PDA

View Full Version : "The Big Bang" and the Bible.



Chook
2003-Sep-19, 09:08 PM
Those having been reared in a Christian environment are urged to believe in the literal "Six Day Creation" of the bible's book of Genesis.

Is there any remote possibility of this happening? (e.g. light originally being much faster, or something similar.)

All those respecting science experience a "hard time" in church and it would be nice to have a definite proof of the impossibility of taking the Genesis creation story literally (although it is believed that the sequence of events would scientifically feasable.)

I would appreciate your informed views.

Qayyim
2003-Sep-20, 01:00 AM
Ok, as far back as our technology can tell, the Earth was created about 4 billion years ago. Now, that doesn't mean that there was no time before that. Many billions of years passed before our own sun became a new-born star.

From reading the Bible/Torah and speaking with religious officials, the Earth began about 260,000 years ago. This is IMPOSSIBLE! We have evidence of homosapiens living in that period, let alone the universe!

Don't be confused when I say 260,000 years ago. I don't mean that this was wehn modern man set foot on Earth according to the Bible, that is when the universe as we know began, which cannot be true. The Bible's rendition of creation cannot prove that our Universe began some 260,000 years ago. Nothing supports it (other than "the word of God").

Josh
2003-Sep-20, 02:04 AM
Actually the bible says that creation happened 5764 years ago. This year is 5764 in the hebrew calandar which supposedly begins at creation...

There is a book (i've noted it in another thread too i think a while ago) called 'Genesis and the Big Bang' by Dr Gerald L. Schroeder. It basically uses quantum theory and modern physics and science to show that there is no discrepency between science's version of the beginning and the religious version. A good read.

kashi
2003-Sep-20, 05:27 AM
Chook:
it is believed that the sequence of events would scientifically feasable

Genesis:
...And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day... 1:11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.... 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

So God created the Sun after 4 consequtive days and nights hey!? Doesn't sound terribly feasable to me.

Kashi

jenda111
2003-Sep-20, 03:16 PM
first of all it is "feasible",but that is only minor , compared to general ignorance of science(the only hope to understand anything).
religious texts notoriously lack any science,magic is what powers those texts.
Most have been translated a number of times,usually to suit the breakaway factions who have
found "the real meaning".viz anglican-catholic schism,eastern orthodox-coptic argument ..etc
I'd sugest to read more and take less on faith.Science may not have all the answers,but unlike
religion,it is open to new discoveries,
jenda111

Faulkner
2003-Sep-21, 02:19 AM
As Kashi points out, God creates "light", and THEN "the sun"!? Doesn't make sense!

It is absurd to take the Bible literally. But that's not to say that it is a great piece of ancient literature - perhaps one of the first great science fiction epics??? The Old Testament is full of spaceships, astronauts, monsters, atomic explosions, etc... Great stuff! It would make a great film! It is also extremely sordid, and I wonder why the ol' censors haven't given it an R rating yet? - incest, bestiality, prostitution, homosexuality, child sacrifice, sex & violence galore! Personally, I love sordidness, but then I am over-18! Let's not forget that central character, "God" (= an astronaut? certainly a man-like entity who descends to Earth in "clouds" & "thunder"!), who is portrayed as spiteful, arrogant, constantly changing his mind, often seemingly illogical in his actions...(ie very HUMAN indeed!).

I believe there is a "religion" that reflects & embodies the TRUE state of the universe, and our spiritual existence within it, and what lies BEYOND...however we have not invented it yet. I don't think Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc etc even come CLOSE!

:(

eggplant
2003-Sep-21, 03:12 AM
We're overlooking at least two options here... What is the legnth of Gods day? ergo what's the metaphor and relation to science of the time. (What does it really mean?) and again #2 translation issues... Some versions I've read have Caine and able getting their wives from "the other people" who lived outside the garden...
The old testament is riddled with Sci-fi stuff. Only when we make it happen with science can we explian it... What looks like a giant Kiln, has overbaringly bright light emmitting from the door and has an angle/person walk out? Why close encounters of the third kind! Meanwhile there was also ergot and other causes of hallucinations throughout history that could easily be made into a Good book...
Please don't get me wrong, I've never had any issue period, between the two science v. religion. They are descriptions of a reality, maybe not mine, but educational and moving to the point of religious fanaticism and war... People make war because they are angry and afraid.
Whatever faith supports you is a good thing. Whatever communion and brotherhood you can muster helps. This is what religion is for being part of a bigger family... The trick is translating the ignorances of each different reality so they can understand and accept each other. maybe even help...
Yes you could say I'm a dreamer...
And science hasn't explained everything I've observed yet...

Planetwatcher
2003-Sep-21, 03:25 AM
I believe I was involved in a conversation thread like this before. :rolleyes:

The single most major problem with the Genesis accounts that we often fail to fully understand what is written. This is compounded by translation errors. :huh:

In a casual reading of the first chapter of the Bible, it appears to say that everything was created in six days some 6,000 years ago where and when nothing existed before. But that is not what it says. <_<

These verses do NOT say there was nothing before verse 3 when God said, "Let there be light". :o
It does NOT say there was no big bang. :o
It does NOT say there was no universe some 4.5 billion years ago. :o

But self-proclaimed religious leaders assume it does, because such are their personal views, which they want to attribute to God because it makes since to them. But what makes more since is understanding what we read. :blink:

Verse 1 says God made heaven and Earth in the beginning. If you want to assume, you may assume that it was perfect when it was first made. :ph34r:

Verse 2 and following appears to elaberate on how God got involved in making everything from nothing in six days, but appearances can be decieving. <_<

Properly translated, verse 2 actually says that something occured to CAUSE the Earth to become without form and void, and that this CAUSED darkness upon the face of the deep. :(

From that point on is the story of how God REMADE heaven and Earth in six days.
So what was there prior to when God spoke light into being? :unsure:

The Bible does not address that to any extent, so people wrongfully assume what we are asked to believe without ever checking it out. :ph34r:

Whatever science presents does NOT counterdict the Bible. It only counterdicts what people missunderstand about the Bible and Science. ;)

eggplant
2003-Sep-21, 03:36 AM
I wish I&#39;d said that...

Planetwatcher
2003-Sep-21, 04:27 AM
Why do you wish you said that?

Josh
2003-Sep-21, 08:10 AM
As Kashi points out, God creates "light", and THEN "the sun"&#33;? Doesn&#39;t make sense&#33;

If you have a "big bang" and think of it as an explosion which it would most certainly have been given the theory then there would have been energy dissipated as light ... as with most explosions. It is possible to have light before the sun ... just as we do in the theory that has a big bang and then millions and millions of years later the evolution of the sun.

I&#39;m not saying i agree with one or the other .. just pointing out that they can both work .. and together.

Planetwatcher
2003-Sep-22, 12:52 AM
There would certainly had to of been light before there was a Sun, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the Sun was the ONLY source of light. B)
Now I&#39;m surprised I haven&#39;t been asked to account for a 4 billion year old Sun when light has only been around less then 6,000 years. :unsure:
Anyone who wants to line up for that one I&#39;ll save you the time and effort.

When God said,"Let there be light," does not mean it didn&#39;t exist before. :huh:
It just means it didn&#39;t exist then. In fact the Bible doesn&#39;t say anything about anything not existing before. Only that it was without form and void. :o
Well if you can not see an item because the light with which to see it is not there, does not make it not there, (Which is also the current arguement in favor of dark matter) however it does make it without form and void. Why? Because you can&#39;t see it, makes it without form, and void because not seeing it would be just as if it were absent. :ph34r:
Are you folks still with me? :blink:

A terrible cattastrophy occured sometime in the past which caused a perfect Earth to become without form and void. In this cattastrophy, light became non-existant.
It was around before, but was gone for a period of time. <_<
So naturally the first thing which was brought back into being was light. B)

It was called day and divided from the darkness which was called night.
So the Sun which would have been what astronomy calls a black body was still around, and it&#39;s light was right from the first day. The division of day and night, light and darkness, came about by the Earth spinning on it&#39;s axles. :P

By the forth day, two great lights are made. Doesn&#39;t mean the objects from where the light came wasn&#39;t there, or that they didn&#39;t emit light at all, but two great lights were made. One for day and a lesser one for night. The sources of light were not named, but readers assume it to be the Sun and the Moon. :ph34r:
So much for the light. ;)

kashi
2003-Sep-22, 06:47 AM
Why is it that everyone feels compelled to go to extraordinary lengths find a way to make the biblical stories fit in with what we "know" as a result of science? Why are they any more likely to be correct than say the Australian Aboriginal stories of creation, which involve all sorts of amazing creatures?

Planetwatcher discussed how people&#39;s personal views often get in the way of their interpretations of the bible (I have a lot of respect for this argument). Now I was obviously not raised to be religious, but the very fact that people are putting so much effort into trying to defend the bible&#39;s validity, demonstrates that their own personal views are getting in the way, in my opinion&#33; Why do we hold this text in such high esteem? It&#39;s just an old book (dare I say a not very well written one) that has been edited hundreds of times.

Kashi

Josh
2003-Sep-22, 09:39 AM
Not very well written? It&#39;s a best seller&#33;&#33;

imported_ROB
2003-Sep-22, 12:27 PM
ALL THE BIBLE IS IS AN EARLY ATTEMPT BY PEOPLE NOT AS CLUED UP AS US TO BUT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT WILL ALL WAYS BE ASKED BY EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER BORN WHY AND WHERE
THANKFULLY THESE DAYS WE DO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS GOING ON THANKS TO MISTAKES IN KNOWLEGE LIKE THE TALE CALLED THE BIBLE. "GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE" THEN ADAM AND EVE HAD TWO SONS IN BIOLOGY DOSNT THAT SENTENCE FALL FLAT TWO SONS WHO THEN IS THE NEXT MOTHER? WHERE ARE THE MENTION OF EVELUTION DINOSAURS (WHICH WE CAN PROVE BY THE REMAINS FOUND THESE PEOPLE THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS FLAT THAT STARS WERE ONLY PIN HOLES IN A GLASS DOME OVER THE EARTH RELIGION IS OUT DATED AND HAS A LOT OF BLAME IN EVERY WAR EVER FOUGHT ON THIS EARTH :angry:

I DONT CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND EVERY THING THAT HAPPENS IN THIS UNIVERSE BUT FROM BEING 5 YEARS OLD FOUND FLOORS IN THE BIBLE AND FOUND IT FUNNY THAT SO MANY PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER ARE SUCKED IN TO A FICTISIOUS STORY THAT HAS NO PROOF AT ALL :lol:

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT



WENT OFF ON ONE A BIT THERE BUT AT LEAST YOU CAN ALL SEE WHAT MY BELIF IN GOD IS 0.00000

:rolleyes: :angry:

Arramon
2003-Sep-22, 03:01 PM
a place called home... (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0309/galaxysky_2mass_big.jpg)


figure yourself looking from the outside of all this....
and that your scope of consciousness expands even farther beyond this...
to other realms either similar in nature or not.... you can create as you see fit.... and change things to your suting... align... alter... explode.... implode....
expand... contract....

if you could do this anywhere at anytime.... the moments to you between the events may appear quickly, becuz of the dimensions you possess....

but... beeing smaller ...... ahem,...... alot.. smaller.... these events may seem to take millenia.....

so.... in God&#39;s eyes..... or eye.... or millions of eyes..... whatever... His events would be realtime... to Him..... happening as He makes it happen, or allows to happen , or whatever the reasons for whatever....


this picture is just too awesome for me to really understand.... the blue line looking area in the middle is where the mily way is...

here&#39;s a good listing of newer pics being released... (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html)


when you&#39;re bigger than everything, i&#39;m pretty sure time would be relative your size.... so if when Genesis was written, and the author/visionary/prophet/messenger was seeing what happened in the creation of earth... it may have looked like everything was forming rapidly... but that was from the Big Man&#39;s perspective.... not ours.... =)


its not time yet for us to know these things....


=) but i do like reading what everyone thinks....

. ..-={A}=-.. .

JimSue
2003-Sep-22, 04:40 PM
Maybe its like looking down on ants or mabe like them looking up at us ,what is there perspective to us?

eggplant
2003-Sep-23, 02:20 AM
Reply to planet watcher...
I like what you said because it was more succint than I usually am.
To wit:

possible answer to Kashi,

We try to blend the stories for those who fear the consequences of "seperating" them... meaning only one can be correct. Fear of science has a long and glorius history. So does fear of religion... if we can make peace using each others languages for the benefit of all by mutual understanding and education, we might remove some of the fears we all have about not being correct. We reflect and refract on the bible or christianity because it is deeply embedded in our culture, and if the intellectuals are to have any influence on our culture it helps if they are widely educated...
Your point is perfectly valid and hopefully well taken. And I&#39;m not sure my reply says what I first thought when I read your post, but there it is... ;)

If we try to push that rope, "reconciling religion vs science," like pushing any rope, you get a pile of rope at your feet, and some untangling to do.

braveheart
2003-Sep-23, 09:11 AM
Been away and only just read all the comments - probably a little late to join now, but here&#39;s my 2-pence worth&#33; Personally I have no problem reconciling the biblical account of the creation and the present day scientific one.

Although some have hinted at this, no-one has mentioned that the Bible also states somewhere that to God "... a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day". Surely this leaves no doubt that one should not interpret the 6-day creation literally as "being created in 6 days of 24 hours" (as this concept of time is only valid on our little planet).

We know that space time and earth time are not the same. Also, we as humans live in a 3 dimensional world with time as a 4th dimension. However, there might well be other dimensions which we cannot perceive but in which another being(s) could exist. We already toil with concepts such as time/space warps (or bending space), worm holes and even parallel universes (multiverse?) etc. Someone greater than the universe or living in another dimension would not be bound by time.

However, one should not lose sight of the fact that the Bible (and other religious texts) was written by and for laymen (non-scientific) during a time when most of the concepts we understand today would not have made sense. Consider that even most of modern science is largely incomprehesible to the average man today, e.g try to conceptualise how large the (known) universe is considering that the light reaching earth now from distant galaxies may have been travelling around 18 billion years&#33; Quantum physics and concepts such as dark matter, anti-matter, speed of light changing, gravity bending light (and space?) etc. really make little sense to John Doe. In another thousand or more years scientific knowledge might well explain concepts we haven&#39;t even thought of yet, and a lay person writing a popular book today can surely not be judged on scientific inaccuracies which might provide plausable explanations with our present knowledge base (and to some extent perhaps makes sense today) but could be proven completely wrong in future. Just imagine trying to explain space travel to a person a mere 100 or so years ago when man had not even managed to master the art of flying&#33;

In my opinion creation is not complete and is still happening around us every day with new stars/galaxies being born and evolution taking place in all living things.
I find the vastness of the universe and the evolution of the universe (from a big bang&#33;) and the immense diversity of live forms (and there probable evolution from single atoms/molecules and eventually cells) absolutely mind boggling and perhaps just a wee bit too complex for all of it to have just happened by chance. After all, where did the energy/matter which resulted in the big bang come from and why, and how did the vacuum of space in which the universe is expanding come about? Popular belief is that eventually the universe will collapse upon itself again (contract) and another big bang could happen with the whole process being repeated again (Or how many times has it been repeated before?&#33;) Perhaps these concepts could make nice topics for discussion with our limited ability to understand and conceptualise them even with present day knowledge and brain power&#33;) Perhaps religion (in any form) is man&#39;s way of acknowledging that a greater power than mankind exists and helps explain that which he cannot explain.

memo
2003-Sep-23, 01:40 PM
Well i have no long and scientific phrase to say,but any of you that have been in combat remember some mean and nasty gi tha has killed men in hand to hand combat.lay there dieing from a land mine pleading with god to forgive him and tell him there is no GOD.

civhawk
2003-Sep-23, 08:25 PM
IF it could be proven scientifically then no faith would be necessary. Believe me scientist have plenty of faith, they just call them theories. B)


"Dreams are just another battlefield."

Arramon
2003-Sep-23, 09:13 PM
all a part of the same organism of life...
..what some call creation... others eternity....
...and others armegeddon...
life and death expresses itself throughout everything and everyone...

joyceg98
2003-Sep-26, 05:51 PM
My father taught anatomy in a medical school in Tennessee while the "monkey law" was still in force. Every year he faced the quandary of how to teach embryology without talking about evolution. Every year I helped him write letters to all the state senators and representatives arguing that science is not in conflict with the Bible, rather the Bible explains science, simply and beautifully, to a primitive people who farmed their land and tended their flocks. Just as you don&#39;t start off telling children about the Big Bang theory and the splitting of atoms or alterations in the DNA, you begin with parables and allegories that make sense to the people you are teaching -- appropriate to their age and/or their experience.

If we take the word "day" to mean "era," and look beyond the simple verses that describe each "day," the scientific facts line up quite nicely as huge expansions of the simple explanation.

In fact the Hebrew word used in these verses can be translated as "aeon" so it is not intended to be a 24-hour day as we understand it.

Some people say that the dinosaurs prove that the Bible is wrong. Tennessee&#39;s law allowing schools to fire any teacher who taught that evolution was a fact was repealed in March 1996, only seven years ago.

My own belief is that the Bible is not intended to be a detailed explanation of how the world was created, but rather a simple and concise explanation for a simple people of the wonder of the creation of the world and the interrelationship of the complex plants and animals that inhabit this space together, and to teach us to take care of one another and be nice to one another. As we understand the details of those plants and animals, the wonder only increases. Each one is an "incredible machine&#33;"

I think that all people of good will, of every faith, would agree that "getting along" is the essence of the message in nearly all religions of the world. If we would focus on our common goals, rather than on the details that separate us, we would all be better off.

Happy New Year&#33; - Happy Birthday, World&#33; - and Peace to us all.

Arramon
2003-Sep-26, 05:56 PM
by far the best post i&#39;ve read as of late...

...if only all could see like this...

jmpty
2003-Sep-26, 09:59 PM
It seems to me that this is all much ado about nothing.
As humans,we always seem to think about things as "beginning" and "ending"when all the matter and energy that exists has always existed, only in different forms.
Methinks we should just relax, learn, and marvel at the beauty and wonder of our universe.

Planetwatcher
2003-Sep-29, 03:00 AM
There are a lot of very good thoughts and responses here. Even those who disaggree have managed to refrain from name calling and cutting down one another. Perhaps there is hope for us yet.

A page or two back someone asked about the dinosaurs. I believe I answered that one in a page prior to that. But just to recapp.
The Bible does not address the issue of dinosaurs. It doesn&#39;t say they did or did not exist. Anyone who claims the Bible does is reading their own view point into the matter.

Again the biggest confusion is that most people think that the first verse of the Bible it a simple statement of the creation, and the rest of the chapter simply elaberates on it. Not so.
Actually the first two verses are simple statements of origional creation and the distruction of the origional creation. It may well be that dinosaurs, cavemen, and wooly mamaths all existed in this time frame. The Bible does not state either way, but it does say that Adam and Eve were to replenish or repopulate the Earth.

During the distruction of the first creation, light ceased to exist. That was the first thing brought back. Then the rest of the chapter tells how everything else in the current creation was brought about.
It is just that simple. Now one can believe what they want or believe nothing at all
Proof is illrelivent, because neither side can really prove anything either way.
It&#39;s a matter of faith in what one sees or faith in what one does not see, but comes to see it after the faith.

None of us can prove Newton existed. Or George Washington, or Abe Lincoln.
We know there is a structure which resembles a giant boat, high on Mt. Ararat.
No one can prove how it got there. Maybe extra-terristal beings put it there, maybe it carried a man named Noah. Who can prove either?

We have found sediments in layers of Earth which implies there was once a universal flood. Was it the flood of Noah? Or something else yet to be explained?
Again, who can say for sure?

We have fosselized bones of giant creatures which man kind has never seen alive.
Are they aliens from another world? Or fallen titans from some past remote war?
Or long extinct animals of some kind who died for reasons unknown?
I don&#39;t pretend to know for sure, but then you don&#39;t know either.

As for how the two sons of Adam and Eve propagated the human race, I explained that one too. Adam and Eve had sons and daughtors after the first two sons.
In fact they lived and bore children for over 800 years afterward. How many children can one couple have in 800 years? How many more children can those childern grow up to have? We can propagate at least three generations in an average human reproductive span of 40 or so years. By the time the first generation had stoped procreating, their grandchildren, and sometimes great-grandchildren are reproducing.
Now what if those early humans had reproductive spans of hundreds of years, and they themselves lived hundreds of years more? How many humans can come to exist in 800 years? But yet something about that is so hard to believe.

Well believe whatever you want, or nothing at all. I know what I believe.

zephyr46
2003-Sep-29, 04:51 AM
When Humans can accept that we will probable never &#39;know it all&#39; killing people over religious differences may stop. Most cultures have creation stories as strange as genesis, I feel sorry for anyone expected to find all the answers in any creation story. I put it to any serious scientist today that the big bang may some day look as strange as genisis does to us today. We do the best understanding as much as we can with what we have now, what the bible has the science dosn&#39;t yet have is a moral code to live by. I have recenty finished reading a book by Brian Swimme &#39;the hidden heart of the cosmos&#39; that proposes a spiritual teaching of the universe and a moral code that encourages a critical non acceptence of the consumer mentality. I recommend it to anyone grappling with religion, capitalism and cosmology.
Some questions have no answers, and we should just deal with it, difficult as this may be :)

stephanie_dukie
2003-Oct-01, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by kashi@Sep 22 2003, 02:47 AM
Why is it that everyone feels compelled to go to extraordinary lengths find a way to make the biblical stories fit in with what we "know" as a result of science?


It&#39;s just an old book (dare I say a not very well written one)


Kashi
Kashi,

People don’t go out of their way to make biblical stories fit, scientists go out of their way to make them not fit. But for Science precipitating arguments that the bible is wrong, there would be no argument.

It is sadly obvious that you were not given the option of learning the truth about religion as evident by your post on the “4 day creation”, but religion is and will be a staple to MOST of this world. If you would have been educated about what the bible says, you would have known that Gods definitions on the word "days" are not as we know it to mean. The views may differ as far as peoples practices, but none the less, It is not people who go out of their way, it is the scientist who spend thousands of hours trying to prove it wrong.

The Bible has been around longer then science. If there wasn’t any truth to it, it would not have survived and flourished as religion has. Besides that, it is obvious thru reading threads on this forum, that science knows very little when it comes to the universe. Scientists backtrack constantly about things they said were fact. People who are or have a belief system and the teachers of it, NEVER backtrack, EVER.


Your still a child Kashi. Your 18 and barely cooked. As you mature from the teenage state, your views will change. I feel sorry that you have grown up in such an environment that has instilled such angry feelings about religion. That angry heart of your will make your life a very unhappy place to be.

imported_ROB
2003-Oct-01, 02:41 PM
stephanie_dukie


The Bible has been around longer then science. If there wasn’t any truth to it, it would not have survived and flourished as religion has.


THE REASON THE BIBLE HAS BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN SCIENCE IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE STORYS CAME FROM A TIME HUMAN THOUGHT WAS LIMITED TO RITUALS AND BASIC KNOWLEDGE THAT THE AVERAGE 10 YEAR OLD WOULD KNOW TODAY.
SCIENCE HAS A LOT OF THINGS TO ANSWER TO I AGREE THE H BOMB SUPER WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION BUT THE ROOT OF MOST WARS ARE RELIGION.

IF THERE WAS A CREATOR WHY ARE THERE SO MANY RELIGIONS?
THE WHOLE THING IS ANTIQUATED YOU CANT PROVE THE IS NO GOD BUT THE STORY IS SO OUT OF DATE ITS HIGHLY UNLIKLY

AGE HASNT GOT ANY THING TO DO WITH WHAT PEOPLE THINK TWO CENTURYS AGO IF I WERE TO SAY PEOPLE WOULD FLY I WOULD BE TOLD I WAS MAD WHY IN THIS DAY AND AGE MUST PEOPLE STAY IN THOUGHTS DARK AGES THEY MAY ASWELL WORSHIP DRAGONS AND UNICORNS WIZARDS &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

SCIENCE INPROVES LIFE FOR THE MOST AND THE COUNTRYS THAT STAY FANATICAL ABOUT RELIGIONS RESEMBLE THE WAY WESTERN COUNTRYS WERE CENTURYS AGO


GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE" THEN ADAM AND EVE HAD TWO SONS IN BIOLOGY DOSNT THAT SENTENCE FALL FLAT TWO SONS WHO THEN IS THE NEXT MOTHER? WHERE ARE THE MENTION OF EVELUTION DINOSAURS

THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIVE IN A GOD

imported_ROB
2003-Oct-01, 03:23 PM
that science knows very little when it comes to the universe. Scientists backtrack constantly about things they said were fact. People who are or have a belief system and the teachers of it, NEVER backtrack, EVER.

THATS BECAUSE SCIENCE LOOKS AT THINGS PROPERLY SCIENTIFICALY AND CAN ADMIT TO WHEN ITS PROVED WRONG SCIENCE IS PROGRESSIVE RELIGION IS STUCK IN THE PAST

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE STAY RELIGIOUS BECAUSE MOST COUNTRYS THAT ARE RELIGIOUS WONT ALLOW ANY OTHER THOUGHT
A LITTLE LIKE THE GREEK PHILLOSIPHERS WHO WERE PUT TO DEATH FOR DARING TO ASK QUESTIONS DAWIN WAS SHUNNED NOW HES A GENIOUS RELIGION WAS GOOD FOR PEOPLE WITH LITTLE KNOWLEDGE YEARS AGO WHEN THAT WAS EXCEPTABLE TO THINK BUT ARE THOUGHTHS EVOLVE THE SAME WAY WE CAME TO BE HERE WHERE IS NATURAL SELECTION IN THE BIBLE ? THAT THOUGHT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN US SUDDENLY ARIVING BECAUSE GOD WANTED US RELIGION IS A GOOD TOOL TO KEEP A POPULATION UNDER CONTROL IT HAS NO PLACE IN TODAYS WORLD .

engelbach
2003-Oct-01, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by stephanie_dukie@Oct 1 2003, 02:20 PM
Scientists backtrack constantly about things they said were fact. People who are or have a belief system and the teachers of it, NEVER backtrack, EVER.

Your still a child Kashi. I feel sorry that you have grown up in such an environment that has instilled such angry feelings about religion.
Well, Stephanie, the first paragraph of your message above is exactly to the point. Science never stops searching for the truth, and as we acquire more knowledge, science revises and deepens its understanding of the universe. Religion, on the other hand, claims to know all the answers from the get go, and is closed to discovery. What you disdainfully call backtracking, I call growth.

The second paragraph in the quote above is ad hominem. That means you are attacking the person instead of his ideas. It seems to me that Kashi deserves credit for having learned something valuable about the effect of religion in the world. Being condescending to him is not a mature response to his valid and apparently deeply held opinions.

If you read the Bible completely through, Old and New Testaments, you&#39;ll find it loaded not just with outdated notions of the nature of reality, but countless viewpoints that we today find repugnant, including fanatical chauvinism, misogyny, anti-homosexuality, anti-democracy, pre-emptive war, polygamy, cruel and unusual punishment, and so on. (And yes, the Psalms and Song of Solomon are beautiful, but these are not part of the main narrative.)

Even were the Bible true, and God did exist, I would reject them. But it&#39;s not, and he doesn&#39;t, and the Big Bang is a magnificent scientific theory, based on the best evidence currently available, that blows away the children&#39;s stories of the Bible.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-01, 10:09 PM
To Rob, Could I trouble you please to use some puncuation such as periods and commas, and maybe proof read your spacing? And if you could please not use all caps. It is difficult to read and understand your meaning the first time through, and frequently re-reading sections sometimes throws me off track. I wish to understand your postings as you meant them to be, rather than misunderstanding the points you are making.

For the rest, (at least the Bible critics,) Why are some of you asking the same questions repeatedly when the anwsers have already been provided?
Are some of you ignoring a longer posting, or is it you are somehow just plain missing it?

At least 3 times in this string, the questions reoccured of the dinosaurs, and how Adam and Eve&#39;s sons propagated the Earth. I replied to both in great detail twice.
Or is it you want someone else&#39;s view as well?

The arguement that the Bible is antiquated is used over and over, even though it&#39;s been explained that a truth does not change. By the logic that some of you have displayed, perhaps we should find a new theory for how gravity works.
After all it&#39;s discovery hundreds of years ago is surely antiquated by now, and we need something new in order to progress. Sounds dumb doesn&#39;t it.

It&#39;s just as dumb to expect a 4,000 year old document to have been written in such a manner to keep up with todays trends.
As for religion never changing, and never evolving, that is absolutly false, and it&#39;s documented through out history.

When Isreal first came into play as a tribe, all the religious teachings came from only the tribes leader until they were enslaved in Egypt.
Then along came Moses, who presented the laws.
Joshaua followed Moses, and set up a system where a judge ruled the people and was responsible for teaching the religion.
Late in the time of the judges, a transistion occured. (More evolution)
Religious teaching came from a prophet rather then the leader of the people, and the prophet was often an adviser to the leader, which brought about the kings.

During the time of the kings more evolution occured in the religion. The responsibility of teaching was given to priests and elders in the religion, and the prophets became more an advisory role.
By the time of Christ the priests, and elders had become corrupted, and a new religious set of beliefs began. Christianity. But many jews held to their beliefs so now you had 2 groupings.

By the 4th century Christians doctrines were changed by men and the Catholic Church was born.
In the 16th century Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic beliefs and started what became known as the Protestent Church.
Calvin Sinclair broke away from that and started the Methodist Church, and Luther&#39;s followers became known as Lutherns. Today, there are many different variations in the Protenstents.

Christiananity, Cathloics, Protentstents, and even the Muslims all came from what we call the Jewish faith.
So religion does evolve which anwsers another often asked question of why there are so many different religions. It&#39;s all evolution from within the teachings and doctrines. I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s good or bad here, but just stating the facts.

That&#39;s all I&#39;m going to put in this posting. I&#39;ll say more in another posting.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-01, 10:13 PM
To clear up another matter. Stephanie spoke of the truth not backtracking, and that is true.
Yes, all theses religions evolved over the years, but the religions they came from have not backtracked. Which is why they don&#39;t seem to change.

&#39;THATS BECAUSE SCIENCE LOOKS AT THINGS PROPERLY SCIENTIFICALY AND CAN ADMIT TO WHEN ITS PROVED WRONG SCIENCE IS PROGRESSIVE RELIGION IS STUCK IN THE PAST &#39;

I disagree. Evolution of genes (Not species of a genes) has never been comprehensivly proven. In fact just the opposite has occured. The more Dr. Leaky&#39;s followers have tried to prove evolution, the more missing links appeared, and more holes in the theory popped up.

But it has been taught, or rather misstaught for so long that it is now reguarded as scientific fact, and taught in public schools as such even though the book Orgins of Species has all but fallen completly apart.
Evolution of genes is proven wrong, yet its so called progressive scientists remain stuck in the past. It is not a science at all. It is a falsey.

&#39;PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE STORYS CAME FROM A TIME HUMAN THOUGHT WAS LIMITED TO RITUALS AND BASIC KNOWLEDGE THAT THE AVERAGE 10 YEAR OLD WOULD KNOW TODAY.&#39;

How many 10 year olds will understand the following.
Song of Solomon 3:1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not.
2 I will rise now, and go about the city in the streets, and in the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not.
3 The watchmen that go about the city found me: to whom I said, Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?
4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother&#39;s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.

&#39;Science never stops searching for the truth, and as we acquire more knowledge, science revises and deepens its understanding of the universe. Religion, on the other hand, claims to know all the answers from the get go, and is closed to discovery. What you disdainfully call backtracking, I call growth.&#39;

Then why has so called science stopped looking for the orgion of life on Earth and decided evolution is the gospel in this matter.
Religion never claimed to have ALL the answers. Just the answers to the most important problems facing mankind.
Real Bible schollers are open to discovery and make new ones all the time.

&#39;Big Bang is a magnificent scientific theory, based on the best evidence currently available, that blows away the children&#39;s stories of the Bible. &#39;

Nobody who knows the Bible well disputes the Big Bang, although I don&#39;t know if I would call it magnificent, and there is nothing for it to blow away.

astrophysicsrose
2003-Oct-01, 11:29 PM
Those having been reared in a Christian environment are urged to believe in the literal "Six Day Creation" of the bible&#39;s book of Genesis.

Is there any remote possibility of this happening? (e.g. light originally being much faster, or something similar.)

All those respecting science experience a "hard time" in church and it would be nice to have a definite proof of the impossibility of taking the Genesis creation story literally (although it is believed that the sequence of events would scientifically feasable.)

I would appreciate your informed views.

REPLY: It is known, in religious circles, that the bible was written by a humanity for a humanity to try to understand. It is not written in great scientific truisms, not in true cosmological concepts, only in human terms on human terms and specifically for human understanding evolving through the use of human cognition.

For those who unravel the mysteries of creation, more knowledge comes to unfold, thus calling for a deeper and true meaning to the creation story.

Thus far, within space and within time, time seems to be the human dogma that hinders human perception of creation in itself and of itself. Time is a human failing, resulting from a fall from closeness to the creator of life itself. We humans experience death, and we experience death in space and in time. And, that death alone, when coupled with the time element inherent within our essential birthrite curtails greatly our depth of understanding this very universe of which we are a part thereof.

If time were to end now, where would our perceptions bring us? To the edge of our own subjective universe? Would we cease to be, or would we just begin to experience universal eternity within a universe created within a new understanding of the very essence of life itself?

imported_ROB
2003-Oct-02, 07:53 AM
Planetwatcher,

Sorry that my punctuation isnt the best and my use of caps is difficult to understand, (i also know that my spelling struggles as well,) but i take your point at proof reading and will do from now on. The thing is you see i have so many thoughts whilst writing on this subject that i struggle to keep up with my self,

I think that whilst people are intiltled to there veiws i feel strongly about religion (or my lack of) so i think i will sit out of this discussion and just watch.
so I dont cause any offence to any one who is religious.

i just cant see how religion survives in this day and age.

Arramon
2003-Oct-02, 03:52 PM
People need to confirm their mortality with a connection to the unknown which is immortal throughout this space and time so fondly being spoken of. Time and space ARE really just relative to each person, people see things so differently from eachother, which is why most wanna find someone who shares their most basic beliefs to be with.
But... its too soon to say where we stand in this mess. Because perspectives are relative, coming from different experienced and NOT experienced views.
I like hearing what everyone has to say =) even if it may seem offensive. You are entitled to &#39;think&#39; as you&#39;d like. There&#39;s nothing wrong against that. It&#39;s when people start thinking that they are right and another is wrong where the unneeded dilemnas come into play.
No one is really ever going to be right, because we will always discover something new and thought provoking that will stimulate our hearts, minds, souls, spirits, giving way to new ground to where we may stand and try to survey what may now be open to us.
There are roads that we still need to travel in order to gain better understanding of things. Like the processes of the mind. The abilities that are held within that time has restrained from human use, and only a small fraction of humans are able to create. Math geniuses... human computers... unusually strong mental thresholds.
Science hasn&#39;t stopped lookinf for signs of life here on Earth..
and Nasa has just come out with a 3-5 year plan on what they want to accomplish in that time frame...
Finding new ways to discover life on our world, on other planets in our solar system, beyond our solar system... being able to zoom in on other extra-solar worlds... what chemicals or elements may be needed for the origins of life to appear.
Personally, I believe that there is a Creator... give Him/It any name you want. But, I&#39;ve always felt that there is Something at work that is greater than anything visible or invisible to our senses or understandings. We are so child-like in our concepts compared to the universe. Yet we persist. And become more of what we are able to become each passing moment.
And sharing values and thoughts and views is a must =)
As long as the need for whats true is present.

And if someone is having these thoughts at an early age, then blessed is he who strives to attain the knowledge of understanding =)

good health to all...

. ..-={A}=-.. .

moonglow
2003-Oct-02, 08:18 PM
The "second law of thermodynamics" or "law of entropy" which states that "nothing can change naturally unless it changes to a less complex form" trumps the "theory of the big bang" Its to simple to ignore, the law trumps the theory, "Any theory" concerning change or evolution. Theorists simply find it convienent to ignore the law&#33; Much more about the cosmos would be discovered if the law were utilized instead of the numerous theories.

JoAnn and Bob

Chook
2003-Oct-03, 01:01 AM
I (Chook) would like to thank all those responding to my original question concerning the possible (biblical) creation of the universe in six literal days. Special thanks to Nelson Marasco and Arramon for their thoughtful comments, as well as Zephyr46. By the way – read Job Ch.41 for your dinosaur story.

Religion was NOT meant to discussed here because of its personal nature. However I would like to take the liberty of telling you a personal story which some of you may relate to.

During the mid 70s I was employed as a “money mechanic” (Financial Systems Analyst) for an international organisation in Vienna, Austria who had about 150 top American, Jewish and East Bloc scientists on staff – all PhDs, including two Nobel prize winners. Intellectually I couldn’t do up their shoe laces&#33;&#33; And here was the crunch – as far as I was aware, I was the ONLY Christian amongst them. And when Little Johnny is the only one out of step – guess who is wrong.

I went through a crisis in faith and belief . What saved my sanity were several considerations:
1. The reality of “another dimension” – another unseen world peopled by intelligent beings (I won’t go into this, but I have “seen” it to my practical satisfaction).
2. The logical necessity of there having to be a Creator.
3. The content of the bible, its explanation for what we see around us, and for the behaviour of humans.
4. The fulfilment of biblical predictions ( the Jews returning to Israel etc. etc. etc.)
5. Even if it’s completely wrong – a faith is a very stabilising bulwark.
6. The Christian faith of “Love God, and your neighbour as yourself.” works beautifully in practice.

But to the scientific question – “Could the universe have been created in six literal days?” After reading and re-reading your answers and comments I tend to agree with those who do not take the biblical creation story literally – that the “days” were, in fact, eons of time.

Thank you all.

CHOOK

stephanie_dukie
2003-Oct-03, 03:09 PM
First Off,

I did not mean to sound as though I was slamming Kashi. HE speaks VERY STRONGLY & CONSISTANTLY about how wrong and silly the bible is. Personally, I have been against this topic of discussion on this type of forum since this forum began. I have not been silent about how out of place, religion is in a forum about our universe, and have listened time and time again from Kashi how silly religion is to begin with. There comes a time however, where respect for other human beings must be top priority, especially a place like this, and part of that respect is to agree to disagree, not continue to make claims of how stupid, wrong, or crazy someones beliefs may be to another. There comes a time when enough is enough, and some thought and consideration must play a part. If it sounded as though I was rude, forgive me. It is frustration that drove me to post, and a lack of consideration on her behalf because she cant converse without a slam, and has proven that in past posts.

Second, Rob my dear. You said in a nutshell that religion is what drives war. It is arrogance, hatred, and greed that makes war. History was my worst subject, so I cant speak completly on fact, but how many wars thru the years were actually about God or religion? Were they not driven by proving one country is bigger and better then the other? Even today, people arent really fighting for God or killing for God. We fight because people hate people. Yes they say it over religion, but MOST religions do not support the murder of each other. It is those who take it to the extreme who say they fight for God, and it is those who so arrogantly or greedily think they are the biggest or the baddest who decide war will make a HUGE statement to society.

Most religions, even the pakistan/Afganastan (spell?) religions dont believe God wants us to murder each other. It only becomes murderous when people go off the deep end and convince themselves God is sending them secret messages to kill, kill, kill, but just kill certain people in certain places, innocent or not.

And with that, I am done posting on this topic. I respect each persons right to believe what they believe, and hopefully ALL of us, no matter what belief, can find the type of happiness we all seek, and can be kind to our hearts.

Now I am off to ask about the shuttle&#33;

kashi
2003-Oct-04, 01:34 AM
I think you should relax Stephanie. Take a chill pill. I am Australian you see and we don&#39;t take arguments like this as seriously as Americans do. I&#39;m just taking the **** really. I couldn&#39;t give a rats about this discussion. There are plenty of bible forums out there I&#39;m sure&#33;

I totally agree with you though. Agree to disagree.

Have a lovely weekend.

Kashi

Josh
2003-Oct-04, 03:10 AM
If you guys are going to insist on having a discussion about bible versus big bang etc, how about we try to do it without negating one or the other. discuss the facts and not what they&#39;re based on. there&#39;s no point arguing that god doesn&#39;t exist to some one who believes in god and vice versa. Keep this about the universe and the creation of it (in whatever form that might have been).

A long while ago in this and another thread I posted the title of a book i had read that shows exactly how the big bang theory and evolution of the universe fits very nicely with the creation and bible theory. I&#39;ll bet that none of you have read it. I&#39;ll bet that in reality most of you just want to say stuff and not listen to anyone else. If you want to have informed debate then inform yourselves. find out how they can co-exist and then debate it.

Or ... more to the point ... talk about the observable universe and science and keep religious debate under your hat.

now .. i order you to enjoy yourselves.

Chook
2003-Oct-05, 01:07 AM
Hi Kashi - I&#39;m Australian too and, I must say, have been surprised at the subjectivity of some commenters.

The question I asked was, I thought, of a scientific nature - "Is it possible for the universe to be created in six literal days? (I have heard that it has been claimed that light has become "tired" and slowed down considerably; as well as other explanations).

Isn&#39;t that a reasonable question to ask the scientific community?

And yet people have attacked religion :(

I would be pleased it religion was kept out of it as much as possible and discussion kept on scientific grounds.

Chook
PS I enjoy a close friendship with many Americal friends and have the highest regard for their shared culture and heritage.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-05, 02:33 AM
To Rob,
Thank you for getting rid of the all caps, and for your proofreading. I wouldn&#39;t worry about the spelling, for quite a few of us seem to have that problem.
I&#39;ve tried writing my postings in my word processer in order to use spell check, and I&#39;ve tried pasting a posting into a word processer, then pasting back into the posting to no avail. I have MS Word, and MS Works. Both wants to put it into THEIR format before it allows any proofing, then the edits are lost anyway going back into the posting, because it&#39;s HTML and the word processers are text.
Those who have browsers with spell check built in should consider themselves lucky.

Those of us who don&#39;t, have to either tolerate the spelling and grammer errors, find and install an HTML spell checker, or buck up and use M.S. Explorer&#39;s Outlook, which invites every virius in the known universe to come and invade our computers.
At any rate, just proper spacing and getting rid of the all caps makes it much easier to read. Thanks again.

And don&#39;t worry about your views offending people. As long as you are not cutting people down, or calling names. At least it doesn&#39;t offend me, even if we believe differently. I just tire of the same questions being re-asked after the reply has been given.

To JoAnn and Bob,
I won&#39;t pretend to know the "second law of thermodynamics" or "law of entropy" which states that "nothing can change naturally unless it changes to a less complex form", but at the risk of sounding argumentive I feel compelled to ask, how does the second law of thermodynamics then explain a seed which is watered and nurished, (a natural process) grow into a great tree, or other plant life?
How does it explain animal and human reproduction, which starts out as two seperate simple cells, and becomes a baby human or animal?

To Chook,
You did ask a very loaded question at the beginning of this string. Such a question is bound to bring conflict and strife. However it is a good question, and those of us with less then neutrual views should be more carefull how we present our views.

To Kashi,
Please read and reread my last sentence to Chook very carefully. It applies to you. Being an Australian and not letting what others say bother you is a good trait. However assuming that those of us in the west also think like that is a poor trait. We Americians, and some Canadians too are a very uptight people. For some of us, it is very difficult to not get upset going into forum discussion groups and being addressed the way you are likely familiar with.
It is likely to be very difficult to place yourself in anothers position given your youthful age has not allowed you the expeirences that an older person may have. This is not meant as a cut down, but a simple truth, for how can you understand a perspective you&#39;ve not experienced. In time you will understand, and hopefully then if you encounter a young upstart, you will remember how difficult it was to see another&#39;s view when you were young, so you will have to try to see for both of you.
To Stephanie,
My last sentence to Kashi applies to you right now. You&#39;ve had experiences she hasn&#39;t. You have a maturity she doesn&#39;t yet have, nor could she possibley have at this time of her life.
She has yet to experience your age, (meaning OUR age group, not to say that you are old by any means, espcially since you are younger then I) but you have only to remember when you were her age. Yes, I&#39;m sure that like me, you were much more respectable then many of todays young people are, but our parents generation said many of the same things of us that we now speak of todays young people. So you have to use that maturity to see BOTH points of view.
It&#39;s perhaps the ultiment oximorion that we used to complain of how our parents generation just didn&#39;t try to understand us, and we were NEVER going to do and say the things our parents did. But low and behold, now we have grown up and become our parents. But do we stop that cycle now, or are we going to stay ignorant, uptight, and out of touch like they did.
It&#39;s much the same way dealing with unbelievers. We can look up at the wonderful creation of stars, seeing their fine order, and beauty, and think, "How can anyone possibley not believe there is an inteligent creator who made such beauty and order." It&#39;s just beyond our ability to fathom. But then an unbeliever looks at the same stars and thinks, "How can anyone hold the superstitious belief that some supreame being or magical god created all this from nothing, when it&#39;s just so plain that it is all something which naturally occurred." And it is just as beyond their ability to see the order that we do. However, as having been an unbeliever at one point in our lives, (For me a very long time ago) we can remember having that perspect, and how limited we now think it is. But they can&#39;t possibley see it from our perspective because it&#39;s just beyond their ability to fathom. So we have to see it for both us and them, because it&#39;s evident that our efforts to persuade them different then their limited scope of vision just pisses them off, and will make them less responsive later in life.

To Josh, Armon, and Astrophysicrose,
You folks might well be the wisest of the whole bunch of us. I think you missed your calling as United Nations arbratrators, whereas I can attempt the same thing by summerizing to everyone, and still **** off someone, if not nearly everyone for sticking my nose where it don&#39;t belong.
Arbratration is a real art, and I highly respect those who are good at it as indeed you folks are.
So I will take heed to Joshes command and enjoy myself, before I bring the wrath of Fraiser down on us all.

Haglund
2003-Oct-05, 05:08 PM
No, the six day creation that occurred some 6000 years ago is not possible. The evidence to support it is non-existent while the evidence that support a universe that is around 15 billions years and the Earth 4.5 billion years are overwhelming.

moonglow
2003-Oct-06, 02:02 AM
To JoAnn and Bob,
I won&#39;t pretend to know the "second law of thermodynamics" or "law of entropy" which states that "nothing can change naturally unless it changes to a less complex form", but at the risk of sounding argumentive I feel compelled to ask, how does the second law of thermodynamics then explain a seed which is watered and nurished, (a natural process) grow into a great tree, or other plant life?
How does it explain animal and human reproduction, which starts out as two seperate simple cells, and becomes a baby human or animal?

Answer: First you understand the law as opposed to the theory. Then you understand what you ask above can only happen by intervention, not natural selection as the "law of entropy" clearly states is impossible. And intervention to complete such a complex process as your example testifies of a superior intelligence, God&#33; The order that exists in the universe testifies of a superior intelligence. It simply has to be studied with God in mind and not ignored.

JoAnn and Bob

moonglow
2003-Oct-06, 02:16 AM
We are always amazed at the intolerance that people of science and people of God have for one another.
There is far too much order in the universe for it to have come about naturally (as in natural secection). As we posted above, the "law" superseeds the "theories" and because of that fact it becomes necessary to accept a superior intelligence that has "managed" all the order we see in the cosmos. Why it is so unaceptable for some to believe in a superior being? We believe, is to excuse their life style (if I declare there is no God then I have no reason to obey him.)
God did creat the earth in 6 days, his days, not ours&#33; The universe has been in the process of creation for eons of time, his time, not ours. Ours only is to understand God, his abilities, his time scale and then apply that knowledge to what we see here on earth and in the cosmos. Its as simple as that.
Whe we were youngsters we were told the universe was 22 billion years of age. As God has allowed technology to increase and we are able to see further into space, 22 billion years has been reduced to 13 billion years. As we are allowed to see further into space that age differential will decrease untill science realizes that there is no end to the creations of God. And if an end, what possibly could be on the outside of that?
As we look into the cosmos, we see God utilizing matter in a number of different ways, we see the artistic side of God, we see the humerous side of God, in effect because of the "law" we are able to see all aspects of God except him, and since his works and the "order" his works exist in "testify" of him we know "he" exists.
We also know that this condition of mortality is temperary. Mortality is a desease and its terminal. We know that according to his word that we will see him again, if not in this life, then in the next, and it matters not to us (Jo and I) when, as long as its soon.
It doesn&#39;t matter how we get to the otherside, how we die, it only matters if when we get there we have to hide under a rock to avoid him or get a hug for a job well done. We are expecting a hug. The lot of you unbelievers, when finally there, you will search for the rock. But don&#39;t worry, we believers will come and get you out from underneath that rock, because we can testify that God loves all his children.
It has always been and always be that certain of Gods children continue to hit yourselves in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop. A good portion of science falls into this catagory. Wish it were otherwise, and that science understood "intervention" but we accept that it isn&#39;t, because God allows mankind agency to do what they will in mortality. So then do we. However, we still have an opinion&#33; And isn&#39;t that what this forum is all about?

JoAnn and Bob


JoAnn and Bob

Haglund
2003-Oct-07, 09:51 AM
The Bible has been around longer then science. If there wasn’t any truth to it, it would not have survived and flourished as religion has.
It doesn&#39;t matter how long it&#39;s been around, not one bit. It is NOT to be read as a science text book, because it was not written like one. It was written by people that lived in a time when the knowledge of the cosmos was hardly even a tiny fraction of what we know today, and it clearly shows.

No, the fact that it&#39;s been around for so long doesn&#39;t give any credibility to it. Rather it shows that people can believe anything when they don&#39;t know anything. The less they know, the easier it is to fool them, for the void doesn&#39;t always care much of by what it is filled.

imported_ROB
2003-Oct-07, 10:28 AM
Thats how i meant to say what i said (just to passionate on the subject and get clouded)

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-07, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Josh@Sep 20 2003, 02:04 AM
Actually the bible says that creation happened 5764 years ago. This year is 5764 in the hebrew calandar which supposedly begins at creation...

There is a book (i&#39;ve noted it in another thread too i think a while ago) called &#39;Genesis and the Big Bang&#39; by Dr Gerald L. Schroeder. It basically uses quantum theory and modern physics and science to show that there is no discrepency between science&#39;s version of the beginning and the religious version. A good read.
I believe that James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, made that rather improbable claim, not any biblical author.

There are flaws in Dr. Schroeder&#39;s logic, which apparently is often based on "leaps of faith". See http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/...e/schroeder.htm (http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/schroeder.htm) for a detailed analysis.

There&#39;s more on the danger of claiming that science and the Bible are congruent at http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/...tm#INTRODUCTION (http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/bible-science.htm#INTRODUCTION) and an excellent discussion of how science and the thousands of human religions differ at http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/.../magisteria.htm (http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/magisteria.htm)


Dave Mitsky

Arramon
2003-Oct-07, 02:25 PM
Wow... that&#39;s some good readin. =)

It&#39;s gonna take me a quick minute, but I&#39;ll get back after I finish reading all that...

thanx&#33;

. ..-={A}=-.. .

Josh
2003-Oct-07, 11:49 PM
Dave, are you saying the archbishop is the one who said the world has been around for nearly 6000 years and not the bible? If not hte stop reading here ... if you are then that&#39;s pretty much wrong. The jews believe that the world has been around for that long and they were believing it before any archbishop was in existence too given that judaism predates christianity by about a thousand years.

...as for the rest. I&#39;ll give those urls a read. All i&#39;m interested in is learning. As I&#39;ve maintained throughout this, I don&#39;t really care what the answer is. It&#39;s not something we&#39;re going to be able to solve with any greater degree than has been done already. science, god blah blah blah. I think there are more important questions than god based ones.

To the first url:

Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can&#39;t. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can&#39;t.

Before I say anything about this I&#39;d like you to see the tone of the author. One which is intentionally meant to make us think of Schroeder as someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes. (I have no vested interest in schroeder being right or wrong by the way. I just read the book and thought it had some merit.) Now ... What I&#39;ve quoted above is exactly what science is about. Theoretical physics is based on hypotheses which may or may not be tested experimentally for another hundred years or whatever. The method of theoretical physics is to draw correlations between well established facts and deduce hypotheses from these that can adequately explain another system etc. All science is based on falsification. Can a hypothesis be tested to be false or not? You can never test something to be true. There is no prooven theory in science. In theoretical physics in the absence of an experiment this process happens as a test of the established premises of the stated hypothesis. That&#39;s what Schroeder has done, and ironically, what this guy Mark Perakh is chastising him for. The argument against the effect of relativity by Perakh seems a bit odd too. He rightly says in the one hand the requirments of a god to "see" time in a different frame of reference (although he says it comically) and then says as his prrof against this, (and this is not a direct quote only a summary) "Well, I don&#39;t think so, so there&#33;" His arguments continually seem to be of this magnitude. Does he know the mind and qualities of god if there is one. I think by definition that is an impossibility.

The guy might be wrong. The other guy might be wrong. again, i don&#39;t really care. I was just offering an alternative. It&#39;s the investigation and questioning that&#39;s important not the answers. I don;&#39;t care if people believe in a god or if the don&#39;t. I just care that they know why they believe either way.

Is there faith in science?

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-08, 05:54 AM
Hmm, can you state the passage in the Bilbe that gives a date for creation? It may well be that Hebrew scholars have determined such a date but it is not mentioned in the Bible to the best of my knowledge.

Bishop Usher used biblical genealogies to derive October 22, 4004 BC as the date for the start of it all. This date was actually incorporated into the Scofield Reference Bible. I suppose that that&#39;s one version of the Bible that can&#39;t claim to be inerrant. <g>

Fundamentalist Protestant creationism currently seems to be caught in a schism between young-earth Biblical literalism and old-earth quasi-science.

You detect a "tone". I do not. Anyone who makes radical assertions of a scientific nature has got to be prepared to see them challegened. Such give and take, peer review if you will, is part of the territory.

I also disagree with your assessment of present day theoretical physics.

Dave Mitsky

Josh
2003-Oct-08, 06:45 AM
I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s not my assessment. It&#39;s the nature of the business. I didn&#39;t make the rules.

How exactly would you have the bible set a date for creation? It does ... the year zero. It can&#39;t very well say "4002 BC" can it? The way the years are decided is based on the lives of people in the bible and how they add up etc just as James Usher did. I doubt he was the first though given that the jews have been living off that calendar for many more years than he&#39;s been alive. The muslims also agree with the chronological order of the old testament (even though they go by the date of revelation as their year zero). It&#39;s also important to note that the old testament to which you are obviously referring isn&#39;t a stand alone document. it is a part of two documents both supposedly given by god and one is incomprehensible without the other. they go hand in hand.

I would like now to say for the record that I don&#39;t believe in the bible nor any sort of interventionist god. I think the bibles (pick a version) are full of gray matter and I have, however, studied both science and religions and to this end my remarks here are only there because the angles from which people are arguing these things seems a little incorrect in my opinion (only). There is no point in trying to disprove a god. It can&#39;t be done. There is no point in trying to prove a god, it also can&#39;t be done. That is why there is little scope for these discussions in a scientific forum. Anyone&#39;s belief in there being no god is just as much faith as someone who does believe.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-08, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Josh@Oct 8 2003, 06:45 AM
I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s not my assessment. It&#39;s the nature of the business. I didn&#39;t make the rules.

How exactly would you have the bible set a date for creation? It does ... the year zero. It can&#39;t very well say "4002 BC" can it? The way the years are decided is based on the lives of people in the bible and how they add up etc just as James Usher did. I doubt he was the first though given that the jews have been living off that calendar for many more years than he&#39;s been alive. The muslims also agree with the chronological order of the old testament (even though they go by the date of revelation as their year zero). It&#39;s also important to note that the old testament to which you are obviously referring isn&#39;t a stand alone document. it is a part of two documents both supposedly given by god and one is incomprehensible without the other. they go hand in hand.

I would like now to say for the record that I don&#39;t believe in the bible nor any sort of interventionist god. I think the bibles (pick a version) are full of gray matter and I have, however, studied both science and religions and to this end my remarks here are only there because the angles from which people are arguing these things seems a little incorrect in my opinion (only). There is no point in trying to disprove a god. It can&#39;t be done. There is no point in trying to prove a god, it also can&#39;t be done. That is why there is little scope for these discussions in a scientific forum. Anyone&#39;s belief in there being no god is just as much faith as someone who does believe.
It is indeed your assessment. What branch of theoretical physics are you referring to? It is a pretty broad field after all. It covers astrophysics, atomic physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, particle physics, plasma physics, relativity theory, solid state physics and many other disciplines. Many of these branches are not observational sciences like astrophysics and cosmology (which is what I assume you really meant to say) and hypotheses can certainly be tested experimentally.

Obviously, Josh, such a "date" would have to be stated in relation (by generations presumably) to some other event that occurred in the Old Testament or whatever kabbalistic text you care to mention.

And, in response to your final sentence, that is why agnostism is the only logical philosophy to accept in the final analysis.

One would think that I would have learned by now the futility of discussing such matters.

Over and out.

Dave Mitsky

Haglund
2003-Oct-08, 07:30 AM
There is no point in trying to disprove a god. It can&#39;t be done. There is no point in trying to prove a god, it also can&#39;t be done. That is why there is little scope for these discussions in a scientific forum. Anyone&#39;s belief in there being no god is just as much faith as someone who does believe.
You can&#39;t prove a negative, really. However, you can find better solutions to problems than "god did it". One must remember that the book of creation was written in a time when not even the most educated and intelligent men knew almost anything about cosmos, much less how it was "born". And it clearly shows. Therefor, we have NO reason to believe in it. And why would we believe in it?
Also, how do you know we can&#39;t prove the existence of a god? If a god exist it must be part of reality, and the reality is the physical world. And also, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that god exist. They have the job to provide evidence. So far there have been no such thing. You know what the most depressing thing is? That they still believe. If they are so sure, I think that must mean they have some really good evidence, otherwise they would have abandoned their belief in an old fairytale, but no, they haven&#39;t. And that means two or more things; that they simply don&#39;t want to accept they&#39;re wrong, or, that they have some good hard evidence. If they want me to believe, which I am sure they do, then they should provide evidence. So far they haven&#39;t. Funny how that works.

Josh
2003-Oct-09, 07:48 AM
To quote my self ...

Theoretical physics is based on hypotheses which may or may not be tested experimentally...

That is to imply that some may be and some may not be ratified by experimental data. As you said.

- The bible and kabbalah are two very separate things.

- Falsification is the only method of furthering scientific knowledge. Not dismissal.

- Parker, the thing about people who believe (unless they&#39;re bible bashers) is that they don&#39;t care where the burden of proof lies. they are happy believing and that&#39;s that.

- "Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum." I have failed in this and will, in future, keep out of these futile religious debates.

Religious debates in a science and astronomy forum are pointless ... I think we should all agree to stop these topics which invariably disintegrate into argumentless and senseless sentence swapping.

Haglund
2003-Oct-09, 07:55 AM
Well be happy to believe, then. I could very well believe there are fire breathing dragons in my house, flying invisible unicorns, and elephants on mars. However, there is a reason why I can not believe in these things. And, if I am to accept the scientific method, there is no possible way that I could believe in them.

Religious debates are futile because only one side is ready to show evidence. And it&#39;s not the religious side.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-11, 05:40 PM
It&#39;s just amazing how some people are so full of themselves. :lol:
Such people could believe the world is flat and would still ask for evidence if I were to produce Columbus himself.
If they thought a U.S. postage stamp costs a quarter, the Postmaster General couldn&#39;t tell them differently. :angry:
If I took them to see the ark on Mt. Ararat, they would tell me Noah was a fable.
If I replayed news coverage of the first moon landing, they will insist it is a hoax.
And if I quoted a dozen scriptures that said that dead Christians are NOT currently in heaven with God, I would be told I made it up and be called a Satinist.

And saddest of all, is I am now seeing that on both sides of the main arguement, instead of only the one side as before. :(


Here is one more thought to ponder.
I Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Haglund
2003-Oct-11, 09:59 PM
As for the moon hoax, there is absolutely nothing that support the claim that man never landed on the moon.

-----------

And who in here believes the Earth is flat? Surely no one that has more than two years of school behind them.

-----------

Now, as for the story of Noahs ark.
There are so many problems with the story of Noah and his apparently humongous boat, that I am surprised that anyone would believe it without second thought. Here are my questions:

1. What degree did Noah have, or, what previous experience with building boats did he have? One would think that even for an experienced ship-builder it would be an enormous project to build a boat that could hold all the hundreds of million of species that live on Earth (except, I suppose, for any species whos natural habitat is water).

2. Did he have any knowledge of biology or zoology at all? How did he know he had all species with him? How did he define species?

3. How many was working on that ship? One would think that it would be quite a task only to keep clean after thousands upon thousands of animals, not to mention all the food that he brought with him.

4. The found ark on Mt Ararat was a hoax, apparently.

5. Where did the water come from? Where did the water go?

6. Did the flood kill all "living substance", or was it just the animals who could not breathe in water?

7. The ark was of ungodly proportions, especially for a time when the material used was only wood, and when ships simply weren&#39;t that large.

8. Apparently, all species still in existence today originated from Mt Ararat in Turkey. Are there any evidence of that? One would think that it would take some time for the polarbears and kangaroos to go back to their own continents. The long wandering for these animals must have taken generations, which means we would expect to see remains of kangaroos and polarbears in Turkey, and then be able to follow a trail of fossiles and skeletons, to their current locations.

The story about Noah and the ark, is not just a fable? Uhm, hello? It&#39;s a story about a six hundred year old guy who singlehandedly built an ark out of wood, that would float for fourty days during an impossible flood the didn&#39;t happen. We are also to believe that he had food for all animals and a very sophisticated sewer or garbage system, and that he took care of all animals himself.

I&#39;m sorry, but the mere thought of any educated adult who believes in such a story, is actually slightly scary.

zephyr46
2003-Oct-13, 03:47 AM
Parker
I thought Noah was just a ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
I personally I like the story of the rainbow serpent, who, as many of the stories about him that I have read and heard, went nowhere near Mt Ararat, and as with most Aboriginal creation stories coming from the dreamtime have fed their curious children minds for between 30000 and 130000 years. Love your scepiticism man.

As far as the bible being squeezed to fit modern science, isn&#39;t our year getting longer, so the earlier 4000 million years of earths history, when we were a molten glob of "burning hot magma" and before that a bunch of planetesimals, wouldn&#39;t our years probably have been shorter? that should extend the amount of time the bible has to account for.

Sorry, to add a gods eye veiw, this was monday, while he was pondering how the OJ Simpson case might pan out, and wondering if it were all worth it. For an intergalactic deity, when it comes to explaining to humans where they came from, mayby the bible is the best he could do, without hurting our egos, when the Sagdeg dwarf started colliding with the milky way, maybe he was distracted. I can only think that time must be insignificantly slow for this big guy (or girl or dog or Elephant) and the earth may be round, but now the universe seems to be flat :lol:

Haglund
2003-Oct-13, 07:49 AM
I haven&#39;t read the Epic of gilgamesh, although I did start out a little some while ago.
As for the last part, I think you may be on to something here :)

newc
2003-Oct-13, 08:24 AM
Well the only thing that leaves me a little bit puzzled about the big guy (or dog or elephant) is that his/its/her creation seem to be flawed by the entropy problem. Kinda like not such a perfect thing if you think about it. Just locally (in terms of time) functional. ;)

Arramon
2003-Oct-14, 02:54 PM
EXTRA&#33;EXTRA&#33;&#33;

The Universe is not flat&#33;&#33;

It is a vast creation of immense space and mass and time, stretching beyond all points of discovery&#33;&#33;

Scientists boggled&#33; Theories are void&#33; Man is lost in confusion&#33;

EXTRA&#33; EXTRA&#33;&#33;



---oh?&#33;

=) sorry..... must have been dozing off or something...

. ..-={A}=-.. . =P

Chook
2003-Oct-16, 05:08 AM
OK&#33; OK&#33; – I give in&#33; Let’s discuss religion, and the bible, rather than science.

So you don’t believe in a Creator (God)&#33; Well – as the world’s major religions ALL do, that leaves you within a miniscule minority.

Why do they all believe in a creator? Because it all had to start somewhere somehow sometime – and the Big Bang solves that one, but it can’t discover the “by whom?” question. So we are left with the question – “Who done it&#33;”

The Christians and Muslims have the Bible as their source of inspiration and information. But you guys have been rubbishing it so you won’t look there because it is full of myths and all that rubbish. You know – all that “Walking on water, changing water into wine, crossing the Red Sea, holding the sun still, the Noah story, 6-day creation, feeding the 3,000 from 5 loaves & fishes etc. etc. etc.”

Now I don’t blame you for thinking that – but wait a minute …… what is a miracle/myth? (Ha&#33; I can hear you reply “Bloody Crap&#33;”)

Well, in a serious moment - would you not agree that it could be defined as – “a phenomena which cannot, yet, be scientifically explained.” (Something like that.)

How about taking a small transistor radio to a primitive tribe, somewhere in the deepest jungle, and switching it on for them. This would be a miracle to them (but not to us because we know how it works).

So what I am suggesting is that we do not knock something we cannot yet explain.

The other point I would like to make is that one of the greatest reasons for biblical disagreement is whether to interpret a “passage of scripture” figuratively or literally.

“If thy eye offend thee pluck it out” really means “Listen mate – don’t oggle-off the sheilas (because it can lead to naughty behavior).”

The “6-day creation story”, in Genesis, was the Creator’s attempt to explain to a very primitive people how everything began. OK – not scientific, but a pretty good story which is basically no too far off from what we know today, and it satisfied the people’s curiosity. (By the way – who, but the Creator, could have written such an “accurate” account of creation (+-) 6,000 years ago?)

Don’t forget that the books of the bible were written to a particular people – people who communicated in a very poetic and graphical manner – and to explain what the relationship should be between Him and His people.

And principles expounded in the bible really work – honesty, truth, morality, humility, generosity etc. and even illogical principles like “The more you give the more you receive back.” and “Love your enemies ..” (cuts the Payback reaction) etc. And how do you explain “prophesies” (describing things that will happen before they happen) unless the author is supernatural?

Anyway – as Pascal said (to paraphrase) – “I’m a Christian because I believe it is true. But even if it turns out to be a myth I’ll still be better off in this world because of the way-of-life it teaches.”

Please criticize.

CHOOK

Arramon
2003-Oct-16, 02:50 PM
no criticism here =)

well said...

Although some would believe that they are living an honest and decent life outside of religion... honesty, truth, morality, humility, generosity etc included.
I guess it&#39;s just a personal satisfaction/acceptance for the individual if they choose to believe one way or the other. People have moments in their lives where they are faced with either a catastrophic dilemna, life or death situation, or some other form of personal trauma or revelation that causes them to believe one way or the other or have a more sincere devotion towards their belief, or whatever the feeling, belief or understanding may be.
We&#39;ve yet to be really educated in the vastness beyond. And although there are alot of different types of scans, readings, measurements and telescopic views that we are accumulating here on earth, there&#39;s no really telling what may be out there unless we interact with it.
Maybe like centuries ago here on earth, scientists or whatnot had their eyes upon the heavens but didn&#39;t really know if the earth was flat or not... (to grab from my EXTRA&#33; post above...) As we don&#39;t really know what is exactly beyond or own galaxian doorstep, the structure of the mass or what the true density or chemical composition of any elements that we CAN&#39;T observe as of yet.
I was watching Letterman last night and some physicist, a something Green, came on, trying to explain to Dave the a couple of the main theories floating around in the scientific/human culture... ie the balloon theory of expansion, taped on pennies used instead of raisens in bread, how there may be a chance of something being created from nothing by the use of qauntum mechanics and the unstable/unpredictable environment there of, plus something about a String theory, a particle believed to be smaller than quarks or protons/electrons, held deep within all things. A particle, resembling a string, that reacts in certain ways, giving atoms their shapes and dimensions, adding flavor to life and the cosmos, different shapes and sizes.
I&#39;ll need to read up on that one to see what they have discovered towards this theory, cuz it does sound interesting. =)
This person also mentioned something to the degree of many universes may have sprouted up instead of just ours, like we are in a vast neighborhood of universe, instead of just a vast neighborhood of galaxies and other star/gas formations.
Again, very interesting.

Are we truelly that small?
Its like we&#39;re particles within an even bigger atom of our own.
If we could only see from the oustide looking in...

=) good health humans..

. ..-={A}=-.. .

zephyr46
2003-Oct-17, 05:29 AM
I&#39;m happy to listen to the attempts of understanding the universe and find a right path, I don&#39;t even mind poking a bit of fun at either side, I do reject scientific absolutism, yes marxism works to a degree, as does capitalism, and yes religion emparts a moral code, the ten commandments, I am reading the bible, starting from the start, but I will read the Koran and I will read Das Kapital and eventually spinoza and aristotle, both have a title &#39;Ethics&#39;. And I will support anyone who lets me do this, anyone who tells me all I need to know is in the bible, will when I&#39;ve finished it, I&#39;ll let you know what I think, cause at the moment It comes out on top as motivation for murder, I may be wrong.
But each to their own, I wouldn&#39;t expect anyone to live the way I do, It&#39;s for me, good, bad and otherwise. I will Have a stab at all who cling to the bible and tell everone that they should live by it, You tell me that and I&#39;ll be waving my expired IWW mebership at them telling them they are a bunch of slave and we need a revolution, to marxists/scientists who riducule me for reading the bible, when you satisified world hunger, poverty and reigned in the worst effects of globalisation, I&#39;ll Bow to your Beaker :D

covenvox
2003-Oct-29, 04:16 AM
Something I came across pretty interesting. To each its own I guess.

The Big Bang itself resulted from an extremely dense singularity. The creation of the universe is one of matter, space and time that are intimately linked together. Matter and space were joined as one and then were separated in the explosion. This is very accurately described in the Quran:

"Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter) were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ripped them apart?" The Quran, 21:30

Universe expansion;


When you hear a police car or ambulance approaching you and then moving away, you will notice a change in sound of its siren. As the vehicle approaches, the siren wails at a higher pitch than when it moves away. Yet, really, the siren is wailing at the same pitch all the time. To the driver of the vehicle the sound of the siren never changes. Why does this happen? The reason is that the waves of sound emitted by the siren change in frequency, which causes a changed in pitch. This principle, which is called the Doppler effect after its discoverer, applies to any waves and not only that of sound. When applied to light waves it was found that if the source of light is approaching its light would be shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, while as light from a receding source would be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. When analysing the light we receive from distant galaxies it was found that they all had a red shift meaning that they were flying away from us. That contribution of the red shift analysis meant that the universe is indeed expanding.

This conclusion is literally mentioned in the Quran:

"and the heavens we created with might (power) and we are expanding it." 51:47

big huh
2003-Oct-29, 07:06 PM
The best part of Creationist thinking is that it can be totally debunked based on scientific observations.

JoAnn & Bob you are spreading misinformation on the 2nd law of theromodynics and the law of entrophy, please read below:

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun&#39;s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

This comes from a great article on Sciam entitled 15 Arguments against Creationist Nonsence (or something to that effect). It addresses every creationist argument I read on this MB.

One more thing, Stephanie said that people who are or have a belief system and the teachers of it, NEVER backtrack EVER. So how did the earth move from the center of the Universe? Why is the church accecting evolution? Why has the church been in the News the last few months constantly apologizing for its behaivour over the past 50+ years.

And, all wars are fought over religion, just ask a concentration camp survivor, or a Red Cross worker in Iraq today...

Anyway, hope I dont upset anyone with my post....

Chook
2003-Oct-30, 01:14 AM
“Anyway, hope I don’t upset anyone with my post....”

BIG HUH – you did upset me with the insensitivity of your post:
“The best part of Creationist thinking is that it can be totally debunked based on scientific observations.”
You probably have a very good argument for your statement, above; but the term “debunked” have connotations that may be offensive to JoAnn & Bob and whoever else believe, in faith, in the literal biblical creation account.

“JoAnn & Bob you are spreading misinformation …”
It reads as if you really mean - “You are deliberately spreading lies.”
Offensive, BIG HUH. An unfortunate choice of words.

“And, all wars are fought over religion, …”.
Sorry, BIG HUH – very wrong&#33; SOME wars are.
Wars are, in fact, caused because of all sorts of reasons - land-grabs (Hitler’s “Lebensraum”), ethnic/tribal historicy, political/economic principles (eg - the communist expansion), greed (eg - Colombian drug war) etc. I would even suggest that today’s Israel/Palestinian conflict is mainly about land, despite their antagonism going back since Issac and Ishmail. (Oh sorry&#33; You don’t believe the bible.)

And, BIG HUH, before you begin lecturing other forum contributors, would you please learn how to spell: re-balances, non-living, centre, accepting, apologising and behaviour. And a question-mark is placed at the end of a questioning sentence. And dont has an apostrophe after the n, as in don’t.

Be caring&#33;

CHOOK

kashi
2003-Oct-30, 01:57 AM
Chook:* So you don’t believe in a Creator (God)&#33; Well – as the world’s major religions ALL do, that leaves you within a miniscule minority.

Buddhism doesn&#39;t believe in a creator, rather it basically agrees with the Big Bang/ theory of evolution.

Kashi

StarMikeBest
2003-Oct-30, 02:42 AM
Kashi.
Don&#39;t listen to "Chook" and any one else who can&#39;t accept a "real man&#39;s" universe where you don&#39;t get patted on the head, "Good Boy" for doing good and chastised "Bad Boy" when you do bad. They are deeply emersed in a comfortable Easter Bunny -- Santa Clause world where everything is nice, warm, and fuzzy.

Generations of Chooks from now we will accept that the universe is there because it is there. The only one-upmanship, the naked apes have, is that we have the capacity to know it for what it is -- vast and beautiful.

If any religion has it right, is would be Buddhism that purports that the Goddess Shiva sleeps and dreams this universe for 40 billion years. Tht&#39;s roughly the time science has for the Big Bang to the end of universe. Then Shiva awakens, to starts a new universe, and falls asleep to dream its inactment -- ad infinitum.

Me? I&#39;m Lutheran.

Fraser
2003-Oct-30, 04:54 AM
As always, these creation/evolution/Big Bang/religion conversations are getting a little heated.

I&#39;ll give one warning... everyone be nice. Nicer than nice. As nice as you know how to be. Attack ideas, not people. Otherwise, I&#39;ve got my finger hovering over the "Close Topic" button.

Haglund
2003-Oct-30, 01:03 PM
It doesn&#39;t matter how many believe what. What matters is observations, evidence, theories, etc. Oh and btw, I think I believe in the Matrix. I have no reason to other than it&#39;s really cool.

big huh
2003-Oct-30, 01:45 PM
My intention was not to "accuse anyone of deliberately lying" (since I don&#39;t know them I can&#39;t make that kind of judgement). Instead I was trying to teach JoAnn & Bob about this often misunderstood law of science. Never said I don&#39;t believe in the bible as a quasi-historical account of the rise of the various religions, just in the idea of Creation by a vengeful god.

I am not the best speller in the world, however most of the spelling mistakes you attack me on were from the article I cut and pasted (you should check it out, if only for fun). Apologize, however I spelled correctly (I checked in Websters New World Dictionary) :P .

Communist expanstion=fighting the godless hordes.
Crusades=putting down anyone with a different religious ideology (ask a Cather, if you can find one).
Spanish Inquistion=Motivated by religion?
Nazism=State sponsored religious Ideology (worship of the idea of Arainism).
Israel/Palestine=you have got to be kidding on this one, no one straps a bomb to themselves over land.....
Bosnia/Kosavo=massive death under the guise of religion.
Tribal Warfare=wonder how many of them share the same gods.
I could go on and on, but alas I will retract my statement, instead I will say that 75% of wars are fought over religion...

As for the rest of my points, I am awaiting a response from someone, or do you Chook, agree with what I said?

jimmy
2003-Oct-30, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Parker@Oct 8 2003, 07:30 AM

There is no point in trying to disprove a god. It can&#39;t be done. There is no point in trying to prove a god, it also can&#39;t be done. That is why there is little scope for these discussions in a scientific forum. Anyone&#39;s belief in there being no god is just as much faith as someone who does believe.
You can&#39;t prove a negative, really. However, you can find better solutions to problems than "god did it". One must remember that the book of creation was written in a time when not even the most educated and intelligent men knew almost anything about cosmos, much less how it was "born". And it clearly shows. Therefor, we have NO reason to believe in it. And why would we believe in it?
And also, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that god exist. They have the job to provide evidence. So far there have been no such thing. You know what the most depressing thing is? That they still believe. If they are so sure, I think that must mean they have some really good evidence, otherwise they would have abandoned their belief in an old fairytale, but no, they haven&#39;t. And that means two or more things; that they simply don&#39;t want to accept they&#39;re wrong, or, that they have some good hard evidence. If they want me to believe, which I am sure they do, then they should provide evidence. So far they haven&#39;t. Funny how that works.
Also, how do you know we can&#39;t prove the existence of a god? If a god exist it must be part of reality, and the reality is the physical world.
Parker, if this is so, is a "thought" real? They aren&#39;t physical, are they? I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to say that something has to be physical to be real.

Arramon
2003-Oct-30, 04:20 PM
It&#39;s actually kind of funny to read these...
Seeing as how we&#39;re only about 0.000000000001% of the known Universe and it&#39;s makeup... =) (speculation of course)

Come on&#33;&#33;&#33; How many other species out there are doing the same thing right now? Who knows... Depends on who&#39;s out there. The goddess Shiva is a nice tale, kind of like the Gods and Goddesses of Rome and the Gods of Mayan/Aztec/Incan religions. Even the God of Christ, and the God of Islam, Mr. Allah. These seem to just be symbols of seperate faiths, nothing really more than that. We probably don&#39;t even have the right name for the Creator of All.
Let&#39;s just call him Scoobie... =/
And ALOT of wars throughout history were becuz of religion, though that&#39;s a very sad fact. Persecuting others for what they may believe personally. In this day and age, with the extent of what we know and what we know we don&#39;t know or have any idea of as of yet, a person should be able to find their own way and their own understandings of life and the reasons for being.
Sit, read, think, try to understand, then read somemore, and think somemore. Try to envision all roads, all ways, all possibilities. Ask someone who believes opposite of you, try to understand them. Ask someone who believes the same as you, and try to understand why.
We all pretty much are going to believe one way or the other or even another way different from the rest. That just makes us unique. Not necessarily wrong, just different from the norm.
It all resides within the realm of "What is known? What is theory and what is fact? What influences are there between different extremes? What can be done? What may be possible? What is impossible? What can we do to make it possible? & How do we share what we have discovered with EVERYONE?"
All views.. all eyes... all ears... all minds...

oh.. and "What will our children believe in their own time?"

Will current views become obsolete when cyberorganics hit the scene and the human thought processes speed up a hundred fold? How will the future unfold when we are able to see beyond our current limitations and possibly through and beyond the CMB to points that may reveal answers to old questions and bring up newer ones? What if the Universe doesn&#39;t end? What if it is connected to another? and another? Seeing how small we truelly are, it&#39;s hard to imagine if our Universe is a seperate entity within the space/time dilemna. Our Universe could be a drop of some unknown element falling upon some alien leaf within some vast forest of astronomical proportions. Who knows?
We find the point at one end. We must find the point at the other.
Within all atoms is a string element that gives any particular atom/molecule it&#39;s shape/size/dimensions. That&#39;s one end.
Where does the other exist? Beyond the CMB? Beyond what&#39;s beyond the CMB? Would a massive temperature change affect our Universe? Like taking a frozen, glass mug out of the freezer and putting hot water into it... crack&#33;

More questions than answers. More theories than facts. More people than gods. More births than deaths. More beliefs and religions than anyone could shake a stick at... =P

Move beyond personal beliefs and towards understanding as a whole. We can&#39;t prove/disprove What created this Everything that surrounds us. We may only hope to just understand why...

Hope is in our success and advancements as a species. And we must survive first before we can unltimately procede with whatever paths our species may finally choose to take.

good health...

. ..-={A}=-.. .

Haglund
2003-Oct-30, 05:57 PM
Really? Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it.

jimmy
2003-Oct-30, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Parker@Oct 30 2003, 05:57 PM
Really? Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it.
Even love, or fear, or anger, or joy? I mean as physical entities themselves?

Chook
2003-Oct-30, 07:43 PM
PARKER - a Determinist?
I thought that went out the window with the Qantum Thing.

Haglund
2003-Oct-30, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by jimmy+Oct 30 2003, 06:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jimmy @ Oct 30 2003, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Parker@Oct 30 2003, 05:57 PM
Really? Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it.
Even love, or fear, or anger, or joy? I mean as physical entities themselves? [/b][/quote]
As I see it, we&#39;re only matter and energy, and thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, etc. are different certain states our bodies are in, depending on many things.

Haglund
2003-Oct-30, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Chook@Oct 30 2003, 07:43 PM
PARKER - a Determinist?
I thought that went out the window with the Qantum Thing.
What do you mean by determinist, and how am I one?

jimmy
2003-Oct-31, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Parker+Oct 30 2003, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Parker @ Oct 30 2003, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jimmy@Oct 30 2003, 06:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Parker@Oct 30 2003, 05:57 PM
Really? Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it.
Even love, or fear, or anger, or joy? I mean as physical entities themselves?
As I see it, we&#39;re only matter and energy, and thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, etc. are different certain states our bodies are in, depending on many things. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for your viewpoint, really. I&#39;m still hopeful that the essence of "me" is more than atoms, electrical impulses, etc. It would be really dissapointing to find some day that this universe is just some big accident. :(

Chook
2003-Oct-31, 03:34 AM
================================================== ===Posted by PARKER: Oct 30 2003.

“Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it. “
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Quote Chook Oct 30 2003-10-31
PARKER – a Determinist?
I thought that went out the window with the Quantum Thing.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Posted by PARKER: Oct 31 2003.
“What do you mean by determinist, and how am I one? “
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A Determinist, PARKER, is a belief in “The Clockwork Universe”.
Laplace described it thus:
“An intelligence which knew at one moment of time all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the entities which compose it, if moreover, this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data for analysis, it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; nothing would be uncertain for it, and the future, like the past, would be present to its eyes.”

T.H.Huxley described Science as “..trained and organised common sense.”

But then all this was swept away … and Common Sense was the first casualty.
The quantum theory started the new physics (with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle), then came relativity. And your opinion (quote “..everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it. “ ), unfortunately PARKER, belongs to the old order of rigid laws of cause-and-effect. Gone&#33; Sorry&#33;

I sincerely wish, PARKER, that you would realise the possibility of another unseen dimension. It is even hinted at within the latest String Theories.

CHOOK :P

Haglund
2003-Oct-31, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by jimmy+Oct 31 2003, 01:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jimmy @ Oct 31 2003, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Parker@Oct 30 2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by jimmy@Oct 30 2003, 06:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Parker@Oct 30 2003, 05:57 PM
Really? Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it.
Even love, or fear, or anger, or joy? I mean as physical entities themselves?
As I see it, we&#39;re only matter and energy, and thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, etc. are different certain states our bodies are in, depending on many things.
Thanks for your viewpoint, really. I&#39;m still hopeful that the essence of "me" is more than atoms, electrical impulses, etc. It would be really dissapointing to find some day that this universe is just some big accident. :( [/b][/quote]
Maybe it is a big accident, maybe not. Personally I don&#39;t find the idea that we&#39;re only matter to be that depressing, and even if I did, I wouldn&#39;t have many other ideas to substitute it with. But that&#39;s me I guess.

Haglund
2003-Oct-31, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Chook@Oct 31 2003, 03:34 AM
================================================== ===Posted by PARKER: Oct 30 2003.

“Thoughts are really electric impulses in the brain, and from that perspective real. And how can anything not belong to the physical reality? In my opinion, everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it. “
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Quote Chook Oct 30 2003-10-31
PARKER – a Determinist?
I thought that went out the window with the Quantum Thing.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Posted by PARKER: Oct 31 2003.
“What do you mean by determinist, and how am I one? “
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A Determinist, PARKER, is a belief in “The Clockwork Universe”.
Laplace described it thus:
“An intelligence which knew at one moment of time all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the entities which compose it, if moreover, this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data for analysis, it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; nothing would be uncertain for it, and the future, like the past, would be present to its eyes.”

T.H.Huxley described Science as “..trained and organised common sense.”

But then all this was swept away … and Common Sense was the first casualty.
The quantum theory started the new physics (with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle), then came relativity. And your opinion (quote “..everything that exist is in the physical reality and therefor we can measure or observe it. “ ), unfortunately PARKER, belongs to the old order of rigid laws of cause-and-effect. Gone&#33; Sorry&#33;

I sincerely wish, PARKER, that you would realise the possibility of another unseen dimension. It is even hinted at within the latest String Theories.

CHOOK :P
I will simply assume that you have missed the posts where I have mentioned virtual particles and radioactive decay as examples of things that we are unable to foresee. It seems like there are some misunderstandings here. Why would I reject quantum mechanics? Have I ever said that I do? And the dimensions you speak of is not so much real dimensions like the three plus one we live in. I realize now that there are some misunderstandings in what I have been saying.

Chook
2003-Oct-31, 10:15 AM
To StarMileBest
QUOTE:
“Don&#39;t listen to "Chook" and any one else who can&#39;t accept a "real man&#39;s" universe where you don&#39;t get patted on the head, "Good Boy" for doing good and chastised "Bad Boy" when you do bad. They are deeply emersed in a comfortable Easter Bunny -- Santa Clause world where everything is nice, warm, and fuzzy.”

It is suggested that most civilised people strongly defend the benefit of morals and ethics in the real world - patted on the head when you are a "Good Boy", and being chastised when you are a "Bad Boy". Religion has been, historically, the best resource for formulating rules of behaviour - rules within the home, the school, the community and the nation. The result is called civilisation, which is arguably a better living environment than anarchy.

QUOTE:
“Generations of Chooks from now we will accept that the universe is there because it is there.”

Spot on, StarMikeBest&#33; We are primarily concerned with the REAL world in which we live, where we interact responsibly with loved-ones, family, neighbours, the community and the world. Consequently we give pre-eminence to human qualities like compassion, mercy, love, encouragement, loyalty etc. in our daily lives. Science, as vital and interesting as it is, does not affect behaviour.

I have the greatest respect for science AND religion; and my great ambition, with others, is the quest for reconciliation of the two – which, I believe, is possible as long as we practice restraint, respect and objectivity in our quest.

And I believe that accepting The Big Bang and Evolution is part of that reconciliation.

Haglund
2003-Oct-31, 04:11 PM
And in many cases, accepting evolution and big bang will be quite a compromise, as some people will have to disregard some of their religious texts. But, I guess it could be worse; for example those who disregard actual observations and evidence in order to believe in the religion.

Chook
2003-Oct-31, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Parker@Oct 31 2003, 04:11 PM
And in many cases, accepting evolution and big bang will be quite a compromise, as some people will have to disregard some of their religious texts. But, I guess it could be worse; for example those who disregard actual observations and evidence in order to believe in the religion.
QUOTE Parker :
"And in many cases, accepting evolution and big bang will be quite a compromise, as some people will have to disregard some of their religious texts. But, I guess it could be worse; for example those who disregard actual observations and evidence in order to believe in the religion."

Nearly right, PARKER.
What "Bible Believers" have to honestly do is to consider two matters -
(1) The bible reference, apparently conflicting with scientific observation" may have to be considered figuratively. The "6-day Creation", for example, may well have to be interpreted as a "6 long-period Creation"; or something similar. But in an honest way.
(2) The matter of miracles, in the bible, might have to be considered as phenomena that had really happened - but not yet scientifically understood.

I&#39;m sure you will agree that many recent scientific discoveries would have been completely unbelievable in the past.

The possibility of other dimensions is exciting; and I am waiting for somebody to discover where spontaniously disappearing and re-appearing particles momentarily hide.

What do you think?

big huh
2003-Oct-31, 08:16 PM
"I&#39;m sure you will agree that many recent scientific discoveries would have been completely unbelievable in the past."

Or simply would have been attributed to a god, perhaps Ra, Mars or Zeus (depending on how far back in history we go).

"Man created God, God did not create Man"
Emile Dirkheim

Haglund
2003-Oct-31, 11:35 PM
I&#39;m not an expert at any mythologies, but I am almost certain that the bible wasn&#39;t written as a science textbook and we shouldn&#39;t read it as if it was - especially not since the knowledge then was just a fraction of what we have now. And another flaw is that it can be interpreted to fit ones purposes - of course I suspect that not everyone think that is a flaw...

Chook
2003-Nov-01, 04:00 AM
QUOTE: PARKER
"I&#39;m not an expert at any mythologies, but I am almost certain that the bible wasn&#39;t written as a science textbook and we shouldn&#39;t read it as if it was - especially not since the knowledge then was just a fraction of what we have now. And another flaw is that it can be interpreted to fit ones purposes - of course I suspect that not everyone think that is a flaw... "

Absolutely right - it "wasn&#39;t written as a science textbook".
But, PARKER, if you were the Big Chief of primative Mumba Jumbo tribal-land, and your people asked you to explain to them where everything came from; how, with your present advanced scientific knowledge, would you truthfully explain it to them in a manner that they could simply understand, given their present ignorance of any science at all?

I mean - singularity, energy/matter as in E=MC2, expansion, particle-science, spacetime, curviture, supernova for the heavy elements, DNA, evolution of species and all that - forget it&#33; GENESIS did a brilliant job.

We&#39;re talking about a document that originated out of the great Balylonian Empire ?,000s of years ago - before Adam had his beard trimmed with a sharp stone. The story had to be simple. Can anyone, with anything between the ears, imagine God making Adam "from the dust of the earth."

As a kid I imagined God making a mud-puddle, forming a round ball, sticking a couple of finger-holes in the ball - them&#39;s the eyes - and so on, until I grew up and learned that we ARE made from the dust of the earth.

Anyway PARKER, that&#39;s my story & I&#39;m sticking to it&#33;

Cheers
John

jimmy
2003-Nov-01, 03:32 PM
Since none of us in this forum (believer or not) takes the bible&#39;s creation story literally; and that the big bang is still just a theory, there isn&#39;t any place to go with this anyway. Unless we adopt a belief system: religion or science; or both. I believe they can co-exist.

jimmy
2003-Nov-01, 03:34 PM
P.S. If what we are looking for is TRUTH, then we must keep our eyes and ears open to whatever form it takes&#33;

Haglund
2003-Nov-01, 04:00 PM
Is the Genesis myth necessary to explain the observations? Is it better than real theories? What scientists wrote the creation myth? What observations would support their theories? What predictions does it make? Is it possible to interpret in so many ways that anyone can make it fit with actual science?
But, why bother? If people want to believe that the bible somehow explains the truth about how the universe came to be, then by all means do. It might be good to remember what is myth and what is not, though...

Chook
2003-Nov-01, 07:43 PM
QUOTE PARKER:
“If people want to believe that the bible somehow explains the truth about how the universe came to be, then by all means do. It might be good to remember what is myth and what is not, though...”

We really got off, at a tangent, from the original question which was, as you may remember, – “Is it at all scientifically possible for there to have been a six-day creation of the universe?”

Yet Contributors insisted in bringing religion into the discussion which muddies the whole thing.

In my opinion the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with classical science.

Rather, it is a collection of writings that aim to describe the relationship between God-and-man (be good), and human relationships (be kind and forgiving).

Notwithstanding, I defend the divine authorship of this book for many reasons.

kashi
2003-Nov-02, 01:14 AM
I agree with your wholeheartedly Parker&#33; It is entirely possible to twist words around and put much effort into an interpretation to make the most bizarre story fit with accepted scientific theory. One must ask however, what have you achieved? This could be done with any wacky account of creation, and doesn&#39;t really prove anything.

The Bible serves its purpose (like most religious texts) of outlining a moral code which, if adhered to, has the capacity to make us good, decent, nice people. That alone is reason to follow a religion, but people should be careful not to take Biblical accounts too literally. I believe that the writers of the Bible were highly inspired individuals who wanted to create a world filled with peace and love rather than war and hatred. This explains why many of the “scientific” ideas are 2000 years old rather than up to date (this would presumably not be the case if it was summoned by a divine creator). Little did the authors know that their preaching of peace and compassion would be taken so out of context, and used for the purposes of evil.

jimmy
2003-Nov-04, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by kashi@Oct 30 2003, 01:57 AM

Chook:* So you don’t believe in a Creator (God)&#33; Well – as the world’s major religions ALL do, that leaves you within a miniscule minority.

Buddhism doesn&#39;t believe in a creator, rather it basically agrees with the Big Bang/ theory of evolution.

Kashi
Please tell me how and where.
I love and respect the Dali Lama, but as the Pope doesn&#39;t speak for all Christians, neither does the Dali Lama speak for all Buddhists.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Nov-04, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by kashi@Nov 2 2003, 01:14 AM
I agree with your wholeheartedly Parker&#33; It is entirely possible to twist words around and put much effort into an interpretation to make the most bizarre story fit with accepted scientific theory. One must ask however, what have you achieved? This could be done with any wacky account of creation, and doesn&#39;t really prove anything.

The Bible serves its purpose (like most religious texts) of outlining a moral code which, if adhered to, has the capacity to make us good, decent, nice people. That alone is reason to follow a religion, but people should be careful not to take Biblical accounts too literally. I believe that the writers of the Bible were highly inspired individuals who wanted to create a world filled with peace and love rather than war and hatred. This explains why many of the “scientific” ideas are 2000 years old rather than up to date (this would presumably not be the case if it was summoned by a divine creator). Little did the authors know that their preaching of peace and compassion would be taken so out of context, and used for the purposes of evil.
Taken as a whole the Old Testament is hardly about love, peace or compassion.

Dave Mitsky

kashi
2003-Nov-05, 01:57 AM
Very true.

I&#39;m over this sort of discussion&#33;

The Romans had the right idea. I say bring back the lions&#33;

rahuldandekar
2003-Nov-05, 11:32 AM
I think the rules of civilisation are what religion specifies. Religion is made of stories, legends, principles obeying which we can live a successful life and help civilisation progress. We are supposed to live as the heroes in stories lived. We are suposed to learn from them.In religion the things which belong to science just dealt with without giving importance to the facts.

Science is different. It does not accept anything without proof and always looks for proof to confirm it&#39;s theories.

So, we must give importance to science and religion in their respective feilds, and not let religion interfere in matters of the origins of the universe, and science interfere in religious matters.

Chook
2003-Nov-06, 04:23 AM
QUOTE: rahuldandekar
"So, we must give importance to science and religion in their respective feilds, and not let religion interfere in matters of the origins of the universe, and science interfere in religious matters."

Absolutely correct&#33; But may I add that both should respect each other "in their respective fields" and, as difficult as it may be, it should be possible to intelligently reconcile them together because both are true if you look at them through different spectacles.

The reconciliation difficulty is that it is fashionable for "smart young hotshots" to rubbish anything religious "because it can’t be proven." – which is disrespectful, but understandable, because in the contemporary scientific mindset "faith" is anathema. And it is common for the "believer" to "infidelise" the scientist for his "obsession" with vigorous proof. So both sides have to really respect each other because there are both devout "religious" scientists and "scientific" religiocists (new term?) who would each defend their position.

QUOTE: Dave Mitsky
"Taken as a whole the Old Testament is hardly about love, peace or compassion."

I understand what David is saying; – but to really understand the bible it has to be understood as a whole – and the Old Testament is really symbolic of a struggling believer’s life insofar as, by nature, we do the wrong thing (you know – bonk around ["What’s wrong with that?" I hear you say], be selfish and greedy, hurt others etc) and get a kick in the pants for it. Conversely, if we do the right thing, we are rewarded – and this a really true of life.

So the "love, peace or compassion" refers to God’s love for His people, peace when they do the right thing, and ultimately compassion for the suffering. And this theme repeats in the New Testament bit in a different way.

The Christian Bible is a great read if you can struggle through it; and you will be wiser in the end – I PROMISE&#33;

John CHOOK

zephyr46
2003-Nov-06, 04:35 AM
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889- 1951) (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/w/wittgens.htm) said that when we communicate, we play word games, meaning is arranged as to such, that to play the science word game ment you could not play the religion word game, the meanings understandings, expectations, freedoms and restrictions renders the persute as meaningless.
The consequences are such that christians justify there actions on the bases of moral arrangements from the judean and christian texts to their desired outcome, IE Hitler versus Spong, sceintists on the other hand are paid to reinvent armeggedon or find a scientific bases for the bible. not healthy I say, a seperation is neccesary. It is an interesting game you play, but you should learn from your mistakes humans, I see your letting homosexuals into your church, on no, I see you are alienating them again and further deviding your congreation. Read the bible, I got it, Revelations, see UT if there has not been an armegedden :)

jimmy
2003-Nov-06, 04:57 AM
zephyr, I read your post several times and I&#39;m sorry but I still don&#39;t understand what you are trying to say?
Chook, I definately agree that the bible is a good read and will instill wisdom. I also think that reading other traditions is extremely helpful and adds to the understanding. Books such as the Mahabharata, Ramayana, The Wisdom of Lao Tsu, The three pillars of Zen, A life of the Buddha, Be Here Now, and my personal favorite Miracle of Love. Studying different religions has helped me to let go of literal meanings like the creation story. Parables and stories are meant to teach us something that science cannot. Zen koans are insoluable questions that can only be intuitavely answered, they make no sense to the rational mind.
O.K. my wife has to use the computer now.
Later, Jimmy

Chook
2003-Nov-08, 10:12 AM
Zephyr 46 - I, too, read your post several times and I&#39;m sorry but I still don&#39;t understand what you are trying to say?

Chook
2003-Nov-08, 10:26 AM
To KASHI:
Quoye: "The Romans had the right idea. I say bring back the lions&#33;"

In other words - "THROW THE CHRISTIANS TO THE LIONS&#33;"

Kashi - Your ignorance is only exceeded by your rudeness and intolerance.

I think I read somewhere where Frazer appointed you are a "Moderator". If so - you are a disgrace&#33;

CHOOK

Fraser
2003-Nov-08, 04:51 PM
Okay, I&#39;m closing this topic. It&#39;s pretty clear to me that topics like religion and politics just can&#39;t be discussed on this board without things getting ugly.