Creationists Go Round And Round

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I am the god of hell fire, and I bring you fire,

I'll take you to burn

Fire,I'll take you to learn,

I'll see you burn

I've been avoiding this thread, on the premise that I get too worked up concerning the religious issue, but it keeps popping up top of the forum log, so I had to check...

anyway,

I know pumpdoc made this statement as abit of a joke, but the thing is, this whole hell issue is a misconception.... yes, we might be punished with a certain amount of pain and suffering but the bad WILL eventuallly perish ed is, cease to exist.

yes friends, it seems we might not suffer for eternity

I've got srciptures pertaining this, and it's another issue...

[pumpdoc 2]

Way to many people taking this way to seriously. People you have to realise that the more you bloviate the more you render your point, pointless

[YHR 0]

There is way too much to comment on in this thread, I'll concentrate on some bits, like this commonly held misbelief that science reversed itself about a hundred years ago and all the science before that is wrong. That is patently untrue. Classical physics isn't wrong, it was merely insufficient on very small scale and huge velocities to put it crudely. Classical physics worked and still works beautifully. The book from the 1920s is not inaccurate, it isn't wrong. Which is why as a science student I spend years learning pre - 1920 physics.

Open up the 90 year old book. Find out what doesn't work. Electromagnetism still works, still a beautiful, towering achievement in human understanding of the world, all in Maxwell's 4 little equations. Gravitation, newton's laws? They still work perfectly fine at any imaginable speed that anything human made has attained. Thermodynamics? Thermodynamics still works perfectly fine, and it is the first thing that crude metaphysical theories violate. Classical physics is limited, it is not wrong, it was never wrong. A lot of things that you use every day are designed and work based on classical physics.

It is absolutely laughable to compare the 'accuracy' of the scientific community to religions, who have never explained anything 'accurately'.

I never said the whole book was wrong, I just pointed out there are some inaccuracies. Are you telling me that men involved in science have not ever interpretated natural phenomon wrong????

The old testament is correct about a suprising amount of things for and old book.

Something I've always wondered about is why when water changes phases to a solid , it expands.

Also I am not anti science, just anti fanatic regardless of what side of this discussion you are on. I am not a biblical scholar nor am I a scientific scholar. All I know is some of the greatest thinkers on this planet demostrated in thier lives a more open mind then the views I have read here. Christ, Darwin, Einstien, all had a more moderate view and tolerance of life then presented by some here.

The contempt is anything but laughable.

[Schumikonen 2]

Surely folk in Heaven will be able to talk to me down in Hell still? Wouldn't be much of a paradise without being able to chat to me now would it?

And I agree with your second post - Christians are far more dogmatic and sure of themselves than scientists, though I disagree that they have personal experience of God (many Christians don't even claim to; the others are perhaps imagining it) and either way, they still have to choose how to interpret the Bible even if they think they've had a religious experience.

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

[Schumikonen 2]

Sorry Schumikenon, as i said above haven't gone tthrought the thread in much detail (about Faitma). I saw you posting on this page and assumed you and Graham had got into it again.. Sorry my bad....

It's Ok I know I would do something like this anyway and I enjoy it a lot.

[Quiet One 15]

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

Great post

[YHR 0]

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

Hmmm Evolution is still a theory. A cross link has yet to be discovered. That is an undeniable truth. Since science must be based on truth, we should remember this fact, otherwise science becomes a religion.

[goferrarigo 0]

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

Good Post...

About the personal Experiance point of Graham, i am doing a class on World Religion and my TA told us of a few experiments done where they take either monks or sages while they are in deep mediation (or what they call god-like experiance) and their brain showed very different nural activity which till now science has not been able to expain...

And sorry the movie's name was Fitna...

[Jean Todt 4]

I am not that sure that I will be allow to visit you threre

Do wear warm clothes. Its cold there.

[Jean Todt 4]

Hmmm Evolution is still a theory. A cross link has yet to be discovered. That is an undeniable truth. Since science must be based on truth, we should remember this fact, otherwise science becomes a religion.

Religion can prove science.

Science can never prove religion.

[Max Mosley 2]

Hmmm. I find some views here very silly and ignorant, but I will try to bite my tongue. As long as such Christians have no influence on the rest of us, I suppose they do little harm, apart from to their own families perhaps. Unfortunately too often Christians of the silly varieties do have influence - Bush for example - that is perpetuated by the anti-educational Church system.

Also I am not anti science, just anti fanatic regardless of what side of this discussion you are on. I am not a biblical scholar nor am I a scientific scholar. All I know is some of the greatest thinkers on this planet demostrated in thier lives a more open mind then the views I have read here. Christ, Darwin, Einstien, all had a more moderate view and tolerance of life then presented by some here.

Notice that when science progresses, the beliefs of "great thinkers" change. Darwin didn't believe in creationism, and Einstein wasn't even religious in the normal sense of the word.

I've got srciptures pertaining this, and it's another issue...

Cheers Bradley. I just think you would do better to trust your own (God-given) sense of right and wrong, rather than scripture. I can't imagine God wants people who follow rules slavishly without thinking for themselves!

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

If I understand you correctly, I think that is well said. Science doesn't argue against God, though. Many scientists are religious. Btw what parts of the Bible are incorrect in your view? And why do you think they are?

About the personal Experiance point of Graham, i am doing a class on World Religion and my TA told us of a few experiments done where they take either monks or sages while they are in deep mediation (or what they call god-like experiance) and their brain showed very different nural activity which till now science has not been able to expain...

Yup. But brain-waves are different during orgasm too, and Christians tend not to think of sex as bringing you closer to God. Mind you, some religions do. Perhaps they are closer to the truth... Brain activity is different during sleep too, but dozing off in Church can't normally be justified as a religious experience! It's different when you hallucinate as well.

Btw I've recently started meditating myself. Very calming. I'll let you know when I meet God!

[YHR 0]

Hmmm. I find some views here very silly and ignorant, but I will try to bite my tongue. As long as such Christians have no influence on the rest of us, I suppose they do little harm, apart from to their own families perhaps. Unfortunately too often Christians of the silly varieties do have influence - Bush for example - that is perpetuated by the anti-educational Church system.

Notice that when science progresses, the beliefs of "great thinkers" change. Darwin didn't believe in creationism, and Einstein wasn't even religious in the normal sense of the word.

Cheers Bradley. I just think you would do better to trust your own (God-given) sense of right and wrong, rather than scripture. I can't imagine God wants people who follow rules slavishly without thinking for themselves!

If I understand you correctly, I think that is well said. Science doesn't argue against God, though. Many scientists are religious. Btw what parts of the Bible are incorrect in your view? And why do you think they are?

Yup. But brain-waves are different during orgasm too, and Christians tend not to think of sex as bringing you closer to God. Mind you, some religions do. Perhaps they are closer to the truth... Brain activity is different during sleep too, but dozing off in Church can't normally be justified as a religious experience! It's different when you hallucinate as well.

Btw I've recently started meditating myself. Very calming. I'll let you know when I meet God!

Really!!!???? OK.

I thought you were a much more moderate thinker then you have demonstrated on this topic. I am a little suprised.

[goferrarigo 0]

Yup. But brain-waves are different during orgasm too, and Christians tend not to think of sex as bringing you closer to God. Mind you, some religions do. Perhaps they are closer to the truth... Brain activity is different during sleep too, but dozing off in Church can't normally be justified as a religious experience! It's different when you hallucinate as well.

Btw I've recently started meditating myself. Very calming. I'll let you know when I meet God!

I will ask my TA for you the link so you can read more about it...

[Max Mosley 2]

Really!!!???? OK.

I thought you were a much more moderate thinker then you have demonstrated on this topic. I am a little suprised.

My views are perfectly moderate. It doesn't really surprise me that you disagree though. If you've been going to Church for a while you have no doubt been mislead like most Christians around the world.

I will ask my TA for you the link so you can read more about it...

Cheers. I'm interested. I'm quite drawn to Buddhism actually, or maybe some extremely non-literal interpretation of Christianity. Maybe my meditation will take me there!

[Schumikonen 2]

If I understand you correctly, I think that is well said. Science doesn't argue against God, though. Many scientists are religious. Btw what parts of the Bible are incorrect in your view? And why do you think they are?

I know that science doesn't argue against God but some science believers can't help to try to deny God existence which not a very scientific act and I wonder why they have to do it?

About you question of the bible, there are many kind of books in the bible, there historic books, poetics books, prophetics books, there are letters who were sent to someone and others kind of books, there are many reason why thoses books are there, the most important one is who wrote that piece of the bible (like the letters from Paul) there are many things in the bible that we can call mistakes when they are not real mistakes, for example there are books written by people who were at a cretain time in a different country like Babilon and that person wrote about something that happended using the measuring unit for Babilon and then another person related the same event using Hebrow's measuring unit and makes it look like a mistake but when you know this you find out that they are not, another exmaple is when thoses writers are counting people they count men but numbers are different because in different countries at that time boys became men at a different age, for Jews that age was 13 years and for women was 12.5 years, today some countries still have the same rule and that is why we see in the news that "kids" are fighting in war but for them thoses "kids" are adults.

Anyway there are some things in the bible that even for me are difficult to understand for now I call it "Mitakes" because I don't have an explanation for them, there are people who sustain there are no mistake in the bible, I don't think so, I honestly haven't try to an explanation for everything in the bible because given all the kind of books there in the bible I have no problem knowing there could be some wrong information but eventhough I think there could be a reason why they are there.

[Jean Todt 4]

I know that science doesn't argue against God but some science believers can't help to try to deny God existence which not a very scientific act and I wonder why they have to do it?

About you question of the bible, there are many kind of books in the bible, there historic books, poetics books, prophetics books, there are letters who were sent to someone and others kind of books, there are many reason why thoses books are there, the most important one is who wrote that piece of the bible (like the letters from Paul) there are many things in the bible that we can call mistakes when they are not real mistakes, for example there are books written by people who were at a cretain time in a different country like Babilon and that person wrote about something that happended using the measuring unit for Babilon and then another person related the same event using Hebrow's measuring unit and makes it look like a mistake but when you know this you find out that they are not, another exmaple is when thoses writers are counting people they count men but numbers are different because in different countries at that time boys became men at a different age, for Jews that age was 13 years and for women was 12.5 years, today some countries still have the same rule and that is why we see in the news that "kids" are fighting in war but for them thoses "kids" are adults.

Anyway there are some things in the bible that even for me are difficult to understand for now I call it "Mitakes" because I don't have an explanation for them, there are people who sustain there are no mistake in the bible, I don't think so, I honestly haven't try to an explanation for everything in the bible because given all the kind of books there in the bible I have no problem knowing there could be some wrong information but eventhough I think there could be a reason why they are there.

I understand the mistakes. According to us Muslims, the real Bible is not flawed, but people who wrote it made mistakes. One of the mistakes made was simply translating it to another language which can change the meanings. When translating it the author or the writer has to mention everything, like the reasons, the time etc right next to each and every sentence. I have read the English version of the bible, though I have no right to point out the mistakes nor the knowledge, I have noticed that it was written only in English.

[HandyNZL 1]

I understand the mistakes. According to us Muslims, the real Bible is not flawed, but people who wrote it made mistakes. One of the mistakes made was simply translating it to another language which can change the meanings. When translating it the author or the writer has to mention everything, like the reasons, the time etc right next to each and every sentence. I have read the English version of the bible, though I have no right to point out the mistakes nor the knowledge, I have noticed that it was written only in English.

Wasn't it written in Latin?

[maure 1]

I had my own experience with God even when I was an atheist, that convince me that I must not only trust in my knowledge, I can convince anyone (without an experience like mine) that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I already said it but the are people who doesn't believe in God because of me and now that I am sure there is a God I can not change their mine, they don't accept what I say now but they did it when I was an atheist, God just can not be demostrated maybe because we don't have enough knowledge, maybe science one day will be able to find God that is if humankind last that long, there are plenty of thing that science discovered, they were not known but still were there and there are many things yet to be discovered and they are there, science don't have a single reason to deny God existence, science can say that certain religion is wrong or that the bible is incorrect in this or that point but science can not deny God and i know that science have every right to try to explain all thing without taking God into consideration maybe that is the best thing to do, but about evolution not everything is explained, not everything fit, not everything is in place so meanwhile we can not take it for granted, I know there was an evolution but we don't know it happened and why it happended we still need find a lot more things about this topic to be completely sure that it happended by all itself which the point that I don't accept but I am willing to as far as it can be completely understood.

If science (or else) were to prove the existence of god, faith would become irrelevant. Religion is based on believing the unknowable.

A friend told me once that he had collected all characteristics of god that he could find on the bible (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc) and went to search for an actual "thing" that had all these properties. He came up with Nature. It is our creator, it is everywhere, etc, etc. When he put this to christians, he met violence. To his surprise, the complains were not to his thinking but to the idea that god could be something tangible and knowable.

Hmmm Evolution is still a theory. A cross link has yet to be discovered. That is an undeniable truth. Since science must be based on truth, we should remember this fact, otherwise science becomes a religion.

You continue to make the same mistake. That something is wrong does not prove that something else is right.

For example, every so often a plane crashes due to pilot error... should we conclude that pilots need to be replaced by priests?

Religion and science are two different things and when any one of the two infringes in the domain of the other... you get nonsense. You need to stop thinking that creationism _needs_ to make scientific sense and have a little more faith.... assaulting science in order to substain your faith is only going to get you into trouble.

[HandyNZL 1]

Hmmm Religion is still a theory.

[YHR 0]

If science (or else) were to prove the existence of god, faith would become irrelevant. Religion is based on believing the unknowable.

A friend told me once that he had collected all characteristics of god that he could find on the bible (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc) and went to search for an actual "thing" that had all these properties. He came up with Nature. It is our creator, it is everywhere, etc, etc. When he put this to christians, he met violence. To his surprise, the complains were not to his thinking but to the idea that god could be something tangible and knowable.

You continue to make the same mistake. That something is wrong does not prove that something else is right.

For example, every so often a plane crashes due to pilot error... should we conclude that pilots need to be replaced by priests?

Religion and science are two different things and when any one of the two infringes in the domain of the other... you get nonsense. You need to stop thinking that creationism _needs_ to make scientific sense and have a little more faith.... assaulting science in order to substain your faith is only going to get you into trouble.

Nature is not omniscient, nor is it omnipotent.

Science and religion are compatible. I have no need or desire to attack science. Science is a wonderful world of exploration and discovery, and nothing that has been discovered so far has shaken my faith.

The way I see it, there are only two choices.. either we happened to be here by accident, or an intelligence created us. Is there any other alternative that I am not aware of? Since evolution is too mathematically improbable to have occurred, even in the supposed billions of years that the universe has been here, that leaves the other option, which is intelligent design. We know so much more about biology now than Darwin did in the 1700s. They didn't even have the ability to see the inner workings and structures of the cell back then. Now that we have electron microscopes and we can see how complex life is, we can begin to realize that this stuff didn't happen by accident. Even Darwin admitted that the structure of the eye was something that he couldn't explain, and that unless someone could come up with an explanation for how all the necessary parts could just happen to evolve at the same time, to make a working eye (remember, it has to be a survival advantage in order to promote natural selection or survival of the fittest), then he stated that his theory had serious flaws. Try googling "irreducible complexity". And also look up "microevolution vs. macroevolution". I think that some folks just want to accept any explanation as long as it's not God, so the Evolution theory with all its problems and lack of crucial evidence, has become the religion of choice for these folks. Unfortunately it is taught right from elementary school and up through university as fact, and most folks never think to question the validity of this. I don't understand why some people have this strong aversion to the idea of God. By their reaction, it seems like a stronger reaction than is warranted. Why should an atheist care if a Christian believes in God?

Back to the topic of probability of life occurring on it's own.. Let's say you were taking a stroll through the dessert, and suddenly you came upon a computer running a program, out in the middle of a sand dune. Would you think it randomly assembled itself over billions of years from the minerals in the sand? The program is obviously information that exists in a certain order for a certain purpose and instructs the computer how to function. (like DNA?). Where did the energy come from to run the computer. Who turned it on? How did the parts assemble themselves into circuit boards, with special circuits for different functions? Everywhere else in science, when we see "information" we assume intelligence. For example, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scans radio emissions from outer space and analyzes them for any pattern that could indicate intelligence, and if they ever find something that meets this criteria, they will have no doubt that ET is sending a message. And yet right under our noses we have the DNA molecule which is a hugely complex program that instructs incredibly complex living organisms how to develop and function, and we think that this information (millions of genes) came together by accident? That's like Microsoft Windows happening by accident.

I think there is more scientific evidence that supports creation and God, than there is to support evolution. I wish that everyone would spend a bit of time investigating this honestly and with an open mind. It's too bad that most people spend more time pricing out the best insurance policy than they spend investigating their eternity.

I am new to Christianity, and what got me asking questions initially was the mathematical improbability of things coming together by chance, therefore, I with an open mind, I looked for other explanations for my existence.

IF you want to humor me read the following site.

www.allaboutthejourney.org

[HandyNZL 1]

That's like Microsoft Windows happening by accident.

After all the bugs, crashes, fixes, patches, freezes and all-around-f-up's, you've come to the conclusion Windows wasn't an accident?

[cavallino 2]

The way I see it, there are only two choices.. either we happened to be here by accident, or an intelligence created us.

And who created that intelligence? With that hypothesis you've answered nothing and created an entity that we cannot perceive in any way.

[pabloh20 1]

My views are perfectly moderate. It doesn't really surprise me that you disagree though. If you've been going to Church for a while you have no doubt been mislead like most Christians around the world.

Indeed. Obviously only easily mis-lead people, 'sheep', if you will, can be Christians

[Schumikonen 2]

I understand the mistakes. According to us Muslims, the real Bible is not flawed, but people who wrote it made mistakes. One of the mistakes made was simply translating it to another language which can change the meanings. When translating it the author or the writer has to mention everything, like the reasons, the time etc right next to each and every sentence. I have read the English version of the bible, though I have no right to point out the mistakes nor the knowledge, I have noticed that it was written only in English.

there are many of thoses tanslation mistakes, that is why there are several groups who are continually improving translations of the bible and adapting the bible to changes in todays languages because even when we don't notice it actual languages are continually evolving and sometimes words change their meaning like the word "Necio" in spanish that is a very common word in my country and is used for a person that is constantly moving and bothering others but teh bible says if you call "necio" to you brother you will have topay for it, obvioulsy that word meant another thing at that time.

[Schumikonen 2]

Wasn't it written in Latin?

AT was written in Hebrew and NT in Greek, translators say that when the bible is translated from the original language to any other the original meaning loose power, and I think that refers to the imposibility to translate word for word, I sometimes can not find a way to say something in english becase in spanish is very different and if I write word for word it would just not make sense, so you can translate the whole idea but not the exact passage word for word, sometimes this lead to thoses translation mistakes because different translators can havea different opinion or understanding of thoses difficult to translate passages.