To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Absolute prof of Creation/intelegent design
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3

Your fellow human (yfh)
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Click the link then listen to the public speech.
I find it much easier then reading. wink.gif

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".

Every single member of this forum would do well to listen and understand this speech. Alot of questions finaly get answered here.

I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif
Upisoft
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Read this. You may also start to believe that the Earth is center of the Universe.
grendle
An interesting lecture

Some of it is out of date and undermines some of his points ( Hawking as changed his mind about some things as well. ) If he were to make the speech today he would have to do it differently if he's going to be honest.

Most of it is simply the discussion of why all the factors in the universe are the just what is needed for the universe we see and us to exist. I'm not fond of the anthropic principle but it's a perfectly good answer to 80% of his speech.

In several areas he demonstrates that just because you have a doctorate in one field of science, you can be as ignorant as anyone off the street outside your field ( maybe more so, since the guy on the street is often more willing to admit ignorance. ) He doesn't seem to have published that much, and what I can find is not exactly on anyting major. The last is almost 30 years old as well. He has spent much more time and effort as leading his scientific faith organization than in doing science. The speech linked to was almost a decade after his last peer reviewed scientific paper. ) It should also be pointed out he makes his living selling books and giving talks to his particular following, there is a possibility of conflict of interest there. In otherwords his scientific credentials are , to say the least, not ironclad.

Some of the speech is a very good example of how a religious person can reconcile scientific discoveries with his particular faith. though he does display some rather disturbing hints of intolerance in what seems to be his assertain that science proves that christianity is the only true faith. It of course does no such thing.

Interestingly, there seems to be a very venomous response to him from the ( for lack of a better term ) creationist community. Seems even the accomodations he makes are upsetting to many of them. I detect not so much a disagreement over principles as a turf war over who controls the minds, hearts and yes, wallets of the "true believers."

Anyway, just a few nitpicks about his speech:


QUOTE
Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”

The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and,


His conclsion does not follow.

Taking his quotations at face value, all it says is that God is not restricted or limited by time. It does not say Gog created it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”

The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and,


His conclsion does not follow.

Taking his quotations at face value, all it says is that God is not restricted or limited by time. It does not say Gog created it.

As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. But through his contacts with certain Christians like his wife Jane, who's an Anglican, as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.

Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning


This is incorrect. Even though the gentlemen in question may be brilliant physicists but they are not comparative anthropoligists. Their knoweldge of world religions has gaps.

QUOTE
Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution

That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory.



Darwinian evolution does not depend upon a static universe... it depends on there being a very long period of time.

That this long period of time exists was demonstrated by the new science of geology and by religious scholars that were unable to reconcile a strict reading of the bible with the world about them ( remember 250 years ago the prevailing view was that the world was created in 4004 bc and that the various rock layers were sediments layn down by the flood of Noah. ) As the author of the speech later points out, the idea of a young universe is the result of a mistranslation from the hebrew.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution

That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory.



Darwinian evolution does not depend upon a static universe... it depends on there being a very long period of time.

That this long period of time exists was demonstrated by the new science of geology and by religious scholars that were unable to reconcile a strict reading of the bible with the world about them ( remember 250 years ago the prevailing view was that the world was created in 4004 bc and that the various rock layers were sediments layn down by the flood of Noah. ) As the author of the speech later points out, the idea of a young universe is the result of a mistranslation from the hebrew.

In fact it's worse than that. We're confined to half of a line of time. Time, for us, is a line that goes forward only. Have you ever noticed that you cannot stop or reverse the arrow of time? No matter what you do, it just keeps going forward in one direction.

Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that's it. It's the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God.


Again, this does not follow and he does not otherwise support this assertion. That an entity limited to one way travel on a timeline has a beginning or start is logically correct. That the entity was created by another may be true, or it may not. The answers are not linked.

Similarily, though he explains why it is thought "everything" space time matter energy has a beginning, his assertion that because there was a beginning there must be a creator is just that, an assertion.

QUOTE
We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).



Time has a begining, but it may not have an end, and thus may be infinite. Of course this is an old speech, and at teh time it was still considered a sure thing that the universe would one day stop expanding and collapse.

Unfortunately for him in the last 10 years Astrophysicists like Dr Ross have found evidence that universe is in fact accelerating it's expansion.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).



Time has a begining, but it may not have an end, and thus may be infinite. Of course this is an old speech, and at teh time it was still considered a sure thing that the universe would one day stop expanding and collapse.

Unfortunately for him in the last 10 years Astrophysicists like Dr Ross have found evidence that universe is in fact accelerating it's expansion.

Peculiarities in the Fossil Record

All we have is evidence that a certain species exists for a certain period of time without significant change, which then goes extinct to be replaced at a different time with a radically different species, with no connection from the previous species to the next one.



This is simply wrong. But he's an astrophysicist, not a paleontologist. He has as much or as little credibility in this regard as does an accountant. Remember, just because someone knows a lot about some aspects of science, doesn't mean they aren't just as ingnorant as the next guy when outside their field of expertise.

QUOTE
The equations of General Relativity guarantee that we will never discover another universe. God may have created two, but we'll never know about it because the equations of General Relativity tell us that the Space-Time manifold of universe A will never overlap the space-time manifold of universe B.

Other Universes? No Way to Know

That means we will be forever ignorant about the possibility of other universes, because the sample size will always be one. Therefore, the appeal to infinite chances rather than to the God of the Bible is the gambler's fallacy.



The equations of General Relativity, fond as I am of them, are only our best understanding at the moment. Things might change. Unless you take the semantic approach that any universe we can interact with is part of this universe and not really seperate he can't use general relativity to say we will never know.

Secondly, what he calls the 'gamblers falacy' may be that. or it may not. It doesn't mean his prefered answer is the correct one, just that he prefers it.


grendle
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 14 2006, 08:55 PM)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Read this. You may also start to believe that the Earth is center of the Universe.

It is the center of the observable universe... of course the catch is that anywhere you observe from is the centre of the observeable universe. Just like a rainbow is always centered on your head.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 02:27 AM)

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".
I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif


Hi yfh!

Well...does this mean you have now left "reason" behind?

For if it is "reasoned conviction" that is "back", then there's no problem...and you have all respect from me.

But if it IS merely "faith", then there's no room for "reasoned conviction" in your new/returned perspective...as it would then represent a contradiction in terms/concept and in your supposedly "faithful" stance.....which would mean you HAVE now left "reason" behind.

Just thought I would make that observation for the sake of completeness, yfh. Good luck!

RC.
.
sinned34
QUOTE
I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe.


Wow, the speech starts off with one completely incorrect correlation: that Albert Einstein believed in a personal god. The way the speaker puts it also causes the listener to allude to the false idea that Albert Einstein also believed the divinity of Jesus.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe.


Wow, the speech starts off with one completely incorrect correlation: that Albert Einstein believed in a personal god. The way the speaker puts it also causes the listener to allude to the false idea that Albert Einstein also believed the divinity of Jesus.

Four well-known physical constants with positive values, yet there's a minus sign in front. That immediately tells us that the entire universe experiences negative acceleration. The universe is decelerating.


Except that we find the universe is actually accelerating, and it has accelerated & decelerated a couple of times.

QUOTE
Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.


That's a huge leap in logic. And if the universe must have a beginner, then God must have a beginner, hence the existence of God's Parents, who created the spiritual plane that God exists upon, who created etc, etc. It's turtles all the way down!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.


That's a huge leap in logic. And if the universe must have a beginner, then God must have a beginner, hence the existence of God's Parents, who created the spiritual plane that God exists upon, who created etc, etc. It's turtles all the way down!

Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning


Wow, THERE'S a bold and completely false statement! As well, the logic here doesn't stand up, since there are other religions that explain certain parts of creation better than the bible does, so that proves judeo-christianity is false! But hey, just like followers of astrology, these people only remember the successes and ignore the failures.

QUOTE
Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that's it. It's the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God.


You're kidding me, right? This "creative logic" might work on junior high children, but we're adults here.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that's it. It's the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God.


You're kidding me, right? This "creative logic" might work on junior high children, but we're adults here.

But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.


So now the bible is as trustworthy as General Relativity? I must have misread the textbook requirements for physics class...

QUOTE
God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time.


I'm sorry, are there some actual mathematical calculations that prove this? Any experiments that can falsify this statement? How about some proof that isn't merely a modern twist on an ancient fairy tale?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time.


I'm sorry, are there some actual mathematical calculations that prove this? Any experiments that can falsify this statement? How about some proof that isn't merely a modern twist on an ancient fairy tale?

The Bible is the only Holy book that makes that statement about God.


Okay, they're gonna keep running with this fallacy of logic. At least they could have warned me that they were going to make all these mistakes to begin with.

QUOTE
The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants


Yawn. This entire chapter is a mere rehash of the false logic that the universe is too perfectly "tweaked" to have happened by chance. It completely ignores the argument that if the universe didn't work that way, we wouldn't be here to fight about it. The author doesn't note anything new or interesting here that would make this ancient argument any more interesting.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants


Yawn. This entire chapter is a mere rehash of the false logic that the universe is too perfectly "tweaked" to have happened by chance. It completely ignores the argument that if the universe didn't work that way, we wouldn't be here to fight about it. The author doesn't note anything new or interesting here that would make this ancient argument any more interesting.

If the universe is fine-tuned in one part to the 10 to the 37th power, one part in 10 to the 40th power and one part in 10 to the 55th power on three different characteristics, then that tells us that God must be personal; that He's not only transcendent, he's personal!


Another leap across the chasm of logic: if god seems so focused on such seemingly insignificant details, then this tells us that my wife is god - I guess I'd better pick up some flowers on the way home!

QUOTE
Because only a person is capable of fine-tuning to the degree that we've observed, and that person must be orders of magnitude more intelligent and creative than we human beings. One hundred trillion times more intelligent and creative than we human beings, just based on that one characteristic. But he's also creative and loving.


Creative? Loving? Are these aspects mathematically quantifiable? Do we have a method of measuring which parts of the universe were crafted more lovingly? Which parts are more creative? Or is this just more biased crap to attempt to make this cold, massive cosmos we inhabit look more like an episode of Leave It To Beaver?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Because only a person is capable of fine-tuning to the degree that we've observed, and that person must be orders of magnitude more intelligent and creative than we human beings. One hundred trillion times more intelligent and creative than we human beings, just based on that one characteristic. But he's also creative and loving.


Creative? Loving? Are these aspects mathematically quantifiable? Do we have a method of measuring which parts of the universe were crafted more lovingly? Which parts are more creative? Or is this just more biased crap to attempt to make this cold, massive cosmos we inhabit look more like an episode of Leave It To Beaver?

What does this tell me about the Creator? That God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building one hundred billion stars and carefully shaped and crafted those hundred billion trillion stars for the entire age of the universe, so that for this brief moment in time, we could have a nice place to live.

It's the same logic that my five and eight year old sons use on me. They measure my love for them by how much money I spend on the gifts that I buy for them. We can use the same kind of logic to draw the conclusion that the God who created the universe must love we human beings very much, given how much he spent on our behalf.


Here we have the evidence we need to prove.... what? God loves a free market system? I asked god for a new computer for Christmas and all I got was a complaint that he made the universe for me, what the hell else do I need. Then he got all indignant when I told him what Vishnu got my friend Somnan for his birthday.

QUOTE
A Trillion Galaxies - but as far as physicists know, only ours can support life


Okay, that's enough. Any time some Jim Jones wannabe makes some kind of COMPLETELY fantastic comment like that, just walk away. Thus, I refuse to even go PAST this point in this ridiculous monologue. I don't need any more evidence to prove that this speaker read a couple of articles in discover and grabbed whatever he felt strengthened his faith, then made up whatever logic he needed in order to stitch together this Frankensteinesque argument. He hasn't convinced me that god exists. Instead, his comments about "half" time-line existence made me realize I won't get back the precious minutes of my life that I would waste listening to the rest of this tripe.

Sorry YFH, this is just another pandering pile of garbage that does nothing but confirm the gullibility of people so desperate to believe in the god of the bible.
RealityCheck
Sinned34.

See what happens when people leave "reason" behind?...ANY old codswallop is likely to make "sense" to them, heh?

RC.
.
grendle
Just another note on the accuracy, or lack of it, in thise fellows position:

He makes a comment about florine being only made in certain stars and those stars only being found in the milky way, thus making an attempt to show we are a special creation.

First off, our galaxy has a fairly representative mix of stars. Yes, if you look at galaxies farther away you see a different mix. This is because you are seeing them at an earlier time.

Second, for a more accurate summary of the sources of florine and how it ends up in our toothpaste and us,

Fluorine in stars

Really, these are pretty unforgivable screw-ups . omissions from someone that is supposed to be an astrophysicist. ( Or so it says on the site with his speech. According to his degree he is an astronomer.. there is a difference. Of course the screw-ups areunforgivable for an astronomer too. )

While I applaud his assertion that belief and science can be reconciled he won't do it by ignoring scientific theory and and only cherry picking quotes to support his own particular variation of religion.
sinned34
RC:

The funny thing is seeing the same old arguments brought up repeatedly. It's like a Jehovah's Witness last week telling me about the NASA computer that found the "missing" time when god stopped the sun from moving around the earth in order to allow the Isrealites to complete the act of genocide he commanded them to. If there hadn't been snow on the ground I would have let myself fall over laughing. Needless to say, the JW left in such a hurry he even forgot to bestow a watchtower magazine upon me.

You'd think that religionists would come up with some new material from time to time, eh?
Your fellow human (yfh)
I need to share my pain:

I heard this speech today,
and hours later it was driving me mad.
I have spent many months of my life in meditation to develop wide principals of efficiency, whilst dealing with organic life. "Sin" [often] comes from weakness [for example]. Killing a "sinner" does not solve the complex source of his "sin", it just destroys the problem instead of fixing it. It is like shooting a person that you cannot answer the question to, right after he asks you the question.

So, you see, I have a very complete knowlage of the bible...
All of the tollerance and concervative-health-based-morality reasonings that caused me to stop believing in absolutist idealism/[relatively]suicidal-faith... These were being dethroned...

I have a very good understanding of my personal self and my judgement and my morals. When this speech re-awaked my old and weak biblical faith/beliefs... Basicly it wanted me to kill myself.

This inner character and values system actually wanted me to kill myself.
Do you know how it feels???... To have your reason systems judge you as death worthy?...

Thank you very much for critisizing this basterd.

Long ago I knew that reason ability is far more important then factual understanding. Knowlegde is what you [metally] have, but reason is how you used it. How sad it is when someone with a lot of knowlage twists it all for a selfish reason.

I deleted one of my old writings about spontaneims to...
I should re-write it!

I had spent many months writing 300+kb about "better" ways of thinking. It was all about focus on health, long term... Principals... Human need.
And after that old bible God thing came back...
I felt like all of my months of work were evil and wrong...
and I just felt like I needed to die...
I felt like everything that I believed in was dead wrong and like I needed to die...

Withing the ZJ philosophy, I had realized that it is a waste of mental energy to judge modern [variable] status as "good" or "bad" instead of focusing on how to improve it or deal with it better. This meant no more absolute morality or idealism or principal. This meant no more class destinction or "self image". It meant no more hate or pride...
And It was against God, because God is an absolutist and a [variable] modern status judge. Instead of fixing the DNA [which he invented] that genetic homosexuality came from, he would kill the homosexual "sinner". Instead of not letting a person die in the first place, God will let women [and even children] be raped, all humans die all kinds of deaths, then resurect and heal them?
And Jesus healed the sick, but God created viruses and bacteria and paracites in the first place!

Etc, etc... horrable conflicts within the mind...
were trying to cave it in on itself.

This *** who gave the speech was very persuasive.

I'm speechless.....
I am flabergasted.
Ok...
Thanks though, thank you! All of you!
Your critic here helped me a lot.
I felt so bad, and so insane and doomed, but then I came back to this thread and it was a cure. You really saved me some anguish!


QUOTE
Unfortunately for him in the last 10 years Astrophysicists like Dr Ross have found evidence that universe is in fact accelerating it's expansion.

This changes everything!...
newguy
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:44 AM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 02:27 AM)

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".
I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif


Hi yfh!

Well...does this mean you have now left "reason" behind?

For if it is "reasoned conviction" that is "back", then there's no problem...and you have all respect from me.

But if it IS merely "faith", then there's no room for "reasoned conviction" in your new/returned perspective...as it would then represent a contradiction in terms/concept and in your supposedly "faithful" stance.....which would mean you HAVE now left "reason" behind.

Just thought I would make that observation for the sake of completeness, yfh. Good luck!

RC.
.

RealityCheck: Sorry to single-out so many of your posts recently...it's just that lately you have been posting more things that are of interest to me than others. I'm curious about your perceived "contradiction" between "faith" and "reasoned conviction". I'm sure this example has been given before, but if I understand how the brakes on my Jeep or van work and I have a "reasoned conviction" that it is safe to drive using them, would it be a "contradiction" to say that I have "faith" in my Jeep's/van's brake system? I'm not playing with words...I just want to make sure that I am understanding your viewpoint correctly. There are several things within the Christian "faith" that I KNOW of a certainty. The main one is God Himself. I have also seen how many prophecies of the Bible have come to pass. KNOWING the faithfulness of God and SEEING how prophecies have come to pass, I can therefore have a "reasoned conviction" that other prophecies will come to pass as well or I can put my "faith" in them and the God that pronounced them. Does this sound "reasonable" to you? I admittedly have no way of KNOWING that the lake of fire is real, for example. However, since I do KNOW that Satan and demons are real from vast experience, and since the Bible states that the lake of fire was created as a place for Satan and demons, then I can have a "reasoned conviction" that such a place exists and find room in my "faith" for it. Along the same lines, I couldn't really say that I KNOW that heaven is real, as I've never actually been there myself. However, on the other hand, since I've prayed to God in heaven a vast multitude of times and had my prayers answered, shouldn't I be able to have a "reasoned conviction" that heaven exists and be able to make room for such a place within my "faith"? These are serious questions. As I said, I'm not playing with words. The main reason that I'm even asking these types of questions is because many, if not most, of the people on this forum use the word "faith" in a derogatory way/sense as if it was nothing more than some sort of "pipe dream", "wishful thinking" or "fairy tale". My "faith" does not match these erroneous "definitions/projections" of the word. My "faith" has MUCH "reasoned conviction" to support it. MUCH. Just curious about your further views on this very important topic. Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE
I admittedly have no way of KNOWING that the lake of fire is real, for example. However, since I do KNOW that Satan and demons are real from vast experience, and since the Bible states that the lake of fire was created as a place for Satan and demons, then I can have a "reasoned conviction" that such a place exists and find room in my "faith" for it.

Why did God create the lake of fire, Satan and the demons?

newguy, if you were God, would you create evil,
then condemn it?

The bible claims that God is all mighty and perfect.
If he could presisely balance the universe so that it was so stable,
and "loved" us so much that he made a planet that would be perfect for life,
we did he create weak and imperfect life on it?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I admittedly have no way of KNOWING that the lake of fire is real, for example. However, since I do KNOW that Satan and demons are real from vast experience, and since the Bible states that the lake of fire was created as a place for Satan and demons, then I can have a "reasoned conviction" that such a place exists and find room in my "faith" for it.

Why did God create the lake of fire, Satan and the demons?

newguy, if you were God, would you create evil,
then condemn it?

The bible claims that God is all mighty and perfect.
If he could presisely balance the universe so that it was so stable,
and "loved" us so much that he made a planet that would be perfect for life,
we did he create weak and imperfect life on it?

Along the same lines, I couldn't really say that I KNOW that heaven is real, as I've never actually been there myself. However, on the other hand, since I've prayed to God in heaven a vast multitude of times and had my prayers answered, shouldn't I be able to have a "reasoned conviction" that heaven exists and be able to make room for such a place within my "faith"? These are serious questions.


You worship chaos. Your God is weak and insane!
Science and even hard work hold more power then your prayers.
God is weak and insane.
I prayed for him to prove me wrong, didn't work.



Ok, but lets say that the bible is accurate when describing God.
It claims that God has perfect justice, "God is love", all mighty, all knowing, etc.

I made a thread called "God's acts of murder" in which I listed of a huge list of stupidities/evils of God that were very biblically presise. I was banned at that Christian forum and now cannot cut/paste my 12 arguments.

I will start again. I'll just start asking, and you can answer me with your reasons.

When Eve was decieved into eating from that one forbidden tree, then she shared that fruit with Adam, God cursed them to death and programmed old age into their genes. He knew that this would cause billions of human deaths. This heavenly father chose to doom an entire species and curse it, because of 1 person eating 1 peace of fruit. Our infinitely loving heavenly father would choose to kill his children instead of calmly and logically explain the reason why he made the commandments, then patiently help support and guide the obediance of the child.
^
Most modern parenting psycologists will tell you that it is better to teach your children what to do, love and support them and help them, instead of command them to fallow a specific code, then not tell them how, kill them if they disobey, etc etc.
Also parents should talk to their children. Can you imagine if your mom and dad never ever spoke to you? And does God talk to people, really?

Why didn't God prove his existence to scientists?
How many of the people at physorg would not believe in God if God gave them scientific prof to believe in him? Once people have reason to believe something they will.

During penticost, the holy spirit helped people so that they could "Speek in toungs". This is an example of God being able to give a person predigested data in energy form. This shows that he is able to give people information and capacity to use that information. He could have easily given humanity a natural instinct not to "sin".

God did not teach people about the printing press, which meant that no one could have bibles.

God killed more people then he ever resurrected.

Jesus cured people from the viruses and paracites that God created.

God stopped Adam from eating from the "tree of life" within the "garden of eden" [which would have cured the ageing process], and God did not give the fruit of the tree of life to Enoch or Noah despite how they were each faithful and did not deserve to die.

The flood destroyed the tree of life, the garden of eden and many MANY innocent animals.

Before this event in which God killed everyone who did not listen,
he send 1 person [or two] to tell everybody:
"A flood is going to kill you all if you don't listen and do this."
These people did not believe the message, because it had no prof and nothing like this had ever happened before.
^
From here we see that sane judgement/rational thinking is actually a sin worthy of the death penalty.

God created DNA, but the forms of homosexuality that are genetic, God kills [or wants to kill] these "sinners" even though they cannot control their DNA. Instead of fixing their DNA, God just judges these "sinners" upon what they were born with and what they are, though all things are in-directly God's fault.

Was it David that commited adultery with Bathsheba?
God killed david's son instead of resurrecting Bathsheba's original husband duirng his "holy" and "perfect" judgment. This judgment did not "fix" the "problem" but it only made things worse! Last time I checked, killing babies was not "perfect justice".
^
This sort of logic renders God worse then useless. It would have been better for humanity if God never judged them at all, because then we wouldnt have all of these curses.

In short:
People blame God for everything, and then rationalize it all.
They make chaos look intelligent. Once questioned we see that God contradicts himself. He is not one mind, but is a mass of random *** that got an ID.

Your parents and friends do far more for you then God ever did. You also do more for yourself then people do for you. Even your own physical parents are more worthy of worship then God is.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE
A List of Biblical Contradictions
Jim Merritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A List of Biblical Contradictions
By: Jim Meritt (JWMeritt@AOL.COM)
Date: 1992-07-24


All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text.

Table of Contents
Introduction to contradictions
References
Contributors
Contradictions
God good to all, or just a few?
War or Peace?
Who is the father of Joseph?
Who was at the Empty Tomb?
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
Which first - beasts or man?
The number of beasts in the ark
How many stalls and horsemen?
Is it folly to be wise or not?
Human vs. ghostly impregnation
The sins of the father
The bat is not a bird
Rabbits do not chew their cud
Insects do NOT have four feet
Snails do not melt
Fowl from waters or ground
Odd genetic engineering
The shape of the earth
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
Earth supported?
Heaven supported too
The hydrological cycle
Order of creation
Moses' personality
Righteous live?
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Jesus' last words
Years of famine
Moved David to anger?
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
God be seen?
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD
Tempts?
Judas died how?
Ascend to heaven
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
How many time did the cock crow?
Who killed Saul
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
Does every man sin?
Who bought potter's field?
Who prophesied the potter's field?
Who bears guilt?
Do you answer a fool?
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
Marriage?
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
Judging
Good deeds
For or against?
Whom did they see at the tomb?
God change?
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
Who's sepulchers?
Strong drink?
When second coming?
Solomon's overseers
The mother of Abijah
When did Baasha die?
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Who was Josiah's successor?
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
What did they give him to drink?
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradictions
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark -- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem -- a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right - I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES:
The King James version of the Bible. quotes provided.

Self-contradictions of the Bible.
William Henry Burr
ISBN 0-87975 416 -8


Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908.
Self-contradictions of the Bible / William Henry Burr ; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books], c1987.
Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism.
UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987
UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987


Cooper, Robert, secularist.
The "Holy Scriptures" analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : shewing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities / by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840.
Series title: Goldsmiths'-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887.
UCLA AGSMgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm


DeHaan, M. R.
508 answers to Bible questions : with answers to seeming Bible contradictions / M.R. DeHaan. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, [1968?], c1952.
UCSB Library BS538 .D43 1968


Thaddaeus, Joannes, fl. 1630.
The reconciler of the Bible inlarged : wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions throughout the Old and New Testament are fully and plainly reconciled ... / by J.T. and T.M. .. London : Printed for Simon Miller ..., 1662.
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1052:9.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform


Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.
Annotations upon the Holy Bible. Vol. II : wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annex'd, together with the parallel scriptures : the more difficult terms in each verse are explained,... The third edition, with the addition of a new concordance and tables, by Mr. Sam. Clark; the whole corrected and amended by the said Mr. Sam. Clark and Mr. Edward Veale .. London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst [and 6 others], MDCXCVI [1696].
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1041:1.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform


"the x-rated bible" by ben edward akerley, published by american atheist press, austin texas, 1985.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good source of _literal_ Biblical self-contradictions is (surprise) "Self-Contradictions of the Bible", written by William Henry Burr in 1859 as a response to fundamentalism. It is currently published by Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst St., Buffalo, NY 14215. P.B. also publishes a large number of books on religious inquiry and biblical critiques, the majority of which have a humanistic/atheistic slant. As far as "Self-Contradictions ..." goes, it contains about 140 textual inconsistencies, classified under "Theological Doctrines", "Moral Precepts", "Historical Facts", and "Speculative Doctrines."

"The Bible Handbook" is a compilation of several previous works by several authors, including W P Ball, G W Foote, and John Bowden. Also, the writing by Mr Foote is dated 1900, so we see that this is not a new endeavor. _The Bible Handbook_ by W.P. Ball, et al., available for nine dollars from the the American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 2117, Austin TX 78768-2117. It's a collection of biblical contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies, obscenities, unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises. This 372-page volume will give the atheist tons of scriptural ammunition for shooting down the flimsy arguments of the reality impaired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional contributions were given by:

markn@mot.com (DX560 Mark Nowak)
JHAYNES@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@lll-lcc.llnl.gov
lmoikkan@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
gerry@cs.cmu.edu
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
icsu7039@caesar.cs.montana.edu
XWUU@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU
bjorn%consens.UUCP@nac.no
EETLO29%TECHNION@TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL
refling@envy.eng.uci.edu
mgo@inel.gov
rkp@drutx.att.com
daveh@sequent.com
markn%mot.com@tin.berkeley.edu
aa485@cleveland.freenet.edu (John Strekal)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it :
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in- creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, ac- cording to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came togeth- er, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the chil- dren, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat.
DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd genetic engineering
GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shape of the earth
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth supported?
JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.


Heaven supported too
JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hydrological cycle
ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days".
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moses' personality
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."
Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of t LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who killed Saul
SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the king- dom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comfort- ed.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteous- ness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and per- secute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does every man sin?
KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of ini- quity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Acelda- ma, that is to say, The field of blood.
MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who prophesied the potter's field?
Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage?
Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilder- ness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various trapsing)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging
1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)
MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.


God change?
malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's sepulchers
acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strong drink?
proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When second coming?
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1 thessalonians 4:15-18


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solomon's overseers
550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mother of Abijah:
Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20
Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did Baasha die?
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8
36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chron 22:2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What did they give him to drink?
vinegar - Matthew 27:34
wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day".


Hssssssss! mad.gif
Upisoft
QUOTE (grendle+Jan 15 2006, 04:34 AM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 14 2006, 08:55 PM)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Read this. You may also start to believe that the Earth is center of the Universe.

It is the center of the observable universe... of course the catch is that anywhere you observe from is the centre of the observeable universe. Just like a rainbow is always centered on your head.

I agree with you.
But I think you didn't read the whole story. They explain the redshift quantization is observed, because our galaxy is located in the center of concentric spheres. Other galaxies are placed on these spheres. If you look at the Univers from any different galaxy, you'll not see spheres.

grendle
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 15 2006, 10:28 AM)
QUOTE (grendle+Jan 15 2006, 04:34 AM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 14 2006, 08:55 PM)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Read this. You may also start to believe that the Earth is center of the Universe.

It is the center of the observable universe... of course the catch is that anywhere you observe from is the centre of the observeable universe. Just like a rainbow is always centered on your head.

I agree with you.
But I think you didn't read the whole story. They explain the redshift quantization is observed, because our galaxy is located in the center of concentric spheres. Other galaxies are placed on these spheres. If you look at the Univers from any different galaxy, you'll not see spheres.

Concentric spheres again?

Kepler would be so dissapointed wink.gif

Very interestng and it should be studied more - we learn more from the anomolies than the stuff that fits our established theories.

Of course, even if the phenomena turns out to be real, and not an artifact of the data selected, ( I note that the two biggest studies that show this quanta get different results for it's value, ) there are a number of ways to explain that phenomena ( none of which are good for the "classic" big bang, but it's got lots of other glitches to deal with anyway, ) only one of which is that we are near the centre of the universe surroundes by concentric speres of galaxies

grendle
QUOTE (sinned34+Jan 15 2006, 12:15 AM)
RC:

The funny thing is seeing the same old arguments brought up repeatedly. It's like a Jehovah's Witness last week telling me about the NASA computer that found the "missing" time when god stopped the sun from moving around the earth in order to allow the Isrealites to complete the act of genocide he commanded them to. If there hadn't been snow on the ground I would have let myself fall over laughing. Needless to say, the JW left in such a hurry he even forgot to bestow a watchtower magazine upon me.

You'd think that religionists would come up with some new material from time to time, eh?

The JW's also don't like it when you point out that they keep changing the date when the world will end - 4 or 5 times already. ( 1915, 1921, 1922 and sometime in the '50s are the numbers that seem to stick in my mind. ) I think they have finally learned not to set a fixed deadline biggrin.gif
newguy
QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
God is weak and insane.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
I need to share my pain:

I heard this speech today,
and hours later it was driving me mad.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
All of the tollerance and concervative-health-based-morality reasonings that caused me to stop believing in absolutist idealism/[relatively]suicidal-faith...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
When this speech re-awaked my old and weak biblical faith/beliefs... Basicly it wanted me to kill myself.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
This inner character and values system actually wanted me to kill myself.
Do you know how it feels???... To have your reason systems judge you as death worthy?...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
And after that old bible God thing came back...
I felt like all of my months of work were evil and wrong...
and I just felt like I needed to die...
I felt like everything that I believed in was dead wrong and like I needed to die...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
Etc, etc... horrable conflicts within the mind...
were trying to cave it in on itself
.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
I felt so bad, and so insane and doomed, but then I came back to this thread and it was a cure. You really saved me some anguish!


Your fellow human: YOU are weak and insane...NOT God. Hope this helps.



grendle
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 01:41 AM)

I had spent many months writing 300+kb about "better" ways of thinking. It was all about focus on health, long term... Principals... Human need.

You should read some Spinoza, you might find some of his ideas interesting
grendle
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 12:05 PM)
Your fellow human: YOU are weak and insane...NOT God. Hope this helps.


Hmm, now there is a demonstration of turning the other cheek, treating others as you yourself would be treated, loving thy neighbour and generally showing that famous Christian compassion.

newguy
grendle: What "cheek" was there to turn? His rant was against God...not me. The point(which you apparently deliberately missed) is that "YFH's" posts are full of instability. I could have cited other posts of his, had I but wanted to. Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God. Hypocrite.
Your fellow human (yfh)
Spontaneism:
If something can exist [or happen], then it eventually will.
The reason for existence is possibility, not creation.
If things do exist, this means that their existence is possible, and not only can it happen once, but it can happen again! This means that there already is, or there will be more then one universes [within our single reality]. This also means that if there is one reality [that all universes are within] that there will eventually be [or already are] other realities.
^
This is what I thought up to replace my previous ideas of intelligent design.
What do you think of that?
I am a firm believer in what I call "spontaneism" [but I'm so open minded that I would listen to any critic...].
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 07:22 PM)
grendle: What "cheek" was there to turn? His rant was against God...not me. The point(which you apparently deliberately missed) is that "YFH's" posts are full of instability. I could have cited other posts of his, had I but wanted to. Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God. Hypocrite.

If you know God and I don't, then enlighten me!
Publish an exact report. Help share your facts.

If God is greater then the universe, then the greatest arrogance was the bible's mass of false claims about something that they knew nothing about.

QUOTE
His rant was against God...not me

That is correct. I love people, including you. =)
I am angery at the unreason ability of the classical bible version of "God".
I think that they just gave ID to all supernatural, miss understood and chaos.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
God is weak and insane.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
I need to share my pain:

I heard this speech today,
and hours later it was driving me mad.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
All of the tollerance and concervative-health-based-morality reasonings that caused me to stop believing in absolutist idealism/[relatively]suicidal-faith...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
When this speech re-awaked my old and weak biblical faith/beliefs... Basicly it wanted me to kill myself.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
This inner character and values system actually wanted me to kill myself.
Do you know how it feels???... To have your reason systems judge you as death worthy?...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
And after that old bible God thing came back...
I felt like all of my months of work were evil and wrong...
and I just felt like I needed to die...
I felt like everything that I believed in was dead wrong and like I needed to die...


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
Etc, etc... horrable conflicts within the mind...
were trying to cave it in on itself
.


QUOTE (Your fellow human+)
I felt so bad, and so insane and doomed, but then I came back to this thread and it was a cure. You really saved me some anguish!


Your fellow human: YOU are weak and insane...NOT God. Hope this helps.

"apostacy" had the death penalty back in the times of the Jews.
This is still indirectly within the bible and the morals.
I well know the bible, and hence if I did not comply to Gods "perfect ways", I would be a "sinner" and "deserving of death".

If I say:
"May the Lord be blessed, and may all honor be givin him. Thi peace and the wisdom he gives freely to each, and what is he asking but for you to love one another and pray for forgiveness as you strive for what is right."

nothing will happen.

If I say:
"God is the lamest faGG ever to be shitt out of the asssholeOF "truth", bible basterdassed writers were gaysONbong and all they ever said was fake. God is the worst thing ever to fukk the universe."

nothing will happen.

If I say:
"God please save my mother from cancer."

She still fukin diez.

If I say:
"God, I am your ultimate enemy and will devot my entire life to currupting your teachings and oposing you. I dare you to kill me you weak peace of ***!"

I wont be killed.

If Christians are so right, and everyone else is so insane,
why haven't all atheists and non-Christians failed yet?
If you have perfect morals and knowledge of the greatest and most important facts of the universe, why aren't you "fixed" and "perfect" yet?

Claims are NOT solutions.

newguy
What if your brother or sister was [geneticly] born [with the full and undenyable desire to be] a homosexual? Would you think that it was right that God judged/condemned that person instead of God using his infinite wisdom and power to correct the DNA that he invented?

I was only "weak" because of the fact that I am human and what I was born into, and I can only do so much each day.

I was "insane" because I fully beleived in the bible and knew it very well. Now I am getting over my massive internal absolutism/slaver complex that I never even knew that I had antil I really started to consider what was actually reasonable and moraly right.
==

(read these)
God's greatest sin:
James 2:14 - 17
If God is all knowing and all powerful,
he is the most cold being I can imagine.
"The strong should support the weak" stems from mutual support
principals rooted within civilization. It is rooted within human ideals and needs.

God's greatest lie:
Matthew 5:48
All "creation" is "imperfect", and so is its "Creator".

"God" is limited, imperfect, missunderstood and the bible is full of lies!
grendle
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 12:22 PM)
grendle: What "cheek" was there to turn? His rant was against God...not me. The point(which you apparently deliberately missed) is that "YFH's" posts are full of instability. I could have cited other posts of his, had I but wanted to. Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God. Hypocrite.

I'm not a Christian, never claimed to be.

However, if you are correct and there is value in the words of the bible then we should all take that value and wisdom should we not?

To learn from the wisdom presented therein is hardly hypocritical.

Now I admit I don't "know God" like you do, but I have read the book. And the qualities of forgiveness and compasion and caring for fellow man that I see presented there in are not reflected in your reply to (yfh)

Either yfh is seriously having mental and emotional difficulties, in which case your reply was not one of helpful compassion, or he is deleberately baiting you and trying to get you angry. In which case you have risen to the bait and failed to show the qualities of forgiveness and patience.

Now as an expert in scripture that knows God maybe you don't think those are traits we should all aspire to and endeavour to display in our daily lives. You maybe right.

But it's not the impression this non-beleiver gets from reading the bible.



newguy
QUOTE (grendle+)
I'm not a Christian, never claimed to be.

However, if you are correct and there is value in the words of the bible then we should all take that value and wisdom should we not?

To learn from the wisdom presented therein is hardly hypocritical.


grendle: I think we both know that you were NOT taking any "value and wisdom" from the words of the Bible. Just reading some of your own less-than-loving posts would provide ample proof of this. Thus, the term "hypocrite" applies. Ironic, isn't it, that "YFH" wasn't the least bit bothered by my statements, but you(supposedly) were. Have a nice day.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 02:18 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:44 AM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 02:27 AM)

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".
I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif


Hi yfh!

Well...does this mean you have now left "reason" behind?

For if it is "reasoned conviction" that is "back", then there's no problem...and you have all respect from me.

But if it IS merely "faith", then there's no room for "reasoned conviction" in your new/returned perspective...as it would then represent a contradiction in terms/concept and in your supposedly "faithful" stance.....which would mean you HAVE now left "reason" behind.

Just thought I would make that observation for the sake of completeness, yfh. Good luck!

RC.
.

RealityCheck: Sorry to single-out so many of your posts recently...it's just that lately you have been posting more things that are of interest to me than others. I'm curious about your perceived "contradiction" between "faith" and "reasoned conviction". I'm sure this example has been given before, but if I understand how the brakes on my Jeep or van work and I have a "reasoned conviction" that it is safe to drive using them, would it be a "contradiction" to say that I have "faith" in my Jeep's/van's brake system? I'm not playing with words...I just want to make sure that I am understanding your viewpoint correctly. There are several things within the Christian "faith" that I KNOW of a certainty. The main one is God Himself. I have also seen how many prophecies of the Bible have come to pass. KNOWING the faithfulness of God and SEEING how prophecies have come to pass, I can therefore have a "reasoned conviction" that other prophecies will come to pass as well or I can put my "faith" in them and the God that pronounced them. Does this sound "reasonable" to you? I admittedly have no way of KNOWING that the lake of fire is real, for example. However, since I do KNOW that Satan and demons are real from vast experience, and since the Bible states that the lake of fire was created as a place for Satan and demons, then I can have a "reasoned conviction" that such a place exists and find room in my "faith" for it. Along the same lines, I couldn't really say that I KNOW that heaven is real, as I've never actually been there myself. However, on the other hand, since I've prayed to God in heaven a vast multitude of times and had my prayers answered, shouldn't I be able to have a "reasoned conviction" that heaven exists and be able to make room for such a place within my "faith"? These are serious questions. As I said, I'm not playing with words. The main reason that I'm even asking these types of questions is because many, if not most, of the people on this forum use the word "faith" in a derogatory way/sense as if it was nothing more than some sort of "pipe dream", "wishful thinking" or "fairy tale". My "faith" does not match these erroneous "definitions/projections" of the word. My "faith" has MUCH "reasoned conviction" to support it. MUCH. Just curious about your further views on this very important topic. Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks.


newguy.

No probs, mate...'single-out' all you like! I never object to discussion with "individuals to the max" like yourself. And you certainly are one such, I can tell!

About those 'brakes': I DO have "reasoned conviction" that they will work based on my prior knowledge/experince of the "physical principles/mechanical systems" involved. I DON'T necessarily have to have "faith" in the adequacy of their "condition/function" in any given situation/time, because at any time I wish, I myself, or if I were not "knowledgeable", a mechanic at the local garage, could take the brakes apart and confirm things one way or the other.

You see?....."faith" is only ULTIMATELY necessary in situations WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY of "reasoned conviction" being obtainable from OBJECTIVE demonstration of 'repeatable' EMPIRICAL testing/knowledge of the "thing" in question.

All else is basically semantics. I hope I've clarified and not confused, heh mate! Regards to you and yours. Ciao!

RC.
.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 07:58 PM)
Spontaneism:
If something can exist [or happen], then it eventually will.
The reason for existence is possibility, not creation.
If things do exist, this means that their existence is possible, and not only can it happen once, but it can happen again! This means that there already is, or there will be more then one universes [within our single reality]. This also means that if there is one reality [that all universes are within] that there will eventually be [or already are] other realities.
^
This is what I thought up to replace my previous ideas of intelligent design.
What do you think of that?
I am a firm believer in what I call "spontaneism" [but I'm so open minded that I would listen to any critic...].


Hi yfh!

Your observations/ideas touch upon a profound truth INSEPARABLE from BOTH 'physical' (Natural) AND 'metaphysical (Supernatural) 'systemic/universal' possibilities and eventualities. Yes indeed, without such POSSIBILITY/POTENTIAL as you posit, nothing would EVER 'arise/play-out/subside' in ANY system/universe.

You are quite right and on the money, insofar as that particular bit of philosophising of yours is concerned. If the rest of your train of thought proves to be as productive and meaningful as this implies, I am bound to observe that you are not as 'confused' as you would have us believe! Good luck and (more) good thinking, mate!

Your friend in Reason: RC.
.
grendle
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 04:41 PM)
QUOTE (grendle+)
I'm not a Christian, never claimed to be.

However, if you are correct and there is value in the words of the bible then we should all take that value and wisdom should we not?

To learn from the wisdom presented therein is hardly hypocritical.


grendle: I think we both know that you were NOT taking any "value and wisdom" from the words of the Bible. Just reading some of your own less-than-loving posts would provide ample proof of this. Thus, the term "hypocrite" applies. Ironic, isn't it, that "YFH" wasn't the least bit bothered by my statements, but you(supposedly) were. Have a nice day.

No we both don't know that. But you obviously know me better than I do, so I must defer to your judgement.

I would simply note that after your warm welcome to the board I have for the most part avoided commenting and replying to your posts directly as they were not directed at me and it was clear you were not interested in what I had to say.

That I chose to reply directly to this post, as opposed to any of numerous others, might give a clue as to my motivation.

And I freely admit my posts at time can be petty, self focused, and even mean spirited. I never claimed to be perfect. I try and do the best I can.

You feel that the proper response to a person that for whatever reason is moved to rant against God is to tell them they are weak and insane. I do not.

However, if yhf doesn't mind, then it's not for me to complain. My apologies for disrupting your discussion.
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 07:22 PM)
Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God. Hypocrite.

That's fair.
And by the way, don't quote science until you actually know it. Hypocrite.



newguy
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 16 2006, 01:17 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 07:22 PM)
Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God.  Hypocrite.

That's fair.
And by the way, don't quote science until you actually know it. Hypocrite.

Upisoft: Your statement would be perfectly acceptable, IF it fit. Please show me where it does. I've been on this forum for almost 5 months now and I've rarely touched on the "scientific" end of this debate/argument as many on this forum would attest to. As few as my "scientific" statements have been, the vast majority of them have come in the form of a question. What is "hypocritical" about that? Please, feel free to enlighten me, would you? Show me where I've earned the label of "hypocrite". If you can not, then please keep your false accusations to yourself. Thanks.
newguy
QUOTE (birdan+)
De-humanizing and demonizing people whose views you don't agree with is the first step in suppressing those people and doing away with them. I also find it sad that such people live in such a tiny little bubble separated so far away from reality.


QUOTE (newguy+)
birdan: I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic, what follows is an honest question. Having read as many posts throughout this forum as I assume you have, don't you think one might conclude with several of the "post"-ers on this forum that this is precisely what they are attempting to do with the Christians? Be honest, now. I'm not suggesting that you are in this category, but don't you think that a pretty good case could be made against some? Honestly, what's your opinion?


QUOTE (grendle+)
Careful there now... there are plenty of Christians that don't support ID, that do not take the bible as literal truth, and have no problem with the science of evolution.


QUOTE (newguy+)
grendle: My question to birdan mentioned nothing about "ID", "the Bible as literal truth" or "the science of evolution". Nothing. Additionally, what more and more people posting of late fail to understand is that several of us have been having ongoing dialogue on this forum for several months. There is a lot of "history", one might say, between a lot of us. When you read a post, please, as much as possible, don't assume that there is no background info required to properly understand it. Although this is a public forum, many posts are addressed to a certain individual because that individual knows NOT ONLY what is being presently discussed, but also what has previously been discussed regarding that particular topic. Each poster's username can be clicked on and all of their past posts can be viewed. It might benefit some to read some previous posts(I've done this with several posters' usernames in the past myself) to catch up on what has already been said. The more you know about someone, it is oftentimes easier to have more productive dialogue with them. Anyhow, that's just a suggestion.


grendle: I just finished reading every post that you've ever made on this forum. The post listed above seems to be our first ever dialogue on this forum, so I'm assuming that this is what you were referencing when you said:

QUOTE (grendle+)
I would simply note that after your warm welcome to the board I have for the most part avoided commenting and replying to your posts directly as they were not directed at me and it was clear you were not interested in what I had to say.

That I chose to reply directly to this post, as opposed to any of numerous others, might give a clue as to my motivation.


What wasn't "warm" about this "welcome"? Who said I was not interested in what you had to say? You're reading a little between the lines, wouldn't you say? I merely suggested that by reading people's past posts(as I just did with yours), you can have a more informed understanding of that individual and, as a direct result, more productive dialogue with them. What is wrong with that?

QUOTE (grendle+)
You feel that the proper response to a person that for whatever reason is moved to rant against God is to tell them they are weak and insane. I do not.

However, if yhf doesn't mind, then it's not for me to complain. My apologies for disrupting your discussion.


Not at all. I've endured many rants against God without questioning anyone's sanity. The reason that I mentioned it with YFH is because he had just finished posting many statements that made him sound weak and insane. Did you bother to read them? I felt it was rather BOLD(to say the least) to make such accusations about another while you are manifesting the very traits at that time yourself. Additionally, this was no mere "man" that YFH was ranting against. It was God Himself. Since you admittedly don't know God yourself, this may not seem like any big thing to you. To those of us who do know Him, though, there could be no worse state than to be cursing the very One Who created you. Anyhow...
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 02:04 AM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 16 2006, 01:17 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 07:22 PM)
Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God.  Hypocrite.

That's fair.
And by the way, don't quote science until you actually know it. Hypocrite.

Upisoft: Your statement would be perfectly acceptable, IF it fit. Please show me where it does. I've been on this forum for almost 5 months now and I've rarely touched on the "scientific" end of this debate/argument as many on this forum would attest to. As few as my "scientific" statements have been, the vast majority of them have come in the form of a question. What is "hypocritical" about that? Please, feel free to enlighten me, would you? Show me where I've earned the label of "hypocrite". If you can not, then please keep your false accusations to yourself. Thanks.

And what you're doing then here? This forum is about science, physics, etc.
newguy
Upisoft: This is the Creation/Evolution section of the forum. Shouldn't talk of the "Creator" be included in a discussion regarding "creation"? Is that so unusual?
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 02:46 AM)
Upisoft: This is the Creation/Evolution section of the forum. Shouldn't talk of the "Creator" be included in a discussion regarding "creation"? Is that so unusual?

Obviously not since you're calling hypocrisy the usage of your source of information.
newguy
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 16 2006, 02:55 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 02:46 AM)
Upisoft: This is the Creation/Evolution section of the forum.  Shouldn't talk of the "Creator" be included in a discussion regarding "creation"?  Is that so unusual?

Obviously not since you're calling hypocrisy the usage of your source of information.

Upisoft: If I'm understanding you correctly, then the "hypocrisy" to which I referred is NOT the usage of my source of information by others, but rather, the way in which they use it. When God is being discussed repeatedly by an individual(namely me) and another individual NEVER asks a genuine question about God(how they can know Him, etc.) but ONLY quotes scripture to criticize the believer, doesn't that sound "hypocritical" to you? It does, to me. This indicates to me that the criticizer has NO genuine desire to apply the scriptures to themself. Hope this clarifies my position.

P.S. I have a lot more than just my "source of information"(the Bible). The Bible instructed me how to be reconciled to God Himself.
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 03:06 AM)
When God is being discussed repeatedly by an individual(namely me) and another individual NEVER asks a genuine question about God(how they can know Him, etc.) but ONLY quotes scripture to criticize the believer, doesn't that sound "hypocritical" to you?

OK. Let give it a try.
How I can know Him?

newguy
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 16 2006, 03:16 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 03:06 AM)
When God is being discussed repeatedly by an individual(namely me) and another individual NEVER asks a genuine question about God(how they can know Him, etc.) but ONLY quotes scripture to criticize the believer, doesn't that sound "hypocritical" to you?

OK. Let give it a try.
How I can know Him?

Upisoft: I'll give you an abbreviated answer to your question(although it still might seem lengthy) and I'll be happy to elaborate on any point, should you so desire. Simply put, the reason that people don't know God(been there, done that) is because they are separated from Him because of sin. Aside from our God-given conscience(con=with, science=knowledge), God has given us His law to bring the knowledge of sin. A simple stroll through the 10 commandments should suffice in removing any self-righteousness from an individual. One lie makes one a liar. One stolen item makes one a thief. One lustful look makes one an adulterer(at least in God's eyes). The list goes on. There is only One person Who has ever lived a sinless life upon this earth. That person is Jesus Christ. Having never sinned, He is the only person that death had no legal claim to "for the wages of sin is death". On the cross of calvary, Jesus willingly became our scapegoat or the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Having been crucified and buried, Jesus Christ is the firstborn from the dead, having defeated death and the grave. For those who are willing to repent of their sins and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, God is willing to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of that penitent sinner and send the Holy Spirit to live inside of them, thus enabling them to be free from sin. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God that genuinely enables one to truly know God as He will be living inside of that individual in the person of the Holy Spirit. As I said, this is basically a "rough draft", but I will be more than happy to elaborate on this. Hope this info helps. I'm done for the night. Talk to you later.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (grendle+Jan 15 2006, 09:30 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 15 2006, 12:22 PM)
grendle: What "cheek" was there to turn?  His rant was against God...not me.  The point(which you apparently deliberately missed) is that "YFH's" posts are full of instability.  I could have cited other posts of his, had I but wanted to.  Oh, and by the way, don't quote scripture until you actually know God.  Hypocrite.

I'm not a Christian, never claimed to be.

However, if you are correct and there is value in the words of the bible then we should all take that value and wisdom should we not?

To learn from the wisdom presented therein is hardly hypocritical.

Now I admit I don't "know God" like you do, but I have read the book. And the qualities of forgiveness and compasion and caring for fellow man that I see presented there in are not reflected in your reply to (yfh)

Either yfh is seriously having mental and emotional difficulties, in which case your reply was not one of helpful compassion, or he is deleberately baiting you and trying to get you angry. In which case you have risen to the bait and failed to show the qualities of forgiveness and patience.

Now as an expert in scripture that knows God maybe you don't think those are traits we should all aspire to and endeavour to display in our daily lives. You maybe right.

But it's not the impression this non-beleiver gets from reading the bible.

People can take the bible any way that they want.

I just know that creating a star takes a lot of intelegence,
and offering your son [or asking for animal] blood sacrifices is as-dumb-as-hel!

I was attacking the biblical portrail of God because I think that it is in correct.
I still love newguy. biggrin.gif
I really like my species!

newguy wants to defend his faith, but the methodology of this "defence" can be verious.
Your fellow human (yfh)
Just the other day I re-believed in a creator [because of that audio speech,] but now I am curving my information [that I read yesterday] back upon the original premise [and diverting from that premise].

1/16/2006
Humanities greatest steps:

DNA is information stored in a matter formatted medium.
Humans experiencing reality is not the absorption of matter and energy, but the understanding of it, and then the synthesizing of reality within the mind [which is the information format of reality]. When humans realized how to store information on a medium that did not decay the way their bodies did [after replications] it marked the beginning of the end of physical reactive evolution, because it was the additive evolution of information [that picks up momentum with development]!

The fact that information stored upon a medium can then becomes a structure, causes me to ask an interesting question:
Is matter a structure [yes, it is made of elements]? Isn't a structure something made of smaller pieces? Nano technology will merely be the beginning; My estimate is that eventually intelligent beings will be able to create things such as new types of atoms or elements, because of the act of building things out of tiny parts.

...but humans cannot cause their building resources to spontaneously just exist.

The greatest problem of “intelligent design” (imo) is the fact that information has to be stored on a medium, and cannot create a medium!

What I could like to see next in technology is a cure for old age and decay [by reprogramming DNA or something like that]. If humans were ever able to store DNA on a computer [fully] and the information of DNA had a physical-to-digital medium transfer, what I would theorize is this: The digital DNA could be given synthetic matter so that it could create a digital human.
~
I'm babbling, =)
Please give me feed back and advice.
I am just happy that humanity is able to transfer its information onto new mediums other then itself.
=================
My most powerful argument against intelligent design is that the information cannot create a medium.
Nessus
QUOTE
I just know that creating a star takes a lot of intelegence,


I didnt know clouds of gas had intelligence. I thought stars just happened because you had enough hydrogen in one place.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (Nessus+Jan 16 2006, 09:03 AM)
QUOTE
I just know that creating a star takes a lot of intelegence,


I didnt know clouds of gas had intelligence. I thought stars just happened because you had enough hydrogen in one place.

If your premise had a seporate application then mine,
your comment is not relative to mine.

I was talking about the claim that God created all things,
so that he built a star by building the material it was made with,
etc.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 05:06 AM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 16 2006, 03:16 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 03:06 AM)
When God is being discussed repeatedly by an individual(namely me) and another individual NEVER asks a genuine question about God(how they can know Him, etc.) but ONLY quotes scripture to criticize the believer, doesn't that sound "hypocritical" to you?

OK. Let give it a try.
How I can know Him?

Upisoft: I'll give you an abbreviated answer to your question(although it still might seem lengthy) and I'll be happy to elaborate on any point, should you so desire. Simply put, the reason that people don't know God(been there, done that) is because they are separated from Him because of sin. Aside from our God-given conscience(con=with, science=knowledge), God has given us His law to bring the knowledge of sin. A simple stroll through the 10 commandments should suffice in removing any self-righteousness from an individual. One lie makes one a liar. One stolen item makes one a thief. One lustful look makes one an adulterer(at least in God's eyes). The list goes on. There is only One person Who has ever lived a sinless life upon this earth. That person is Jesus Christ. Having never sinned, He is the only person that death had no legal claim to "for the wages of sin is death". On the cross of calvary, Jesus willingly became our scapegoat or the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Having been crucified and buried, Jesus Christ is the firstborn from the dead, having defeated death and the grave. For those who are willing to repent of their sins and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, God is willing to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of that penitent sinner and send the Holy Spirit to live inside of them, thus enabling them to be free from sin. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God that genuinely enables one to truly know God as He will be living inside of that individual in the person of the Holy Spirit. As I said, this is basically a "rough draft", but I will be more than happy to elaborate on this. Hope this info helps. I'm done for the night. Talk to you later.

My fear is that this holy spirit is actually some sort of parasite.
Hopefuly it is either symbiotic or it is not real at all.

Read my theory:

[EPT]
Energy parasite theory:
I have had first and second hand experience with supernaturals.
When [years ago] I was under demon influence, it was not fun at all, but it did not destroy me. I have a new theory that all spirit life forms are parasitic. “Demons” and “angels” each feed off of bio magnetic energy [that is within the human aura and is effected by emotion]. Angels feed off of love and positivity. “God” feeds off of peace. Satan feeds off of rebelion? Demons feed off of fear or insanity. These energy parasites can jump from person to person, and evolved far before humans even existed. Some of the EP [maybe] are [at least partially] symbiotic [much like the bacteria in the intestine help to bread down food into elements].
Practice of real magic [not the mass of false magic] is prof that the EP have complex abilities.

If Jesus really did “cast out demons”, it shows that certain kinds of EP are enemies of the other kind. The wisdom of Jesus also showed that EP can pass down [altered] memories from the first host down to the second host. Jesus had a mentality that and character that was ideal for the “Christian EP”, and these “Christian EP” wanted to make all other human auras an ideal breeding ground for their existence format.
If Jesus really did “heal the sick” it shows that EP can be very healthy for the organism.
Christ's “faith” was actually a form of connection to the EP. This is why it was so necessary for all of the apostles to have this “faith” before they could also have “God's holy spirit”.
EP love of death?
In theory, the EP actually love death and they want you to die faithfully [like Jesus did]. Once you die they get to absorb all of your life force as it is reduced into elements.

Mark 5:6-13
During the exorcism of legion, the “demons” begged Jesus that they instead enter the “swine”, and after Jesus cast the demons out, they needed a new host. As soon as they entered the pigs, the pigs ran off a cliff [into the sea and committed suicide]. The pigs either did this in a natural reaction to spiritual parasite infestation, or the EP killed the pigs in order to gather enough life force from the dead pigs so that they could have enough energy left to travel into another life form.

This explains why spiritism/religion is ultimately unhealthy, and this explains why people can witness “passed lives” of others. EP ultimately falls into the [speciest moral quadraclass] category of “parasitic”, and is the enemy of justice, long life and civilization.
================

Morality and God should be separate:
Morality is based on foresight.
We, for example, would not eat a candy bar if we knew that it would kill us.
We measure the pleasures of being alive for many more years to be greater then
the pleasures of one candy then a death.
Morality is rooted in our theories of the future of our self and species.

Religions that teach of heaven and hell are merely capitalizing on the weaknesses of human foresight theories. This method of mind control has thousands of years of development. “Heaven”, for example, is not disprovable because it is not provable.

False advertising is illegal. I believe that the UN should also pass a law that bans fantasy exploitation. I don't know if religion will ever be uprooted and thrown away, but I do know that: Through education the individual can liberate him or herself from the life controlling religious lies that they have been exposed to.

Figuring out if there is a God or not. Figuring out the the other mysteries of supernaturals. These sorts of questions have not even been fully solved by science. It is not an easy job, so it is easier for the individual to either not care, or to let someone else control his/her mind/opinion about the subject/theory.

Even though you are a mortal and limited being, you have a few great gifts. You have freedom to think and dream. You have the freedom to love yourself and the people around you as much as you want to [instead of judging or being afraid of them]. Your mind life and body are yours.

If true morality actually is a structure made of foresight, and a measuring of pain to pleasure, the punishment of the [biblical] “original sin” and the “sacrifice of Christ” each were, in fact, greater sins then the supposed sin that they were undoing.
Scape goats are only needed for people who live in the passed and hold onto grudges, and yet the Jews needed to offer up a scape goat? They took it outside of the city and broke its neck, and this was going to undo the sin that had already happened and could not be undone? At the root, these sacrifices that the Jews gave were actually fear of grudges within a higher power.
This is all besides the point of “right” and “wrong”. The only way we can make the right choice is if we have enough long term understanding of the byproduct of our choices.
We “sin” less and less as we get older and wiser. Wisdom undoes “sin”. Was it wise for our supposed “Creator” to program old age and eventual death into us? All that this did was stop the progressive wisdom of the individual, which made sin a reoccurring fate for all human life.

When people believe that they are doomed, and lose hope, then comes suicide. Our theories about the future and our understanding of the long term is the most powerful concept within the mind as respects self control and morality.
===========

^
After reading my personally write all of that,
how confused am I about God?

The metaphysics of confusion are a lack of priority and structure, or internal order. This lack of choice is lack of direction, which means lack of action.

Besides my accurate bible knowlage I have had prayers answered. Also I have received "revelations"(?) which I am not sharing and I am antagonizing [them a lot] instead of believing [them] [after asking "God" vast questions]. It is a paradox.
My only word is "why?".

I've spent many months writing and reading about all of this.
All help is apreshiated in the deep logic of principal of the propriety of organic life's direction and optional state of being/action class.
I am trying to "find" (create/descover) the "true" "religion".
"Religion" partians to what?
Truth about the greatest meanings and mysteries of life.
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 05:06 AM)
Upisoft: I'll give you an abbreviated answer to your question(although it still might seem lengthy) and I'll be happy to elaborate on any point, should you so desire. Simply put, the reason that people don't know God(been there, done that) is because they are separated from Him because of sin. Aside from our God-given conscience(con=with, science=knowledge), God has given us His law to bring the knowledge of sin. A simple stroll through the 10 commandments should suffice in removing any self-righteousness from an individual. One lie makes one a liar. One stolen item makes one a thief. One lustful look makes one an adulterer(at least in God's eyes). The list goes on. There is only One person Who has ever lived a sinless life upon this earth. That person is Jesus Christ. Having never sinned, He is the only person that death had no legal claim to "for the wages of sin is death". On the cross of calvary, Jesus willingly became our scapegoat or the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Having been crucified and buried, Jesus Christ is the firstborn from the dead, having defeated death and the grave. For those who are willing to repent of their sins and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, God is willing to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of that penitent sinner and send the Holy Spirit to live inside of them, thus enabling them to be free from sin. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God that genuinely enables one to truly know God as He will be living inside of that individual in the person of the Holy Spirit. As I said, this is basically a "rough draft", but I will be more than happy to elaborate on this. Hope this info helps. I'm done for the night. Talk to you later.

It sounds good, like a tale. Unfortunately, I can't see any reason in what you're saying, that can make me believe that you're saying the Truth. Why should I believe you? Because you're believing in what you're saying? That's not enough for me. I need objective reason.
newguy
Upisoft: How would you personally define "objective reason". I'm not joking...people define terms different ways, so I'm just trying my best to understand what you mean. Thanks.
Upisoft
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 16 2006, 01:11 PM)
Upisoft: How would you personally define "objective reason". I'm not joking...people define terms different ways, so I'm just trying my best to understand what you mean. Thanks.

Objective reason -- reason based on objective facts.
Objective facts -- facts, that can be observed objectively.

In other words I want to base my reason on observations, which can be independently tested and repeated.

newguy
Upisoft: I haven't forgotten you. I've had a very hectic day. Hopefully, I'll respond to your post tomorrow morning. Until then...
Issachar
QUOTE
Objective reason -- reason based on objective facts. Objective facts -- facts, that can be observed objectively.

In other words I want to base my reason on observations, which can be independently tested and repeated.


Upisoft – I think you pose an excellent question which I will come back to in just a minute down below.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Objective reason -- reason based on objective facts. Objective facts -- facts, that can be observed objectively.

In other words I want to base my reason on observations, which can be independently tested and repeated.


Upisoft – I think you pose an excellent question which I will come back to in just a minute down below.

I am trying to "find" (create/descover) the "true" "religion".

YFH - You say you wish to find/create the true religion. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is impossible to find the meaning of life in religion or philosophy, etc. There is no magic scientific formula for life that we can apply & there is no way we could ever be good enough to please G-d by following a strict set of guidelines, because we always miss the mark and fall short of His perfection. Is G-d unfair by holding us to His standard of perfection, did G-d lie?
www.godonthe.net/jewish/

What good has all your searching for religion/mysticism/philosophy done? Its only left you more confused than ever, like a small craft tossed about the ocean by the pounding surf. G-d would never want you to go kill yourself, please don’t blame Him. blink.gif
The only way you can fill the vacuum in your life is by having a personal Relationship with the One who is The Answer. To know Him through Yeshua the Messiah (called Jesus in the Greek language, see link above for more details or Newguy’s overview gave the basics.) YFH – I will complement you that at least you are searching.

Now to Upisoft’s Question: How about we look at some historical evidence.
We could start with the historical reliability of the Gospels, the four eyewitness accounts of the life of the one called Jesus.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Written by Patrick Zukeran

Differences Between the Four Gospels
Skeptics have criticized the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, as being legendary in nature rather than historical. They point to alleged contradictions between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They also maintain the Gospels were written centuries after the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. The late date of the writings allowed legends and exaggerations to proliferate, they say.

Are the Gospels historical or mythological?

The first challenge to address is how to account for the differences among the four Gospels. They are each different in nature, content, and the facts they include or exclude. The reason for the variations is that each author wrote to a different audience and from his own unique perspective. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience to prove to them that Jesus is indeed their Messiah. That's why Matthew includes many of the teachings of Christ and makes numerous references to Old Testament prophecies. Mark wrote to a Greek or Gentile audience to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, he makes his case by focusing on the events of Christ's life. His gospel moves very quickly from one event to another, demonstrating Christ's lordship over all creation. Luke wrote to give an accurate historical account of Jesus' life. John wrote after reflecting on his encounter with Christ for many years. With that insight, near the end of his life John sat down and wrote the most theological of all the Gospels.

We should expect some differences between four independent accounts. If they were identical, we would suspect the writers of collaboration with one another. Because of their differences, the four Gospels actually give us a fuller and richer picture of Jesus.

Let me give you an example. Imagine if four people wrote a biography on your life: your son, your father, a co-worker, and a good friend. They would each focus on different aspects of your life and write from a unique perspective. One would be writing about you as a parent, another as a child growing up, one as a professional, and one as a peer. Each may include different stories or see the same event from a different angle, but their differences would not mean they are in error. When we put all four accounts together, we would get a richer picture of your life and character. That is what is taking place in the Gospels.

So we acknowledge that differences do not necessarily mean errors. Skeptics have made allegations of errors for centuries, yet the vast majority of charges have been answered. New Testament scholar, Dr. Craig Blomberg, writes, "Despite two centuries of skeptical onslaught, it is fair to say that all the alleged inconsistencies among the Gospels have received at least plausible resolutions."{1} Another scholar, Murray Harris, emphasizes, "Even then the presence of discrepancies in circumstantial detail is no proof that the central fact is unhistorical."{2} The four Gospels give us a complementary, not a contradictory, account.

The Date of the New Testament Writings: Internal Evidence

Critics claim that the Gospels were written centuries after the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. This would allow for myths about Jesus' life to proliferate. Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses as they claim, or were they written centuries later? The historical facts appear to make a strong case for a first century date.
Jesus' ministry was from A.D. 27-30. Noted New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100.{3} Most writings of the New Testament works were completed twenty to forty years before this. The Gospels are dated traditionally as follows: Mark is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60. Matthew and Luke follow and are written between A.D. 60-70; John is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100.
The internal evidence supports these early dates for several reasons. The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. Why do they not mention such an important prophetic milestone? The most plausible explanation is that it had not yet occurred at the time Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written.
In the book of Acts, the Temple plays a central role in the nation of Israel. Luke writes as if the Temple is an important part of Jewish life. He also ends Acts on a strange note: Paul living under house arrest. It is strange that Luke does not record the death of his two chief characters, Peter and Paul. The most plausible reason for this is that Luke finished writing Acts before Peter and Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 64. A significant point to highlight is that the Gospel of Luke precedes Acts, further supporting the traditional dating of A.D. 60. Furthermore, most scholars agree Mark precedes Luke, making Mark's Gospel even earlier.
Finally, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are written from A.D. 48-60. Paul's outline of the life of Jesus matches that of the Gospels. 1 Corinthians is one of the least disputed books regarding its dating and Pauline authorship. In chapter 15, Paul summarizes the gospel and reinforces the premise that this is the same gospel preached by the apostles. Even more compelling is that Paul quotes from Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18, showing us that Luke's Gospel was indeed completed in Paul's lifetime. This would move up the time of the completion of Luke's Gospel along with Mark and Matthew.
The internal evidence presents a strong case for the early dating of the Gospels.

The Date of the Gospels: External Evidence

Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses of the events, or were they not recorded until centuries later? As with the internal evidence, the external evidence also supports a first century date.

Fortunately, New Testament scholars have an enormous amount of ancient manuscript evidence. The documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses any other work of its time. We have over 5000 manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors' lives.

Here are some key documents. An important manuscript is the Chester Beatty Papyri. It contains most of the N.T. writings, and is dated around A.D. 250.
The Bodmer Papyri contains most of John, and dates to A.D. 200. Another is the Rylands Papyri that was found in Egypt that contains a fragment of John, and dates to A.D. 130. From this fragment we can conclude that John was completed well before A.D. 130 because, not only did the gospel have to be written, it had to be hand copied and make its way down from Greece to Egypt. Since the vast majority of scholars agree that John is the last gospel written, we can affirm its first century date along with the other three with greater assurance.

A final piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.{4}

Another line of evidence is the writings of the church fathers. Clement of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95. in which he quoted from the Gospels and other portions of the N.T. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A.D. 115, quoting all the Gospels and other N.T. letters. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians in A.D. 120 and quoted from the Gospels and N.T. letters. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) quotes John 3. Church fathers of the early second century were familiar with the apostle's writings and quoted them as inspired Scripture.

Early dating is important for two reasons. The closer a historical record is to the date of the event, the more likely the record is accurate. Early dating allows for eyewitnesses to still be alive when the Gospels were circulating to attest to their accuracy. The apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd, pointing to their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, 26:26). Also, the time is too short for legends to develop. Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves.

From the evidence, we can conclude the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they are attributed to.

How Reliable was the Oral Tradition?

Previously, I defended the early dating of the Gospels. Despite this early dating, there is a time gap of several years between the ascension of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. There is a period during which the gospel accounts were committed to memory by the disciples and transmitted orally. The question we must answer is, Was the oral tradition memorized and passed on accurately? Skeptics assert that memory and oral tradition cannot accurately preserve accounts from person to person for many years.

The evidence shows that in oral cultures where memory has been trained for generations, oral memory can accurately preserve and pass on large amounts of information. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 reveals to us how important oral instruction and memory of divine teaching was stressed in Jewish culture. It is a well-known fact that the rabbis had the O.T. and much of the oral law committed to memory. The Jews placed a high value on memorizing whatever wri ting reflected inspired Scripture and the wisdom of God. I studied under a Greek professor who had the Gospels memorized word perfect. In a culture where this was practiced, memorization skills were far advanced compared to ours today. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock states that the Jewish culture was "a culture of memory."{5}
Rainer Reisner presents six key reasons why oral tradition accurately preserved Jesus' teachings.{6} First, Jesus used the Old Testament prophets' practice of proclaiming the word of God which demanded accurate preservation of inspired teaching. Second, Jesus' presentations of Himself as Messiah would reinforce among His followers the need to preserve His words accurately. Third, ninety percent of Jesus' teachings and sayings use mnemonic methods similar to those used in Hebrew poetry. Fourth, Jesus trained His disciples to teach His lessons even while He was on earth. Fifth, Jewish boys were educated until they were twelve, so the disciples likely knew how to read and write. Finally, just as Jewish and Greek teachers gathered disciples, Jesus gathered and trained His to carry on after His death.

When one studies the teachings of Jesus, one realizes that His teachings and illustrations are easy to memorize. People throughout the world recognize immediately the story of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Lord's Prayer.

We also know that the church preserved the teachings of Christ in the form of hymns which were likewise easy to memorize. Paul's summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is a good example of this.

We can have confidence then that the oral tradition accurately preserved the teachings and the events of Jesus' life till they were written down just a few years later.

The Transmission of the Gospel Texts

When I am speaking with Muslims or Mormons, we often come to a point in the discussion where it is clear the Bible contradicts their position. It is then they claim, as many skeptics, do that the Bible has not been accurately transmitted and has been corrupted by the church. In regards to the Gospels, do we have an accurate copy of the original texts or have they been corrupted?
Previously, we showed that the Gospels were written in the first century, within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses, both friendly and hostile, scrutinized the accounts for accuracy.

So the original writings were accurate. However, we do not have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies. Are these accurate, or have they been tampered with? As shown earlier, we have 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. When you include the quotes from the church fathers, manuscripts from other early translations like the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic text, and others, the total comes out to over 24,000 ancient texts. With so many ancient texts, significant alterations should be easy to spot. However, those who accuse the New Testament of being corrupted have not produced such evidence. This is significant because it should be easy to do with so many manuscripts available. The truth is, the large number of manuscripts confirm the accurate preservation and transmission of the New Testament writings.
Although we can be confident in an accurate copy, we do have textual discrepancies. There are some passages with variant readings that we are not sure of. However, the differences are minor and do not affect any major theological doctrine. Most have to do with sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. These in no way affect any major doctrine.

Here is one example. In our Bibles, Mark 16:9-20 is debated as to whether it was part of the original writings. Although I personally do not believe this passage was part of the original text, its inclusion does not affect any major teaching of Christianity. It states that Christ was resurrected, appeared to the disciples, and commissioned them to preach the gospel. This is taught elsewhere.

The other discrepancies are similar in nature. Greek scholars agree we have a copy very accurate to the original. Westcott and Hort state that we have a copy 98.33% accurate to the original.{7} A.T. Robertson gave a figure of 99% accuracy to the original.{8} As historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{9}

Do Miracles Discredit the Gospels?

Skeptics question the accuracy of the Gospels because of the miracles. However, this is an issue of worldviews. Those who hold to a naturalistic worldview do not believe an omnipotent creator exists. All that exists is energy and matter. Therefore, miracles are impossible. Their conclusion, then, is that the miracle accounts in the Gospels are exaggerations or myths.
Those who hold to a theistic worldview can accept miracles in light of our understanding of God and Christ. God can intervene in time and space and alter the natural regularities of nature much like finite humans can in smaller limited ways. If Jesus is the Son of God, we can expect Him to perform miracles to affirm His claims to be divine. But worldviews are not where this ends. We also need to take a good look at the historical facts.

As shown previously, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the events of the life of Christ. Early dating shows eyewitnesses were alive when Gospels were circulating and could attest to their accuracy. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd, pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, Acts 26:26). Therefore, if there were any exaggerations or stories being told about Christ that were not true, the eyewitnesses could have easily discredited the apostles accounts. Remember, they began preaching in Israel in the very cities and during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. The Jews were careful to record accurate historical accounts. Many enemies of the early church were looking for ways to discredit the apostles' teaching. If what the apostles were saying was not true, the enemies would have cried foul, and the Gospels would not have earned much credibility.

There are also non-Christian sources that attest to the miracles of Christ. Josephus writes, "Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles." The Jewish Talmud, written in the fifth century A.D., attributes Jesus' miracles to sorcery. Opponents of the Gospels do not deny He did miracles, they just present alternative explanations for them.

Finally, Christ's power over creation is supremely revealed in the resurrection. The resurrection is one of the best attested to events in history. For a full treatment, look up the article Resurrection: Fact or Fiction on the Probe Web site at Probe.org.

Notes
1. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 10.
2. Ibid., 9.
3. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 14.
4. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002), 530.
5. Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing, 1995), 80.
6. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 27-28.
7. Geisler, 474.
8. Ibid.
9. Quoted by Norman Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405.
GeneSplicer
And this audio presentation is different from other ID and CS arguments because? The speaker is making claims based upon presumptions and making leaps of logic or just engaging in fallacies of composition. He is also simply looking for any item to support his claims.
Upisoft
Issachar,

I've read your long essay. I couldn't write so much text in English in reasonable time frame, so I'll just limit the number of my questions.
Is it independently tested and verified? Who saw the resurrected body of Jesus?
Have the resurrection event been repeated? Who also was been resurrected?
Can we repeat this miracle now? If answer is yes, then how? If answer is not, then why not?

QUOTE
If Jesus is the Son of God, we can expect Him to perform miracles to affirm His claims to be divine.


You said this quite right. Answer me then, why God don't do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess wrong religion?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If Jesus is the Son of God, we can expect Him to perform miracles to affirm His claims to be divine.


You said this quite right. Answer me then, why God don't do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess wrong religion?

The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. Why do they not mention such an important prophetic milestone?


Why would the illusionist show the system of mirrors to the spectators?
Issachar
Upisoft-
I think you present some more very good questions. And yes, the essay was long indeed so thanks for taking the time to read it.

I will do my best answer to provide you a response but must run catch public transportation at the moment, so I hope to pick this up later. rolleyes.gif
Regards,
Physfan
Upisoft, I have two cliches for you.

"You are preaching to the converted" and "you are beating your head against a brick wall."

Face it, you will never save these people from their ignorance. They have their version of an invisible best friend and nothing will stop them believing that their brand of 'fairy at the bottom of the garden' isn't the one true deity. Gee, I'm still typing...............no bolt of lightning for a blasphemer. There goes their proof!

Signed

Physfan
(a non-theist)
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE
YFH - You say you wish to find/create the true religion. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is impossible to find the meaning of life in religion or philosophy, etc. There is no magic scientific formula for life that we can apply & there is no way we could ever be good enough to please G-d by following a strict set of guidelines, because we always miss the mark and fall short of His perfection. Is G-d unfair by holding us to His standard of perfection, did G-d lie?
www.godonthe.net/jewish/

That is a negative attitude.

Religion is a form of government based on theory and fantacy.
Religion is also a belief [so is sceintific method].

You do know that forms of government got better with time and development.

If there is a God then [I think that] he evolved and did not create matter/energy.
[The biblical] "God's" balance/reason/willingness to act/love/mercy/decency do not match the claims of his accomplishments. I hope you have enough understanding of the depth and meaning of morals to understand exactly what I'm saying here.

The Jews are not "God". They are [even] less "godly" and "righteous" then certian other religions/nations/races.
///////////////
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
YFH - You say you wish to find/create the true religion. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is impossible to find the meaning of life in religion or philosophy, etc. There is no magic scientific formula for life that we can apply & there is no way we could ever be good enough to please G-d by following a strict set of guidelines, because we always miss the mark and fall short of His perfection. Is G-d unfair by holding us to His standard of perfection, did G-d lie?
www.godonthe.net/jewish/

That is a negative attitude.

Religion is a form of government based on theory and fantacy.
Religion is also a belief [so is sceintific method].

You do know that forms of government got better with time and development.

If there is a God then [I think that] he evolved and did not create matter/energy.
[The biblical] "God's" balance/reason/willingness to act/love/mercy/decency do not match the claims of his accomplishments. I hope you have enough understanding of the depth and meaning of morals to understand exactly what I'm saying here.

The Jews are not "God". They are [even] less "godly" and "righteous" then certian other religions/nations/races.
///////////////
What good has all your searching for religion/mysticism/philosophy done? Its only left you more confused than ever, like a small craft tossed about the ocean by the pounding surf. G-d would never want you to go kill yourself, please don’t blame Him. 
The only way you can fill the vacuum in your life is by having a personal Relationship with the One who is The Answer.

Your cure for [parts of] reality is [partial] insanity. It feels good, but thats all that it does. Beleif and truth must work hard to join eachother. I am not as "confused" as you think. I am not afraid to question the man who tries to tell me what to do.

"searching for religion/mysticism/philosophy" - strait facts and balanced emotion heal the mind. Religions are of little use to me now.
Upisoft
QUOTE (Physfan+Jan 18 2006, 01:50 AM)
Upisoft, I have two cliches for you.

"You are preaching to the converted" and "you are beating your head against a brick wall."

Face it, you will never save these people from their ignorance. They have their version of an invisible best friend and nothing will stop them believing that their brand of 'fairy at the bottom of the garden' isn't the one true deity. Gee, I'm still typing...............no bolt of lightning for a blasphemer. There goes their proof!

Signed

Physfan
(a non-theist)

I'm starting to believe that you can be right. I know many religious people that have no troubles to understand that religion and science are two different domains. They accept that the Theory of Evolution is plausible as scientific theory, but they don't believe in it's implications, because they contradict their believes.
They consider the science is abstract knowledge, like mathematics, and their believes are their reality.
I'm just trying to understand why these people can't understand that science is abstract knowledge, and it is reality only for those that believe in it's implications.

Physfan
Upisoft
QUOTE
I'm just trying to understand why these people can't understand that science is abstract knowledge, and it is reality only for those that believe in it's implications.


I have to disagree on this point. Without being too deep, everything can be considered abstract.

As for science, it is both abstract and tangible, conceptual and solid.
As for its reality, we live our entire lives awash in it, floating in a sea of science.
Whether it is our food (plentiful, nutritious and safe), water (clean, pure and safe), transport (clean, comfortable and safe), medicine (life-saving, available and safe), entertainment (abundant, available and safe)........the list goes on. Note the recurring theme; we life long, happy, hunger-free, watered, fulfilled lives due to ........................................................................................................................................................................................yep, you guessed it - science.

To paraphrase Monty Python, 'what's God ever done for me?'.
Upisoft
QUOTE (Physfan+Jan 18 2006, 04:33 AM)
I have to disagree on this point. Without being too deep, everything can be considered abstract.

As for science, it is both abstract and tangible, conceptual and solid.

If one believes in ghosts, they are very real to him/her. The reality is both subjective and objective. The objective reality will be not real to one, who don't accept it as his/her personal(subjective) reality.
So, yes, science is abstract and tangible for you and me. However, it's only abstract to them, or even worse, is could look as total crap.

I don't know how they can live with this contradiction. They don't believe in science, but express their disbelief using computers, which are the essence of the modern science.
Messenger
QUOTE
So, yes, science is abstract and tangible for you and me. However, it's only abstract to them, or even worse, is could look as total crap.


Science is not the problem, evolution is.

I agree with the crapola part, but replace the word science with evolution. I'm fairly certain that all other sciences are easily understood by most, and provide experiential, visual and/or reproducable evidence. Evolution cannot be called science if you go according to the scientific method:

Evolution is not a scientifically testable theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a scientist (1) Observe a problem or a question to be studied (2) Make a hypothesis (a possible explanation) (3) Design repeatable experiments to test the hypothesis (4) Make observations from the experiments (5) Collect data (6) Form conclusions to support or reject the hypothesis (7) Continue testing new hypothesis if conclusions reject original hypothesis.

Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself.


The only thing than an evolution proponent can say is 'baloney', because they 'believe' in evolution, so anything contrary to their beliefs is considered 'baloney' by them.

NOTE TO YFH,

My observation is that you need Jesus with skin on; a real live person who believes in Jesus. You need to talk to a Christian person in-person.

Please find and call a Bible believing church, and ask to speak to a Pastoral Counselor, or the Pastor.
If you don't know where to find one, tell me what city/state/country you live in and I will find one for you. Feel free to send a private message if you prefer.

Take care,
Upisoft
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 06:22 AM)
Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself. [/i]

The only thing than an evolution proponent can say is 'baloney', because they 'believe' in evolution, so anything contrary to their beliefs is considered 'baloney' by them.

Messenger,
Don't be so sure. Read this article.

I'm waiting for your evidence that there is at least one species that were created.

GeneSplicer
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 06:22 AM)
Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself. [/i]

The only thing than an evolution proponent can say is 'baloney', because they 'believe' in evolution, so anything contrary to their beliefs is considered 'baloney' by them.



What about specialization in humans that has taken place? How about dietary specialization that served those humans in their native climate and civilization but is a threat to their health in our modern food rich world?

You cannot observer that which you are unwilling to acknowledge.
sinned34
QUOTE
I am trying to "find" (create/descover) the "true" "religion".


YFH,

You're probably getting tired of people telling you what to do, where to look, and what to believe. As somebody who began life as agnostic, became religious, then rejected it after much studying I will just say this: look everywhere and question everything. Take the good (ie: Jesus' teachings about treating "the least of these") and reject the bad (ie: the bible's support for genocide and slavery). I've attempted to read anything I can find about spirituality, from the Satanic Bible to Zen Archery. I cannot guarantee what you'll find, but for myself, I found that humans are the masters of their own destiny and creators of their own purpose. Some people sell out their destinies and purposes to "otherworldly" beings, whereas others take control of their own lives. I found religion to be ancient, recycled ideas on the abstract and the tangible (thank you for the phrase, Physfan). We see conflict in modern times as science has made progress towards sending some religious thought on it's way to obsolescence regarding the tangible, and has recently made a handful of forays into the abstract. Some religionists see their beliefs threatened, and while some are able to conform their beliefs to science, others are unable or unwilling to "give an inch", hence the legal struggles for representation in schools.

Issachar,

I have read many a critique of the bible that addresses the arguments that you have laid here, and of course lead to completely different conclusions. I'll see if I can take the time to come up with those arguments, but I likely won't have the ability to make such an effort until the weekend. At any rate, if you wish to believe the new testament, then it's easy for you to dismiss critical analysis to the contrary. Similarly, if you don't believe Jesus was divine, then it is simple to dismiss the incredible claims of the bible in the same manner as all other books with similar spiritual propositions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I am trying to "find" (create/descover) the "true" "religion".


YFH,

You're probably getting tired of people telling you what to do, where to look, and what to believe. As somebody who began life as agnostic, became religious, then rejected it after much studying I will just say this: look everywhere and question everything. Take the good (ie: Jesus' teachings about treating "the least of these") and reject the bad (ie: the bible's support for genocide and slavery). I've attempted to read anything I can find about spirituality, from the Satanic Bible to Zen Archery. I cannot guarantee what you'll find, but for myself, I found that humans are the masters of their own destiny and creators of their own purpose. Some people sell out their destinies and purposes to "otherworldly" beings, whereas others take control of their own lives. I found religion to be ancient, recycled ideas on the abstract and the tangible (thank you for the phrase, Physfan). We see conflict in modern times as science has made progress towards sending some religious thought on it's way to obsolescence regarding the tangible, and has recently made a handful of forays into the abstract. Some religionists see their beliefs threatened, and while some are able to conform their beliefs to science, others are unable or unwilling to "give an inch", hence the legal struggles for representation in schools.

Issachar,

I have read many a critique of the bible that addresses the arguments that you have laid here, and of course lead to completely different conclusions. I'll see if I can take the time to come up with those arguments, but I likely won't have the ability to make such an effort until the weekend. At any rate, if you wish to believe the new testament, then it's easy for you to dismiss critical analysis to the contrary. Similarly, if you don't believe Jesus was divine, then it is simple to dismiss the incredible claims of the bible in the same manner as all other books with similar spiritual propositions.

Messenger,
Don't be so sure. Read this article.


Since Messy thinks evolution is one large falsehood, it is no big deal for him to dismiss this article outright. No amount of evidence will be enough to convince him evolution has occurred, until his god slaps him on the back of the head and says, "I left ALL this evidence for how I developed the universe over billions of years and you COMPLETELY ignored it. Twit!"
msd
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 07:58 PM)
Spontaneism:
If something can exist [or happen], then it eventually will.
The reason for existence is possibility, not creation.
If things do exist, this means that their existence is possible, and not only can it happen once, but it can happen again! This means that there already is, or there will be more then one universes [within our single reality]. This also means that if there is one reality [that all universes are within] that there will eventually be [or already are] other realities.
^
This is what I thought up to replace my previous ideas of intelligent design.
What do you think of that?
I am a firm believer in what I call "spontaneism" [but I'm so open minded that I would listen to any critic...].

according to your argument:

e (existence) = p (possibility); therefore
e does not = c (creation).

There is a fallacy in your argument, because p may exist because of c.
Steveo
QUOTE
Evolution is not a scientifically testable theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a scientist (1) Observe a problem or a question to be studied (2) Make a hypothesis (a possible explanation) (3) Design repeatable experiments to test the hypothesis (4) Make observations from the experiments (5) Collect data (6) Form conclusions to support or reject the hypothesis (7) Continue testing new hypothesis if conclusions reject original hypothesis.

Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself.


So according to this, Astronomy is no longer a science right? Cause you can only make observations in astronomy....you can't manipulate the stars to control variables.....so astronomy is not science.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution is not a scientifically testable theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a scientist (1) Observe a problem or a question to be studied (2) Make a hypothesis (a possible explanation) (3) Design repeatable experiments to test the hypothesis (4) Make observations from the experiments (5) Collect data (6) Form conclusions to support or reject the hypothesis (7) Continue testing new hypothesis if conclusions reject original hypothesis.

Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself.


So according to this, Astronomy is no longer a science right? Cause you can only make observations in astronomy....you can't manipulate the stars to control variables.....so astronomy is not science.

Evolution in action. Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. In the case of HIV, which causes AIDS, significant viral evolution occurs within the course of infection of a single patient, and this rapid evolution enables the virus to evade the immune system. Many agricultural pests have evolved resistance to chemicals that farmers have used for only a few decades. As we work to control diseases and pests, the responsible organisms have been evolving to escape our controls. Moreover, scientists can perform experiments to study evolution in real time, just as experiments are used to observe dynamic processes in physics, chemistry, and other branches of biology. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

So your in error when you say repeatable experiments can't be designed. Sorry buddy!
bmcghie
To all you preachers of "You can't demonstrate evolution" and the like:
Take a look at http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ . As you will see, this is a program designed to view EVOLUTION of incredibly simple computer functions. Read some of the descriptions, I'm sure you'll be very impressed.

Note the fact that it is all computerized allows you to hop 10,000 years in the blink of an eye, assuming that your computer is fast enough.

Finally, I realize that digital bits of information are a long strech from actual organisms, but keep in mind you are nothing more than a bunch of strands of DNA. A.K.A. genetic CODE...

Check it out.
-ben out-

P.S. No, I am NOT working for Caltech tongue.gif
Steveo
Simulations are actually a really good way to test evolution. You start with the assumptions, like natural selection etc...and you can test the results over many generations quickly instead of having to wait for 1000's of years. Then if you set up your program to something that we can see through the fossil records or some other kind of evidence and if the simulation arrives at the same answer.....gives some extra validation and credibility to evolution (not like it needs anymore).
Messenger
My immediate observations and comments:

1. Steveo,
Those are your industry's standards, not mine.

QUOTE
Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent's gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA. 


From your referenced article - this seems to be one of the key methods for evolution. But I disagree (and so do ID Scientists). Mutation as a result of imperfectly copied replication has not lost the original information (according to Grumpy) and so it will correct itself out the next time, or times after that.
The ID response to recombination:

Microevolutionary mutations are often hailed as the source for the variation required by common descent. From an evolutionary standpoint, mutations are the cause for new variation, but there is another process that is probably greatly overlooked. According to Mayr, genetic recombination “in a population is the major source of the phenotypic variation available for effective natural selection.” (Mayr, 106) So mutation produces the variants, but recombination is responsible for capitalizing on it. Recombination is a complex process involving proteins and is not random like mutations are. Much research remains to be done in this area, of course, but if most of the variation in a population is due to specific cellular mechanisms, then there's plenty of room for a designer.

What Evolution Is also covers in quite some detail the origin of a new species, speciation. Mayr is careful to distinguish between phyletic evolution (one species evolving into another species evolving into another, etc.) and speciation, “the production of several new species by a single parental species.” (176, Mayr) This distinction may provide a basis for distinguishing between speciation in terms of common ancestry, which I don't subscribe to, and speciation in general, which doesn't necessarily involve any changes in morphology. Mayr's basic explanations of sympatric and allopatric speciation do not, as far as I can tell, require any adherence to common ancestry. Many design theorists over the years, including me, have been very reluctant to accept speciation. Part of this may be due to the varying definition of “species,” but I really don't know, since I'm pretty new to this debate. A problem for defining species is the difference between sexual and asexual organisms. If a species is strictly defined as an isolated group that can reproduce viable offspring, then I don't have much of a problem with it, although this becomes a tad problematic when dealing with asexual organisms like bacteria. However, I doubt it's anything but rare, and also must point out that such limited speciation, which is heavily reliant on one's definition of species, doesn't do much for the evolutionist cause. (*)

“No well-informed person any longer questions the descent of man from primates and more specifically from apes,” Mayr says. (235, Mayr) According to him, the evidence “is simply too overwhelming.” (235, Mayr) He then proceeds to explain the evidence, and due to the lack thereof, his chapter on the evolution of humans is really quite amusing, although that was beyond any doubt not his intent. One of the principle differences between us Homo sapiens and other hominids and apes is our large brain size. Somehow evolutionists have to explain how brain size increased while the birth canal did not. Mayr's explanation is that “much of the growth of the brain had to be shifted to the postnatal period” (Mayr, 248) and that infants were born prematurely. One wonders what the mechanism for such dramatic changes (our ancestral mothers would also have to change to accommodate the modifications in the infants) was, but like with so many other evolutionary explanations, it just had to happen seems to be the basis.

Furthermore, Mayr notes before he traces the history of man to ape: “Any new find may drastically change the situation…It is important in this bewildering situation not to take anything for granted…The resulting picture is entirely based on inferences and any part of it may be refuted at any time.” (Mayr, 239-40) This really isn't too different from Icons of Evolution, in which Jonathan Wells states “we are simply fed the latest version of somebody's theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it.” (Wells, 225) How interesting. If the evidence is so powerful, how come the theories can be “refuted at any time?” We recently saw an example of how volatile the study of human origins is. Just take a look at the latest issue of National Geographic. If we're not supposed “to take anything for granted,” then how can any well-informed person not question the descent of man from primates?

Source: http://www.idurc.org/archive/losingancestry.htm
I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

2. bmcghie,
The scientists on this board have repeatedly told me that you cannot compare artificial objects to natural objects. Genesplicer, I think, said it would be like putting a chair in the middle of the room and waiting for it to evolve into a piano.
It's no wonder you guys can't get your story straight - you're on different highways.

Human DNA Code can run circles around man made computer codes.

The website you mentioned included a link to one of their magazine articles:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/ar...2005_Avida.html
One of the questions shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of modern scientists to explain the diversity found in forests. See just part of the article below - regarding the forest question:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent's gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA. 


From your referenced article - this seems to be one of the key methods for evolution. But I disagree (and so do ID Scientists). Mutation as a result of imperfectly copied replication has not lost the original information (according to Grumpy) and so it will correct itself out the next time, or times after that.
The ID response to recombination:

Microevolutionary mutations are often hailed as the source for the variation required by common descent. From an evolutionary standpoint, mutations are the cause for new variation, but there is another process that is probably greatly overlooked. According to Mayr, genetic recombination “in a population is the major source of the phenotypic variation available for effective natural selection.” (Mayr, 106) So mutation produces the variants, but recombination is responsible for capitalizing on it. Recombination is a complex process involving proteins and is not random like mutations are. Much research remains to be done in this area, of course, but if most of the variation in a population is due to specific cellular mechanisms, then there's plenty of room for a designer.

What Evolution Is also covers in quite some detail the origin of a new species, speciation. Mayr is careful to distinguish between phyletic evolution (one species evolving into another species evolving into another, etc.) and speciation, “the production of several new species by a single parental species.” (176, Mayr) This distinction may provide a basis for distinguishing between speciation in terms of common ancestry, which I don't subscribe to, and speciation in general, which doesn't necessarily involve any changes in morphology. Mayr's basic explanations of sympatric and allopatric speciation do not, as far as I can tell, require any adherence to common ancestry. Many design theorists over the years, including me, have been very reluctant to accept speciation. Part of this may be due to the varying definition of “species,” but I really don't know, since I'm pretty new to this debate. A problem for defining species is the difference between sexual and asexual organisms. If a species is strictly defined as an isolated group that can reproduce viable offspring, then I don't have much of a problem with it, although this becomes a tad problematic when dealing with asexual organisms like bacteria. However, I doubt it's anything but rare, and also must point out that such limited speciation, which is heavily reliant on one's definition of species, doesn't do much for the evolutionist cause. (*)

“No well-informed person any longer questions the descent of man from primates and more specifically from apes,” Mayr says. (235, Mayr) According to him, the evidence “is simply too overwhelming.” (235, Mayr) He then proceeds to explain the evidence, and due to the lack thereof, his chapter on the evolution of humans is really quite amusing, although that was beyond any doubt not his intent. One of the principle differences between us Homo sapiens and other hominids and apes is our large brain size. Somehow evolutionists have to explain how brain size increased while the birth canal did not. Mayr's explanation is that “much of the growth of the brain had to be shifted to the postnatal period” (Mayr, 248) and that infants were born prematurely. One wonders what the mechanism for such dramatic changes (our ancestral mothers would also have to change to accommodate the modifications in the infants) was, but like with so many other evolutionary explanations, it just had to happen seems to be the basis.

Furthermore, Mayr notes before he traces the history of man to ape: “Any new find may drastically change the situation…It is important in this bewildering situation not to take anything for granted…The resulting picture is entirely based on inferences and any part of it may be refuted at any time.” (Mayr, 239-40) This really isn't too different from Icons of Evolution, in which Jonathan Wells states “we are simply fed the latest version of somebody's theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it.” (Wells, 225) How interesting. If the evidence is so powerful, how come the theories can be “refuted at any time?” We recently saw an example of how volatile the study of human origins is. Just take a look at the latest issue of National Geographic. If we're not supposed “to take anything for granted,” then how can any well-informed person not question the descent of man from primates?

Source: http://www.idurc.org/archive/losingancestry.htm
I could go on, but I trust you get the point.

2. bmcghie,
The scientists on this board have repeatedly told me that you cannot compare artificial objects to natural objects. Genesplicer, I think, said it would be like putting a chair in the middle of the room and waiting for it to evolve into a piano.
It's no wonder you guys can't get your story straight - you're on different highways.

Human DNA Code can run circles around man made computer codes.

The website you mentioned included a link to one of their magazine articles:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/ar...2005_Avida.html
One of the questions shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of modern scientists to explain the diversity found in forests. See just part of the article below - regarding the forest question:

QUESTION #2: WHY DOES A FOREST HAVE MORE THAN ONE KIND OF PLANT?

When you walk into a forest, the first thing you see is diversity. Trees tower high overhead, ferns lurk down below, vines wander here and there like tangled snakes. Yet these trees, ferns, and vines are all plants, and as such, they all make a living in the same way, by catching sunlight. If one species was better than all the rest at catching sunlight, then you might expect it to outcompete the other plants and take over the forest. But it's clear that evolution has taken a different course.

Figuring out why is a full-time job for a small army of biologists. A number of them seek enlightenment by comparing places that are rich and poor in species and trying to figure out the other things that make them different. One intriguing pattern has to do with food. Ecologists have found that the more energy a habitat can provide organisms, the more species it can support. But a habitat can get too productive. Then it supports fewer species. This pattern has emerged time and again in studies on ecosystems ranging from grasslands to Arctic tundra.


What we will see from this type of experiment is a plethora of numeric manipulations to educe the desired effect or result. Scientists have failed in their initial attempts to solve the evolution riddle. Now they will resort to using man made computers combined with man made manipulation. Ironically, this is also a way that some creatures have achieved minor changes - through human manipulation (breeding, etc.).

Their incredibly simple computer functions are going to have to evolve into a much more complex system if they are to take every possible turn of events in the history of the universe into consideration.

QUOTE
Simulations are actually a really good way to test evolution. You start with the assumptions, like natural selection etc...and you can test the results over many generations quickly instead of having to wait for 1000's of years. Then if you set up your program to something that we can see through the fossil records or some other kind of evidence and if the simulation arrives at the same answer.....gives some extra validation and credibility to evolution (not like it needs anymore).


Steveo,
An impossible task, since you do not know the variables. Again, evolution is mathematically impossible, and now proven to be unrepeatable or observable. You have no way of knowing whether your genesis assumptions are right or wrong.
Kaeroll
QUOTE
Again, evolution is mathematically impossible, and now proven to be unrepeatable or observable.

Publish that one in a journal, you'll be bigger than Einstein.
Messenger
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 18 2006, 07:39 AM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 06:22 AM)
Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated in an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself. [/i]

The only thing than an evolution proponent can say is 'baloney', because they 'believe' in evolution, so anything contrary to their beliefs is considered 'baloney' by them.

Messenger,
Don't be so sure. Read this article.

I'm waiting for your evidence that there is at least one species that were created.


Upisoft,
1. National Geo is a political outfit that seeks to blame everything from global warming to evolution on humans, and more specifically one named GW Bush.

From your referenced article at:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._evolution.html

QUOTE
The Lonicera fly evolved as a hybrid of two existing U.S. species, the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, according to the study


I know, I know!!! This sounds like it must make a Raspberry Maggot who is better adapted to cold weather than the blueberry and snowberry maggots. Right? So why'd they call it the Lonicera Fly? I know, they're just trying to confuse us. It's all a big conspiracy to take over the world with maggots! (just kidding)
This is nothing, Upisoft. It would be like getting excited over two different types of cats interbreeding. Do they actually pay people to write these articles?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Lonicera fly evolved as a hybrid of two existing U.S. species, the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, according to the study


I know, I know!!! This sounds like it must make a Raspberry Maggot who is better adapted to cold weather than the blueberry and snowberry maggots. Right? So why'd they call it the Lonicera Fly? I know, they're just trying to confuse us. It's all a big conspiracy to take over the world with maggots! (just kidding)
This is nothing, Upisoft. It would be like getting excited over two different types of cats interbreeding. Do they actually pay people to write these articles?

George Turner is a professor of evolutionary biology and biodiversity at the University of Hull in England. He agrees that animal evolution through hybridization may be much more widespread than previously believed.


This scientist is one of the major evolution pushers, and will use any opportunity to get his name in print - big news, or as in this case, insignificant, news. IMHO.

http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/people.htm - take a look at George Turner's website - this page shows his current researchers. A wide and diverse looking crew, wouldn't you say? An example of evolution? Or just human beings of the Armour Hot Dog variety?

He goes on to say this:

QUOTE
"I think this kind of speciation is most likely in animals were there are lots of similar, fast-evolving species, such as in certain types of insects and fish," he added.


Gotta get your story straight guys - get on the same highway. Slow, fast - we don't know.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"I think this kind of speciation is most likely in animals were there are lots of similar, fast-evolving species, such as in certain types of insects and fish," he added.


Gotta get your story straight guys - get on the same highway. Slow, fast - we don't know.

Turner says recent evidence indicates that some fish species also evolved as hybrids.

German researchers have studied cichlids (a type of tropical freshwater fish) living in tiny volcano-crater lakes in Cameroon, West Africa. Their studies have shown that at least one cichlid species started off as a hybrid.

Among cichlids this process likely takes thousands of years. The Lonicera fly's evolution, however, has occurred only in the 250 years since its honeysuckle host plant arrived in North America.


Billions down to millions down to thousands down to 250 years.

There is hope for you yet.
Pretty soon you scientists will figure it out and narrow it down to 6 days! biggrin.gif

2. I am evidence of a created being. My Mommy and Daddy did it.

The fact that anything exists at all is evidence of creation. Perhaps you need to accept that on faith, but that possible requirement does not exempt it from reality.


Kaeroll,
First, I have no desire to be bigger than Einstein. I aspire to be like Jesus Christ.

Second, there's this little bitty problem of holi of holies science peer review. They won't let the good guys in. If they did - it'a been done already!

Thank you, Thank you very much,


Kaeroll
QUOTE
Second, there's this little bitty problem of holi of holies science peer review. They won't let the good guys in. If they did - it'a been done already!

I refer you back to Einstein, an unknown patent clerk who overthrew the laws written by someone far 'bigger' than Darwin. If you aspire to be like J.C., then you might wanna stop slanderous comments such as this:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Second, there's this little bitty problem of holi of holies science peer review. They won't let the good guys in. If they did - it'a been done already!

I refer you back to Einstein, an unknown patent clerk who overthrew the laws written by someone far 'bigger' than Darwin. If you aspire to be like J.C., then you might wanna stop slanderous comments such as this:
take a look at George Turner's website - this page shows his current researchers. A wide and diverse looking crew, wouldn't you say? An example of evolution? Or just human beings of the Armour Hot Dog variety?

How is this relevant to the quality of their research? Living in the UK, I can say that Hull is a decent university. I don't know the quality of their research, but I doubt it's that bad.
Messenger
1. Einstein - a rare and worthy exception.

2. That comment was directed at Upisoft - an inside joke.
Kaeroll
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 11:17 PM)
1. Einstein - a rare and worthy exception.

2. That comment was directed at Upisoft - an inside joke.

1. The point remains that if someone, no matter how unknown, came along with convincing proof that evolution cannot have occurred, it would be published (unless there were significant flaws in it, but this is what I meant by 'convincing' ... lacking any major flaws). We'd then have another 'rare and worthy exception'. So, if your proof is that good, don't waste it on the dogmatic fools here (heh), go and publish it, or take it to someone who can get it published.

2. Fair enough, apologies.
Upisoft
Messenger,

QUOTE
1.  National Geo is a political outfit that seeks to blame everything from global warming to evolution on humans, and more specifically one named GW Bush.


Of course, it is. They do nothing else. Their master plan is to use these new flies and make Bush repent and resign. Their last effort to do that was to use falsified data about elephants. They lied insolently that currently elephants tend to have smaller tusks, because of artificial selection via hunting.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1.  National Geo is a political outfit that seeks to blame everything from global warming to evolution on humans, and more specifically one named GW Bush.


Of course, it is. They do nothing else. Their master plan is to use these new flies and make Bush repent and resign. Their last effort to do that was to use falsified data about elephants. They lied insolently that currently elephants tend to have smaller tusks, because of artificial selection via hunting.

I know, I know!!!  This sounds like it must make a Raspberry Maggot who is better adapted to cold weather than the blueberry and snowberry maggots.  Right?  So why'd they call it the Lonicera Fly?  I know, they're just trying to confuse us.  It's all a big conspiracy to take over the world with maggots! (just kidding)
This is nothing, Upisoft.  It would be like getting excited over two different types of cats interbreeding.  Do they actually pay people to write these articles?


Of course, it's nothing. If only the wings had excerpts of the Bible written on them, then the data would be true.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
George Turner is a professor of evolutionary biology and biodiversity at the University of Hull in England. He agrees that animal evolution through hybridization may be much more widespread than previously believed.

This scientist is one of the major evolution pushers, and will use any opportunity to get his name in print - big news, or as in this case, insignificant, news. IMHO.


Yes, thats very outrageous that "one of the major evolution pushers" is working to prove the theory of Evolution. I'm indignant.

QUOTE
http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/people.htm - take a look at George Turner's website - this page shows his current researchers.  A wide and diverse looking crew, wouldn't you say?  An example of evolution?  Or just human beings of the Armour Hot Dog variety?


Will you first learn the Theory of Evolution(current version), and then try to apply it to the surrounding world? You only discredit yourself.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/people.htm - take a look at George Turner's website - this page shows his current researchers.  A wide and diverse looking crew, wouldn't you say?  An example of evolution?  Or just human beings of the Armour Hot Dog variety?


Will you first learn the Theory of Evolution(current version), and then try to apply it to the surrounding world? You only discredit yourself.

Billions down to millions down to thousands down to 250 years.

There is hope for you yet.
Pretty soon you scientists will figure it out and narrow it down to 6 days!  biggrin.gif


You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I made a mistake. I thought I am talking with an educated human being.

QUOTE
2.  I am evidence of a created being.  My Mommy and Daddy did it.


And how they planned your sex, the color of your hair, eyes and skin, etc.? Did they put ANYTHING intelligent in your creation?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
2.  I am evidence of a created being.  My Mommy and Daddy did it.


And how they planned your sex, the color of your hair, eyes and skin, etc.? Did they put ANYTHING intelligent in your creation?

The fact that anything exists at all is evidence of creation.  Perhaps you need to accept that on faith, but that possible requirement does not exempt it from reality.


Finally, I agree with you, because I think the same way. Unfortunately, I can't prove that existence requires creation. This is strictly philosophical problem. However, in contrast to you, I also believe that the process of creation doesn't require INTELLIGENCE, PLAN, DESIGN, PURPOSE, etc.
Issachar
These responses are generally directed at Upisofts questions several posts back and not really current with the most recent posts here.

Physfan - The only question I have for you is:
"What is the velocity of a swallow?"

To Upisofts previous questions.
I. Is it independently tested and verified?
In what regards are historical events independently tested and verified? They should be subject to the rigors of historical investigation for accuracy and authenticity. Do you regard the gospel accounts as accurate and authentic historical documents? Why /Why not.

II. Who saw the resurrected body of Jesus?
How long did Jesus appear on earth after his resurrection?
How many believers did he appear to at one time??
Q. How many days did Jesus appear on earth after his resurrection and how many believers did he appear to at one time??
A. The following sequence will help you:
1. Day 1, he first appeared to Mary Magdelene (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-17).
2. Shortly after he appeared to the two Marys (Matthew 28:9-10).
3. That evening he appeared to ten disciples behind closed doors (John 20:19-25). Thomas was not there.
4. Fourth he appeared to Cleopas and an unnamed disciple enroute to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
5. At this point there seems to be a hiatus of several days. Then on the 8th or 9th day he made his fifth recorded appearance to the eleven disciples including Thomas (John 20:26-29).
6. He also met them on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-17).
7. About the same time he appeared at the Sea of Tiberius to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others (John 21:1-24).
8. Next he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5).
9. Another time he appeared to James and all the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:7).
10. Then, at an unspecified time he appeared to 500 brethren at once (1 Corinthians 15:4-6).
11. His last appearance was to the twelve, at which time he gave the commission to teach all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).
12. In all Jesus appeared over a period of forty days (Acts 1:1-3) before making his ascent to heaven (Mark 16:19).
There's an important thought in this sequence regarding the seeming confusion about the number of apostles: sometimes eleven; sometimes twelve. Matthias was selected to replace Judas, thus bringing the number of apostles to twelve (Acts 1:15-26). This was apparently after Jesus' ascent (verse 22).
But before his ascent (Mark 16:19), Jesus met with all this disciples, and likely already knew who would replace Judas. Hence he was able to meet with the twelve.

III. Have the resurrection event ever been repeated? Not the resurrection of Jesus
IV. Who also was (has) been resurrected? Lazarus in John 11, a sevant girl in Acts
I have added another question to your list just for kicks! Can people be raised from the dead today?
A. God only knows – see link below
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/raisedfromthedead.htm
I am not specifically endorsing this particular instance, nor have I investigated the evidence. Only adding for the record. There are instances documented in modern medical science where a patient (terminal or other) has improved or gotten well for no explainable reason. Are these miracles, I don’t know.
IF God exists, then it is reasonable for the supernatural to be able to occur.
IV. Can we repeat this miracle now? Y, how?/N, why not?
No, it was an event to in history once for all time for God to redeem (or purchase to set free) humanity to himself through the brutal sacrifice of the perfect & unblemished Lamb of God. It’s a free gift of God, one that we don’t deserve and can’t earn it, we can only accept it. (ref. Rom. 5)


V. Why (doesn’t) God do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess the wrong religion?
This is a great question, and frankly I will admit that I am a little perplexed with and like to present to a scholar.
You are right, if God did miracles now, or if He did one big manifestation that we all could undeniably see, then there would be no reason to doubt or religious confusion because it would be so obvious.
A. Do you think we would have the element of free will under this scenario? I am not sure that we would. When it is said that mankind was created in His own image, certainly freewill was an important part of that, and if we were programmed to love God or didn’t get to choose God or to choose right, then something is lost there.
B. God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith, if it was so utterly redundant, then there would be no need for faith, no need to trust Him for who He is.
This faith is not in mere chance or unlikely probability, but in evidence that He is who is says he is. It is enough for me to find Him trustworthy.


VI. Why would the illusionist show the system of mirrors to the spectators?
That is a legitimate question if we were dealing with illusionists.
Is it reasonable to think there was a motivation to be illusionists? By professing the things they did, there was no hope to improve there social status, wealth, power or material gain, but instead only imprisonment, torture, or death. These people died for their beliefs.

Now people of all kinds of sincere religious beliefs die for their beliefs very often these days. Do you see any difference in the disciples dying from what we see today?
Upisoft
Issachar,

Thank you for your answer.


QUOTE
In what regards are historical events independently tested and verified?  They should be subject to the rigors of historical investigation for accuracy and authenticity. Do you regard the gospel accounts as accurate and authentic historical documents? Why /Why not.


In fact, I didn't make any research about their authenticity. So, I can't answer your question, and, for now, I will accept your knowledge as valid.
Reading your earlier post I've got the impression that you talk about the gospels as authentic historical documents. You also describe their contents as written facts. Others would easily disagree, if they weren't facts, you say. Now I'll suppose that you're right. That means you know some of the events that happened about 2000 years ago. Note, that I deliberately have used the word 'know' here, because if I had used the word 'believe', it would imply that accurateness or authenticity are not strictly proven.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In what regards are historical events independently tested and verified?  They should be subject to the rigors of historical investigation for accuracy and authenticity. Do you regard the gospel accounts as accurate and authentic historical documents? Why /Why not.


In fact, I didn't make any research about their authenticity. So, I can't answer your question, and, for now, I will accept your knowledge as valid.
Reading your earlier post I've got the impression that you talk about the gospels as authentic historical documents. You also describe their contents as written facts. Others would easily disagree, if they weren't facts, you say. Now I'll suppose that you're right. That means you know some of the events that happened about 2000 years ago. Note, that I deliberately have used the word 'know' here, because if I had used the word 'believe', it would imply that accurateness or authenticity are not strictly proven.

How many days did Jesus appear on earth after his resurrection and how many believers did he appear to at one time??


This revision of my original question, include the word 'believers'. Did Jesus appear only to believers? If yes, how this can be "independent test"? If no, where is the independent data from these sources?

QUOTE
IF God exists, then it is reasonable for the supernatural to be able to occur.


I agree.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
IF God exists, then it is reasonable for the supernatural to be able to occur.


I agree.

No, it was an event to in history once for all time for God to redeem (or purchase to set free) humanity to himself through the brutal sacrifice of the perfect & unblemished Lamb of God.


What sacrifice? Jesus was resurrected. If he was lost, it would be sacrifice.

QUOTE
V. Why (doesn’t) God do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess the wrong religion?
This is a great question, and frankly I will admit that I am a little perplexed with and like to present to a scholar.
You are right, if God did miracles now, or if He did one big manifestation that we all could undeniably see, then there would be no reason to doubt or religious confusion because it would be so obvious.
A. Do you think we would have the element of free will under this scenario? I am not sure that we would.  When it is said that mankind was created in His own image, certainly freewill was an important part of that, and if we were programmed to love God or didn’t get to choose God or to choose right, then something is lost there.


I'm not sure that the free will concept is valid even now. Can you prove, for any given action, that you could do anything else instead what you did?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
V. Why (doesn’t) God do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess the wrong religion?
This is a great question, and frankly I will admit that I am a little perplexed with and like to present to a scholar.
You are right, if God did miracles now, or if He did one big manifestation that we all could undeniably see, then there would be no reason to doubt or religious confusion because it would be so obvious.
A. Do you think we would have the element of free will under this scenario? I am not sure that we would.  When it is said that mankind was created in His own image, certainly freewill was an important part of that, and if we were programmed to love God or didn’t get to choose God or to choose right, then something is lost there.


I'm not sure that the free will concept is valid even now. Can you prove, for any given action, that you could do anything else instead what you did?

B. God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith, if it was so utterly redundant, then there would be no need for faith, no need to trust Him for who He is.
This faith is not in mere chance or unlikely probability, but in evidence that He is who is says he is. It is enough for me to find Him trustworthy.


You're right. 'To know' is different form 'to believe'. You said that Jesus made miracles to prove his divinity. Hence, his apostles knew he is divine. Following your logic above, we can conclude that there were no faith in them, only knowledge.
You also said: "God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith..". Yet we see several apostles, without faith. Apparently, the word 'always' can't be true.
Please, explain the contradiction in your statements.

QUOTE
Now people of all kinds of sincere religious beliefs die for their beliefs very often these days. Do you see any difference in the disciples dying from what we see today?


Do you find that their behavior is justifiable?
Physfan
Issachar,
QUOTE
Physfan - The only question I have for you is:
"What is the velocity of a swallow?"


Which swallow, where and when? The next question is "why" because velocity is a vector and swallows don't fly 'vectorially'?

I am also surprised you asked me! G_d (which ever brand you ascribe to), apparently, has all of your answers.
amok
QUOTE
Again, evolution is mathematically impossible, and now proven to be unrepeatable or observable. You have no way of knowing whether your genesis assumptions are right or wrong.


OK, i'm tired of this.

Give me solid math (since you are referring to mathematical impossiblility) that is impossible! Beware though, if you spout probability you'll get thrashed bigtime smile.gif

- Amok
Kaeroll
QUOTE (Physfan+Jan 19 2006, 04:00 AM)
QUOTE
Physfan - The only question I have for you is:
"What is the velocity of a swallow?"


Which swallow, where and when? The next question is "why" because velocity is a vector and swallows don't fly 'vectorially'?

Don't forget, you need to consider whether it and a second swallow on the same vector are carrying a coconut on a reed between them.
Issachar
Physfan -
You were very, very close, but I was actually asking you to complete the phrase from Monty Pythons timeless classic movie 'Search for the Holy Grail' since you quoted him earlier. wink.gif
The correct answer was:
"Is that an African or European Swallow?"
" I don't know!" ""Ahhhhhh"

Upisoft - Again I will try respond to you comments & questions. As usual, it is difficult to do this in real time due to a hectic work/travel/family schedule.

Regards,

Messenger
QUOTE (amok+Jan 19 2006, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE
Again, evolution is mathematically impossible, and now proven to be unrepeatable or observable. You have no way of knowing whether your genesis assumptions are right or wrong.


OK, i'm tired of this.

Give me solid math (since you are referring to mathematical impossiblility) that is impossible! Beware though, if you spout probability you'll get thrashed bigtime smile.gif

- Amok

Amok,

You first. You said you had already posted the math that proves evolution - you have yet to provide proof of this post.

Now you want me to do your work for you?
Go to google, type in evolution is mathematically impossible.
If you don't want to do that - then please post your math problem and I will rebut it.

No semantics, no twisting, no nothing - just produce the post, please.

Thank you,
Upisoft
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 08:12 PM)
Go to google, type in evolution is mathematically impossible.

Thank you. It was fun. Now we have mathematical proof, that mutations are not evolution. It's obvious. I don't need mathematic to comprehend it. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Upisoft
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 08:12 PM)
Now you want me to do your work for you? 
Go to google, type in evolution is mathematically impossible.
If you don't want to do that - then please post your math problem and I will rebut it.

No semantics, no twisting, no nothing - just produce the post, please.


I've found this "proof":

QUOTE
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.


The proof is based on last statement. Now I'll prove the opposite. Take a coin. Toss it 1 million times. Write down the sequence of heads and tails. Now calculate what the probabiity of occurrence of this sequence is. I bet it will be much less than the number above. However, it happened. How's that possible?

birdan
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE (amok+Jan 19 2006, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE
Again, evolution is mathematically impossible, and now proven to be unrepeatable or observable. You have no way of knowing whether your genesis assumptions are right or wrong.


OK, i'm tired of this.

Give me solid math (since you are referring to mathematical impossiblility) that is impossible! Beware though, if you spout probability you'll get thrashed bigtime smile.gif

- Amok

Amok,

You first. You said you had already posted the math that proves evolution - you have yet to provide proof of this post.

Now you want me to do your work for you?
Go to google, type in evolution is mathematically impossible.
If you don't want to do that - then please post your math problem and I will rebut it.

No semantics, no twisting, no nothing - just produce the post, please.

Thank you,

I just happened to be driving by .....

Here are several posts, starting you at why creationists' probability arguments are faulty, and progressing you through to an entire Statistical Methods in Genetics course at Stanford. It gets complicated, and unless you're read up on stochastic methods, linear algebra, etc. it won't make much sense. But it should show you that we're not talking coin tosses or playing cards (or even Hamlet) when modeling evolutionary probabilities. Besides, the Stanford lectures have some pretty pictures and movies.

Intelligent Design Math Doesn't Add Up
The AND Multiplication Error
Origin Of Life Probability
Models Of Evolution
Markov Processes and Nested Hierarchies
Statistical Methods In Genetics - Stanford Lectures

Bon Appetit.
Your fellow human (yfh)
http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html
^
Here is some more Christian noise.

This is were they ID everything that ever happened, is happening and ever will happen, all attributed to "God". All life, death, good and bad are claimed to be from "God". This itself is completely absurd, because of the claims of God being "holy". Whilst "holy", one cannot be impure, and cannot cause evils.

I have a long Christain passed and after a while this all gets to the point of sickening me. I can't really handle it anymore, but I still find myself reading it anyways. So much religious noise...




edit:
was reading my link
QUOTE
Satan is essential to the purpose and salvation of the whole human race. That is why God created him in the first place.

Any more logical and I'm gunnu puke!

"Origin Of Life Probability" - Just read that link totaly, nice info. =)
Messenger
birdan,

Thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore?
I know, I'm irresistable. rolleyes.gif

From one of your links:
http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~susan/courses/s166/node2.html

QUOTE
The Bayesian Paradigm
The Bayesian Paradigm can be seen in some ways as an extra step in the modelling world just as parametric modelling is. We have seen how we could use probabilistic models to infer about some unknown aspect either by confidence intervals or by hypothesis testing.

The motivation for any statistical analyses is that some ``target population'' is not well understood- some aspects of it are unknown or unsure.

The idea in this paradigm is to say thta any uncertainty can be modelled in a probabilistic way.


From reviewing this link - I affirmed a belief I have that humanity is working towards a better understanding of God and creation. The simple fact that these mathematical calculations are taking place (as opposed to already having obvious knowledge of them) proves to me that we are nowhere near figuring out the mathematical possibilities or probabilities of evolution or creation - AND - because of our lack of this knowledge - we cannot possibly, at this moment in time, comprehend the mathematical beauty of our universe. Bayesian Analysis is a good method for predicting design and applying it to ....well....everything. Everything from medicine to transplants and more. Predicting probabilities while trusting in the design is our best chance for success (as opposed to relying on evolution - something you have no evidence to support).

In regards to the other links, which I reviewed.......

Here's the bottom line. The biggest problem for evolutionary biologists biggrin.gif is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. In other words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place. How does a become a&b? Evolution functions under the assumption that life began from a single cell - it cannot possibly discover the truth in this condition. The truth is that God created everything. Can you imagine life before the universe was 'created' or came into being? Can you even imagine life without you? If people could do that - there would be no suicides, because people would see how valuable they truly are.

If I missed replying to a particular area of interest, birdan, please let me know.

Thanks,

bmcghie
I'm starting to think this would be much easier if your 'god' would just hurry up and smite us. I grow tired of reading the same old holy bulls*** in each forum, Mess.

I don't suppose that bothers anyone else? The "god did it." answer?
Messenger
1. Where has the above post been discussed before? I thought it was rather original. You lookin' for trouble? You came to the right place.

2. God is not going to smite us. Is that what you believe? Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God - and did the smiting in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem and satan. We went from a purely physical kingdom to a spiritual kingdom. Our purpose now is to make the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, etc. Knowing God, and taking comfort in the fact that he did what he said he would do (establish his kingdom) is where we are at today. This is a fact that the churches don't seem to want to recognize. I imagine they feel that a church without satan, a church without a future second coming, will have a problem with existence. It's not true - but you know how dificult it is to convince people of anything.

RealityCheck
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 06:55 AM)
1.  Where has the above post been discussed before?  I thought it was rather original.  You lookin' for trouble?  You came to the right place.

2.  God is not going to smite us.  Is that what you believe? Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God - and did the smiting in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem and satan.  We went from a purely physical kingdom to a spiritual kingdom.  Our purpose now is to make the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, etc.  Knowing God, and taking comfort in the fact that he did what he said he would do (establish his kingdom) is where we are at today.  This is a fact that the churches don't seem to want to recognize.  I imagine they feel that  a church without satan, a church without a future second coming, will have a problem with existence.  It's not true - but you know how dificult it is to convince people of anything.


So are you saying there will be no armageddon? No 'last battle' with the 'forces of evil'?
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE
So are you saying there will be no armageddon? No 'last battle' with the 'forces of evil'?


Actually, from were I was last reading:

"Return evil for evil to no one"
"Love your enemies"
"Love never fails"
"God is love"
^
These were all lined up with a claim that God will eventually perfect everything non-violently. This one guy's new angle on the bible was that the "original sin" was committed whilst they were already sinful. Eve sinned before she ate from the tree of good and bad, and even that theft counted as "sin".

etc, etc.

The bible is THE MOST screwed-over book!

But I gotta admit... What he said was a fresh new angle on the "God" concept.
He was looking up verses to support that "sin" is actually God's fault/responsability.
I noted a view behind this that felt more healthy then the usual judgmental / perfectionist Christianities. "God" in his writings [basically] represented "All" and it looked like less of a blame game then most of what I had seen...

But at the same time it was insanity... Thinking God is in control of absolutely everything, including us... blink.gif




But I did appreciate the points in the "origin of life" link, in which I realized that there is more then one way to make a DNA/microbe.
birdan
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 05:22 AM)
birdan,

Thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore? 
I know, I'm irresistable.  rolleyes.gif


In talking with some other people, I was informed that quite a few fundamentalist Christians mis-use the word "atheist" from its dictionary meaning. For them, an "atheist" is someone who doesn't believe in their particular flavor of God. And they are also under the impression that they would be viewed as "atheists" by people who don't believe in the judeo-christian God. It would seem less confusing that they come up with a different word, but in mis-using "atheist", fundamentalists simply illustrate an inherent bigotry in their worldview, exactly as the word "infidel" does. Thus, use of the word is not to be taken personally, but is rather an artifact of fundamentalism.

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 05:22 AM)

From one of your links:
http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~susan/courses/s166/node2.html

QUOTE
The Bayesian Paradigm
The Bayesian Paradigm can be seen in some ways as an extra step in the modelling world just as parametric modelling is. We have seen how we could use probabilistic models to infer about some unknown aspect either by confidence intervals or by hypothesis testing.

The motivation for any statistical analyses is that some ``target population'' is not well understood- some aspects of it are unknown or unsure.

The idea in this paradigm is to say thta any uncertainty can be modelled in a probabilistic way.


From reviewing this link - I affirmed a belief I have that humanity is working towards a better understanding of God and creation. The simple fact that these mathematical calculations are taking place (as opposed to already having obvious knowledge of them) proves to me that we are nowhere near figuring out the mathematical possibilities or probabilities of evolution or creation - AND - because of our lack of this knowledge - we cannot possibly, at this moment in time, comprehend the mathematical beauty of our universe. Bayesian Analysis is a good method for predicting design and applying it to ....well....everything. Everything from medicine to transplants and more. Predicting probabilities while trusting in the design is our best chance for success (as opposed to relying on evolution - something you have no evidence to support).


The Bayesian Paradigm has been around since 1763. Markov chains have been around since the early 1900s. Your 'interpretation' of the material to conclude "we are nowhere near figuring out the mathematical possibilities or probabilities of evolution" is a total fabrication on your part, unintentional or not. These methodologies are taught in advanced level mathematics and bio-chemistry classes because they have been proven, for many years, to accurately make these predictions. The 'calculations' are not just 'taking place'; they have been used for many years for evolutionary theory. They are real tools that real geneticists and bio-chemists use in their work to produce real results.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Bayesian Paradigm
The Bayesian Paradigm can be seen in some ways as an extra step in the modelling world just as parametric modelling is. We have seen how we could use probabilistic models to infer about some unknown aspect either by confidence intervals or by hypothesis testing.

The motivation for any statistical analyses is that some ``target population'' is not well understood- some aspects of it are unknown or unsure.

The idea in this paradigm is to say thta any uncertainty can be modelled in a probabilistic way.


From reviewing this link - I affirmed a belief I have that humanity is working towards a better understanding of God and creation. The simple fact that these mathematical calculations are taking place (as opposed to already having obvious knowledge of them) proves to me that we are nowhere near figuring out the mathematical possibilities or probabilities of evolution or creation - AND - because of our lack of this knowledge - we cannot possibly, at this moment in time, comprehend the mathematical beauty of our universe. Bayesian Analysis is a good method for predicting design and applying it to ....well....everything. Everything from medicine to transplants and more. Predicting probabilities while trusting in the design is our best chance for success (as opposed to relying on evolution - something you have no evidence to support).


The Bayesian Paradigm has been around since 1763. Markov chains have been around since the early 1900s. Your 'interpretation' of the material to conclude "we are nowhere near figuring out the mathematical possibilities or probabilities of evolution" is a total fabrication on your part, unintentional or not. These methodologies are taught in advanced level mathematics and bio-chemistry classes because they have been proven, for many years, to accurately make these predictions. The 'calculations' are not just 'taking place'; they have been used for many years for evolutionary theory. They are real tools that real geneticists and bio-chemists use in their work to produce real results.

In regards to the other links, which I reviewed.......

Here's the bottom line.  The biggest problem for evolutionary biologists  biggrin.gif is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. In other words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place.  How does a become a&b?  Evolution functions under the assumption that life began from a single cell - it cannot possibly discover the truth in this condition.  The truth is that God created everything.  Can you imagine life before the universe was 'created' or came into being?  Can you even imagine life without you?  If people could do that - there would be no suicides, because people would see how valuable they truly are. 

If I missed replying to a particular area of interest, birdan, please let me know.

Thanks,


Instead of dismissing the subject and hopping over to something else, it would good to actually hear something "in regards to the other links", which you reviewed. Do you understand the difference between independent states and dependent states when calculating probabilities? And thus why fundamentalists' probability (combinatoric "coin toss") calculations are faulty and incorrect?
oomchu
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 02:27 AM)
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Click the link then listen to the public speech.
I find it much easier then reading. wink.gif

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".

Every single member of this forum would do well to listen and understand this speech. Alot of questions finaly get answered here.

I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif

You've got to be kidding me. I read about a 1/4 of the way through this, and this is the typical BS of someone trying to prove a point trying to give his position validity through calling it science. He's effectively validating the CHRISTIAN GOD by saying that if the universe has a beginning someone must have created it. This is fallacious thinking, the Grand Canyon had a beginning, and was created. Who or what created it..the process of erosion. So is he effectively saying that water is the God of the grand canyon. Water is the basis for all life. He has not effectively demonstrated that the universe was created by an intelligence with a singular, or multiple, purpose. Modern Humans had a beginning so they must be created by God? Yes, modern humans responded to a set a environmental/social circumstances to get where we are. We created ourselves. So I guess we're all gods.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (oomchu+Jan 20 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 15 2006, 02:27 AM)
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Click the link then listen to the public speech.
I find it much easier then reading. wink.gif

Ok, my "faith" is officialy "back".

Every single member of this forum would do well to listen and understand this speech. Alot of questions finaly get answered here.

I'm looking forward to your replies. smile.gif

You've got to be kidding me. I read about a 1/4 of the way through this, and this is the typical BS of someone trying to prove a point trying to give his position validity through calling it science. He's effectively validating the CHRISTIAN GOD by saying that if the universe has a beginning someone must have created it. This is fallacious thinking, the Grand Canyon had a beginning, and was created. Who or what created it..the process of erosion. So is he effectively saying that water is the God of the grand canyon. Water is the basis for all life. He has not effectively demonstrated that the universe was created by an intelligence with a singular, or multiple, purpose. Modern Humans had a beginning so they must be created by God? Yes, modern humans responded to a set a environmental/social circumstances to get where we are. We created ourselves. So I guess we're all gods.

My beliefs are flexable and my mind is open.
I only believed in what that guy said for a few hours though.

Thanks for feed back anyways, oomchu.

QUOTE
2. God is not going to smite us. Is that what you believe? Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God - and did the smiting in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem and satan. We went from a purely physical kingdom to a spiritual kingdom. Our purpose now is to make the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, etc. Knowing God, and taking comfort in the fact that he did what he said he would do (establish his kingdom) is where we are at today. This is a fact that the churches don't seem to want to recognize. I imagine they feel that a church without satan, a church without a future second coming, will have a problem with existence. It's not true - but you know how dificult it is to convince people of anything.

Please show me the scriptures that support this, messenger.

->

I have had first hand experience withs supernaturals so that is why I don't just ignore religious theories. One thing that I can tell you is that the "spirits" I have seen effecting me or others were relatively weak compared to the powers of technology. As I've said before, medical technology has healed more people then Jesus ever did.

Like it or not, from all that I have ever seen: It is far more stable and practical to turn to your fellow humans instead of "God" or the "spirits" when you need help.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jan 20 2006, 09:17 PM)
.......
........
Like it or not, from all that I have ever seen: It is far more stable and practical to turn to your fellow humans instead of "God" or the "spirits" when you need help.


Well said mate!

RC.
.
Grumpy
Reality check

Just a note to say g'day and also, to those who miss him, let you know what Dad1 has been up to.

Here's where to find his latest(your not going to believe this):

http://www.christianforums.com/t2523368-no...od.html&page=17

Rather than try to describe it I will let you make your own judgement.

Grumpy laugh.gif
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 21 2006, 12:04 AM)
Reality check

Just a note to say g'day and also, to those who miss him, let you know what Dad1 has been up to.

Here's where to find his latest(your not going to believe this):

http://www.christianforums.com/t2523368-no...od.html&page=17

Rather than try to describe it I will let you make your own judgement.

Grumpy laugh.gif


Hi Grumpy!

Hope all is well out your way. Unfortunately, because of my non-standard comp/system, I am unable to access many sites....and the above is one of them. So if you want to give your friend down under in Aussie a good laugh, you'll have to give me at least the gist of dadl's latest insanities! Ciao, mate!

RC.
.
Issachar
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 19 2006, 01:58 AM)

QUOTE
How many days did Jesus appear on earth after his resurrection and how many believers did he appear to at one time??


This revision of my original question, include the word 'believers'. Did Jesus appear only to believers? If yes, how this can be "independent test"? If no, where is the independent data from these sources?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How many days did Jesus appear on earth after his resurrection and how many believers did he appear to at one time??


This revision of my original question, include the word 'believers'. Did Jesus appear only to believers? If yes, how this can be "independent test"? If no, where is the independent data from these sources?

IF God exists, then it is reasonable for the supernatural to be able to occur.


I agree.

QUOTE
No, it was an event to in history once for all time for God to redeem (or purchase to set free) humanity to himself through the brutal sacrifice of the perfect & unblemished Lamb of God.


What sacrifice? Jesus was resurrected. If he was lost, it would be sacrifice.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
No, it was an event to in history once for all time for God to redeem (or purchase to set free) humanity to himself through the brutal sacrifice of the perfect & unblemished Lamb of God.


What sacrifice? Jesus was resurrected. If he was lost, it would be sacrifice.

V. Why (doesn’t) God do miracles now to prove His divinity to the atheists and these who profess the wrong religion?
This is a great question, and frankly I will admit that I am a little perplexed with and like to present to a scholar.
You are right, if God did miracles now, or if He did one big manifestation that we all could undeniably see, then there would be no reason to doubt or religious confusion because it would be so obvious.
A. Do you think we would have the element of free will under this scenario? I am not sure that we would.  When it is said that mankind was created in His own image, certainly freewill was an important part of that, and if we were programmed to love God or didn’t get to choose God or to choose right, then something is lost there.


I'm not sure that the free will concept is valid even now. Can you prove, for any given action, that you could do anything else instead what you did?

QUOTE
B. God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith, if it was so utterly redundant, then there would be no need for faith, no need to trust Him for who He is.
This faith is not in mere chance or unlikely probability, but in evidence that He is who is says he is. It is enough for me to find Him trustworthy.


You're right. 'To know' is different form 'to believe'. You said that Jesus made miracles to prove his divinity. Hence, his apostles knew he is divine. Following your logic above, we can conclude that there were no faith in them, only knowledge.
You also said: "God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith..". Yet we see several apostles, without faith. Apparently, the word 'always' can't be true.
Please, explain the contradiction in your statements.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
B. God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith, if it was so utterly redundant, then there would be no need for faith, no need to trust Him for who He is.
This faith is not in mere chance or unlikely probability, but in evidence that He is who is says he is. It is enough for me to find Him trustworthy.


You're right. 'To know' is different form 'to believe'. You said that Jesus made miracles to prove his divinity. Hence, his apostles knew he is divine. Following your logic above, we can conclude that there were no faith in them, only knowledge.
You also said: "God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith..". Yet we see several apostles, without faith. Apparently, the word 'always' can't be true.
Please, explain the contradiction in your statements.

Now people of all kinds of sincere religious beliefs die for their beliefs very often these days. Do you see any difference in the disciples dying from what we see today?


Do you find that their behavior is justifiable?


Upisoft - I have attempted to give you a thoughtful response to your questions. Do not hesitate to point out if you may find anything where you would like further commentary or inconsistanties.
Regards,

This revision of my original question, include the word 'believers'. Did Jesus appear only to believers? If yes, how this can be "independent test"? If no, where is the independent data from these sources?

A. ) Jesus did not appear only to believers, in fact, even his closest followers did not even believe it possible that he was alive until he appeared to Him. Remember, they had followed him closely for 3 years, witnessed amazing miracles, and thought He was the promised Messiah written about centuries earlier in the sacred books of the law, prophets and the writings. But they never fully grasp the whole concept of what must take place at the time. When they saw him arrested, go through a horrible trial, beaten by Roman soldiers beyond recognition, nailed to cross to die, and placed in an enclosed tomb protected by Roman guards, their hopes of Him were completely fractured. (Example, the women had just been to the empty tomb and told the disciples what the saw, and the text says “And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.” From Luke’s account chapter 24:11, and in John’s account (20:19), Thomas the doubter said, “unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails and put my finger in the place of the nails, and put my hand in His side, I will not believe.” Thomas was able to do just that soon after.

B.) Now about the more than 500 that he appeared to at one time (1 Cor. 15), the written text does not specifically say if they were believers or not.

C.) He also appeared to the Rabbi Shual, who was at the time a great persecutor of the church, the one who held the robes of the first follower of Christ stoned to death (Acts 7:58). He was on an official mission with letters from the high priest to the city of Damascus to arrest and bring believers bound to put in prison in Jerusalem. He was highly educated in the finest school of his day and extremely zealous for his faith to destroy followers of Yeshua both Jews and Greeks. But when he met Jesus, he became a devout follower taking the good news of salvation to the outside world of the Roman empire, enduring beatings, stonings, imprisonment, etc. before he was eventually executed in Rome. He became known as the apostle Paul who is attributed with writing 13 separate books of the bible in the form of letters mostly to the churches of certain cities. He was also perhaps the greatest theologian ever in the history of the church (the worldwide body of the believers not the catholic church).

QUOTE
No, it was an event to in history once for all time for God to redeem (or purchase to set free) humanity to himself through the brutal sacrifice of the perfect & unblemished Lamb of God.

What sacrifice? Jesus was resurrected. If he was lost, it would be sacrifice.

I do understand what you are saying about the contradiction, but perhaps this is just semantics.
I was referring only to the death and suffering that occurred which was the sacrifice. To have a better understanding, we need to go back centuries earlier for the historical context which was central to the early Hebrew nation’s identity and religious and cultural life. The book of Exodus, which in the text says was written by Moses, is attributed two major options as to the date from scholars, 1446 B.C. or 1290 B.C. with the most common being around 1446 B.C. On the eve of their rescue from slavery, the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed so the Lord’s wrath would literally pass over the people of Israel. The Passover ritual had to be celebrated in a certain way for each family with every detail having very profound symbolism. For instance, it had to be an unblemished yearling and they had to take it out of the flock two weeks before it was killed before twilight, cooked over fire and eaten. It essentially became a pet over the 2 weeks so as to personally identify with the perfect lamb sacrifice, some of the blood was sprinkled over their doorpost in faith so the Lord’s wrath would pass over and then they partook of it by a feast the night before they were to march to freedom from slavery. This was to be one of the three annual holiday feast celebrated forever. This was foreshadowing of what was to come. Now fast forward back to the time of Jesus, when the promised forerunner to the Messiah baptized Yeshua (Jesus) at the beginning of His three-year ministry. He announced him to the crowd, “Behold the Lamb of God!” from John 1. On the eve of the Passover three years later, Yeshua became the perfect sacrificial Lamb by shedding His blood and dying on a cross, once for all time, so the wrath of God would literally pass over those who have partaken by faith (i.e. accept Christ the Messiah in faith as the sacrifice for the punishment of our sins so we could be declared righteous before God and have fellowship with Him). I knows its long winded, but that’s the historical context.

I'm not sure that the free will concept is valid even now. Can you prove, for any given action, that you could do anything else instead what you did?

Perhaps not prove, but we generally have options such as what we will have for dinner (the insignificant), or whether we will study mathematics or science, etc. (much more significant).

Actually your original question prompted me to find another more qualified than I. You have given me the opportunity to learn something new today, and for that I am grateful. Here is the theological response I received.

Answer: When God performed amazing and powerful miracles for the Israelites, did that cause them to obey Him? No, the Israelites constantly disobeyed and rebelled against God even though they saw all the miracles. The same people who saw God part the Red Sea later doubted whether God was able to conquer the inhabitants of the Promised Land. I invite you to read the parable in Luke 16:19-31. In the story, a man in hell asks Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers. Abraham informed the man, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
Jesus performed countless miracles, yet the vast majority of people did not believe in Him. If God performed miracles today like He did in the past, the same result would occur. People would be amazed and would believe in God for a short time. That faith would be shallow and would disappear the moment something unexpected or frightening occurred. A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. God performed the greatest miracle of all time in coming to earth in the Man Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins (Rom 5:8), so that we could be saved (John 3:16). God does still perform miracles - many of them simply go unnoticed or are denied. However, we do not need more miracles. What we need is to believe in the miracle of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.


QUOTE
B. God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith, if it was so utterly redundant, then there would be no need for faith, no need to trust Him for who He is.
This faith is not in mere chance or unlikely probability, but in evidence that He is who is says he is. It is enough for me to find Him trustworthy.


You're right. 'To know' is different form 'to believe'. You said that Jesus made miracles to prove his divinity. Hence, his apostles knew he is divine. Following your logic above, we can conclude that there were no faith in them, only knowledge.
You also said: "God, in His ways, has always required an element of faith..". Yet we see several apostles, without faith. Apparently, the word 'always' can't be true.
Please, explain the contradiction in your statements.

A.) You are very correct in what you said above. You keep me on my toes and that is just fine. Now remember that you had me a little perplexed with this original question, so I simply gave the best possible answers I could think of at the time. Perhaps the answer up above will give us a better idea of what can sometimes happen, that shallow faith may sometime falter.

B.) Again, you are correct and a misstatement with the ‘always’. Let me try this one again.
Faith is very important to God, it’s the way we come to Him.
“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” Hebrew 11:6

QUOTE
Now people of all kinds of sincere religious beliefs die for their beliefs very often these days. Do you see any difference in the disciples dying from what we see today?

Do you find that their behavior is justifiable?
I do not.
I was only hoping to point out a difference. A suicide bomber could be very sincere in his religious beliefs, but he could be sincerely wrong about what he was dying for.

The apostles had an extreme advantage. The lived, walked, and ate with Jesus 24/7 for 3 years, saw the miracles he performed. They had seen Him live out His integrity. Then the saw him die and 3 days later the empty tomb.
They saw his resurrected body, touched him ate with him on the sea of Galilee after he had risen. They had the advantage of knowing if He was a fake. Most of them were eventually slain for preaching the good news of salvation.

So, following the logic from our previous discussions:

There were over 500 eyewitnesses, plus the disciples, plus a few others to the resurrected body. If there was going to be a trial to prove that he did not rise, that many eyewitnesses would be a very substantial amount of evidence.

The disciples proclaimed that Jesus was risen from the dead. What they said about the resurrection was either true, it was a lie, or was not true but they were only disillusioned that it was true.
A few people may have been disillusioned, but over 500? That doesn’t seem likely.
From seeing the body, and having no alibi, no motive or hope of material gain, social status, power, but instead only poverty, torture, death. A lie doesn’t make sense. If there was a possible motive, we could easily cry foul.
Do you think there is a reasonable conclusion here that what they said was really true or otherwise do you prefer that we take a look at some more evidence?

Grumpy
RC

This is from a forum he started called" No Gravity before Flood!!!! " in which he claimed there was no gravity before the Flood. This was posted as his evidence!!! I'm not making this up!!!

There's a guy in this forum, Nathan Poe, who formulated Poe's Law
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Creationism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." -- Poe's Law

PROFOUND!!!

QUOTE
Dad posted this
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Dad posted this
Why can't you understand the gravity of the situation? Or at least comment on it, since it is the OP and all!? I at least know we have gravity at the moment. Ha.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.


user posted image

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I blew milk all over my keyboard when I first saw this!!!

Enjoy!!!

Grumpy cool.gif


Upisoft
Issachar,

Thank you for the long reply. Unfortunately, you made me sure that I can't beieve in what you're talking about.

QUOTE
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).


If this is true, then I can't be convinced, because I have even more problems with the Bible. And If it's false, why I have to believe to the rest?

I'll give you one example:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).


If this is true, then I can't be convinced, because I have even more problems with the Bible. And If it's false, why I have to believe to the rest?

I'll give you one example:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. (Genesis 4:17)


Where did she come from?

RealityCheck
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 21 2006, 01:25 AM)
RC

This is from a forum he started called" No Gravity before Flood!!!! " in which he claimed there was no gravity before the Flood. This was posted as his evidence!!! I'm not making this up!!!

There's a guy in this forum, Nathan Poe, who formulated Poe's Law
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Creationism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." -- Poe's Law

PROFOUND!!!

QUOTE
Dad posted this
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Dad posted this
Why can't you understand the gravity of the situation? Or at least comment on it, since it is the OP and all!? I at least know we have gravity at the moment. Ha.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.


user posted image

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I blew milk all over my keyboard when I first saw this!!!

Enjoy!!!

Grumpy cool.gif


Hilarious! Grumpy, does dadl KNOW what "theonion" actually is? My oh my, where DO they come from, so thick and so fast?......or should that be slow!

That 'law' is self-evident once someone is brilliant enough to discover it, heh? Well done that man! [Nathan Poe: any relation to Edgar Allen Poe?].

BTW, what's dadl talking about when he speaks of "OP"?

Catch ya later, Grumps; and thanks for the laugh, mate! hehehe.

RC.
.
Messenger
Reality Check & Your Fellow Human (yfh), want to know:

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 01:47 AM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 06:55 AM)
1.  Where has the above post been discussed before?  I thought it was rather original.  You lookin' for trouble?  You came to the right place.

2.  God is not going to smite us.  Is that what you believe? Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God - and did the smiting in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem and satan.  We went from a purely physical kingdom to a spiritual kingdom.  Our purpose now is to make the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, etc.  Knowing God, and taking comfort in the fact that he did what he said he would do (establish his kingdom) is where we are at today.  This is a fact that the churches don't seem to want to recognize.  I imagine they feel that  a church without satan, a church without a future second coming, will have a problem with existence.  It's not true - but you know how dificult it is to convince people of anything.


So are you saying there will be no armageddon? No 'last battle' with the 'forces of evil'?



Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You especially RC, should know this already - but apparently my earlier assumptions about you were correct - you are a troll who just looks for keywords to pick on. You've put me in this box you have created for most of the Christians.

It would be impossible for me to give you a specific verse or two or three. The entire Bible leads up to the battle which took place around 70 AD.

You can read all about it by doing a google search for the terms:
preterism or preterist

There is full or partial preterism - I'm in the full preterism 'box', for now.
My current research is in the area of what happens when we die. Some preterists believe that satan is alive and well and does rule the earth - I disagree. I believe that satan was crushed in 70 AD. But for the most part, I agree with the preterist view.
We and we alone are responsible for our actions - we can't blame it on satan. People who hear voices and such, need physical medical attention, and of course prayer. But they are not possessed by demons. Contrary to what some people think.

The fact that Jesus already returned to establish the kingdom of God, means that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. There are so many consequences to this fact, and it would be impossible to list them all here. I am happy to discuss it with you if you're interested - but the sites listed below can probably give you a good basic background, so please read up on it first.

Many of the first questions that pop into your head will be answered by the FAQ (frequently asked questions) areas of the websites you encounter.

Preterism makes sense - puts the Bible in complete order and fulfillment. Almost every church today does NOT teach preterism. Why? Because if satan doesn't exist, if God's kingdom is already established - then I think they think we won't need them, and/or they're too proud to admit their mistake.

Here's a few sites that I can recommend:

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Preterism%20Topics.htm

http://www.beyondtheendtimes.com/

http://www.beyondtheendtimes.com/writing/a...es/how_was.html

http://www.preteristcosmos.com/

http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp

and from this article:
http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/An%20...20Preterism.htm
We are a part of a spiritual kingdom that exists simultaneously with, and has an impact in, the temporal world around us. The Garden of Eden was a temporal shadow of this spiritual reality. Revelation 22:2 teaches that the tree of life continually bears fruit for the healing of the nations. If the nations were no longer around, they would need no healing. Along the same lines, we were told to beat our swords (symbolizing war) into plow shares and pruning hooks. These are instruments of reaping.

For those who cannot conceive of how this war-filled world could possibly be in a state of fulfillment, it must be remembered that Christ's kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36; I Corinthains15:50). The state of those outside of the garden has no bearing upon the state of those within. All dogs, whoremongers, etc., are outside the walls of our capital (Rev 22:15). The real issue of misunderstanding, therefore, is the realm within which the New Jerusalem exists. As Hebrews 11:10, 16 and Galatians 4:26 make clear, ours is a "heavenly" city. Christ confirms this by declaring that his kingdom is not of this world, and that it is within. Paul also confirmed this in his declaration that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.

We are not waiting to be relieved of our responsibility, but can be focused upon accomplishing as much as God leads us to, for the good of His present kingdom, which will have no end.

There are many Christians who only have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof through a spirit of fear and an expectation of Laodicean backsliding. They may live their lives with an ever-present devil making them do bad things, feeling fears and tears, sighing and groaning, who hope to be taken away from their ambassadorships here in the temporal realm. They also forfeit much of the power available to them through their false impressions about the nature of God. I have heard many Christians desire to see "a little glimpse" of Christ. The Christ, for which they are looking, though, is an impotent loser these 2000 years, instead of the actual glorious God of victory fulfilled.

Preterism is much more than eschatology, to be sure. It is an active, glory-filled life in the present kingdom of God, giving all glory due to the King for the timely accomplishment of His Will, and intent on glorifying our Father for giving us such a clear explanation of His will in His Word, for which we should be eternally grateful. Now, having properly read His instruction manual, we can more effectively advance His kingdom, the increase of which shall have no end (Isaiah 9:7).


Enjoy some good reading, smile.gif
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 22 2006, 06:22 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So are you saying there will be no armageddon? No 'last battle' with the 'forces of evil'?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You especially RC, should know this already - but apparently my earlier assumptions about you were correct - you are a troll who just looks for keywords to pick on. You've put me in this box you have created for most of the Christians.

It would be impossible for me to give you a specific verse or two or three. The entire Bible leads up to the battle which took place around 70 AD.


Hi Mess,

There were two reasons for putting that question as I did, knowing full well your 'preterism' research/perspective on all things 'bible'. One was as a preliminary to further followup depending on your 'latest' stance based on your ongoing review of the bible...just to make sure where things stood before I asked anything further, heh? The other reason was to provide any newcomers with a definite 'starting point' for the latest exchange I wished to begin with you, based on the answer received...which you have now supplied; thanks.

The next question I WAS going to put to you is:

Do I understand correctly that the battle of Jerusalem WAS that armageddon and Satan WAS defeated thereat in 70AD?----but you have NOW answered THAT question as well. Again, thanks.

Now my next TWO questions are:

(1) Exactly WHAT happened to Satan physically/spiritually/bodily etc. Does he exist in ANY sense whatsoever, somehere? Or has his 'immortal' being/essence/soul, or what-have-you, been absolutely and irrevocably annihilated/negated or otherwise removed from ALL possible universal/heavenly/hellish dimensions etc.?

(2) If armageddon was in 70AD, how come there is still 'evil' in the world today....given that Satan was supposed to be the cause/source of all evil?

I look forward to reading your answers sometime tomorrow, or when I next log on. Ciao.

RealiyCheck.
PS: And I told you before, I don't 'troll'. I don't need to. I may sometimes be more succinct/brief/selective in what I respond to in any particular post, but that isn't 'trolling'.....it's lack of time for further comment at that time. Thanks.
amok
Wow, i'm sure that this will not turn into an argument of Preterism.

QUOTE
then I think they think we won't need them, and/or they're too proud to admit their mistake.


That may well be the most profound thing i have heard in here about religion. Now then...they also say that evolution is wrong? hhhmmm...no need? too proud? wow, simply amazing.

- Amok
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 21 2006, 01:25 AM)
I blew milk all over my keyboard when I first saw this!!!

Enjoy!!!

Grumpy cool.gif

It made me want to cry...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.