions? IMO school is for science, period. If you want faith-based origin stories and clear-cut, easy answers then go to church.

[--->>405<<---]

Thank you for that. Any answers for my previous questions?

im abut to get off work and have to drive home. ur questions are good and i will try to answer them as best i can

i think the assumption is pharaoh goes to hell. he is not a believer. God knew what he was gonna do before he did it. God is complicated man. im not gonna pretend to be able to understand everything or even a fair amount about Him. if we could would he really be God?? his ways are higher than ours>>

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

some of it would be like trying to explain the concept of theoretical physics to an ant.. (for lack of a good analogy)..

[gixxerboy1]

This thread has degenerated to another logic vs faith argument.


This country is all about freedom of religion, right? If we were to teach creationism, to give it equal weight, why would we not give equal consideration to the many origin stories of different religions? IMO school is for science, period. If you want faith-based origin stories and clear-cut, easy answers then go to church.

i agree. People can believe what ever they want. And as stated people have freedom of religion. But people also have freedom from religion

[--->>405<<---]

This thread has degenerated to another logic vs faith argument.


This country is all about freedom of religion, right? If we were to teach creationism, to give it equal weight, why would we not give equal consideration to the many origin stories of different religions? IMO school is for science, period. If you want faith-based origin stories and clear-cut, easy answers then go to church.

blame it on Job (i mean Lunk) LOL...

[Ernst]

405, I'm glad you found a better way for yourself. I think you should open your own Q&A lounge thread. This is obviously something you believe in and are passionate about and I'm willing to bet a lot of people would have questions for you. I remember a while back a Muslim member opened such a thread and shed a lot of light on something a lot of us didn't know much about.

Totally off topic, but for my own curiosity, would you say you belong to a particular denomination?

[JohnnyVegas]

look at what science says about how old earth is and what the bible says.

Science disproves it. Religion just denies it or uses some circular reasoning to make it sound like the bible was still correct.

I am not one for picking apart the bible, but here is one of my favorites: the incorrect value of Pi.

Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.

A circle with a diameter of 10 would have a circumference of 31.415XXXXXXXXX - not 30. Could be because it was written long before Pi had really been sorted out and suggests that the math in the bible was limited by human knowledge and was not knowledge given to man by God (who would be really good at math). Even if they wanted to keep it simple, and closer to correct, they would have said it was encircled by 31 cubits...no decimal places needed.

There are a couple of other statements that seem to reflect the imperfect knowledge of man, rather than the divine:

The bible also says that the moon is a light, because they did not know at the time that it is reflected light.

Genesis also says the Earth was formed before the sun. Probably because they thought the sun moved around the Earth.

[warmouth]

Both 405 and TR are really the only one here making an actual case for their "faith". Everyones opinions are great and I personally love to see both sides of the story. One problem that I am seeing repeated is that most of the posts are circling on statements that they believe to be firm. There really should be some Q and A to settle differences. Will it change what we believe? Most likely not. But this isnt the problem, it is the certaintly of statements being made that are so concrete, with absolultey no basis for error, that it is dwindling from Lunks first post. Both 405 and TR are making great cases, but there still needs to be Q and A in order to get 2 actual sides without others just spewing out rhetoric. I for one believe in an Intelligent Design (notice I didnt say creation, but you understand what I am saying), and do find offence to the guys saying that anyone who believes this way is "outdated and basically stupid". I am a firm believer that if one chooses to believe in a creation or a "something from nothing" evolution, they are entitled to their right to believe this way, and I for one wont try to make them change that belief. But the generic form of "evolution" that keeps going back and forth isnt any different than the generic form of "God" as both are more than this. I believe in micro evolution(ability to adapt to surroundings), but no so much macro. I can understand why there is so much angst toward each other on the subject. I would understand if it were about religion and would expect animosity, but it is still not getting to the OPs first post. With the exception of 405 and TR, as both are actually putting forth a case for their beliefs. Why dont we gather and bounce ideas back and forth and ask each other some questions. You dont have to be a know it all to ask. Ask what you actually want to know without asking sarcasrically for a laugh. Lets be sincere. I mean, evolution on the "macro" scale is just as funny to someone who belives in a creation amd vice versa. I promise we can all take something from this if we can have an open mind and be willing to ponder this sides presented. Seriously, this is a very interesting debate and both sides can take so much from this if it is presented the right way. I have done this for many years. This subject(as many others) is just fun for me if we can keep a level head about it and respect one another. We wont always believe the same, but we can respect each others beliefs and learn from one another. AS long as we arent out killing people in the name of "our creator" and dont offend anyone by directly attacking them, we could all have fun and we could all learn alot. Just a thought

[warmouth]

405, I'm glad you found a better way for yourself. I think you should open your own Q&A lounge thread. This is obviously something you believe in and are passionate about and I'm willing to bet a lot of people would have questions for you. I remember a while back a Muslim member opened such a thread and shed a lot of light on something a lot of us didn't know much about.

Totally off topic, but for my own curiosity, would you say you belong to a particular denomination?

I agree with this!

[JohnnyVegas]

We wont always believe the same, but we can respect each others beliefs and learn from one another. AS long as we arent out killing people in the name of "our creator" and dont offend anyone by directly attacking them, we could all have fun and we could all learn alot. Just a thought

Nicely said. I am actually surprised how well this thread has gone considering this is a hot button issue.

[Times Roman]

I think there is some confusion as to what I believe. And you are NOT alone! I too am not quite sure what is "right". (Notice I didn't say "believe"?) I believe in the scientific method, but that doesn't mean i believe in some of the conclusions thatare inferred upon it.

for instance, I sincerely believe that one can trace the evolution of a bird far enough back, millions of years, and find some ancestral dinasaur hunkering down in there somewhere. But what I am having a hard time with is the big bang. not because I doubt the existance of quantum fluctuations, for certainly they do exist, which is allagorical to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Therom (there is a REASON, after all, you cannot know both a particles position and direction simultaneously!), but because the whole premise rests on C being constant over billions of years. There is some evidence that C has been slowing down over billions and billions of years. If this is true, then C would have been faster early on, and the objects further away from us are receding more rapidly than objects closer to us would be an illusion based on the validity of C being constant, and therefore the whole bang theory kinda flies out the window, doesn't it?

Here is what I believe.

I believe we do not know enough to really know how to ask the right questions to understand our origins. But I think we are getting close! Multidimensionality might be a step in the right direction, but with that, Pandora's box opens up a bevy of other, more complex questions that we really are not in a good position yet to think about.

Who knows? There may be a "prime mover", or there may not be. But even if there is, it doesn't mean that the good book has the corneer of the market as to what is going on inside the mind of god. And to step back just a little, if a prime mover, then does that necessarily mean this entity had any interaction with our evolution? Biblicists would argue yes, as that wouuld prop up the idea that we are special in this universe. But that would be an egotistical thing, now wouldn't it? So to keep ego out of this discussion, why would a prime mover have any desire to get involved in something as incredibly small as a human?

Here is what I know.

I know we will never really know with any degree of confidence the answer to any of these questions. But I believe it a proper role to question our surroundings, to be curious, and to challange those that do not do so to take a step back and try to look at the bigger picture.

[Times Roman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-517850.html

A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the Aug. 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.

"But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble," Davies said.

To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.

They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of of thermodynamics, which Davies summarises as "you can't get something for nothing."

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb's observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armour of the theory of relativity.

In the meantime, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.

"When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard," Davies said.

"If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear."

It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.

For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.

It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years.

Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.

"For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.

[Times Roman]

#159 supports my concerns expressed in #158 and whether or not the Big Bang actually happened