Sumpta Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Okay let me expand. The problem and antithesis does not lie in a science versus theology discussion. Actually, theologists would rather consider themselves scientists as well. The rulers of the catholic church aren't stupid either (but they may have different agenda's). The antithesis often exist between the followers of both sides, because they mix emotions with the facts. This board/discussion is a good example of what I mean. So I might like to rephrase: "pseudo-scientists" can be as fundamentalist. I'm sorry, but it is not sound to call in the aid of science and put it forward as the absolute truth. Obviously, the same goes for religion/the bible. A scientist can put out a theory, which can be valid until it is disproved. If other scientists cannot find fault with the theory, it is sound at that moment in time. But nobody says that in the longer run, even (often!) the scientist who put the theory forward himself, cannot change/refine it. Science is not fixed either, it moves as more knowledge is gained. P.S. I'd like to be clear about one thing though, before anyone starts to suspect me of religious fanatism to counter my point. Saying that the earth is only 6.000 years old is blind stupidity. Science has proven this to be faulty over and over. Sadly, this growing belief disproves evolutionary theory: aren't we supposed to be perfecting ourselves instead of going backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 A scientist can put out a theory, which can be valid until it is disproved.. I disagree, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it can be proved. Take the example of a teapot orbiting the earth. No-one can know if it exists because it's too small to see. Do you beleive a teapot is orbiting the earth because you can't disprove that it is? That doesn't make my beleif or theory of the tea pot valid. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumpta Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 A scientist can put out a theory, which can be valid until it is disproved.. I disagree, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it can be proved. Take the example of a teapot orbiting the earth. No-one can know if it exists because it's too small to see. Do you beleive a teapot is orbiting the earth because you can't disprove that it is? That doesn't make my beleif or theory of the tea pot valid. Uhh, okay, so I need to address even the obvious. It speaks for itself to me that theory must always be supported by evidence. There is not a shred of evidence for a tea pot in space, so that would not be a theory, it's not even a conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 My point is that just because a theory remains valid by other scientists doesn't mean it can be a sound theory. For example some 'scientists' use parts of evidence to prove different biblical events. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumpta Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 My point is that just because a theory remains valid by other scientists doesn't mean it can be a sound theory. Of course not. Some of the then agreed upon theories from medieval, renaissance, even victorian scientists make us laugh our heads off these days, because we now have gained knowledge and evidence which points in other directions. Who's to say scientists won't be doing the same in a century or 3 about a number of scientific theories which are in vogue today? I respect science and I look for the answers it can provide, I'm just pointing out that it's not a question of absolute truth (science) on the one hand and complete bollocks (religion) on the other. *shutting up now* *blush* P.S. A nice article on the problematics and the theories which have been put forward about the genealogy of theory (uhuh, I can't believe I used to study this kind of stuff) can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Sadly, this growing belief disproves evolutionary theory: aren't we supposed to be perfecting ourselves instead of going backwards? What makes you suggest we're going backwards, sumpta? Besides that, say we have developed some problems; who's to say evolution won't ween them out in the future? You see, evolution becomes a different kettle of fish if you like when it comes to humans. We have the ability to determine our environment and to effectively cheat death and keep the weaker of us alive through medications. You could argue those in poverty are the only ones who will continue to evolve measurably and you could argue conversely that genetic variations will be weened out through globalisation. I went through many possibilities of how humans may evolve in the future on a school assignment which I enjoyed very much and which is probably why I'm rambling on :P . I would like a respone to my first question, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrOwez Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Actually, the only real "evidence" for a billions of years old earth model is the fact that the philosophy of evolution requires it. That's why radiometric dating "discovers" the ages they do: they triangulate based on a few "knowns," none of which really are known at all: They "know" that the solar system is about 4 billion years old -- based on the philosophy of evolution, which means they don't really know that. They "know" that potassium, Carbon-14, or whatever element they're testing decays at a certain invariable rate -- except they don't know that at all. Decay rates can change, and they don't know if the rate changed or not. Also, they don't know if the amount of daughter material was originally zero. Let's say you're doing Uranium/Lead testing. Uranium decays into lead, so you can accurately determine an artifact's age by calculating the amount of uranium and lead, then plugging those figures into an equation with the decay rate, right? Well... The ONLY way to ensure accuracy is to know the following: How much daughter material (lead) was originally in the artifact? (They don't know! If X amount of lead in the artifact is assumed to ALL be decayed from uranium, when in fact some lead was already there, the artifact could test much older than it really is -- and with no way to tell whether your figures are accurate!) Did the rate of decay remain constant? (They don't know! What if it accelerated? What if it slowed down?) Based on these "facts," which are really assumptions, they measure the ratio of uranium to lead present in the artifact -- the only fact in this whole equation -- plug in their assumptions, and voila! Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago! Right? Well... What about human skulls and gold chains found in seams of coal? (Oops!) What about tree trunks running vertically through quot;millions of years" of sedimentation? Here are a few other uncomfortable facts: The age of the universe outside the solar system is calculated based on the distance and speed of star and galaxy recession -- but this method presupposes a "Big Bang," which is far from being scientifically established. Not to mention the fact that the distances and speeds are hotly contested. NASA expected 54 feet of dust on the Moon, assuming a 5-billion-year age. Oops! They found only 13 feet at the Apollo 11 landing site, 2 to 3 feet at Luna 16, and 11.5 feet at Apollo 12. The Poynting-Robertson effect slows down small particles in orbit and makes them fall into the sun. In only 2 billion years, all particles less than three inches across clear out to Jupiter's orbit should have been eliminated. Oops! There are huge quantities still out there (they show up during the Perseid meteor shower every August). All short-term comets in the solar system should have been evaporated in 10,000 years or less. Oops! They haven't! Here's the results of radiometric Moon-rock dating: Uranium/lead and thorium: from 3.36 to 28.1 billion years. Potassium/argon: 2.2 to 7 billion years. These figures are incompatible with each other and any known solar system aging model -- if radiometric dating is reliable, that is... Living snails have been radiometrically dated by Carbon-14 to be 2,300 years old. A Hawaiian lava flow known to be less than 200 years old was dated at 3 billion years. New wood in growing tress has been dated at 10,000 years. Oops! Sediment on the ocean floor is an average of 1/2 mile deep, or about 8.2 x 10/17th tons. Rate of deposition is 2.75 x 10/10th tons a year. Works out the oceans can't be more than 33 million years old, even if we stick with a uniform deposition rate. And a non-uniform deposition (caused by something such as a worldwide flood) could greatly reduce the time involved by speeding up deposition. Oil and gas deposits are still under lots of pressure, even in porous rock. That pressure is known to bleed off, and it shouldn't be there anymore if the oil fields are more than a few thousand years old. The only way fossilization occurs is if living tissue is suddenly cut off from air and subjected to great pressure. Scientists studying the topography surrounding Mount St. Helens therefore found fossilized layers of flora and fauna created by mudslides that they know are only 15 years old -- yet they almost exactly reproduce the "millions of years" of fossilization found elsewhere on earth. Here's the "age" of Black Hills Granite, under different radiometric dating methods: Sr/Rb = 1.16 billion years U238/Pb206 = 1.68 billion Pb207/Pb206 = 2.55 billion (Which one is "right"?) Reunion Island rocks tested similarly tested all the way from 100,000 years to 4.4 billion! The earth's magnetic field decays exponentially, with a half-life of 1,400 years. Projecting in reverse, the earth's age comes out as -- surprise! -- 10,000 years or less. There's a lot more (I'm just skimming my Anthro/Christo/Soter. notes from last semester). The reality is that very little evidence points to an old earth, but a lot of evidence points to a young earth, with a fossil layer caused by some sort of worldwide catastrophe. Evolution started with the philosophy of "uniformitarianism," which says that all changes happened very, very slowly. No such thing as a worldwide catastrophe; can't be. Except they have since needed to explain why the dinosaurs went extinct so suddenly. So now we have a worldwide nuclear winter caused by an asteroid hitting the earth. Worldwide changes in geography, topography, climate -- the works. So why not a flood, which would do all the same things? Well, a flood is "unscientific" -- but a giant asteroid isn't! Huh? I've carefully avoided mentioning the genealogical "proof" of the age of mankind, because counting "begats," as you put it, is not a very good method to determine passage of time. But it is very interesting that a lot of the scientific evidence points to a much younger earth than the evolutionists were (and still are) looking for, isn't it? A friend to all is a friend to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 So why not a flood, which would do all the same things? Well, a flood is "unscientific" -- but a giant asteroid isn't! Huh? Got it right there, a astroid hitting the earth is concivable to happen, wheras four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water at a rate of 220 metres of rainfall everyday when a few centimetres is considered to be heavy rain is totally ridiculous. This is of course going off the bible which claims water covered the mountain tops. Source With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlanders Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 There is a ton of things in the bible that are obviously invented, if they can lie on a few things, they can very well aswell lie on everything else. The bible takes itself very seriously, those are not examples or images or cute little stories that they state - they say its the truth, while it obviously is not. Example; they say all the story about adam and eve, its obviously invented, and they dont state it as an example or story, they say its the truth, but its not, therefore it is a lie, therefore everything could aswell be lies. Whoever believes what the bible says has no common sense. 2480+ total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 There not all "cute little stories" the Bible is a very dangerous tool. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlanders Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Satenza, learn to read, you missed the whole point of my post. Or maybe you have nothing else to say except your fanatic non-sense. 2480+ total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 How is that fanatic? Your arguing that people use 'cute little stories' like Adam and Eve and take them to be true. I am saying they use other stoires which arn't so cute too justify a lot worse things. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLOWSTORM Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 There is a ton of things in the bible that are obviously invented Care to offer ten examples? Should be easy if there's a "ton" they say its the truth, while it obviously is not. Example; they say all the story about adam and eve, its obviously invented... Again, care to offer some proof? Both Evolutionists and Creationists claim that there had to have been two people of opposite gender in order to reproduce. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim. When you are learning, you are growing. If you stop learning, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you die. Train hard, eat fried chicken, and take a one-a-day. (And cook that broccoli 'til it's yella and pour cheese all over it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 There is a ton of things in the bible that are obviously invented Care to offer ten examples? Should be easy if there's a "ton" they say its the truth, while it obviously is not. Example; they say all the story about adam and eve, its obviously invented... Again, care to offer some proof? Both Evolutionists and Creationists claim that there had to have been two people of opposite gender in order to reproduce. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim. Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding this Slowstorm. You're saying that since Adam and Eve are normal names, thier story is plausible? And as for Strowez, I'd like to see a source for what you claim please. Perhaps you may want to take a look at my topic 'the challenge' as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidus_77 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 To me it's just a piece of fiction. :roll: It is, however, reguarded differently by different people 76th to reach 99 Construction on 6th of February 2007379th to reach 99 Runecrafting on 4th of November 2007 Finally the secrets of goal achieving are revealed! (give my guide a read :^_^: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Blatant plagiation Before you post next time, it would be good to state you just made a quick google search for "young earth theory" and your entire post is from http://www.creationtheory.org. If you want to discuss, please don't copy+paste copyrighted materials from other websites. Use your own knowledge. And, did you read the website owner's comment after that post he had gotten in an email? Let me quote it to you since you so kindly decided to leave it out. Did you find the article convincing? I should hope not; it's a mishmashed jumble of pseudoscience, lies, and ignorance. I did a little bit of homework, and discovered that this bizarre jumble of pseudoscience actually came from a website called Christian Humor. So you're basically using a piece of copy+pasted comedy as evidence on a real debate thread. I can't say your credibility is plausible, StrOwes. To me it seems you're just bent on finding 'evidence' for your lost cause, and will even quote stuff that makes you look ridiculous. Please, accept evidence for once. Like, the website you quoted. Take a closer look at what it actually says. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim. It is nearly 100% certain the first modern humans migrated off Africa into other continents. Yeah, Adam and Eve were typical names down there hundreds of thousands of years ago. Probably Bob and Elisabeth were your average cavemen as well. ...Do you really think the earliest humans could've given a crap about abstract things like a 'name' when they had to fight for their lives to survive predators and find food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Now when you read this topic, don't get the god in the bible confused, with a higher being. All the bible is, is the christian story of god. If the bible is wrong, there can still be a higher being, but with a different story. Note, this is a thread about the bible: christians story of god. I don't want this to turn into yet another 20 pages of whether there is a god/higher being or not. If anyone posts something like that I will report it, as it is offtopic. Personally I think the bible is flawed for a few reasons. According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old. Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old. Some people with a voice in their head is all the proof it is 6000 years old. Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old: Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far. Another point, is dinosaurs. The bible does in fact mention mythological beasts, whether it is talking about dinosaurs or not is irrelivent. A biblical day(when god created the earth) may have a different meaning, timewise, than our 24 hour system. It wouldn't make sense if they had big days, as the bible includes sentences such as "he travelled for X days" If in fact, the days back then were big enough to account for the billions of years this earth has been around for, in this 'X days' he would have been dead in the first day. Fossils are billions of 'today's years' old, but apparently the bible is 6000 years old. I explained above about the argument about different sized days cannot be true, so if you believe in the bible, you cannot believe in dinosaurs. Which have been proven, you might as well not believe in gravity. There have been many religions over the centuries. Each religion can be baught down to 2 reasons, one of which is morals. Religion works great as a set of moral guidelines untill people start killing each other over whose god is better, or untill those guidelines become outdated. Christians aren't killing off vast numbers of any other religion at the moment (except Muslims, and that doesn't count because our motive is oil, not religious zeal, though you could make a case that the Middle Eastern conflict is a modern day crusade for the holy land). So is Christianity completely outdated? The Muslim rational for not eating pigs is that they are "Dirty" animals and it is not gods will for us to eat them. This may have made sense thousands or even hundreds of years ago, when pigs may have had bacteria in them that could cause certain diseases. This is not true today. The Christian rational for not having sex before marriage is that it is gods will for us to create families and not have sex before marriage. This may have made sense hundreds of years ago when sex before marriage created unwanted children and social decay. It is not true today. The other reason is to explain what science and technology can't. One example is the ancient egyptions. They did not have the science and technology to know how the sun rose and set, it appeared to them to move across the sky. So they invented a god that moved the sun across the sky. Today we know that is [cabbage], and the Earth revolves around the sun - which is why it appears to move across the sky. We know this because of the science and technology we have today. Lets briefly compare a story of the bible, to a religious story we have today. The sun moving across the sky in ancient egypt, and jesus being the son of god. They both took true facts. There was really a man called jesus who claimed to be the son of god. And the sun does in fact appear to move across the sky. And then turned them into stories to explain what science and technology can't. A god passes through 12 gates, fights a serpent and carries the sun across the sky, and A man called Jesus claimed to be the son of god and performed mericles. (sp) My question: How is the Ancient Egyptions religion, which we all know is rubbish, any different to the stories in the bible? There are in fact still people today who believe in ancient religions, because of faith even though they are wrong, and that is all that christianity is. (Note: for those of you who think I read all your garbage about me (except for lance, he's kewl), I did not, I could care less about your opinion) As for staying on topic, since its about God anyway, and not science.. and many have derailed this topic into another yet again.. "Does God exist? No, no evidence.." thread.. here's my opinion on it. I believe God exists reguardless of what evidence says against it. My Evidence is that, that is not seen. If you read Hebrew 11, it says that Faith is the evidence and substance of things not seen. So when we say we have Faith in God, Faith is our Evidence. Sounds arrogant? Only in Science it does, but in the Bible, faith is the evidence. Hate on it all you want, I deal with plenty of members at work in the same way.. who pull fits over it but that doesn't change that the answer is no. Reguardless.. if you can't tell, i'm not in a very good mood day and could care less what your evidence says about my God or what you think of me as a person.. because your no better. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I believe God exists reguardless of what evidence says against it. My Evidence is that, that is not seen. If you read Hebrew 11, it says that Faith is the evidence and substance of things not seen. Again, whoever says you're a moron or whatever for believing in God, is quote honestly that themselves. There's nothing wrong in believing in a deity, you can't prove or disprove one, so if you have faith then go for it. It's not illogical or naive. However, the Bible, just like the Hindu scriptures or Qur'an, cannot be taken as fact for the creation of the world. There is no other contradiction. The Bible and other 'holy books' can contain good moral codes and ethics which apply almost always. But they do contain a lot of obvious fiction which should be faced with at least skepticism (the creation of the world in seven days, people walking on water, angels descending from nothing, virgin births)... Even if you don't, you should keep in mind many of the most important religious figures in the world don't take the Bible as absolute truth. Many cardinals, even the former pope John Paul warned people about the dangers of taking the entire Bible as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I believe God exists reguardless of what evidence says against it. My Evidence is that, that is not seen. If you read Hebrew 11, it says that Faith is the evidence and substance of things not seen. Again, whoever says you're a moron or whatever for believing in God, is quote honestly that themselves. There's nothing wrong in believing in a deity, you can't prove or disprove one, so if you have faith then go for it. It's not illogical or naive. However, the Bible, just like the Hindu scriptures or Qur'an, cannot be taken as fact for the creation of the world. There is no other contradiction. The Bible and other 'holy books' can contain good moral codes and ethics which apply almost always. But they do contain a lot of obvious fiction which should be faced with at least skepticism (the creation of the world in seven days, people walking on water, angels descending from nothing, virgin births)... Even if you don't, you should keep in mind many of the most important religious figures in the world don't take the Bible as absolute truth. Many cardinals, even the former pope John Paul warned people about the dangers of taking the entire Bible as truth. Maybe you probably mis-interpreted what he meant? I think he was probably saying don't take the Bible Literally due to all the metaphors in it. Like when Jesus said eat his flesh. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (Note: for those of you who think I read all your garbage about me (except for lance, he's kewl), I did not, I could care less about your opinion) As for staying on topic, since its about God anyway, and not science.. and many have derailed this topic into another yet again.. "Does God exist? No, no evidence.." thread.. here's my opinion on it. I believe God exists reguardless of what evidence says against it. My Evidence is that, that is not seen. If you read Hebrew 11, it says that Faith is the evidence and substance of things not seen. So when we say we have Faith in God, Faith is our Evidence. Sounds arrogant? Only in Science it does, but in the Bible, faith is the evidence. Hate on it all you want, I deal with plenty of members at work in the same way.. who pull fits over it but that doesn't change that the answer is no. Reguardless.. if you can't tell, i'm not in a very good mood day and could care less what your evidence says about my God or what you think of me as a person.. because your no better. ~Defender~ Faith is blind. It isn't evidence- it's hope. If you've ever read the Bible, blind stupid faith almost killed Isaac, for one thing. Also, there really isn't evidence against a God existing- if anything there's plenty (including scientific data) for it. There is evidence though for debating against man made Gods, such as the Christian God, and arguing against what man pictured Him as. Again, arguing against one view of a God of a small section of mankind is not the same as arguing the existence of a God (or gods, maybe) in general. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (Note: for those of you who think I read all your garbage about me (except for lance, he's kewl), I did not, I could care less about your opinion) As for staying on topic, since its about God anyway, and not science.. and many have derailed this topic into another yet again.. "Does God exist? No, no evidence.." thread.. here's my opinion on it. I believe God exists reguardless of what evidence says against it. My Evidence is that, that is not seen. If you read Hebrew 11, it says that Faith is the evidence and substance of things not seen. So when we say we have Faith in God, Faith is our Evidence. Sounds arrogant? Only in Science it does, but in the Bible, faith is the evidence. Hate on it all you want, I deal with plenty of members at work in the same way.. who pull fits over it but that doesn't change that the answer is no. Reguardless.. if you can't tell, i'm not in a very good mood day and could care less what your evidence says about my God or what you think of me as a person.. because your no better. ~Defender~ Faith is blind. It isn't evidence- it's hope. If you've ever read the Bible, blind stupid faith almost killed Isaac, for one thing. Also, there really isn't evidence against a God existing- if anything there's plenty (including scientific data) for it. There is evidence though for debating against man made Gods, such as the Christian God, and arguing against what man pictured Him as. Again, arguing against one view of a God of a small section of mankind is not the same as arguing the existence of a God (or gods, maybe) in general. There's also scientific evidence of Zeus sitting ontop of Mount Olympus (photos and scientific expeditions). You can see him, he's around pixel x432 y321, along with Hera, Pan and Apollo. They are eating supper. Point: We know Zeus isn't sitting on Olympus zapping people with his lightning bolt and causing storms when you tick him off. Soon we should know that the idea of God (unless he decides to show 'imself) is rediculous. I'd like some hard, REAL proof that God exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 There's also scientific evidence of Zeus sitting ontop of Mount Olympus (photos and scientific expeditions). [Okay, it's a mountain...] You can see him, he's around pixel x432 y321, along with Hera, Pan and Apollo. They are eating supper. Point: We know Zeus isn't sitting on Olympus zapping people with his lightning bolt and causing storms when you tick him off. Soon we should know that the idea of God (unless he decides to show 'imself) is rediculous. I'd like some hard, REAL proof that God exists. 1) For all you know, neither cameras nor the human eye could detect Zeus and the other gods. We don't "know" that they don't exist, we just assume that based on modern science. 2) When I say "gods" I'm not talking about Roman and Greek beliefs, but the possibility that if there's a chance there's some kind of a "God", there could be an equal chance that it's actually "gods". 3) http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/features/ ... -emoto.htm Read it. If you don't believe in some form of a god by the end of that, well, then you're too stubborn to even listen to those who believe in one, i.e. a lost cause. It seems like it too, the way you go on about, "I ain't believing in God unless you basterds give me a mountain and a half of evidence." Maybe I should just make a thread about it rather than reposting is to this extent... [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 There's also scientific evidence of Zeus sitting ontop of Mount Olympus (photos and scientific expeditions). [Okay, it's a mountain...] You can see him, he's around pixel x432 y321, along with Hera, Pan and Apollo. They are eating supper. Point: We know Zeus isn't sitting on Olympus zapping people with his lightning bolt and causing storms when you tick him off. Soon we should know that the idea of God (unless he decides to show 'imself) is rediculous. I'd like some hard, REAL proof that God exists. 1) For all you know, neither cameras nor the human eye could detect Zeus and the other gods. We don't "know" that they don't exist, we just assume that based on modern science. 2) When I say "gods" I'm not talking about Roman and Greek beliefs, but the possibility that if there's a chance there's some kind of a "God", there could be an equal chance that it's actually "gods". 3) http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/features/ ... -emoto.htm Read it. If you don't believe in some form of a god by the end of that, well, then you're too stubborn to even listen to those who believe in one, i.e. a lost cause. It seems like it too, the way you go on about, "I ain't believing in God unless you basterds give me a mountain and a half of evidence." Maybe I should just make a thread about it rather than reposting is to this extent... 1) Exactly, we can't figure out something and we say it's divine. Then we understand it. Then we reach another frontier of understanding and say it's divine. Repeat. 2)I'd like some evidence that there's even any gods at all. 3) That's what happens when you take drugs. That also has no evidence in it on the existenence of god(s). Only overreacting on the fact that no two expirements will produce similar results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 1) Exactly, we can't figure out something and we say it's divine. Then we understand it. Then we reach another frontier of understanding and say it's divine. Repeat. 2)I'd like some evidence that there's even any gods at all. 3) That's what happens when you take drugs. That also has no evidence in it on the existenence of god(s). Only overreacting on the fact that no two expirements will produce similar results. Ugh. I'm not saying there's evidence that Zeus exists. I'm saying that there's no possible way to ever say he doesn't exist. We can't ever know everything, especially not when it comes to supernatural debates. "You're on drugs". Cute. Anyways, did you even read the whole thing? I mean, it's practically impossible to not at least think there's something out there based on that data. What, are you some rebellious teenage atheist who's had too much "God" in her life from church, family and school? You seem stubborn to the extent of not even daring to look into the reasons why people believe in a God. It's like you're afraid to be proven wrong (not that I'm saying what I believe is 100% fact, it's no where close). [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 1) Exactly, we can't figure out something and we say it's divine. Then we understand it. Then we reach another frontier of understanding and say it's divine. Repeat. 2)I'd like some evidence that there's even any gods at all. 3) That's what happens when you take drugs. That also has no evidence in it on the existenence of god(s). Only overreacting on the fact that no two expirements will produce similar results. Ugh. I'm not saying there's evidence that Zeus exists. I'm saying that there's no possible way to ever say he doesn't exist. We can't ever know everything, especially not when it comes to supernatural debates. "You're on drugs". Cute. Anyways, did you even read the whole thing? I mean, it's practically impossible to not at least think there's something out there based on that data. What, are you some rebellious teenage atheist who's had too much "God" in her life from church, family and school? You seem stubborn to the extent of not even daring to look into the reasons why people believe in a God. It's like you're afraid to be proven wrong (not that I'm saying what I believe is 100% fact, it's no where close). I just got done finished reading that link you gave him/me. So because I just now finished reading it.. and he's already done writing his whole lot on why its not true.. I'm assuming he did not read the link you gave him.. or just a few lines.. Pity.. And you know what, I was listening to Kenneth Copeland a few days ago, and Don Colbert was mentioning the EXCATE same thing.. how they figured out what crystals do when exposed to all sorts of things like this. Man, me wants to order the book! ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now