Why hasn't the world come to an end and where is Jesus?

Jan 3, 2001

Come get my 2 years worth of anthropology books.
That ARE consistantly updated and researched.
I personally have not seen too many RECENT developments of christianity.
What solid ground are religion based on?
I bet russian history books say that God came down and touched the KGB with a holy light and blessed them for all time.
And do you see how inbreeding is bad?
IF we started with 2 people. And they begot kids, and they begot..
etc etc. Would the population eventually dwindle, because of the genetic defects that have PROVEN to come about, become evident?
Who is everyone else worshipping? if there is only one god.
Would not god make his creations worship him?
I don't see how anyone can follow that religion and take themselves seriously.

Jalapeno · Jan 3, 2001

OK,

lets go back aboot 2.000 years or so and see what happened then: Some guy startet a sect, slowly progressing into a cult, which is defined as follows:

"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader".

I would like to stress the words "authoritarian" and "charismatic".

For all we know mankind got conned into religious believs by guys who knew how to lead the "masses".

Heck, for me there is nothing more spiritual than just being being out in nature, listening to the winds, looking up in the skies, adoring the wonder of life itself in all its miniscule and grand magic...

Everything around us took billions of years to come to this point - I just hope stupid us won't destroy it.

Warpo · Jan 3, 2001

Christianity should have an 'Inc.' at the end of it, as it is only a monopolistic business.

~zonker~ · Jan 3, 2001

Jalapeno.. who are you talking about?

Authoritarian? Jesus made lots of promises to those who will follow Him, but forced no one, including you...

Charismatic? Jesus' own people traded His life for that of Barabas, a notorios prisioner... Execute Him! they told the state...

SammySon

Come and take a look at 500 years of Biblical criticizim. The theories and conclusions are constantly changing. Christian Theology is not static...

Jews and Christians and Muslims base their 'religions' on the same God, with more texts considered foundational in each case (NT added for Christians, Koran added for Muslims)

Moonbeam

I tend to agree that fundamentalist Christianity has a penchant for obfuscating scientific reasoning. Perhaps what they lose is the foundation of their faith, which may be misguided. I would note however that perhaps a majority of Christians do not see a conflict between the ever changing theories of human evolution, which you would call fact, and the understanding of their diety.

BoberFett · Jan 3, 2001

LOL, this is good stuff. It's why scientists amuse me so.

<< gravtrons. scientists and nasa are working to get a confirmed detection of them as we type >>

<< Gravitons. They are still looking for that little ah heck of a particle. They found gravity waves which indicate that gravitons probably exist, we just haven't figured out how to find them yet. The person that proves them will get a nobel prize... >>

So people are still trying to determine that a particle that we dubbed the "graviton" exists, but the two of you are sure that they do exist before that proof exists. Sounds highly scientific.

I have a theory stating that the center of the earth is not molten rock as many believe, but is in fact a large hunk of chocolate filled with creamy nougat. I have no proof of this theory yet, but someday I might. And until such time as either my theory is proven or disproven, we'll just assume it's an indisputable fact.

Haha, scientists are so self-righteous it's funny.

Moonbeam · Jan 3, 2001

Bober, the difference between science and nougat thinking is that the mass of a hypothetical iron core fits the known and measurable gravitational constant where as the nougat theory attracts only candy asses.

The reason that some are, so called, 'sure' that gravitrons exist is that the theory that predicts them explains everything predicted and checked out as true. In other words, the theory works. The overwhealming preponderence of evolutionary theory does the same for minds unclouded by a pre intention to reject.

If you think scientists are arogant now just wait till we reach stage 4 civilization and become just like the Q. We're gonna be hard to keep down on the farm.

Zonker, I couldn't agree more with the point you make to me. The truth of evolution has no bearing what so ever on the existence of God. I think that 'God' is the word some use for a psychological experience, a transformative revelation that in most cases lies dormant in the psyche of man. Its realization should be our real purpose and aim. It was the original aim of every religion.

There is nothing sadder to me than to see blind idiots demand that the price of entry into this mystery is a belief in this or that dictum or textual literality. The door is open to all including the atheist because the path is the freeing of the chains of fear that bind and keep the heart from love.

Elledan · Jan 3, 2001

<<Perhaps there are other things in this vast universe we haven't yet figured out where or how to look for. Our science is still quite primitive.

So you want to tell us that religion isn't primitive? Let me tell you one thing: science is making progress, religion doesn't, unless their god(s) contact them, which is very unlikely.

Fuzzmuncher · Jan 3, 2001

Good point. I'm personally not religious, but have enough family that is to knw exactly what they would say to that..... religion is about the spiritual progress of each individual.

Czar · Jan 3, 2001

apoppin
The giraffe example is absurd. If a certain animal "needed" a longer neck to survive, then why do we have giraffes and short necked animals both living in the same area (both superbly fit to survive)?

The giraffs can eat the leaves at the top of the trees, no other animals does that, the rest have to eat grass and "shruberies" (love that word). If you are the only species eating a certain type of food that no other animals can get, then I´d call that very much survival of the fittest.

Evolution is absolutely not proven or we would not be having this debate

Evolution has been proven so often, if religios people wouldnt be so damn closed minded then we wouldnt be having this debate.

The fossil record does not support gradual transitions from one major group to another.

whoopsi, why do we have dinosours with feathers and wings? And why do we actually have dinosours? they are much older than the world "you" live in.

One last questions to belivers....

... how in the world can you base your world on a "single" book written "1500" years ago by about 20-30 "normal" people like you and me ??? These people lived at the science stage that was 1500 years ago, that book has been translated so so many times that it cant be acurate. How come you can dismiss ideas of thousands of people living now that can give us logical reason why most things are and yet you belive what those very few people wrote 1500 years ago. That is not logic.

MrPALCO · Jan 3, 2001

<< That is not logic. >>

Logic is a second rate source upon which to build a foundation. It is like wet sand.

Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure.

Dedpuhl · Jan 3, 2001

Structure based on blind faith? I'll take logic anyday...

rahvin · Jan 3, 2001

<<So people are still trying to determine that a particle that we dubbed the "graviton" exists, but the two of you are sure that they do exist before that proof exists. Sounds highly scientific.

I have a theory stating that the center of the earth is not molten rock as many believe, but is in fact a large hunk of chocolate filled with creamy nougat. I have no proof of this theory yet, but someday I might. And until such time as either my theory is proven or disproven, we'll just assume it's an indisputable fact.>>

What you may not understand is that even though they have no direct proof of a graviton the theory that exposes them has been around for years and has numerous other proofs supporting it. Let me give you an example, A couple hundered years ago a couple brilliant chemists created a table of elements. On this table of elements they had approximately 80 elements. At the time there were only ~30 known elements. Not only did they define these "unknown" elements but they described them (color, what they would react with, where they were most likely to be found). How can they define something they have never seen? Because they had a mathmatical theory of how the atom behaved. One of the validations of Bohr's model of the atoms was finding all those elements. Guess what, Bohr wasn't entirely right, they have refined the oringal theory since, but for all intensive purposes you can assume the Bohr model and be very very close.

As for the theory that predicts gravitons, it predicts a lot of other behavior that has been confirmed. Finding gravitons would cinch the theory and silence some debate and focus science further. But most scientists believe the graviton is just a matter of time. The big reason to find it is that studying that actual partical will give more information than the theory alone can provide.

<<Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure.>>

Not always true. In earthquake zones it is almost always better to be unconnected to bed rock because of the damping effect of the soils. In fact, the only exception to this would be liquifaction zones and specific layer pattens (usually found in old lake beds) that amplify the waves.

apoppin · Jan 3, 2001

Yes, the giraffe example IS absurd. What happened between the time their neck started to grow and finally got to their current heighth? Were the trees much shorter then and grew with the giraffe? If the giraffe is an example of "survival of the fittest", then so are the short-necked grazing animals which live right alongside the griaffe.

Evolution has NOT been proven or we would not be having this debate.

Winged and featherd dinosaurs can be explained as one kind of species without saying they are transitional to another species. The fossil record does not support "transitional" or intermediate species as the evolutionary theory predicts.

Regarding that single book - the Bible - Czar, you are woefully ignorant.

Now for evolutionists . . .

Please "scientifically" explain how life originated from non-living matter. And why scientists have never - even under "ideal" circumstances been able to replicate it.

Athanasius · Jan 3, 2001

Dedpuhl:

You never responded to my previous post(1/2/01, 12:19 p.m.). I'm hurt

(j/k)

Is "logic" purely the result of chemical reactions in the brain? Or can thought transcend chemically driven temperment?

Should we presuppose the value of logic?

Czar · Jan 3, 2001

apoppin

So a apple is totaly different than a appletree?, you see the apple could be just another "species" than the tree. Do you realy want frame by frame transition from one speacies to the next, is that what it takes to convince you?... still you blindly belive anything that is written in a single book.

Regarding that single book - the Bible - Czar, you are woefully ignorant.
Could you show some brains and explain what you mean by this? this is how arguments start to go into name callings, thats not what I´m here for, I´m not in kindergarden like some.

Please "scientifically" explain how life originated from non-living matter. And why scientists have never - even under "ideal" circumstances been able to replicate it.
To me, in theory, living organisms and minerals have allways existed, so nothing evolved from one to the other.

Tell me then one thing, if god created men in his own image and created earth so men could live there, then why the hell did he bother to create other solar systems, other galaxies and everything else?

MrPALCO · Jan 3, 2001

<< Structure based on blind faith? I'll take logic anyday... >>

Those were not the words I used...I will repeat them accurately:

"Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure".

rahvin · Jan 3, 2001

<<Evolution has NOT been proven or we would not be having this debate.>>

Oh contraire! Some ostriches like to keep their heads in the sand.

<<Winged and featherd dinosaurs can be explained as one kind of species without saying they are transitional to another species. The fossil record does not support "transitional" or intermediate species as the evolutionary theory predicts.>>

And just how much do you actually know about the fossil record. Let me test your knowledge what is a fossil?

apoppin · Jan 3, 2001

Woefully ignorant.

I didn't realize you were so sensitive, Czar.

Is this "name calling"? Is it any different than "blindly believe" or worse "show some brains".

You ARE ignorant of the Bible as shown by your posts about it:

<<ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
adj.

Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.>>

I did NOT say stupid.

apoppin · Jan 3, 2001

<<Do you realy want frame by frame transition from one speacies to the next, ...>>

How about some real evidence of "transition" from just ONE species to ANOTHER. After more than a century of collecting fossils of MANY species, we still do not have those missing links the evolutionary theory predicts. We do have, however, lots of speculation and conjecture.

<<To me, in theory, living organisms and minerals have allways existed, so nothing evolved from one to the other.>>

Always existed? We know the planet earth formed billions of years ago and life is a recent occurance. According to you,
something evolved.

<<Tell me then one thing, if god created men in his own image and created earth so men could live there, then why the hell did he bother to create other solar systems, other galaxies and everything else?>>

What does this have to do with anything else? I do not presume to know; the Bible does not give details of this only hints.

<<And just how much do you actually know about the fossil record. Let me test your knowledge what is a fossil?>>

Don't patronize me, rahvin. You certainly have given no evidence to support your theory.

rahvin · Jan 3, 2001

<<<<And just how much do you actually know about the fossil record. Let me test your knowledge what is a fossil?>>

Don't patronize me, rahvin. You certainly have given no evidence to support your theory.>>

What is my theory you are refering to? (I'm not really aware I had a theory) You deny the existence of transitional fossils, tell me what a fossil is. DEFINE it.

Czar · Jan 3, 2001

apoppin

A good argument is supposed to be about facts meeting facts, or ideas meeting ideas, this is how it works. Namecalling is when someone states something about someone and then just doesnt explain anything, this is what you did. Just get your head out of the sand and look at the bigger picture for once.

Always existed? We know the planet earth formed billions of years ago and life is a recent occurance. According to you, something evolved.

Let me explain this to you, life only came to this planet not so long ago, life is out there and allways has been. The few cells that came here evolved into various animals and plants. You know that mushrooms did not evolve from that source like the rest but instead they came "from space" as spores and settled down here.

What does this have to do with anything else? I do not presume to know; the Bible does not give details of this only hints

If you say that, then why can you say god created earth, if its only a hint. How can you say anything about this if your only source is only a "hint" to the real truth. Hints can lead you away from the truth, like I said, look at the bigger picture.

<<And just how much do you actually know about the fossil record. Let me test your knowledge what is a fossil?>>

Don't patronize me, rahvin. You certainly have given no evidence to support your theory.

Why dont you just answear him?, he asks you a question and you just dismiss it, just like you have dismissed every single little bit of facts us "evolutionists" have brought up. You on the other hand havent shown any facts, and not even any theories that have some base behind them.

MrPALCO · Jan 3, 2001

<< Gravitons. They are still looking for that little ah heck of a particle. They found gravity waves which indicate that gravitons probably exist, we just haven't figured out how to find them yet. The person that proves them will get a nobel prize... >>

You are looking in the Physical realm...your senses will not "see" this particle.

I asked a Man about this, here is what came out of his mouth:

"Gravitons' are operated and under the command of the upper realm."

The device used to command, is called...Word.

ArkAoss · Jan 3, 2001

oh this has gotten deep, i dunno, i can teach my dog logic, i can teach a machine logic, trial and error its not, but say this : there are 3 people. bob, sandy, and robert
bob is not a child
there is one child in the group
sandy has red hair
so thus from those clues::
child | redhead | nerd
bob xxxx | xxxxxxx |
sandy xxxxx | | xxxx
robert | xxxxxxxx |xxxxx

thus rob is the child beacuse sandy is the red head stated in the logic clue
and bob isn't the child and since we know bob isnt the child and sandy is definitly the redhead, the only option left is the nerd. my phone can learn logic, i can teach a stick logic

hold stick parallel to ground hold other stick below that one perpendicluar to it but still parallel to ground, on the left hand end of the first stick. the top stick, when dropped will fall, and hit the lower stick thus forcing it LOgically to rotate, and if your all imagining this the way i am it will begin to rotate clokcwise. i forced a dumb stick to learn logic. thus i wouldn't base my beliefs on logic, i find blind faith more trustworthy than that. .

MrPALCO · Jan 3, 2001

<< <<Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure.>>

Not always true. In earthquake zones it is almost always better to be unconnected to bed rock because of the damping effect of the soils. In fact, the only exception to this would be liquifaction zones and specific layer pattens (usually found in old lake beds) that amplify the waves. >>

If you find you have begun the Structure in an earthquake zone, fear not, a Man will help you begin again.

Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure.

rahvin · Jan 3, 2001

<<If you find you have begun the Structure in an earthquake zone, fear not, a Man will help you begin again.

Bed Rock is the best place to begin the Structure.>>

Again I will tell you that this isn't always true and in most cases the costs are prohibitive. In a world with proper engineering and knowledge there is no need for bedrock in any structure.

Why hasn't the world come to an end and where is Jesus?

Senior member

Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Banned

Platinum Member

Lifer

Banned

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Senior member

Lifer

Banned

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Banned

Banned

Banned

Elite Member