Sick of the human race.

[Janke]

Reading the comments on this article made me sick.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153429699


How narrow minded can people be?
I mean yes, we are entitled to our own views, but when they aren't productive or needed... whats the point?

I myself see nothing wrong with ***/*******/bi relationships.

Whats your views on this?

(Also I'm not angry at the human race, more angry at certain people)

[Charlotte]

That's just awful.

[Peeej]

Laws can be stupid and wrong but the law is the law and you break it at your own risk.....

[Charlotte]

yes but they cant help it if they are ***! This should maybe be in the high horse forum....

[Janke]

Laws can be stupid and wrong but the law is the law and you break it at your own risk.....

I do believe if they knew the law, then they shouldn't have broke it. I also believe the law is stupid.

It's not the story I'm on about btw!!
It's the comments left by people at the bottom!

[codemonkey]

This should maybe be in the high horse forum....

Done......

[Charlotte]

It does amaze me some laws, and even the opinions of people across the whole world including the UK. People cannot help it if they are *** - people who are *** are actually born ***, its in their genes, it's not a life choice its simply how they are born the same way someone might be born with blue eyes or dark hair.
Any Eastenders fans will be aware of this topic raised with Syed's family at the moment which really annoys me as it really is how their religion look upon **** and I really hope that over time these attitudes change.

[Pullen]

Any Eastenders fans will be aware of this topic raised with Syed's family at the moment which really annoys me as it really is how their religion look upon **** and I really hope that over time these attitudes change.

It won't, the Qur'an states that their *** (not sure if i'm allowed to state what it is on here or not) is sinful, and they believe that the Qur'an is the word of God..

But yea, the comments at the bottom are just pathetic.

[Seanbond]

Everyone has there opinions..

[Janke]

Everyone has there opinions..
That may be so, but when its against something that can't be changed.. like race and 'sexual preference' then it's just silly. It's being against for the sake of..

[Seanbond]

That may be so, but when its against something that can't be changed.. like race and 'sexual preference' then it's just silly. It's being against for the sake of..

I totally agree and understand but there will always be people like that. I have nothing against hating something, just don't express it.

[Huge Pear]

my self i couldnt care less what people do in their own homes. this really does disgust me alot.

[snakedoc]

It a matter of personal choice. It is blatently obvious that a government should not meddle in such matters. I do feel our government meddles where is should not too.

Fixed the redirect btw.

[Pullen]

He wasn't talking about the actual story, he's saying the comments which other people have left underneath the story is wrong.

[nash1979]

well god did make adam and eve not adam and steve......

This country was exactly the same 50/60 years ago it was to be kepted very hush hush.

Everyone has there own views on it, what mine are doesnt matter, but if they knew it was against the law in there country they should have respected the law and gone to another country to get married and not publisied the event.

[A Ginger Sheep]

not condoning what has happened these people but how could they be so stupid to openly marry when they knew what the consequences could entail?

[pwn3rer]

meh. the ethics of ***/******* don't really make sense to me as essentially we are here to reproduce and that would not be possible with 100% *** and ******* relationships, but a few here and there is no biggie.

[waba]

Janke is right, not in questioning the article, but the comments itself:

"God bless aids may there never be a cure found."


i mean...really?!!!

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

yes but they cant help it if they are ***!


people suffer from the same psychology,

im not against *** relationships as i think people can do as they see fit but imo i do not think that *** couples should be allowed to raise children as that is the expressly reserved right of those who actually breed and again the children will suffer psychologically. i also do not think that *** couples should have ALL the same rights as straight couples. this again is just negative for your actions.. what i also incredibly dislike is that homosexuals rather than trying to simply do their own thing there are many who give *** couples a bad name by trying to press it in peoples ffaces, imo there is no need for that.. just as there is no need to harbour ill feelings towards *** couples. i havent read the link but im sure it is pretty offensive. i have *** friends and they know my views. and many even agree with me. given context it is these small few of the homosexual community that tarnish peoples views a bit like how chris rock talks about black peeople.

here is his award winning performance.

Ui6-Wc0PDc4

[NathObeaN]

I'm a Christian so let me just put the point that yeah I agree that Homosexuality is a sin, but hear me out.

I am not saying that homosexuals should go to **** like many people believe that is what Christian’s views are which is a load of tosh. Homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery, murder, stealing etc. All of which us Christians believe can be forgiven if we ask for it.

However people are not "Born ***" and to quote eastenders is just silly, it's a soap opera not a philosophy book lol Eastenders just reflect what people want to watch, of course you will agree with it, they just show whatever keeps you in front of the box.

Yes, people may have homosexual thoughts and urges, hormones are a lot to do this and it can't be helped, God isn't going to punish anyone for something that can't be helped. At the end of the day however, it is your choice what you do with those feelings, you can either give into it and turn completely ***, or you can fight it. I knew a Christian couple myself where the man and his wife had 3 children and they had been married for years, then right out of the blue he turned ***, but being a Christian he still believed that to give into it would be a sin, so he fought it and eventually he stopped having those feelings, and even if he did he would not give into them because he loved his wife and children.

I believe as many other religious people on this planet do that Homosexuality is a "sin", but we don't all have the same attitude towards it. I don't believe for one minute that someone who has homosexual feelings should be stoned to death or put in prison; they should be helped and supported.

People are all too eager to jump to the attack against people with religious views, but please tell me what is so bad when the following is taking into account...

In order to breed and continue the human race males and females must reproduce, it is not natural for males and females to have a family with the same *** - that is a fact not an opinion it's merely science.

If people obeyed God from the start and didn't give into homosexuality then aids would never have existed, it started in the homosexual communities.

If people didn't commit adultery couples would stay together longer, it wouldn't split families and relationships apart.

If everyone waited until they were married before having *** no one would ever get aids, *** would be a special occasion for married couples to enjoy. The *** trade would not exist, rapes wouldn't ever occur, and couples would stay faithful to one another and strong families would form.

Of course we can't all be perfect, no one is, and no one should think they are remotely close to being perfect. That doesn't give us this excuse to just give into every temptation we have, homosexuality may tempt us but it doesn't mean we should give into it, in the same sense it is perfectly natural to get the urge to have *** before marriage, I know I do, but it doesn't mean we have to give into it, it all boils down to a choice at the end of the day and I know it makes everyone feel better to just say "oh it's natural" but we are the ones that make the choice at the end of the day and it's up to us to be strong willed or weak.

Can homosexual couples fall in love? Yes I believe they can, but it there will always be that line between homosexual love and a wife and husband's love. The love that a dedicated wife and husband is something that should be cherished not abused. Men and women are different in many areas and it is that bond that attracts each other, even in homosexual relationships you usually find that one is gentle and more feminine and the other is more masculine.

One of my best friends turned *** but it doesn't mean I think he is just going to go to ****, people misunderstand Christianity, just because someone says "God says it's a sin" doesn't equal "God is sending you to ****", it merely means that you will be judged for it, the same way if you steal money from your parents wallet and they catch you they may punish you, whether it's a slap, a grounding or whatever. However the thing with Christianity and what is at the core is that it doesn't matter what you do, whether you have murdered, taken drugs, raped, whatever, if you regret those things, and you ask for Jesus to forgive you and you are sincere about it you can always be forgiven and you will not end up in ****. Christians believe at the end of the day you are either for God or against God, yet everyone sins and makes mistakes, so basically you either ask for God to forgive you and try to better yourself and serve God rather than yourself and your own goals, or your serve yourself, do what you want, and give into Satan's temptations, it all boils down to a choice.

To some up Christian views on homosexuality in one line, it is not a Sin to have homosexual feelings, but it is a sin to give into the temptation and not to obey God.

The reason countries like the one in the OP have such laws mostly boils down to religion thousands of years ago, countries still follow the ways of the Old Testament in many ways which is basically when man thought he knew best and decided the laws for himself. The New Testament is basically when Jesus stepped in and straightened things out so that sort of thing didn’t happen, obviously many religions don’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah so they still follow those ways.

Sorry for going on but it's sometimes nice to get my views out, not trying to bible bash you lovely people! :thumbs:

[system7]

Interesting post, NathOBean. I would say that secular states like most of the western democracies have ceased to make judgements on people's personal lives and avoid discriminatory legislation based on personal or religeous prejudices.

I personally welcome the fact that *** people can live out in the open these days in Britain, though it still takes some courage and up-frontness.

I would question your assertion that people aren't born ***. In fact, schoolteachers can usually spot primary school kids who are ***. AIDS in Africa, which is infecting an alarming 30% of the population in some countries, is a primarily heterosexual issue, in Russia it is a drug issue. The *** community in America was the first to be hugely affected by AIDS, doubtless assisted by promiscuity, but they didn't start AIDS.

The couple in Malawi made the mistake of openly challenging the laws and mores of Malawi, a brave but perhaps foolish thing to do, and IMO they could have anticipated the consequences.

[NathObeaN]

Interesting post, NathOBean. I would say that secular states like most of the western democracies have ceased to make judgements on people's personal lives and avoid discriminatory legislation based on personal or religeous prejudices.

I personally welcome the fact that *** people can live out in the open these days in Britain, though it still takes some courage and up-frontness.

I would question your assertion that people aren't born ***. In fact, schoolteachers can usually spot primary school kids who are ***. AIDS in Africa, which is infecting an alarming 30% of the population in some countries, is a primarily heterosexual issue, in Russia it is a drug issue. The *** community in America was the first to be hugely affected by AIDS, doubtless assisted by promiscuity, but they didn't start AIDS.

The couple in Malawi made the mistake of openly challenging the laws and mores of Malawi, a brave but perhaps foolish thing to do, and IMO they could have anticipated the consequences.

Well, AIDS is spread though chemical transference between Humans. Either way, if people obeyed the laws set down by God it would never have come about, weather it was drugs (using needles etc), homosexuality (rather not go into the details) etc. Promiscuity as you point out certainly spreads the disease, but then again if people saved *** until marriage and didn’t commit adultery it wouldn't happen. I know it's slightly off topic but I am merely making my point to the people that say "Religion is a load of rubbish", people seem to forget that our laws are based on Christianity, if it wasn't for Christianity we might still be living in the stone age, with everyone simply doing as they please, as a lot of people think is the best way to go, it isn't. Laws, rules, morality and respect are what keep our civilisation in the advanced state it is, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is the more we sway from commandments in the Bible and our Christian founded laws the more things such as aids, violence, broken families and so on occur.

As for being born ***, maybe some children are born natural swaying towards the same ***, but once again it is a matter of choice, and the support from their parents to help them understand why they have those feelings and that they don't just have to give into them and they can have a full and meaningful relationship with a person from the opposite *** and enjoy a family together. EDIT> Instead people seem to think that by teaching children younger and younger about *** and how to do it will somehow solve the promlems we have, it won't it just makes children want to experiment earlier. Children should be educated as the the morality of sexual choices and the problems they can cause and how meaningful *** is when in a full relationship, not to just have it whenever you please with whoever you please. I know it's another topic, but I find peoples views on sexual education to be so rediculous today, people don't seem to grasp the fact the more you show children, the more you put in front of their eyes the worse the situation becomes. < EDIT.

As for the couple in the OP they were indeed a bit foolish to do such a thing, living in a country governed by such laws they would have known the consequences. Everyone must also remember it is also their country and their laws, whether any of us have an opinion as to it being right or wrong is not our place to say. The same way Muslim countries view the actions of western woman as disgusting to wear miniskirts and the like. Personally I think women, and men for that matter are far too... "Revealing" these days, but then again I don't agree with how Muslim countries treat their women. If people didn't go around showing off their bits maybe things such as aids, *** before marriage and rapes wouldn't be so rife. If the homosexual couple at hand wanted to carry through with their relationship they could have immigrated to another country rather than broadcasting the fact they were *** in a country governed by such laws that view it as a crime.

EDIT: Also thanks for the non offence and constructive reply haha, it's nice to have a decent chat about these things, most people can't be bothered these days and would prefer to sit like a veg in front of the tele lmao and most people hate hearing anything from Christian perspective, whether it's right or wrong lol.

[charles]

well god did make adam and eve not adam and steve......

This country was exactly the same 50/60 years ago it was to be kepted very hush hush.

Everyone has there own views on it, what mine are doesnt matter, but if they knew it was against the law in there country they should have respected the law and gone to another country to get married and not publisied the event.

I'm glad someone highlighted the adam & eve issue!

You risk the law if you know you break it, society should'nt complain as it's there for a reason,

Although I do agree the law in 'some' countries does'nt see 'common sense'

Great Youtube clip of CR btw death

Incoming?

[gurusan]

NathOBean what a totally ignorant response. I know several *** people and believe me they didn't "choose" to be that way. They were born that way and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it...and they have tried.

One of my friends was nearly beaten to death by his own brother, left out on his front lawn to die and his parents didn't even do anything to help him. Now you tell me he "chose" that? At that point he probably would have done anything not to be ***, but since then he's grown up (decades passed) and learned to be totally comfortable with his sexuality and who he is, and now is a confident and successful person.

A story like that is a testament of an amazing amount of personal strength and certainly not a story of "giving into temptation".

[NathObeaN]

NathOBean what a totally ignorant response. I know several *** people and believe me they didn't "choose" to be that way. They were born that way and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it...and they have tried.

One of my friends was nearly beaten to death by his own brother, left out on his front lawn to die and his parents didn't even do anything to help him. Now you tell me he "chose" that? At that point he probably would have done anything not to be ***, but since then he's grown up (decades passed) and learned to be totally comfortable with his sexuality and who he is, and now is a confident and successful person.

A story like that is a testament of an amazing amount of personal strength and certainly not a story of "giving into temptation".

The example you gave doesn't prove I am wrong, it just proves there are some sick and twisted people in this world. Just because he got beaten and abandond by his family still doesn't mean he has to be ***. His family should have been there to support him not abuse him, that isn't my fault and it isn't religion's fault either it's purely a family breakup and it most likely happened as a result of the other things I mentioned earlier, such is the domino effect of the **** in life.

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I put, as do all christians believe, it isn't a sin to have homosexual feelings, it's what you do with those feelings. If he then went on to have homosexual relaionships with other men then yes that is a sin, and yes that can be helped and yes he gave into temptation. His brother and his family did that to him purely because he had the feelings. I am not saying the man should be "ashamed" of having homosexual feelings, of course he shouldn't one of my best friends was way *** and he didn't want to tell anyone but me and the boy he liked. Someone shouldn't feel ashamed having a "feeling" it's what they do with those feelings. For example it's perfectly natural for a man to get the hots over another woman, but to then imagine doing things to her and wishing things on her is a sin and that is something to be ashamed about.

[Chewie]

Some very valid arguments here (and they are set to become arguments before long i recon), but at the same time, despite espousing how open you are and how easygoing most christians are etc, you've just proven a very good reason why god, and religion has no place in the modern world, or at least that it should not be as pivotal and be able to use as a stand point for views and differences.

ok, rant on:

We are not scared children who need frightening to keep us in line.
We are understanding more about how things work, and the consequences of playing with them, every day.
Religion will leave us with what we have, because we aren't supposed to know or do what we do. We aren't allowed to grow into whatever we may become without cast iron guidelines to follow.

Why am i saying this?
Heres why:


Well, AIDS is spread though chemical transference between Humans. Either way, if people obeyed the laws set down by God it would never have come about, weather it was drugs (using needles etc), homosexuality (rather not go into the details) etc.

See, if there was a god, would he produce something to punish his subjects, with a long range plan that the AIDS virus actually is?

If so, does that mean his other little gems, Ebola, Marburg and other devilishly wonderful organisms, are just his way of saying *hey kids, I don't want you doing that, so here, play with this for a while till you can follow my rules*

These have nothing to do with same *** intercourse/drug use or anything else you have highlighted here in your posts.
But like aids, they sure love to party with the human organism and can be transmitted by a lot of things.

They originated (or at least were first documented) in africa etc, where both christianity and islam (amongst others) are both thriving religions, but that country is the possible origin of some of the worlds deadliest creatures as far as mankind is concerned. So perhaps god is trying to whittle down the faithful because ( to use the joke in bruce almighty ) his inbox is full and he wants a holiday?

With that, if i follow his rules will i be safe? Will it stop me from catching something that can be transfered by bodily fluids, contact or even the air we breathe.

Fine, if someone needs that little bit of help that by believing there is a great being looking after us and caring for us once we pass on, who need that little extra to help them through the day because they might not be able to cope just if they think they are doing this alone, then fine, let them have that. Some folks do better with that assistance while some get by just fine without.

Back in the middle ages, if there was a plague, it was the will of god, as he punished his flock, if there was a flood, it was the will of god, as he punished his unfaithfull.

Yes the mores and tenets that are laid down in the 10 commandments were a good guide in how to live your life, to go about it and (hopefully) be happy and have no worries.

But now? Can anyone say they are still viable and useful as nothing more than a moral guide?

Now on the issue of that couple trying to buck the system, well, that took balls to stand up and be heard. Granted it might not have been the most intelligent thing to do, but they made their decision and now face the consequences because a RELIGION is running the show.

unfortunately, something like this will always lead to a discussion, then to an argument, because some people aren't willing to change.

And that lack of flexibility, to change and evolve, is what has ended with those two people now being in jail.
Because like the oldest trade in the world, this sort of thing has been around since biblical times, and it is gonna be here until the end of mankind.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been in the commandments to begin with :rolleye:

[NathObeaN]

Some very valid arguments here (and they are set to become arguments before long i recon), but at the same time, despite espousing how open you are and how easygoing most christians are etc, you've just proven a very good reason why god, and religion has no place in the modern world, or at least that it should not be as pivotal and be able to use as a stand point for views and differences.

ok, rant on:

We are not scared children who need frightening to keep us in line.
We are understanding more about how things work, and the consequences of playing with them, every day.
Religion will leave us with what we have, because we aren't supposed to know or do what we do. We aren't allowed to grow into whatever we may become without cast iron guidelines to follow.

Why am i saying this?
Heres why:



See, if there was a god, would he produce something to punish his subjects, with a long range plan that the AIDS virus actually is?

If so, does that mean his other little gems, Ebola, Marburg and other devilishly wonderful organisms, are just his way of saying *hey kids, I don't want you doing that, so here, play with this for a while till you can follow my rules*

These have nothing to do with same *** intercourse/drug use or anything else you have highlighted here in your posts.
But like aids, they sure love to party with the human organism and can be transmitted by a lot of things.

They originated (or at least were first documented) in africa etc, where both christianity and islam (amongst others) are both thriving religions, but that country is the possible origin of some of the worlds deadliest creatures as far as mankind is concerned. So perhaps god is trying to whittle down the faithful because ( to use the joke in bruce almighty ) his inbox is full and he wants a holiday?

With that, if i follow his rules will i be safe? Will it stop me from catching something that can be transfered by bodily fluids, contact or even the air we breathe.

Fine, if someone needs that little bit of help that by believing there is a great being looking after us and caring for us once we pass on, who need that little extra to help them through the day because they might not be able to cope just if they think they are doing this alone, then fine, let them have that. Some folks do better with that assistance while some get by just fine without.

Back in the middle ages, if there was a plague, it was the will of god, as he punished his flock, if there was a flood, it was the will of god, as he punished his unfaithfull.

Yes the mores and tenets that are laid down in the 10 commandments were a good guide in how to live your life, to go about it and (hopefully) be happy and have no worries.

But now? Can anyone say they are still viable and useful as nothing more than a moral guide?

Now on the issue of that couple trying to buck the system, well, that took balls to stand up and be heard. Granted it might not have been the most intelligent thing to do, but they made their decision and now face the consequences because a RELIGION is running the show.

unfortunately, something like this will always lead to a discussion, then to an argument, because some people aren't willing to change.

And that lack of flexibility, to change and evolve, is what has ended with those two people now being in jail.
Because like the oldest trade in the world, this sort of thing has been around since biblical times, and it is gonna be here until the end of mankind.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been in the commandments to begin with :rolleye:

Wow that is the most biased and unbelievably stupid reply I have ever heard. You obviously know absolutely nothing about religion, especially Christianity. To say that it has no place in the "Modern World", yes you would rather believe a bunch of "Modern" scientists who inform you we all came from a random explosion which.. came from nothing? At the same time it was soooo lucky that it created an organised universe with patterns and beauty and intelligent beings. Not to mention the whole idea of the Big Bang has been disproven over and over again other than the obvious common sense. Scientists change their theory on how we came about time after time after time. The Bible has not be disproven once, that it is why it is still thriving, Science actually backs up the Bible in so many cases, if you were to open your eyes even a little bit and do some research you would find that the Bible is extremely accurate in both historical events and science and whenever scientists say they have disproved the Bible it’s always because they have twisted what it written in the Bible in the first place.

The Bible is such a load of rubbish I bet you think? Well how is it that out of the 300 odd prophecies that Jesus foretold well over 200 has already been fulfilled? How is it that in the Bible thousands of years ago before people even had microscopes of any kind were the able to describe the patterns of snowflakes? How would they have known that to circumcise a child on the 3rd day would be the least painful for a baby (they would cry no matter what), when science has only just discovered that on the 3rd day of a child’s birth a chemical stimulate numbs the pain? How is it that the Bible prophesised the world was round, when only a few hundred years ago they “came up with the idea” and the scientists back in the day told everyone as “fact” that the world was flat. These are just one or two examples. You think the Bible doesn't fit Modern times yet the Bible has shown scientific wonders thousands of years before your respected scientists even came across them.

As for the whole why would God do such a thing, argument, if you read into the Bible remotely you would understand it. Those things are not the will of God but the will of Satan, of course God doesn't WANT people to suffer, but you have a choice, God or Satan, unfortunately we all choose to fall for Satan's temptation so as a result God lets us experience what Satan has to offer, then you can either stay with him or ask for forgiveness.

You seem to make out that it is easy being a Christian, which somehow it just makes life all cushy, well it doesn't. Being a Christian is extremely hard work, and it is also prophesied in the Bible that one day everyone on this planet well turn against Christians, persecute them, murder them and hate them with a passion as was with the Holocaust and the Jews. You think it's really "cushy" living with that in mind, don't be so ignorant.

Your insinuation that I have the lack of flexibility to change and evolve is also not only offensive but dumb. Why do I need to change from something that is backed up by science, history and observational evidence? Why would I want to follow scientists that change their “facts” on a yearly basis with absolutely no evidence? Why would I want to turn away from a God who has made such a positive impact in my life and instead go down a shallow, selfish road where it’s all about me? You obviously have the misapprehension that Christians are some kind of dumb monkeys just following an old book, and we don’t question anything. I question everything; God tells us to, tells us to use our heads and dig into things, the more you dig into things the more you find it is true. I have read and watched countless things that backup the Bible and disprove the Big Bang theory, it is not a matter of just accepting it, it is a matter of getting of my **** and putting my mind into gear and using my brain to understand what is in front of me and what evidence there is. Maybe you should do the same rather than slag Christians and the Bible and other religions for that matter.

[codemonkey]

Wow that is the most biased and unbelievably stupid reply I have ever heard.

Keep the discussion civil. Calling somone stupid will not be tolerated. Anyone does it again and they will be taking a little holiday

[Janke]

Well, AIDS is spread though chemical transference between Humans. Either way, if people obeyed the laws set down by God it would never have come about, weather it was drugs (using needles etc), homosexuality (rather not go into the details) etc. Promiscuity as you point out certainly spreads the disease, but then again if people saved *** until marriage and didn’t commit adultery it wouldn't happen. I know it's slightly off topic but I am merely making my point to the people that say "Religion is a load of rubbish", people seem to forget that our laws are based on Christianity, if it wasn't for Christianity we might still be living in the stone age, with everyone simply doing as they please, as a lot of people think is the best way to go, it isn't. Laws, rules, morality and respect are what keep our civilisation in the advanced state it is, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is the more we sway from commandments in the Bible and our Christian founded laws the more things such as aids, violence, broken families and so on occur.


I do not agree to this at any level, we don't need some 'commandments', these are based on basic human right and wrong. If you killed someone you'd feel guilt, not because you'd go to jail, but because you'd murdered another life that you understand had feelings like your own.
And I'm not saying God doesn't exist, as we all know our universe is expanding, but not what into.. therefore there could be a God, what he did not do is set down laws for us to live by.

I'm sorry if I offend, but religion disgusts me, it's killed so many people and is frought with corruption. It's a way to control people.

[Chewie]

It's ok monkey, I don't feel that nathobean was calling me a name there.
I'm not offended at all.

I'll give a better and fuller reply when I get home as long relies via my HTC hero takes too long.

Nathobean, my reply was made to elicit such a response. For which I apologize.

You have shown that your belief is strong, which is good. But your also showing your disdain for someone who doesn't follow any one path.

I never bashed you personally, I never said science will explain it all. I pointed out that things have occurred which aren't explainable yet. That religion was fine in a time where People were given answers and a guide to how they should live.

And now someone else has responded with something I wasn't going to mention, how millions have died because of religious disagreements.

I'll continue this later.

[WeeMan411]

Wow that is the most biased and unbelievably stupid reply I have ever heard. You obviously know absolutely nothing about religion, especially Christianity. To say that it has no place in the "Modern World", yes you would rather believe a bunch of "Modern" scientists who inform you we all came from a random explosion which.. came from nothing? At the same time it was soooo lucky that it created an organised universe with patterns and beauty and intelligent beings. Not to mention the whole idea of the Big Bang has been disproven over and over again other than the obvious common sense. Scientists change their theory on how we came about time after time after time. The Bible has not be disproven once, that it is why it is still thriving, Science actually backs up the Bible in so many cases, if you were to open your eyes even a little bit and do some research you would find that the Bible is extremely accurate in both historical events and science and whenever scientists say they have disproved the Bible it’s always because they have twisted what it written in the Bible in the first place.

The Bible is such a load of rubbish I bet you think? Well how is it that out of the 300 odd prophecies that Jesus foretold well over 200 has already been fulfilled? How is it that in the Bible thousands of years ago before people even had microscopes of any kind were the able to describe the patterns of snowflakes? How would they have known that to circumcise a child on the 3rd day would be the least painful for a baby (they would cry no matter what), when science has only just discovered that on the 3rd day of a child’s birth a chemical stimulate numbs the pain? How is it that the Bible prophesised the world was round, when only a few hundred years ago they “came up with the idea” and the scientists back in the day told everyone as “fact” that the world was flat. These are just one or two examples. You think the Bible doesn't fit Modern times yet the Bible has shown scientific wonders thousands of years before your respected scientists even came across them.

As for the whole why would God do such a thing, argument, if you read into the Bible remotely you would understand it. Those things are not the will of God but the will of Satan, of course God doesn't WANT people to suffer, but you have a choice, God or Satan, unfortunately we all choose to fall for Satan's temptation so as a result God lets us experience what Satan has to offer, then you can either stay with him or ask for forgiveness.

You seem to make out that it is easy being a Christian, which somehow it just makes life all cushy, well it doesn't. Being a Christian is extremely hard work, and it is also prophesied in the Bible that one day everyone on this planet well turn against Christians, persecute them, murder them and hate them with a passion as was with the Holocaust and the Jews. You think it's really "cushy" living with that in mind, don't be so ignorant.

Your insinuation that I have the lack of flexibility to change and evolve is also not only offensive but dumb. Why do I need to change from something that is backed up by science, history and observational evidence? Why would I want to follow scientists that change their “facts” on a yearly basis with absolutely no evidence? Why would I want to turn away from a God who has made such a positive impact in my life and instead go down a shallow, selfish road where it’s all about me? You obviously have the misapprehension that Christians are some kind of dumb monkeys just following an old book, and we don’t question anything. I question everything; God tells us to, tells us to use our heads and dig into things, the more you dig into things the more you find it is true. I have read and watched countless things that backup the Bible and disprove the Big Bang theory, it is not a matter of just accepting it, it is a matter of getting of my **** and putting my mind into gear and using my brain to understand what is in front of me and what evidence there is. Maybe you should do the same rather than slag Christians and the Bible and other religions for that matter.


It seems your just making stuff up to try and make your claims correct. Firstly, the Big Bang Theory hasn't been disproved. It's one of many theories of how the universe came about. Secondly, science backs up the bible? I think you'll find that it's the exact opposite of that. As scientists have taken so called "miracles" found throughout the bible and shown them to be nothing more than science occuring in the natural world. Speaking of miracles, if Jesus was such a great man doing all this stuff, why is there not more mention of him being around in other texts and not just the bible? Someone who feeds hundreads of people using a bit of bread and some fish surely would have been noted down somewhere else? You clearly contradict yourself when you say people replying know nothing about Christiantity, as you clearly know nothing about science. Theories like Evolution have mass amounts of evidence backing them up, and make a whole lot more sense than some magical being in the sky just clicking his fingers and us all appearing. Also, if your knowledge of the Big Bang just constitutes of a big explosion out of nothing occuring, surely that's near enough the same as God creating everything? He just magicaly poofed everything into existance out of nothing.

Personaly, I think all religion is a bad thing. Large majority of believers blindly follow what is written because they are told to and don't know any better. Because of this, there is no reasoning with a lot of them. You can show them facts, but they won't believe them. That's the reason why religion has lasted so long, not because it's fact. Yes it may give hope, but in the wrong hands it also brings a lot of pain and suffering to the world. People kill for it, wars are waged because of it

If you have an hour or so, watch this (part 1 of 3 or 4):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSB0UOd3U_g&feature=related

Good debate between Stephen Fry and Chris Hitchens against Catholics. Yes it's Catholics not Christians before you say that. It's just to empahsise the bad religion does.

Anyway, wasn't this thread about **** getting put in prison not a religious debate? Personaly, I have nothing against *** people, it's their choice how they live their lives. But you have to be kinda stupid to openly do it in countries where it is ilegal to be ***?

[system7]

I've always disliked the recent blanket ban on calling people or their views stupid at this forum.

Anyone who thinks stupidity doesn't exist only has to listen to Labour politicians talking their dangerous claptrap. Er, IMO, that is...:D

But for all that, we can keep things civil. :thumbs:

The early Christians were known as Chretiens, or Cretins. This was because the oppressors of Imperial Rome regarded them as naive and child-like, whilst encouraging people to fear them and their radical religeon and communal lifestyle. In fact, more through chance than anything, a version of Christianity was adopted as the state religeon of the Roman Empire.

These days, there are many flavours of Christianity. It is a popular worldview. Like all religeons, it stems from observation or contemplation with a quiet mind. Alas that doesn't accord too well with trying to think or rationalise things, and any religeon falls apart if it tries to become a rigid set of intellectual rules, or approach its writings with a lawyers mind.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8239/catharcrossminerve.jpg

Peace be unto you, my brothers and sisters. That is the way forward. :)

[codemonkey]

I've always disliked the recent blanket ban on calling people or their views stupid at this forum.

<snip>

Just because you personally may think something is stupid, does not neccessarily make it so. By all means disagree, have a healthy hearty discussion about it. Even privately think the person replying is an idiot. By all means go and tell everyone down the pub how wrong and stupid this person is on the internets. Just don't call them stupid on this forum as personal attacks will not be tolerated.

We've had instances of bullying on here in the past so we have to be fairly harsh.

Can't we all just get along?

:hug:

EDIT: This seems like it's purely directed at System7, and it isn't. Take "you" as the personal "you" :D

[system7]

I wouldn't like to sidetrack an interesting discussion with the "Stupidity" issue. But this is really about whether the Malawi government is "stupid" to jail a couple of **** for living openly.

It is a thin line between maintaining "order" and becoming oppressive in any society. At heart is the individual right to live freely which we believe to be a good thing. Perhaps though, we can be blind to our own faults while building whatever version of heaven on Earth we believe in.

Some religeons believe that the material world is entirely Satan's work, and that only the human heart can be informed by and transformed by God.

Personally, I would give that couple in Malawi a slap round the head, and let them go, with the proviso they don't rock the boat so much. Malawi, in general, is not ready for them yet. That's how the world is. :)

[gurusan]

The Big Bang certainly has not been disproved "over and over again", let alone once...it's the leading theory. And I'm not sure what sort of Christian denomination you are part of but the Church pretty much accepts the Big Bang theory. It does not disprove the existence of God in any way.

In general it's only the unfortunate biblethumpers that read the text literally without studying it alongside science, psychology, philosophy, and history that make claims against the big bang and evolution. Both of which are generally accepted by the Church.

[NathObeaN]

I don't wish to offend anyone and I am sure no one wishes to offend me so let's just keep it friendly, sorry for calling whoever it was stupid and that, I didn't mean it in that way, plus it was first thing in the morning (grumpy) lol.

I don't want to continue this thread as one massive argument that never ends so I will just give a few answers and leave it at that.

First of all as for Science backing up the Bible it does in so many places, I won't sit here spoon feeding you, research it as I have done for many years, I am not narrow minded like you think I am, I have put the effort into researching it ready to accept either view, over and over again and my personal conclusion is that the Bible is a true word, it is scientific and historical.

Secondly, the person who said that scientists have disproven miracles and so on, they have done no such thing, as with many scientific documentaries that I have watched they all come to the conclusion that "it's not physically possible" - that is why they can't find the answer, we are talking about a all powerful God, not the laws of physics and biology. The Big Bang in itself is a religion, you have to have a VERY strong faith in my opinion to believe that once there was nothing, and then a big random explosion went off using the combination of... nothing, which created... everything.

Thirdly to the person who said the Bible isn't backed up. Of course it is, in SO many other documentations, it is even documented that King David read the Bible in which it prophesised about him being King. How would someone know he would be king hundreds of years before? It's not exactly a job you apply for lol. The feeding of the 5000 has also been documented, obviously there isn't going to be huge historical accounts, but there has been plenty of random documents found throughout history that back up many of the things in the Bible, once again I will not spoon feed you, research it.

If you do research it don't go at it with a closed attitude, go at it saying "maybe there is a God, I want to find out if there is."

There are many scientific things that disprove the Big Bang and Evolution, one of the examples in talk today is the flagella motor, which is a motor which allows cells to move around, this motor could not have evolved or happen by accident, it is a work of engineering that had to work at that very instant for life to even exist. Without the motor cells would not be able to move and would thus be the end of life. That is just ONE example, I don't want to argue, and many of you have already made up your mind that you don't want to accept God, period. For those of you that actually want to find out then just do some research as I have done for years.

Some good discussions are given by Ken Hovid and Ken Ham, both of which I am sure you can find on YouTube. They often take on evolutionist and big bag theorists.

You can either research it, and listen to both sides of the argument OPEN MINDED – is the key. Or you can sit and just accept everything you are told and let paid scientists brainwash you with their latest theory. I mean even the “Transitional Ape” called Lucy, which unbelievably is still taught in schools today, was all manufactured around, guess what? A pig’s tooth. That is how desperate scientists are to push their theories through yet you will quite happy just accept anything you are told, Christians are not narrow minded brain washed idiots like many of you assume, most are actually open minded individuals who have gone out of their way to research and question everything, not just accept what is put in front of them. I am not telling any of you “God is right, I am right, you are wrong”, I am telling you that if you want to find the truth, open your mind and research it, don’t sit here arguing with one person (me) and then base all your opinions about Christianity and the Bible on me. I don’t know everything, and I can’t give all the answers to all of your questions and doubts, but I am sure if you research it you will find the answers.

On that note I sign off, even if we don’t agree with each other, it’s always good to have these discussions it keeps our minds active and keeps us searching and questioning what is around us :).

[NathObeaN]

The Big Bang certainly has not been disproved "over and over again", let alone once...it's the leading theory. And I'm not sure what sort of Christian denomination you are part of but the Church pretty much accepts the Big Bang theory. It does not disprove the existence of God in any way.

In general it's only the unfortunate biblethumpers that read the text literally without studying it alongside science, psychology, philosophy, and history that make claims against the big bang and evolution. Both of which are generally accepted by the Church.

I just want to reply to this individually as I missed it, sorry but a Christian who accepts either the Big Bang or Evolution is dismissing the whole Bible. It is impossible to be a Christian and accept either theory. The only "Chruch" that accepts such things is the Church of England, which I agree with whoever said it above, is corrupt. The are more secular then they are Christian in so many places and I have no respect for the Church of England. I don't appriciate your insinuation that I am a "biblethumper" either, I just accept the Bible after years of research and questioning, there is nothing "wrong" with that. In some ways I guess I do believe in the big bang, yes there was a big bang in some respect, as it says God created the universe just be opening his mouth, now that would have to be a pretty awesome "bang" if you ask me, the only difference is the Big Bang theory makes out it was all a radom occurance that created like by accident. Evolution also goes against Genisis, you cannot pick bits of the Bible to believe and not to believe, if you take out the foundation of the Bible then you might as well give up.

[NathObeaN]

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8239/catharcrossminerve.jpg

Peace be unto you, my brothers and sisters. That is the way forward. :)

Just out of curiousity what is that a picture of?

[system7]

It's a modern sculpture based on Christian Cathar symbolism, found at Minerve in the what is now the South of France, althogh it was the Occitain region in C13. The Cathars also used a distinctive cross with 12 dots.

Look up the "Albigensian Crusades" for a truly heartbreaking story of religeous intolerance. AFAIK, the Cathars are still alive and well but keep a low profile, and their persecution and dispersion was a factor in the later Protestant Reformation movement.

FWIW, the Cathars in C13 had 4 genuinely descended bishops. Their beliefs were peculiar to our accepted view of Christianity, believing in reincarnation until the final life of enlightenment called being a Perfect. These Perfecti were greatly respected, and lived a chaste and frugal life along with being vegetarians. Masses were held in the open and the Perfecti claimed no ownership of the church or path to enlightenment. The Cathars had a tolerant view of life for the ordinary non-perfecti, allowing them to indulge in the imperfections of life in what they regarded as Satan's creation. It is not clear to me how much of their writings have survived, but the deathbed blessing given to followers was an important part of their church.

[gurusan]

By "The Church", I meant the Catholic and Anglican Church...which accounts for well over 1 billion Christians.

Also your argument for the flagella makes no sense. The earliest life forms did not even need any such locomotion. In fact most of those life forms are still around! Anyone with any primitive highschool understanding of biology knows this.

[Chewie]

As promised, will now finish my reply.

Nath, again, apologies if i upset you, but i did so in the attempt to highlight that religion is trouble today, it doesn't have a place in the ruling of mens ways anymore.


Wow that is the most biased and unbelievably stupid reply I have ever heard. You obviously know absolutely nothing about religion, especially Christianity.
Biased? how so, like I said earlier, I don't believe in a singular god, I don't follow a single path. I guide my own fate, make my own decisions based on how I was raised as a child.
I was raised a christian, and in fact up until i was about 13, had a copy of the new testament on my shelf next to my tv and so i do follow the ideas behind the 10 commandments because that was how i raised. Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not covet another mans property etc etc.
But I decided it wasn't for me. Doesn't make me a sinner or a heathen just because I didn't continue with a christian (catholic or otherwise) life.


you would rather believe a bunch of "Modern" scientists who inform you we all came from a random explosion which.. came from nothing? At the same time it was soooo lucky that it created an organised universe with patterns and beauty and intelligent beings. Not to mention the whole idea of the Big Bang has been disproven over and over again other than the obvious common sense. Scientists change their theory on how we came about time after time after time.
Actually, yes, i probably would rather believe a bunch of scientists who have tried to understand just what happened and the wheres and whyfores of such an event.
I have seen nothing in modern history that supports the creation as written in the bible. And i likely never will. None of us will. I prefer the idea of atoms coalescing, minerals and gases clumping togethor to form something and so on and so forth.
Someone wrote a book and said THIS IS HOW IT WAS, HOW IT SHALL BE, AND LET NO MAN TELL YOU OTHERWISE. And its stayed the same all through written history. Yea there have been revisions, but the core remains the same.
At least scientists are willing to say *hey, i was wrong, my bad, lets have another attempt to figure it out*.


The Bible has not be disproven once, that it is why it is still thriving, Science actually backs up the Bible in so many cases, if you were to open your eyes even a little bit and do some research you would find that the Bible is extremely accurate in both historical events and science and whenever scientists say they have disproved the Bible it’s always because they have twisted what it written in the Bible in the first place.

I can't answer that one, because we are still learning, so until we do work it out, then the Bible will stay as is. Why does it thrive? who knows, but when people need answers, and can't make their way, a belief is there that helps them. And religion is often providing that support.
Urm, science backing up creationism? and the man who died, and came back to life? or the taking of food and water, and multiplying it to feed hundreds? I see nothing in science to back these claims up.
As for the bible being twisted, well, "the victors write the histories". And as the bible is based on historical events, there is no way, on this earth, to turn back time and examine events first hand. Until that happens, again, the bible will stay the way it is with the influence it has.


The Bible is such a load of rubbish I bet you think
Never crossed my mind. But now that you mention it, I do question the validty of its claims, so basically, yea it COULD be a load of rubbish for all i know. History is full of great sages, orators, thinkers, and story tellers. And the bible falls into and is used under these catagories, to "teach" and guide people.


Well how is it that out of the 300 odd prophecies that Jesus foretold well over 200 has already been fulfilled?
Really? so they could have stopped the black plague? They could have stopped the vietnam war? Or did they miss those ones.
But seriously, its been over 20 years since i looked at a bible let alone read one.
Your sure there are prophecies in there? Or is it just a set of circumstances that happen to be very similar when translated in a certain way.
Like the way you read my comments as a dig at you possibly?


How would they have known that to circumcise a child on the 3rd day would be the least painful for a baby (they would cry no matter what), when science has only just discovered that on the 3rd day of a child’s birth a chemical stimulate numbs the pain?
Beats me, but i thought that was just a Jewish orthadox thing, not a christian thing. So my education in that department is lacking.


How is it that the Bible prophesised the world was round, when only a few hundred years ago they “came up with the idea” and the scientists back in the day told everyone as “fact” that the world was flat. These are just one or two examples. You think the Bible doesn't fit Modern times yet the Bible has shown scientific wonders thousands of years before your respected scientists even came across them.
Yup, they did, and it turns out the world is round. But what has it come up with lately?
It has reached the end of its usefulness in that regard because we have outgrown it, gone beyond what it has to tell us. I don't see saint john telling us how to get more transistors on a die, or how to coax the last bit of speed from our quad cores and memory bus bandwidths.


As for the whole why would God do such a thing, argument, if you read into the Bible remotely you would understand it. Those things are not the will of God but the will of Satan, of course God doesn't WANT people to suffer, but you have a choice, God or Satan, unfortunately we all choose to fall for Satan's temptation so as a result God lets us experience what Satan has to offer, then you can either stay with him or ask for forgiveness.
Very linear that thought there. If i DON'T choose god, then i must by not choosing god, have chosen Santa, sorry Satan.
I threw that whole line of thought in, to highlight that evolution is the way forward, not dogged adherence to a belief that someone has a plan, given us a map, and then booted us into the wilderness to make out own way.
Virus's and such are still organisms, part of gods creation if you will. So why are they there, i personally thought the devil was there to entice a person from the straight and narrow path, and to then torment those he does get. So why would satan set on gods earth a thing that while depleting gods flock, will only result in the faithful going to heaven that much quicker, he isn't going to get any more of the faithful to his realm i'd have thought unless they had transgressed a rule or commandment.


You seem to make out that it is easy being a Christian, which somehow it just makes life all cushy, well it doesn't. Being a Christian is extremely hard work, and it is also prophesied in the Bible that one day everyone on this planet well turn against Christians, persecute them, murder them and hate them with a passion as was with the Holocaust and the Jews. You think it's really "cushy" living with that in mind, don't be so ignorant.
Never once thought that being a christian was easy. I mean, come on. Its hard enough getting through the day, working and all the rest, and then to still my mind for prayer before eating and before bed and all the rest that goes with being a good christian.
I doubt i could be one, its just not in my make-up. I have time enough in my life for only so much.
aw heck, i just sinned, i was being selfish. :p
You mention that there is a prophecy that in the end, all will turn against christians. ooh this is so hard....reminds me of a quote someone made on another forum with regard to a certain country sticking its thumbs where they aren't wanted...In this case, for something like this to happen, it will take the religion doing something either bad enough to **** of everyone else, or for another religion to come along and basically overwhelm the 1st religion.
And as that is happening right now, were all pretty much in the doodoo in that case.

At least from my point of view based on your comments anyway.


Your insinuation that I have the lack of flexibility to change and evolve is also not only offensive but dumb. Why do I need to change from something that is backed up by science, history and observational evidence?
Ok, i know this was just you being grumpy and not having had your morning coffee yet, but my comment was aimed at the inflexibility of the religion, not you personally.
Its still trying to define how we live, based on the precepts of how we used to live because that's all there was.
As for observational history and evidence. What, 1 book. Pull me other leg now will ya please. Again, inflexible, 1 point of view.
At least today there are multiple history books on how things happened, for anything during recorded history, and each is open to a certain amount of interpretation because its accuracy can be questioned.
The holocaust happened, undeniable and recorded in many differet books and points of view. Scott crossed the antarctic, undeniable.
Some guy broke bread for a few hundred, a long *** time ago. Only 1 perspective, nothing to back it up. Did he really? or did he have a few tents with food in, in the dried up wadi behind him to be able to hand out food from..


Why would I want to follow scientists that change their “facts” on a yearly basis with absolutely no evidence? Why would I want to turn away from a God who has made such a positive impact in my life and instead go down a shallow, selfish road where it’s all about me?
Because scientist don't always get it right. Because scientists are looking outward and upward, to expand the knowledge and experience of the human race. Learning as they go. They change their minds because as they learn more, they sometimes realise they have made a mistake, and set out to correct it.
Does the bible? what's in it is all there is. Nothing changes.
Am i shallow because I don't dedicate my life to following a religion and its rules?
Does my life lack meaning and definition as i wonder from place to place as i travel lifes road?


You obviously have the misapprehension that Christians are some kind of dumb monkeys just following an old book, and we don’t question anything.
Not dumb monkeys, never that. Monkeys are smart, they can get honey from a bees nest using sticks, oh wait, that's bears.
To put all your faith in 1 book, is at worst, naive (sorry for being insulting here). Yes people who follow a religion do question things, to a point. When it gets to a point that goes against the book, the head goes into the sand. Unless the person comes to the realisation that it isn't the be all and end all of everything. In which case he/she is castigated and reviled for turning from the path.


I question everything; God tells us to, tells us to use our heads and dig into things, the more you dig into things the more you find it is true.
Good for you man, good for you. And i bet its thrown more questions in front of you, including a few which would likely go against the precepts and tenets of your practiced religion.

But back to topic now.

The *** couple stood up and tried to force a change (something like Jesus did i bet when he first came along) and got a kicking for it (hmm, so did jesus for that matter).

There are more people like this now, that cannot simply be shoved under the carpet, moved aside or just plain ignored, society and those who exist within it must change.
And its the religions that are hardest at it because it goes against what has been taught and what is written.

Ok, now i'm getting grumpy cause I've been up since 6am, and tomorrow i have to get up at 5am. And i've just spent nearly 3 hrs wording and rewording this reply so as not to be too sarcastic, bitchy or whatever.
But i know i havent succeeded.

NathObean, I jhave nothing against religion, or you for that matter, i just don't feel that it should hold the position it does in todays societies. end of.

If people were more tolerant (which the religions are always harping on about while with the other hand slapping people down) things like what happened would not have been big news the way it was.

@ weeman

nice links man, i sat and listened to them as i typed and thought out my responses, and was not surprised by the voting outcome a the end of part 5.

right, now i'm off to be as my knees ache from sitting like this for so long.

night all.

[Helior]

So, just how old is the earth?

[NathObeaN]

So, just how old is the earth?

I don't think Christianity gives an exact date, but if I remember rightly it is about 6000 years old.

Now wait, before you quote the 2 things that scientists use to measure aging...

Carbon dating - has been proven to be hugely inaccurate and is affected by radiation (the world is full of it low and behold).

Ice level measuring - Once again has been proven to be inaccurate, scientists say that for every "level" it symbolises a season, it doesn't, it merely means there was a change in temperature. To prove it, scientists said the depth of ice in Antarctica was millions of years old. That were before they found a helicopter burred 40ft under ice dating from 1960. Not millions of years ago.



@ Chewie, I said I wouldn't continue the argument but I just want to leave you with 2 things to consider.

1. You say it would take something great for people to hate Christians, erm no, the Holocaust was one man who hated the Jews and because people are always looking for someone to blame for their problems they blamed the Jews, and were quite happy to have the gassed, tortured and used them for scientific experiments. Also, guess what Hitler used as one of his reasons for the "cleansing" of the Jews? Darwinism. Hitler is quoted to have said "Darwin will be proud of us".

2. Science defines itself as being based on OBVSERABLE EVIDENCE. What observable evidence do they have for the big bang? None, it is a religion. Scientists are not prepared to "find the truth", maybe some are, and some genuinely search for it, but the rubbish that is printed in school text books, including that of the falsified Lucy Ape. Scientists have made up their mind it is the Big Bang, forgetting it is a theory, forgetting it HAS been proven wrong and forgetting there is no evidence for it, just guesswork and more theory. One simple, easy to understand piece of OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that the big bang is wrong - The Big Bang depicts that the universe exploded and "spun" out, this is what causes the galaxies to spin today as they continue outward. The problem is scientists left out a key flaw in this theory; some galaxies are spinning the opposite way. This alone proves the Big Bang theory is impossible.

[system7]

I don't look to the Bible for scientific explanation, as it goes. But the Universe as we know it is about 13 Billion years old, and is apparently expanding. This leads to the idea that it was once much smaller. In fact a single point in space-time which became the big bang. The very fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula, the nearest galaxy, tells us the creation is not 6000 years, but at least 2.5 Million years old, since that is how long its light has taken to reach us:

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5250/andomedamoon.jpg

Our Sun is 4.5 Billion years old and is a perfectly normal main sequence star in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of stellar evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram

Galileo around AD1500 was called a Heretic by the church for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. And in fact the Greeks were well aware of the diameter of the earth. They simply observed how the sun's Noonday shadow lengthened as you moved North and did the math.

All this is by the by really. The religeous mind believes that life has meaning and a moral dimension. The agnostic would say that we simply live and die, and nothing really matters. The very fact that we DO generally care about things, suggests to me that we do have a religeous outlook by nature.

I do wonder what future generations will make of our current material age. It may really be an age of fear, it certainly has pushed religeon to the periphery and broken a communal sense. It's really quite shocking that the Sabbath is no longer observed, and that we let this happen. Sunday may as well be sponsored by Tesco nowadays. :huh:

[codemonkey]

Having just deleted a post for abuse in this thread, if it can't be kept civil and the issues discussed like adults rather than children it will be locked.

[gurusan]

It could have been construed as abuse, or perhaps just good advice. Uneducated evangelicals give Christianity a terrible name, and unfortunately they are always the loudest.

[NathObeaN]

I don't look to the Bible for scientific explanation, as it goes. But the Universe as we know it is about 13 Billion years old, and is apparently expanding. This leads to the idea that it was once much smaller. In fact a single point in space-time which became the big bang. The very fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula, the nearest galaxy, tells us the creation is not 6000 years, but at least 2.5 Million years old, since that is how long its light has taken to reach us:

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5250/andomedamoon.jpg

Our Sun is 4.5 Billion years old and is a perfectly normal main sequence star in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of stellar evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram

Galileo around AD1500 was called a Heretic by the church for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. And in fact the Greeks were well aware of the diameter of the earth. They simply observed how the sun's Noonday shadow lengthened as you moved North and did the math.

All this is by the by really. The religeous mind believes that life has meaning and a moral dimension. The agnostic would say that we simply live and die, and nothing really matters. The very fact that we DO generally care about things, suggests to me that we do have a religeous outlook by nature.

I do wonder what future generations will make of our current material age. It may really be an age of fear, it certainly has pushed religeon to the periphery and broken a communal sense. It's really quite shocking that the Sabbath is no longer observed, and that we let this happen. Sunday may as well be sponsored by Tesco nowadays. :huh:

Your example, although makes sense is once again limited to a physical and worldly view. We are talking about an all powerful God, why in earth would God create a universe and then make it so it takes billions of years before we can see any of it. He created everything in an instance, that includes the light. Otherwise we would merely look into the sky and see nothing. Saying it has to be billions of years old because it is further away simply doesn't make sense. If you look down a runway and see the landing lights, the time it takes for the lights to reach you will be longer the further away they are, were they created in that order? No. They could have all been built at exactly the same time.

When taking on a religious view you simply can't limit it to the dimensions of this universe if the whole argument is that God is outside those dimensions and did in fact create them, including time.

Albert Einstein’s theory of space time proves that the theory of time taken for light to travel = distance is wrong. Time slows down and speeds up depending on the matter it passes by. This was proven in a scientific experiment years ago when an American scientist sent a signal to Mercury, which is right next to the sun, the signal took a few minutes longer than it should have done. This is just passing by one star; imagine how those figures could be distorted passing through the trillions of stars, many of which are bigger than ours, not to mention the trillions and trillions of planets and things such as black holes.

Another thing in which that theory doesn’t hold up, it assumes that space is flat, if space is warped in any such way the figures would be outrageously inaccurate.

EDIT: You even added another problem to your theory, if the universe expands at a rapid rate, the light takes longer to reach us once again, correct? Is it any older though? No.

Also did you know that the mathmatical equation in which the spirals of galaxies is exactly the same for each and every one, it is a perfect mathatical equation which is also replicated here on earth in things such as snails and so forth.

If honestly want to sit and kid yourself, that one of the most simplist things on this planet, even a plain old simple snow flake:

http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/snowflake.jpg

That, is just some random explosion? An explosion that was brought about by the cosmos, which had NOTHING in it. It is purely impossible. It only takes common sense to work that one out. An explosion cannot be created by nothing, the big bang thoery even mentions that some form of energy was around to create the big bang, but they never tell you where that energy comes from. Even if it did somewhow happen, an explosion always, always causes chaos, this universe is certainly not that. It is full of designs, patterns, beauty, love and order.

Whether you want to accept it was God or not is up to you, but it is so, so blatantly obvious that this universe has a design and was created by a creature with an astonishing imagination and intelligence, not a random blip of chance.

[waba]

I have been following this thread with a lot of interest, lets make sure it does not get locked!!!

i often feel i'm in a conflicting position - I am in an incredibly science-based university, but my course is one that I personally ground very much in philosophy - in many cases in love it because it helps fufil my search for beauty, truth, reality and so on.


I have read the Bible many times - it has been a massive influence on my life, but i will not for a minute claim to be an expert on it - similarly, my interests in science, philosophy, etc has not made me experts in any of those fields!

the bible has influenced me as I see it very much as a good code to life, a way to make society work harmoniously and definatly something we can learn from. teachings from the new testament in particular seem to be very social-oriented, iterating the folly of reliance in material goods, the importance of working together with mutual respect etc.

but i draw the distinction between believing in the bible and learning from it.

people are right in that science requires belief - we belief that our logical deductions are correct, that observational evidence is proof, that cause and effect are linked, that when we get out of bed each morning, we are actually getting out of bed, rather than just imaging it. a lot of these beliefs we do accept, without questioning it, because there is no way to tell whether they are RIGHT OR WRONG. but then...perhaps it's our ideas or right and truth that need to be examined.

similarly, a belief in god can never be proved RIGHT OR WRONG. the bible doesnt prove the existence of a god any more than science proves the big bang. they are all theories, which as we learn, our views on them, as with everything else, change.

in the end, it is really how we behave towards each other that matters (and towards the environment, yay earth!!) - i know respectful, kind and loving christians, muslims, atheists, agnostics and every other groups we love to label ourselves with - what is important to me is their common working towards a better society, a better world to live in.


as an aside, there is an point I want to make about this idea that chaos is bad, order is good. mathematically speaking (which in turn has been often inspired by nature) chaos and order are the same thing - sensitive dependence on initial conditions is inheritantly chaotic but similarly perfectly ordered - and underlying nature appears to be this chaotic system, which gives rise to an ordered system. does that prove or disprove god. no. it just shows that there is a **** of a lot going on behind the scenes. and a lot more we have to understand.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

@ nath0bean,

you missed out dendrochronology which is highly accurate and dates can even be taken from fossilied trees. the bible DOES give a date to when the world was created by counting back the timelines and its around 10,000 years ago.. strange that the great flood, an incident that is documented by almost all anicent cultures and even supported by science coincided around the same time as the end of the ice age.. dont you think?

it is easy to be amazed and praise god at the marvels of nature without understanding nature itself. afterall in the middle ages scientists were practising witchcraft.

my arguement would be that i know no devout christian who has sound scientfic understanding. yet i know many physicists who have strong belief in spirituality. and i am in that position too.

if you know only one side you know no sides and that is what makes your arguement flawed.

if god exists god exists in everything and everyone. afterall mass is nothing more than highly condensed energy and considering everything is made with energy and all we do is interactand manipulate energy then where does the consciousness of this energy come from?

bottom line is. christanity is wrong to obnoxiously dismiss modern science, and people are wrong to dismiss the necessity for spiritual guidence in our lives. both sides greatly focus on one another without any real reason but to waste time.. live well have fun :) thats all there is to it.

@ waba

good breakdown
there and it seems that you are undergoing various aspects of existentualism, which is very normal though this isnt a bad or good thing, completely agree with you though :)

[NathObeaN]

Good replies above.

@ Waba, in a sense you are right to say that the Bible does not "PROVE" God. But when scientific examples are given thousands of years before we had the scientific ability to even understand them, then the Bible obviously isn't "just a random book" as many people say it is. The examples I gave of the description of a snow flake, the 3rd day of circumcision, the earth being round etc (there are many more), these were written thousands of years ago. It would be humanly impossible for anyone no matter how good their imagination or intelligence to know such things.

Also prophecies have come true, many of which Jesus predicted. People seem to forget the Bible isn't just one book. It is a combination of lots of books, written by different people, all of which back up each other, also, the Old Testament was written hundreds of years before the New Testament, however the New Testament meets plenty of prophecies that are mentioned in the Old Testament. It is essential to understand that the Bible was written by multiple people, at multiple times, even by people that didn't know each other. This means it is quite impossible for it to just be a book that was made up with foresight in mind. Especially considering the Romans crucified Jesus (which is a fact, not just in the Bible it is documented in Roman history). They crucified Jesus and strictly forbid the Christian faith, yet they then allowed the Bible to be translated and adopted it as their own faith. Now if all those scientific things are true, the prophecies are true (prophecies which are impossible to manufacture), then it leaves you to think, well if there is so much relevance in the Bible, maybe it's claims of God are also true?

As you seem to like maths maybe this will interest you...

Creation Vs. Evolution

Scientists tell us that “first there was nothing...then it exploded”. Scientists tell us that life grew from a stagnate pond. The chance life grew from a stagnant pond is one chance in 10, followed by 100 billion zeros. The same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and assembling a 747 jumbo jet from the contents therein.

Proving the existence of Jesus

Roman Historians record that Jesus performed miracles and taught 1000’s of people. There are over 300 requirements laid down in the Bible that say who Jesus would be, what he would do, and where he would go. They were all written at least 500 years before Jesus was born. If we to take 16 of these requirements we can calculate how many men in history we would have to look at before we found one that met all 16 requirements. The number of men is 10, followed by 45 zeroes. If we took this many 50 pence pieces, we could build a ball with a diameter 30 times the distance from the earth to the sun. Imagine marking one of those 50 pence pieces, being blindfolded and told to find that 50 pence piece – the chance you would find it by accident is the same chance that one man could fulfil all 16 requirements, yet Jesus fulfilled over 300.

Proving the existence of the Bible being accurate

The bible was written by 40 people over a period of 1600 years. 3500 years before the microscope was discovered, the Bible talks of the beauty of snowflakes. 2400 years before man discovered this – the Bible spoke of the earth being a sphere. At a time when man believed that the earth rode on the back of a huge animal or giant, 1500BC, the Bible spoke of earth’s free float in space. In 1609 in Hoorn, Holland, a ship was built after the same specification of Noah’s ark, it revolutionised ship building. By 1900 all ships were built like this. 3500 years before man discovered fingerprints the Bible says that the identity of each person is locked into their fingertips. On Thursday 8th June 1997, Jews broke through Arab defences and set foot on Old Jerusalem. The Jewish people, after 1900 years without homeland, occupied Israel. In 1967 they set foot in Jerusalem fulfilling the words of Jesus spoken 2000 years earlier.

@ DEATH9000

I feel as though you didn't read anything I had put lol to say Christians are obnoxious to deny modern Science? I have been saying quite the opposite over and over again lol Science, true science backs up the Bible. Theoretical "science" does not, and that is what I dismiss, because there is no true proof, merely theory. As I said before Science defines itself as being based on observational evidence, the Big Bang has no such thing, observational evidence disproves the Big Bang theory with examples that I gave including the fact that Galaxies spin in different directions.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

you misread my meaning, you dont need to prove to me the existence of jesus as i know the evidence. you do not need to prove to me the validity of the bible as i am aware it is the oldest known historical document, most of which is fact. so youre arguing with yourself on those as you dont need to convince me.

im simply trying to tell you to stop trying to be a scientist when there are facts you're simply overlooking as you simply do not know nor understand the details.

again.

if you only know one side you know no sides.

why would i say such a thing if i wasnt so sure of my understanding of faith, the bible and theology?

i guess i will take my leave as you are far far more knowledgable than myself i i still need to learn, all my years still go for nothing.

[NathObeaN]

What? :huh:

The only thing you have brought forward that I haven't mentioned is dendrochronology. I don't know my science? I have explained valid reasons why the scientific explainations of the Big Bang are invalid. Of course I am taking this from one point of view I am a Christian giving my arguements as to why I believe the science behind such theorys as the Big Bang are false and have provided perfectly reasonable explanations.

As for dendrochronology, it's absolute limit is 9,000 years, along with this there are a huge range of conditions that must be met in order for the recordings to be accurate. So how does that go to proving that scientists are right in saying the earth is millions of years old? Or am I missing something? I'm not being rude at all I would be quite happy to learn something new but as far as I can see dendrochronology doesn't prove any scientist claims of the world being older than what the Bible claims it is.

[system7]

Enjoying this thread very much. :)

It has made me re-evaluate my relationship with God, or whatever you want to call the little voice in your heart that tells you that life has meaning and that what we do actually matters. :thumbs:

We are adept at being very adult and serious about life, but actually it is important to hold on to that simpler view of life that you had as a child too. I recall looking up at the morning clouds as a child and seeing something beyond explanation. It may be the best path is not necessarily the easiest.

I find no contradiction between scientific views of the marvellous creation that we inhabit, and the reality of relationship which is much more intangible. Anyone who studies the transcendental number "e" cannot fail to be impressed by its profundity and frequent occurence in nature in spirals and waves. But for all that, it would be sad to be alone. Happily we aren't. :banana:

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

As for dendrochronology, it's absolute limit is 9,000 years


wrong... the limit depends on location. this is the ONLY real limit. the only reason it is unfeasable to use in many areas is because wood decomposes therefore barely retains enough samples from history to become useable.

it doesnt matter your science is flawed therefore any arguement you present, fact or not lacks credibility. this is why i am being pretty obnoxious towards you. why should i listen to you when you have no credibility?

good post steve :thumbs:

[NathObeaN]

wrong... the limit depends on location. this is the ONLY real limit. the only reason it is unfeasable to use in many areas is because wood decomposes therefore barely retains enough samples from history to become useable.


it doesnt matter your science is flawed therefore any arguement you present, fact or not lacks credibility. this is why i am being pretty obnoxious towards you. why should i listen to you when you have no credibility?

good post steve

I'm sorry but you are talking out of your backside now lol. I have no argument, my science is flawed? Maybe you should learn to read as I have provided simple, easy to understand and constructed arguments which are backed up by FACTS. Example: Galaxies spin in opposite directions - it is physically impossible for this so happen from an explosion as depicted by the Big Bang theory that galaxies spin due to the force of the Big Bang which spun out the universe, if that is the case every galaxy would spin in the same direction. FACT - The aging methods used by scientists is flawed, my example of a helicopter being found under 40ft of ice in which scientists claimed to be a depth resembling millions of years. FACT - The time taken for light to travel = age of the universe is flawed; Albert Einstein revealed this with his theory of space time, which has been proven by modern day science. I have also provided numerous facts and dates describing the Bible's authenticity. But no, I have no credibility .

You are also wrong about dendrochronology - the oldest tree in the world, the bristle cone pine tree has been seen to live for a MAX of 9000 years, which is extremely rare. A tree will not grow once it's dead, surprise, surprise, therefore 9000 years IS the limit. Yes locations and species are also a limiting factor, but dendrochronology does not disprove the bible nor does it support the Big Bang theory.

[gurusan]

Interesting that you are able to judge and disprove these things when it's pretty obvious you don't have any sort of university education.

Perhaps you should hold a conference in order to lecture to and prove the world's greatest minds wrong.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

@ nath0bean

you have said big bang so many times in reference to nothing and it is making my head spin in opposite directions how is THAT possible? :/

if one galaxy spins one way and other spins another way then why is that impossible if this is happening? :/ why are you picking on one fragmented theory? why are you wrong in so many of your things? why are you arguing when you say you are not arguing?

as i said you lack credibility, you cant even back the corner for christianity and you're trying to pick holes in another that you have little understanding of?

so by your little understanding of dendrochronology, there are trees that can live to 9000 years when the bible, the word of god, puts the age of the earth around 10,000 years? but clearly there earth is much much older than 10,000 years. BTW there is no limit to dendrochronology bar that of physical remains. which is limited due to the nature that wood decomposes. there are some areas in the world where wood has been well preserved and can be dated back over 10,000 years.

thus

God made world 10,000 years ago> didnt happen.

silly me i forgot dinosaurs are Gods little joke to palentologists.

it doesnt matter what theories there are in science that question the creation of the universe, it is the duty of science to find the truth, be God evertually be part of that then so be it.

fact is. God never made the earth 10,000 years ago.

please read what i have said carefully..

also you're really saying the wrong things and asking nothing. which like most christians is obnoxious. the term 'blind faith' has very strong origins. maybe you will next deny the fact that the old testament is nothing more but a shortened version of the sumerian and babylonian epic of creation.

Also maybe you will then deny the 'physical' changes in translation and meaning over time of the bible as a way of control by the catholic church.

what i find interesting is you're pressing me in a science versus christianity, when really this subject is religious morals vs social morals.

i have said in my first post my views on that.

[NathObeaN]

Unbelievable. I cannot believe you are going to sit there and say I have nothing to back up what I am saying that I haven't been backing up Christianity, only having a pop at the Big Bang. I have given evidence for Christianity on this very page USE YOUR EYES. I have given evidence against the Big Bang, and for the person above you that says I am going against great scientists, no? I backed up Albert Einstein with his theory of space time, which has been proven by modern day science and proves the tools we use to measure the age of the universe have massive flaws in them. Albert Einstein has a passion for science and genuinely tested his knowledge, many scientists today will say whatever they are “supposed” to say to keep their job, as seen with the global warming extravaganza. I don't need a university degree in science to use Google and get off my **** to do some research. If I wanted to do a degree in university I probably could but I am instead doing a degree in computer networking and so far I have not had nothing other than distinctions, so please save your insinuations that I am stupid.

I am not going to sit here and have you call me "obnoxious" saying I have a "blind faith" when I have probably done more research then you ever have done, when I have questioned the Bible more than you ever have done. I have researched over and over again, all you have done is sat there telling me I don't know what I am talking about, yet you can't provide any evidence that proves I am wrong. Before you start going on about your much loved tree dating, once again the aging method has proven to have holes in it, and there have been many findings all around the world where scientists have said that a tree that has petrified proves it is millions of years you are wrong. GOOGLE IT. But no, scientists are little saints that are trying to find the truth, obviously not, because even though their aging methods have all been proven to have flaws they continue to use them, rather than searching for a better method. There are plenty of examples where petrified trees have been found where it has taken mere days, not millions of years. Even a petrified shoe, manufactured in 1950, hardly millions of years old. How can you explain a helicopter being found under ice in Antarctica that is millions of years old?

“Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.” - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html


http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/images/050316/boot.jpg

Galixies spin in different directions: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/08/oddball.galaxy/index.html (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/08/oddball.galaxy/index.html)


Stop criticising me for having no evidence to back up my claims when you haven't replied with a decent argument against anything I have said.

Also, if the big bang is true then why do some galaxies closer to the "centre" of the universe where supposedly the Big Bang happened, spin slower, they should spin faster, our very own galaxy has a rotational rate that goes against the Big Bang theory. GOOGLE IT.

I am not going to give any more evidence as to be perfectly honest you are the one that has a "blind faith" just accepting what you read from a science book when I have researched and spent much time trying to find the answers all you have done is criticise me for doing so and say I am obnoxious.

[gurusan]

So basically you have a degree from the University of Google, and expect us to believe you know what you are talking about?

If you actually did as much research as you claim, you would find that there are countless theoretical physicists, geologists, microbiologists, etc... you name it... that are devout Christians.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, I think you understand this but your lame and fumbling attempts to "disprove" the Big Bang and other leading theories show that you still have a lot of research and actual study (not googling) to do before anyone will begin to take you seriously.

Also your literal interpretations of what is a historical document which has gone through several translations again shows that you need to do more study in that area before people (including Christians) take you seriously.

[NathObeaN]

No just a degree of "using my brain and getting off my **** to do research". Seriously, give it a rest. Yes, correct, the Bible has gone through thousonds of years of translations, all the more reason to prove it's accuracy. The original transcripts still exist today, and if anything the Bible is more accurate than ever, maybe you should go and look instead?

Yes there are many excellent scientists that are christians today. I admit I am no scientist, but I know what is in front of my eyes, I can read, understand and research what other scientists have written. I never said science and christianity are exclusive, they actually work together. However the religion of the Big Bang and Christianty are exclusive. I have gotten books from the libary, watched countless documentaries and researched the internet for years. All you have done so far for your input is give an opinion and insinuate I am stupid and say I don't know what I am talking about. If that is true, prove me wrong. I have given you picture evidence, links to other websites, and quotations to prove my claims. Your evidence? None. Mabye instead of giving immature arguments against me you should go and research as well, I for one have given up trying to spoon feed you.

[Janke]

FACTS. Example: Galaxies spin in opposite directions - it is physically impossible for this so happen from an explosion as depicted by the Big Bang theory that galaxies spin due to the force of the Big Bang which spun out the universe, if that is the case every galaxy would spin in the same direction.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but gravity pulls the galaxies, therefore.. different directions. Pretty simple really.

[waba]

stop trading insults, people. if you have an argument to make, then make it, but that is all.

if anyone has heard of pascal's wager, i always thought it was a particularly clever argument for why we should believe in god - as the inventor of probability, he basically said our rewards would be infinite if god did exist, and so we should 'wager' on god being real.

i often like to think of it in another way - sometimes i believe there is a godm, sometimes i dont. i dont see how it would be relevant in terms of my actions anyhow. i think i am quite spiritual and often see a design in the world and in people. however, i do not believe everything in the bible - for example, the book of genesis, how god created the world DIRECTLY in 7 days - and i do not agree with certain teachings of the bible. by the way i see it, in terms of whether i should believe or not, i think that if god is benevolent then he will know that i try to act compassionately most of the time - so if i were a bettinjg man, i would bet on a god existing but it doesnt mean i have to believe in him. if he is the god that christians beleive in, then he wont mind, as he will be seeing that im not trying to be a bad person. for that reason, whether i believe or not isnt important and doesnt trouble me at night.

i think the problem that most people have when someone says they follow the bible (or any other holy book for that matter) to the letter is that they dont agree with some of the teachings in them. i dont give a monkeys if someone does or doesnt believe in the big bang, or if they think humans were brought to the earth by aliens, or that im really a giraffe in a human body. they disagree on the teaqchings involving

homosexuality
contraception
abortion
etc
all things that affect us NOW.

those are the issues people really should be discussing, in terms or religion, morality, etc.

as an aside, i think a lot of things that have been done in the name of religion is dispicable. but we should remeber it is the PEOPLE who create the wars and the killing, thats it. if there were not any religions, there would still be a **** of a lot of war, people would just find something else to fight about (nationalism, race, ***, money, power, girrafes) people just like being part of a group. best example i can think of is that a few years back, england lost a match and everyone in croydon took to the streets and trashed the place, setting fire to things, fighting etc. does that make football bad, or just some of the people who follow it and just happen to be idiots as well?



EDIT that link u posted Nath about the snow is actually a site arguing against creationism, are refutes your statement, saying

'Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of **** frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).'

[codemonkey]

A nice sentiment, nicely expressed waba :)

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

sometimes i wonder if i come across like an idiot :/

btw just to point out there are no ill feelings nor the desire to make this a personal arguement just so people know or think i am intentionally winding anyone up. this is the high horse section and thus i will treat it so. i haven't (nor anyone else from what i can tell), insulted anyone and if anyone feels as such then im sure they are capable of saying so where an apology is in order. i make this note in reply to waba's last opening sentence. i saw no insults, only questioning of validity which is important in any arguement and it is pretty pretencious to take the high ground.

otherwise that post that takes this discussion back to where it is meant to be.




what i find interesting is you're pressing me in a science versus christianity, when really this subject is religious morals vs social morals.

i have said in my first post my views on that.

i think that people need to acknowledge their spiritual self as their spiritual health is just as important as their physical health and the neglect of their spirit is what causes many evils of the world.

[waba]

sorry death, wasnt saying anyone was particularly being rude, its just this discussion seemed a bit..hostile to me. and my post was just stating what i think.... i dont often think im right tho! :) i would def agree with you saying that people have been neglecting their spiritual health - i reckon it is what is causing huge problems in the UK at the moment.

[Chewie]

Yes, correct, the Bible has gone through thousonds of years of translations, all the more reason to prove it's accuracy

The problem with that is this.

How one word is spelt and how its meaning changes over time. That is a common problem in deciphering texts which occur a lot.
Add to this, mistakes in translation, see the above line, when going from 1 language to another. How a word is used and what it meant to one society isn't likely to be the same 300 yrs later. In this case its now 2000 years later.

This sums up my point quite well.
http://accurapid.com/journal/18bible.htm

Your throwing in the goofy galaxy doesn't help your case because you've mentioned time and time again how scientists get it wrong a lot, but will not accede that the good book could be wrong too.

The bible/church stated the world was round. They knew the shape of a snowflake.

Does this not make THEM the scientists of their era? Could they not be infaliable then as our scientist of today are prone to making mistakes and changing their minds and new things are found/discovered which prove their earlier suppositions wrong.

I really wish i hadn't got involved in this to begin with now, as my responses make me equally responsible for this discussion and its current direction.

Gents.

Can i suggest that we agree to disagree on this, and bring this to a close, as this could go on for a long long time otherwise.

[NathObeaN]

stop trading insults, people. if you have an argument to make, then make it, but that is all.


if anyone has heard of pascal's wager, i always thought it was a particularly clever argument for why we should believe in god - as the inventor of probability, he basically said our rewards would be infinite if god did exist, and so we should 'wager' on god being real.

i often like to think of it in another way - sometimes i believe there is a godm, sometimes i dont. i dont see how it would be relevant in terms of my actions anyhow. i think i am quite spiritual and often see a design in the world and in people. however, i do not believe everything in the bible - for example, the book of genesis, how god created the world DIRECTLY in 7 days - and i do not agree with certain teachings of the bible. by the way i see it, in terms of whether i should believe or not, i think that if god is benevolent then he will know that i try to act compassionately most of the time - so if i were a bettinjg man, i would bet on a god existing but it doesnt mean i have to believe in him. if he is the god that christians beleive in, then he wont mind, as he will be seeing that im not trying to be a bad person. for that reason, whether i believe or not isnt important and doesnt trouble me at night.

i think the problem that most people have when someone says they follow the bible (or any other holy book for that matter) to the letter is that they dont agree with some of the teachings in them. i dont give a monkeys if someone does or doesnt believe in the big bang, or if they think humans were brought to the earth by aliens, or that im really a giraffe in a human body. they disagree on the teaqchings involving

homosexuality
contraception
abortion
etc
all things that affect us NOW.

those are the issues people really should be discussing, in terms or religion, morality, etc.

as an aside, i think a lot of things that have been done in the name of religion is dispicable. but we should remeber it is the PEOPLE who create the wars and the killing, thats it. if there were not any religions, there would still be a **** of a lot of war, people would just find something else to fight about (nationalism, race, ***, money, power, girrafes) people just like being part of a group. best example i can think of is that a few years back, england lost a match and everyone in croydon took to the streets and trashed the place, setting fire to things, fighting etc. does that make football bad, or just some of the people who follow it and just happen to be idiots as well?



EDIT that link u posted Nath about the snow is actually a site arguing against creationism, are refutes your statement, saying

'Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of **** frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).'

Thank you Waba! At last someone who knows what they are talking about and did some research for themselves. If anything I am happy to be proved wrong by you. However why is it then in high school science books, documentaries and multiple science websites ice layers are said to be measured in layers resembling a yearly temperature change? That is the first I have ever heard that argument, and I would bet that when these layers are measured those things are not taken into account as it would take a very long time to measure them, I could be wrong though.

Also a good argument in response to the "religion causes war", I often use the same argument that people would commit war without religion, if not more.

Your thinking about "If I am a good boy God will let me into heaven" is a little obscure though lol. I can understand your thinking, it makes perfect sense, but Christianity simply doesn't work that way. It is stated quite clearly in the Bible that you gain your salvation though the Son, being Jesus Christ. By accepting him into your life and accepting he died on the cross for our sins - that is what gets your salvation. Your thinking, although perfectly reasonable was abused in the 13th century when people had to pay money to the church to "earn their salvation", thankfully Martin Luther put an end to that. Obviously this is if you believe in a Christian God, if you just believe generally in “a god”, then I guess it doesn’t matter what the Bible says from your point of view. Jesus however, also says that you shall known a person by the fruits that they bear, in other words you give examples to people and people will look upon you by the deeds you do. If you do go throughout life following in some correlation to Jesus's words, and do indeed live a morally correct, and giving life, I have no doubt God will give you every opportunity to see the truth though.

You are right in saying we should be talking about things that matter now, but then again understanding our universe, our world, our past, and a possible afterlife is just as, if not more essential than talking about homosexuality, abortion etc.

@ Chewie

This may answer your question better than I can:

(2) Available Manuscripts:
A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).

Table didn't fit correctly, see link for the table: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)


To sum it up, the “semi-original” manuscripts exist in the multitude, all of which correlate to each other, and are proven to be more accurate translations than any other book known to man.


As for your thing about them being scientists of their day, they weren't as I described earlier science is based on the observational evidence, they didn't have microscopes, they wouldn't have known it, only God could have known. It would be like someone today giving a perfect description of an unknown entity beyond the atom, and not having the capability to see it for another 2000~ years, and in 2000 years time finding that the person was perfectly correct. The difference is we know now there could well be things beyond the atom, however for someone to describe the microscopic details of a snowflake would be completely impossible as they didn't have any technology at all in that area beyond what they could see with their eyes.

Another point you seem to have missed, when taking into account; undeniably the authors of the Bible knew the description of the snowflake 3500 years before scientist could see it, the authors of the bible knew the earth was round and free floating in space, and this view wasn't adopted by scientists for at least another 1500 years, the Bible has foretold some truly astonishing things, I wouldn't consider that to be an opinion. Is it therefore unreasonable to consider the point that if all of those things talked about in the Bible both proved scientists wrong, and it even took them 1500 years to even consider it, and was able to describe tech-age information about a snowflake 3500 years before we could, is it therefore unreasonable to say maybe they are also correct about God, yet, once again, as repeated throughout history, scientists still argue against the Bible, yet they have been constantly proven wrong ever since it was first written.

[NathObeaN]

Sorry to spoil your fun, but gravity pulls the galaxies, therefore.. different directions. Pretty simple really.

Where have you read/heard this? As far as I have read science describes the conversation of angular momentum as to why galixies spin, the way galixies are formed and the nature in which they and the planets therein spin can't be described by gravity as far as I am aware. Also take into account that planets spin in different dirctions, at different angles.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

As far as I have read science describes.

science changes and updates when ever new evidence is available. this is daily. everything changes, and in science, where there are millions of people working on things every day gathering and recording new things, there is an ever expaning amount of knowledge that is too vast for everyone to simply keep up. science isnt FIXED in anyway it flows along the lines of truth (or sometimes money (AKA bad science)).

the planets have different rotation due to 'gravitational disturbences'. almost everything has a universal rotation though it just depends for the perspective you look at it.

galaxies are formed by supermassive blackholes and the rotation of the galaxy takes that of the black hole.

if two entities rotate clockwise on the same axis, they are rotating the same way.

if you were to spin one of these entities along the polar axis 180 degrees thus it is now 'upsidedown' the first entity is still spinning clockwise and the other now appears to be spinning in the opposite direction no? what is so impossible about that?


Fwiw i do not believe in gravity nor the big bang. now get up to date.

[NathObeaN]

Galaxies are formed by super black holes? Do you have any evidence for this? I know it is quite off topic from what we are discussing but I don't believe I have ever heard that before...

Science may appear to explain a great many things, but everything we look at relates back to the Big Bang, the way we look at the universe today exists on the pre assumption of the Big Bang, at least from the secular point of view.

There is always the major flaw though, where did the singularity that apparently created the Big Bang come from? It is completely against the laws of our universe, and doesn't match up with any science we have to date. I think we can agree on the use of cosmogony, secularist believe everything came into being from nothing, this completely goes against the laws of cause and effect, our universe runs on cause and effect, it would not exist without the very principle, therefore the Big Bang, no matter what your opinion on it, doesn't have sufficient reasoning. Creations/intelligent design believes everything came into being from God/a designer, who lives outside of the realms of time and the laws of our universe that we are limited to as the designer created them, therefore God/designer is an eternal being that does not require a cause.

Whether you believe in a Christian God, or some other super natural being, it is against the laws of our universe for the Big Bang to be possible, unless a supernatural being caused it to happen, that is a fact whether you wish to accept it or not. I fully appreciate cosmology and the effort scientists make to understand our known universe, but they will never end up with a logical explanation of our universe until they accept and obey the proven laws of our universe and that the Big Bang is impossible as proven by the observational evidence we already have.

Can we at least agree on that? :thumbs:

[system7]

We've had cosmology discussions before. It certainly seems that galaxies contain super-massive black holes at their cores. Whether these hold galaxies together, or are just a consequence of the mass at the centre of galaxies is open to investigation.

I do find the Big Bang theory most strange, and asking where the singularity that caused it came from is a reasonable question. It seems the Big Bang not only created the mass in our universe, but the fabric of space-time that we inhabit too. :huh:

Kurt Godel, a mathematician, proved that some axioms in maths are neither provable nor disproveable. So, it seems is the existence of God. I am content to leave it there. :cool:

[Helior]

Galaxies are formed by super black holes? Do you have any evidence for this? I know it is quite off topic from what we are discussing but I don't believe I have ever heard that before...

Science may appear to explain a great many things, but everything we look at relates back to the Big Bang, the way we look at the universe today exists on the pre assumption of the Big Bang, at least from the secular point of view.

There is always the major flaw though, where did the singularity that apparently created the Big Bang come from? It is completely against the laws of our universe, and doesn't match up with any science we have to date. I think we can agree on the use of cosmogony, secularist believe everything came into being from nothing, this completely goes against the laws of cause and effect, our universe runs on cause and effect, it would not exist without the very principle, therefore the Big Bang, no matter what your opinion on it, doesn't have sufficient reasoning. Creations/intelligent design believes everything came into being from God/a designer, who lives outside of the realms of time and the laws of our universe that we are limited to as the designer created them, therefore God/designer is an eternal being that does not require a cause.

Whether you believe in a Christian God, or some other super natural being, it is against the laws of our universe for the Big Bang to be possible, unless a supernatural being caused it to happen, that is a fact whether you wish to accept it or not. I fully appreciate cosmology and the effort scientists make to understand our known universe, but they will never end up with a logical explanation of our universe until they accept and obey the proven laws of our universe and that the Big Bang is impossible as proven by the observational evidence we already have.

Can we at least agree on that? :thumbs:

Firstly you need to look up secularism in the dictionary, you are totally misusing the term.

The problem is that you expect science to prove everything, that isn't how it works i'm afraid.

You are wrong to say that we think everything came into being from nothing, we do not understand what caused the big bang, we may one day, or we may not, until we have some evidence though, we will not make wild leaps of faith, at least if we do, they will be marked as such!

You claim that they will never end up with a logical explanation for the big bang, and while you may be right, do you have any idea how many times people have said that in the past about things we fully understand today? How many have been ridiculed for things that even the most extreme evangelicals no longer deny?

The idea that some kind of creator is behind the big bang is a perfectly acceptable idea, it does not contradict the evidence, there is however no evidence to support it either.

The idea of a young-earth however and that evolution is wrong, goes against so much knowledge and understanding, contradicts such a staggering amount of evidence, that to me, it is just unbelievable how people can sit here and support it while on the internet. The internet, the very product of everything their beliefs invalidate and undermine.


Whether you believe in a Christian God, or some other super natural being, it is against the laws of our universe for the Big Bang to be possible, unless a supernatural being caused it to happen, that is a fact whether you wish to accept it or not.

This particular statement is just a perfect example the religious approach. You fail to understand that the laws of our universe are a work in progress, an explanation of out observation. They can adapt and be rewritten to accommodate anything, once we are able to gather the evidence to do so. What you have done is take an arbitrary comment and assert it as fact without even bothering to offer explanation let along evident, why on earth would the rational mind believe that?

I'm not going to get into whether religion is good or bad, i personally think it has a net negative effect, but it also does a lot of good in the world. However i firmly believe that science, and the scientific method has done so much more good (yes it has done a staggering amount of bad too), it has saved and enhanced millions of lives and young-earthers happily benefit from it daily. Yet at the same time, they attempt to completely and utterly destroy all that it stands for. By trying to pass of religion as science, misleading people who don't know better with lies and misdirections, asking that people interpret the bible literally.

I generally have no real problem with religion, although i would happily see it disappear and I wish the UK was truly secular (which it certainly is not), but i have a real problem with young-earth creationism and intelligent design proponents. It really is significantly detrimental to society as a whole.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

you are obsessed with the big bang D: seriously get of the subject!

there is a lot of evidence for the 'big bang' hence why it is a theory!

is there limited mass in infinite space? or is space finite?

what's to say the big bang is nothing more than one incredible huge event that isnt unique and happens all the time repeatedly? and we just simply dont know it as theyre lost in the vastness of space?

something i find pretty hilarious is that there are people who 'dont believe' n black holes as simply the term 'black hole' just sounds funny... like hole..? hole in what? a block hole isnt really a hole its just a ultradense body that light cannot escape :/ and people cannot handle the hugeness of the math and simply brain ****, then they cant comprehend...

the big bang isnt impossible by observation evidence. simply something that we do not understand. just because we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle doesnt mean it didnt happen and you saying it as such, as we have already established, with your little credibility, proves nothing nor disproves anything. all you are doing is offering is highly flawed evidence on a sbjuect you clearly know very little about.

i retract my comment about not believing in gravity as it is an unclear area for me atm and my knowledge is being challenged by certain new evidence which i o not really care to go into here<< just to clarify my position :P

@ steve< supermassive blackholes it seems are the direct cause of creation of galaxies.

[system7]

For a digression, I am currently reading Paulo Coelho. The Fifth Mountain is a novel of the life of the Prophet Elijah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Mountain

Funky Dudes, those old Testament Prophets. I want to know more. The soul needs food. :D

[NathObeaN]

LMAO, that just did it for me, the one above you clearly has no understanding of Christiainty and you my son, for one insinuating it is halirious that I dont understand black holes, I understand them very well thank you, I never even responded, I simply asked what evidence you have for galixies being formed from them.

I never said the Big Bang is completely false, I am trying to get across to you that the Theory of "the" Big Bang is false when it determines that everything... came from nothing. It isn't within the laws of our universe, even the very top scientists are starting to realise this obvious fact. The fact is, the Big Bang happend once, it doesn't occur all the time, because the matter, energy etc is already here, prior to the big bang it wasn't here. Get it?

I officially give up, sick of taking insults from a bunch of people who just accept what some highly paid scientist says without looking into it themselves (except Waba may I add).

EDIT (Wrote this before System 7, not aimed at you 7!)

[system7]

I officially give up, sick of taking insults from a bunch of people who just accept what some highly paid scientist says without looking into it themselves.

EDIT (Wrote this before System 7, not aimed at you 7!)

Naturally not aimed at me, Nat. My good friends at the Novatech forum are mostly Godless heathens. It is not their fault. But we shall enlighten them, eh? A Prophet is never with honour in his own country...:rolleye:

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

LMAO, that just did it for me, the one above you clearly has no understanding of Christiainty and you my son, for one insinuating it is halirious that I dont understand black holes, I understand them very well thank you, I never even responded, I simply asked what evidence you have for galixies being formed from them.

I never said the Big Bang is completely false, I am trying to get across to you that the Theory of "the" Big Bang is false when it determines that everything... came from nothing. It isn't within the laws of our universe, even the very top scientists are starting to realise this obvious fact. The fact is, the Big Bang happend once, it doesn't occur all the time, because the matter, energy etc is already here, prior to the big bang it wasn't here. Get it?

I officially give up, sick of taking insults from a bunch of people who just accept what some highly paid scientist says without looking into it themselves (except Waba may I add).

EDIT (Wrote this before System 7, not aimed at you 7!)

get over yourself :td:

never insulted you, never aimed anything at you! infact youre reading into that a little too much and from what it seems i know more about christanity than yourself. your prejudice is what lets you down here.

Fwiw i studied physics/astrophysics and it is a hobby of mine and i understand the science perfectly myself. which is something you dont understand. because you dont understand it it is wrong? isnt that the same philosophy people take against christianity? and any other religion?

Fwiw i am engaged in theological debates almost every day.



The fact is, the Big Bang happend once, it doesn't occur all the time, because the matter, energy etc is already here, prior to the big bang it wasn't here. Get it?



who said it happened once?

who said it wasnt there before the big bang?(ever heard of the big crunch theory? :/)

and are you trying to insinuate that if there was nothing before the big bang there must have been god~?

the big bang is obviously something you really really know little about if you think it came from nothing..


again


you are obsessed with the big bang D: seriously get off the subject!


good advice from myself there ^^

and some more advice would be a lesson in humility.


My good friends at the Novatech forum are mostly Godless heathens. It is not their fault. But we shall enlighten them, eh? A Prophet is never with honour in his own country...:rolleye:


@ steve thats pretty insulting btw, my opinion hasnt been stated on the subject as no questions have been asked nor is it part of the subject being discussed thus it is pretty insulting to know you have formed a prejudice without actually confronting the issue. :P

[system7]

@ steve thats pretty insulting btw, my opinion hasnt been stated on the subject as no questions have been asked or is it part of the subject thus it is pretty insulting to know you have formed a prejudice without actually confronting the issue. :P

When am I ever insulting? My sole object is to cheerfully find the truth of the matter, as ever. :)

And this IS truly the age of the Godless heathen. People have forgotten their spiritual needs. Greed is apparently good. Go shopping on Sunday. I rest my case. :thumbs:

The Seven Deadly Sins:

PRIDE is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

ENVY is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

GLUTTONY is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

LUST is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

ANGER is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

GREED is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

SLOTH is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

Much to be learned from that list. We'll leave the Three Graces for another time. :cool:

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

i dont disagree.

my protest was for my apparent inclusion in your statement :P

[system7]

LOL, I did say "mostly" Godless heathens, Tony.

Actually I have found some inspiration in solving this *** Couple in Malawi issue. :thumbs:

Not the Three Graces, which are a theology thing leading to salvation:


* Faith - steadfastness in belief
* Hope - expectation of and desire of receiving; refraining from despair and capability of not giving up
* Charity - selfless, unconditional, and voluntary loving-kindness such as helping one's neighbors.


No, it's the Cardinal Virtues, which even a secular person might practise:


* Prudence - able to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time
* Justice - proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others
* Restraint or Temperance - practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation
* Courage or Fortitude - forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation


I don't think I need spell it out further. :banana:

[Helior]

It's really more the age of the Islamic heathen than the godless one!

[codemonkey]

Just as a complete aside, I have a question for NathObeaN regarding his beliefs... do you subscribe to the Intelligent Design thoery which is so prevalent in American schools etc at the moment?

[NathObeaN]

Just as a complete aside, I have a question for NathObeaN regarding his beliefs... do you subscribe to the Intelligent Design thoery which is so prevalent in American schools etc at the moment?

I can't really answer that one as I don't know what they are being taught. If they are merely being educated as to the intelligent design theory then yeah I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with them learning about any point of view, whether it's religious, Big Bang, intelligent design, whatever, I believe there should be equal teaching on all of them, then it should be left to the child to use their own mind. Instead, in English school at least, children are currecntly brain washed with the Big Bang theory and know nothing outside of it, which I think is very wrong.

[codemonkey]

I can't really answer that one as I don't know what they are being taught. If they are merely being educated as to the intelligent design theory then yeah I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with them learning about any point of view, whether it's religious, Big Bang, intelligent design, whatever, I believe there should be equal teaching on all of them, then it should be left to the child to use their own mind. Instead, in English school at least, children are currecntly brain washed with the Big Bang theory and know nothing outside of it, which I think is very wrong.

What I meant was, do you yourself believe in Intelligent Design?

[Helior]

I can't really answer that one as I don't know what they are being taught. If they are merely being educated as to the intelligent design theory then yeah I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with them learning about any point of view, whether it's religious, Big Bang, intelligent design, whatever, I believe there should be equal teaching on all of them, then it should be left to the child to use their own mind. Instead, in English school at least, children are currecntly brain washed with the Big Bang theory and know nothing outside of it, which I think is very wrong.

The problem with intelligent design is not really the content, its the motivation behind it, which is fundamentally unchristian. ID is a lie, an attempt to pass off religion as science, and to deceive the public. This and much more was made abundantly clear in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005.

It's proponents do not believe in secularism, and they are woefully misguided. Anything other than secularism in the US or in the UK would be a grave tragedy.

[NathObeaN]

What I meant was, do you yourself believe in Intelligent Design?
I thought my personal views were very clear, I am a Christian, I believe that the universe was created by God, in that respect God is an intelligent designer, so in some respect yes I do, but I do not follow the exact guidlines of intelligent design.

Helior your view is precisely the reason why it would be impossible to find the truth, only accepting one view, from a select group of people and ignoring everyone else. Every view should be taken into account, every view should be investigated and people should be able to make up their own mind. Your methods are complete control, bias, and one sided, which would only bring in a strict ****-like state. If you honestly believe it is perfectly okay to brainwash children with an unproven theory such as the Big Bang then I pitty you. Free will and the ability to think for ourselves is what keeps us human and maintains democracy, all people should be considered equal, no one should consider themselves better than another, equally no view should be considered better than another. The idea behind intelligent design merely suggests that the universe has a design behind it, using observational evidence that we have, and that the design is to complex to simply be an accident. If people abuse that idea then the people are to blame, not the idea itself.

[Helior]

ok two questions:

Do you suppoty secularism?

Do you believe Inteligent design is Science?

[NathObeaN]

ok two questions:

Do you suppoty secularism?

Do you believe Inteligent design is Science?

I don't "support" secularism the same way you don't "support" Christianity. The only difference is I am not against people being taught secularist views; whereas you are against people being taught Christian views and want a one sided teaching.

Intelligent design isn't strictly science, but it is based on observational evidence, the same way the Big Bang is, there is no "scientific" way to prove any view on how the world was formed, we can only prove things relating to that particular argument. For example, the Big Bang can prove light takes millions of years to travel from distant stars, thus suggests they are millions of years old, another example is that the universe is expanding, thus suggesting it has already expanded from a given point. Intelligent design observes the intricate design behind what we have before us, and how it works, and suggests it was designed by someone/something as there has never been anything else that has come from nothing/chaos to a working design. Christianity can prove things from the Bible to be true, and prophecies to be true, which suggests God is true and the story of creation is true. But there is no side that can prove at face value that they are correct in how the universe started. That is why the best thing we can do is collaborate all views and learn from each other, and try to find the truth. Not just accept one view only.

[Helior]

How can you not support secularism, what exactly is the alternative? A country run by the Christian Church?

You need to stop putting words in my mouth, i am not against the teaching of Christian views, not at all. I am against the teaching of Christian views as science. It is not science as we know it now. By there own well publicised admission, the leading ID proponents seek to redefine science, such that ID can be included.

The whole argument about irreducible complexity is a standard 'Argument from ignorance' just because you cannot explain how the eye evolved, for example, is not proof that it was designed (There are, as it happens, very good reasoning's for this, and other so called irreducibly complex things, such as the flagellum)This fundamentally is what ID does, and it is anti-science.

[NathObeaN]

How can you not support secularism, what exactly is the alternative? A country run by the Christian Church?

You need to stop putting words in my mouth, i am not against the teaching of Christian views, not at all. I am against the teaching of Christian views as science. It is not science as we know it now. By there own well publicised admission, the leading ID proponents seek to redefine science, such that ID can be included.

The whole argument about irreducible complexity is a standard 'Argument from ignorance' just because you cannot explain how the eye evolved, for example, is not proof that it was designed (There are, as it happens, very good reasoning's for this, and other so called irreducibly complex things, such as the flagellum)This fundamentally is what ID does, and it is anti-science.

The problem you fail to see is the Big Bang is NOT science, it is a sceintific theory, the things which resulted after an apparant "Big Bang" can be backed up by science using observational evidence as to the examples I gave above, but the Big Bang itself is not science it is only a theory, so why should it be taught over everything else. ID has just as much right to be taught as science as the Big Bang. There are many valid arguments which undeniably disprove the Big Bang theory, the Big Bang theory is not conclusive, therefore we should carry on searching for the truth and use all available sources, not just deny everything other than what a select group of scientists say. Christianity has just as much science behind it as the Big Bang does, everything scientists use to back up the theory of the Big Bang can equally be used to back up the creationist view. Science doesn't have all the answers, that is why all that we have, and all opinions should be collorated so we can search for the truth. Just because you think Christianity is wrong doesn't mean you are right. The same way just because I think it is right, doesn't mean I am right. You will never find the truth if you go at it with a predetermined attitude, you must consider all posibilites and use all available evidence.

And...


You need to stop putting words in my mouth, i am not against the teaching of Christian views


Anything other than secularism in the US or in the UK would be a grave tragedy.

[Helior]

Christianity has just as much science behind it as the Big Bang does, everything scientists use to back up the theory of the Big Bang can equally be used to back up the creationist view.

On this ridiculous note, i'm leaving the discussion.

[NathObeaN]

On this ridiculous note, i'm leaving the discussion.

Lol fine by me, stay with your closed minded attitude and you will never find anything. You have no valid argument and you obviously haven't a clue towards the science behind Christianity and you obviously need to go away and do some research. Rather than trying to convince yourself you are open to answers by accepting only one view, because you don't like the sound of anything outside of it. The argument behind the flagellum is not that it is "too complicated" to have happened by chance, the argument is that if it didn't work perfectly from day one, life would have simply ceased to exist.

[codemonkey]

As an open minded Christian who is willing to look at other options and believes other theories should be taught alongside the Big Bang theory, evolution and ID I give you this:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Helior]

I'm not close minded, i'm really not, i take a scientific approach, which really is the most open minded viewpoint in my opinion.

I look at evidence, or in most cases, the evidence put forth by others via credible peer reviewed means, and listen to the conclusions that others have drawn, then i decide if i agree or not, perhaps come to my own conclusion, weigh the possibilities.

I am happy to admit that the whole Christian view point is a possibility, as are the islamic and jedi view points. I personally consider them to be quite unlikely, why? Because i haven't seen any evidence for them, and i haven't read any evidence from what i consider to be credible scientific sources, in fact I've scarcely even heard the term, the science behind Christianity, except of course, in the guise of ID.

If I'm wrong then i would like to know about it, please direct me towards the science of Christianity, put forth in a credible peer review journal or something similar. I do not believe such science exists.

[NathObeaN]

As an open minded Christian who is willing to look at other options and believes other theories should be taught alongside the Big Bang theory, evolution and ID I give you this:


http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)


I stopped reading when I saw the spaghetti monster bit, I understand your insinuation that if all views are taken into account it becomes ridiculous, but it also boils down to common sense I think... a spaghetti monster for one is a physical object with the combination of food, therefore it doesn't having anything credible about it. The definition of a theory also proclaims that there must be some kind of evidence to back it up, that source doesn't. I think you are going a bit over the top when considering my perfectly valid argument that all views should be considered and investigated, you know perfectly well that source is just mic take.

@ Helior, may I first suggest the Bible? After which you may want to look for different scientists out there that provide a decent discussion as to the scientific evidence towards the creationist view. If you honestly had an open mind and you honestly wanted to find the truth I think you would have already looked for yourself, but you haven't. It only takes a quick internet search or a trip down the library to find some valid arguments on the Creation vs. Big Bang discussion. As I said before I am not going to spoon feed you, and this ongoing argument is becoming quite tiresome, I am not prepared to continue to argue with someone who has already stated quite clearly they find no view other than secularist science to be acceptable. If there was irrefutable evidence either way that there was a be all, end all argument, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Therefore neither of us has the right to assume we know all there is to know.

[codemonkey]

I'm not close minded, i'm really not, i take a scientific approach, which really is the most open minded viewpoint in my opinion.

I look at evidence, or in most cases, the evidence put forth by others via credible peer reviewed means, and listen to the conclusions that others have drawn, then i decide if i agree or not, perhaps come to my own conclusion, weigh the possibilities.

<snip>

I'm certainly not having a dig, but surely the whole point of religion is that you have to take certain things on faith i.e. no evidence.

So if you take a purely evidentiary approach then you could never subscribe to any religion or belief system?

[Helior]

Please look up secularism, perhaps read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism), it is quite clear you are confusing it with something else.

How can you possibly offer the Bible as a source of Scientic evidence, the mind boggles.

[Helior]

I'm certainly not having a dig, but surely the whole point of religion is that you have to take certain things on faith i.e. no evidence.

So if you take a purely evidentiary approach then you could never subscribe to any religion or belief system?

Yes, absolutely right, and in that regard my mind is closed. But it is not closed to the possibility, just to the leap of faith that promotes an otherwise unlikely option to a near certainty.

I agree with you 100% and really you have made a key distinction between religion and science.

To reiterate, i don't have a problem with religion, i only have a problem with religion being pushed as science.

[NathObeaN]

Please look up secularism, perhaps read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism), it is quite clear you are confusing it with something else.

How can you possibly offer the Bible as a source of Scientic evidence, the mind boggles.

I already know what it means, but I read what was in your link if that makes you happy. I don't see how I am wrong with what I said but never mind.

As for your second comment, maybe you should try and read the flipping thing instead of criticising it. If you try and read it with an open mind and then did your research you would see there is plenty of evidence and reasons to suggest the Bible's claims are perfectly plausible.

I seriously don't want to argue anymore with you it's just boring me now.

[Helior]

How can you possibly be opposed to secularism if you actually understand what it is? Care to explain that?

Secularism is freedom of religion or freedom from religion, it is all about choice and fairness.

If not a secular country, then presumably you would want a Christian one? What about the 2.5 millions muslims or the jews?

[NathObeaN]

How can you possibly be opposed to secularism if you actually understand what it is? Care to explain that?

Secularism is freedom of religion or freedom from religion, it is all about choice and fairness.

If not a secular country, then presumably you would want a Christian one? What about the 2.5 millions muslims or the jews?

You are asking a Christian if I would like a Christian country. Of course I would, otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. The problem Christianity has is not the Bible, it is the people who abuse the Bible, people are all too happy to quote the crusades and other events in history that have been tied to the Bible and/or religion; however the Bible does not condone those things in any way. I didn't say I was "against" secularism, I said that all views need to be taken into account, the current misuse of secularism is one sided and I am against how it is being misused. I also said "secularist science", which as you rightly quote, science, free from religion, which is of course the Big Bang theory. Christianity is also about freedom, fairness and equality, the only difference is secularism puts the person at the top, Christianity puts God at the top, you follow the Bible in obedience to God, not because you personally think its best. There is nothing "bad" about the Christian faith; it is religion that abuses it because religion is the interpretation of man, and the traditional side of it. Even Jesus made it quite clear he hated religion. You say secularism is all about freedom of choice, then why is it that only one scientific view is taught in our school today? What freedom is that? Scientists have lost their jobs just because they have doubted the Big Bang theory. God doesn't want people to just obey and accept, God wants us to use our free will and accept him willingly and love him willingly, he could have made us all senseless robots but he didn't. I think you have a great misunderstanding of the Christian faith if I'm honest.

[system7]

It is a fact that people in the midlle ages probed morality and religeon using the tools to hand with as much thoroughness as we now probe the atom. :D

In fact the theory of the seven deadly sins and the seven virtues, which are their counterpart, is as aesthetically pleasing as the modern chromodynamics and SU3 symmetry in Quark theory of particle structure.

The secular virtues, aka the Cardinal Virtues are, as stated:


* Prudence - able to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time
* Justice - proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others
* Restraint or Temperance - practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation
* Courage or Fortitude - forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation

Even an atheist may subscribe to these as the basis for a fair society. :thumbs:

The three graces are theological virtues, and the domain of your personal faith:


* Faith - steadfastness in belief
* Hope - expectation of and desire of receiving; refraining from despair and capability of not giving up
* Charity - selfless, unconditional, and voluntary loving-kindness such as helping one's neighbors.

I'd suspect most faiths subscribe to them. :cool:

[Helior]

You sidestepped the important question though.

What about the muslims, the jews, the athiests, the rastafarian pirate worshippers, how could they expect to be happy living in a christian nation, ruled by christian law? Why should athiests pay for churches, why should catholic children get a better education that a jewish child?

Why should christians in general be privelaged over non-christians? Secularism is fundamental to equality, a non secular nation is equivelant to a racist one. Discrimination based on religion is no better than that based on race or any other difference.

Secularism really has nothing to do with science.

[NathObeaN]

You sidestepped the important question though.

What about the muslims, the jews, the athiests, the rastafarian pirate worshippers, how could they expect to be happy living in a christian nation, ruled by christian law? Why should athiests pay for churches, why should catholic children get a better education that a jewish child?

Why should christians in general be privelaged over non-christians? Secularism is fundamental to equality, a non secular nation is equivelant to a racist one. Discrimination based on religion is no better than that based on race or any other difference.

Secularism really has nothing to do with science.

I understand where you are coming from and you have a perfectly valid argument here. Obviously I am going to be bias in this situation because I am a Christian. Being a Christian obviously the perfect society in my personal opinion would be a Christian one. Doesn't mean I am right of course. Secularism does in some sense promote a freedom of choice because you aren't brought up with religious views at hand; however I am against how secularism is being misused.

As I said to you earlier I would be perfectly happy if all views were taken into account when taught in schools, although the Jewish, Muslim and Christian views on creation are pretty much the same. They are not taught equally however, when are Biblical scriptures ever quoted in science, and when are there any talks or discussions of evidence that supports creation and disproves the Big Bang theory? I remember at school all I ever got was Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang - drill, drill, drill then the only time Christianity was mentioned "Theory of creation - God created the world in 6 days", and that was it. That is bias, one sided, and does not promote freedom of choice. Equally though why should I pay my taxes to the state for it then to use it to promote its bias one-sided secular science view? The idea behind secularism does indeed intend to promote free choice; however it is misused like all things are including Christianity. Humans aren't perfect, they never will be.

Can we just agree that we have different views and opinions on the outlook of life? I don't hold anything against you Helior, I only wish you were more open to understanding the Bible and the Christian faith. I can't make you change your mind, only you can do that, it's up to you what you believe at the end of the day, and being a Christian the best I can do is pray for you. No hard feelings? :)

[system7]

I think there is some misunderstanding of what a Secular State is here. Secular activities are those defined outside religeon. Replacing your roof tiles is a secular activity essentially.

A Secular State has a framework of Law based on written principles. Religeon is kept seperate, though advanced societies always allow Religeous Freedom as much as possible. Any Muslim who expects Sharia Law in Britain is on very thin ice. But for all that, Muslim Societies have traditionally been very tolerant of minorities and have a splendid record in scientific and mathematical discoveries. In fact the Jews felt far more at home in Moorish Spain than they did after the recapture by the Christians.

It is a pity and a torment, that the Taliban are intimidating decent Muslims in some parts of the world. However, it is questionable if the West has shown any intelligence in trying to resolve this issue. The problem countries are desperately poor and ill-educated, for which we share responsibilty. :mad:

It is a pity that some of these issues seem to be adherents of one Book arguing against adherents of another Book. We should look in our hearts for the Truth. This is what the Prophets did. :thumbs:

[NathObeaN]

It is a pity that some of these issues seem to be adherents of one Book arguing against adherents of another Book. We should look in our hearts for the Truth. This is what the Prophets did. :thumbs:

Although that sounds nice, that is pretty much secularism lol. Making up your own mind and doing what man thinks is best.
Living by the Bible is ideally what a Christian should do, not live by "their heart" as to what they think is best, as everyone knows - humans often make mistakes. The Bible sets out a clear foundation so that there are no misunderstandings and that everyone can live equally. For a Christian you live by the Bible knowing it is influenced by God, not man, therefore whatever is in the Bible is the truth and is not a man made opinion of how you should live. Obviously you have your conscience to help you with decisions in life, which in some respect is “living by your heart”.

[system7]

There is nothing wrong with Secularism. It is how people of different Faiths can live together. :)

I have an apparently unusual view of Religeon. I don't believe it matters how you find God. It is your own journey to Truth, and it matters.

However you get your Morality, I hope it is a good one. Honesty pays, for sure, both outwardly and inwardly. God is love. And a person who seeks the Truth becomes does seem to become unrespectable by societal terms. It is a brave path to be totally honest.

AFAIK, the Bible is a very incomplete account of Christianity. Is there not an unfashionable Gospel according to Thomas buried somewhere, along with the apocrypha? I remember reading it and being quite taken aback. :)

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Someone at some point found out the Truth for themselves. They needed no book, though they doubtless read everything available.

[waba]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3649054.ece

thought this may be of intrest

[NathObeaN]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3649054.ece

thought this may be of intrest

Very interesting ineed, nice find :).

[nash1979]

From scanning thru this whole thread it seems many of you are against the church as a whole, im not one to really get involved in regligious arguments as they lead to big fallings out.

However i went thru a very tough time when my relationship failed, and i found that people in my local christian chapel were there for me, caring discussing my problems, praying for me, the local church however were a bunch of stuck up ******s who didnt want to know anyone elses problems, other than if your were sticking £20 a week in the box.

The bible has many interpretations, when and if you read it, how you interpret it the meaning and the sayings will have a great outcome on what you believe.

There are many forms of christianity and they are not for everyone. Science shouldnt come into the argument about whats right and what wrong.

I ask you all one question.

Who are we to say there was no God, there was no Jesus?

Were you there at the time? Unless your a miracle then no you were not there so you can only make assumptions on things that have been written over the past few thousand years.

I believe, he has been there for me and helped and guided me to be a better person, one of the main things is i have learnt to forgive and move on, where as i wouldnt forgive before hand.

I suppose it all depends on your teacher.

But in the end you all make your own minds up, which is great.

[Helior]

But in the end you all make your own minds up, which is great.

That's not really true though is it? At least for a vast majority of religious folk. You are told what religion you are by your parents, it's written on your birth certificate, and leveraged to get you a privileged education in many cases. The young mind is impressionable, and while it may cause offence to many, the term brainwashing is not entirely inappropriate. While we all have the choice to leave religion behind, religion is the starting point for most people. Christians have a good time of it here though, in countries under islamic law muslims can be killed if they make up there mind to leave islam.

[nash1979]

That's not really true though is it? At least for a vast majority of religious folk. You are told what religion you are by your parents, it's written on your birth certificate, and leveraged to get you a privileged education in many cases. The young mind is impressionable, and while it may cause offence to many, the term brainwashing is not entirely inappropriate. While we all have the choice to leave religion behind, religion is the starting point for most people. Christians have a good time of it here though, in countries under islamic law muslims can be killed if they make up there mind to leave islam.

I meant the people using the forum :rolleye:

Also my family are all church of england/wales, ive taken a different path so everyone has the choice to change, but how you are brought up can have huge influence on your outcome later on in life.

Nothing has changed with regards to christians getting killed for there beliefs its happened for hundreds of years, many islamic religions believe that you should be killed if you do not follow their ways, ludicrous behaviour, IMO.

[gurusan]

Nothing has changed with regards to christians getting killed for there beliefs its happened for hundreds of years, many islamic religions believe that you should be killed if you do not follow their ways, ludicrous behaviour, IMO.

You could swap Christian and Muslim around in your sentence and it would still be valid. Both have killed eachother and others for millenia in the name of their religion, due to human folly, self righteousness and misinterpretation.

In fact you could argue that Christianity has killed the most of all. The vast majority of natives in the Americas (some believe up to 95% of the original population) were wiped out by "good Christians" and missionaries.

[NathObeaN]

"Christianity" cannot be blamed for those atrocities though. The bible’s teachings do not condone those things in any such matter and anyone who uses the Bible as their "shield" is using it under false pretences. The problem I find is that the Old Testament in the Bible, which refers to such things as stoning a man/woman for sleeping with a married man/woman, is not the teaching of God, but the teaching of the law that was around at the time of writing. The New Testament, mostly based around Jesus, being Gods word, goes against those very things. The Old Testament is more of a historical document of how things were, not how they should be, yet some Christians throughout history constantly and wrongly refer to the Old Testament, yet to call yourself a "Christian" you have to refer your actions to Christ, hence the word, so it could be argued they were not even Christians in the first place as Jesus Christ went against those actions.

@ Helior you make a valid point in how some people are brainwashed with religion. However you don't earn your way to heaven/paradise in any religion simply by following the "religious" side of it. It is a personal choice whether you willingly decide to follow Jesus/Mohammed etc, and your personal choice to love God. No one can force that upon you, perhaps "religion", but not "belief". The side of religion you talk about, being killed etc, isn’t the teachings of the holy book that particular religion refers to, but it is the ancient laws of that country and/or their ministration of that book.

In regards to brainwashing, the same could be argued for the current misuse of secularist science, children in school are given the following choices: Big Bang, or ? Big Bang. Evolution or? Evolution. If that isn't brainwashing then I don't know what is. The fact is humans aren't perfect and historically make mistakes and you often get a group of people in charge who thinks they know better than anyone else and force their beliefs upon the "lower" people of society. Hence the old Catholic Church/ England church, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and even our government. All of which pretty much force their beliefs down to the "lowers". The Catholic/England church misuses the Bible and tries to force worldly views into it, Al-Qaeda/Hamas only interoperate parts of the Quran that suit them best, a bit like how "Christians" have done with the Old Testament, and the government/political elites take handpicked theories and brainwash our school children with it without teaching them other theories and interpretations such as Intelligent design.

Instead of bashing religion I think you need to realise what actually causes all these problems – human beings.

[Helior]

Christianity alone cannot be blamed but religion can (not religious people in general, just religion as a concept). A great deal of injustice is caused by division; racial, national, sexual, political; religion is just another divisor, and particularly powerful one at that. In that respect, it can easily be blamed in my opinion.

[NathObeaN]

Christianity alone cannot be blamed but religion can (not religious people in general, just religion as a concept). A great deal of injustice is caused by division; racial, national, sexual, political; religion is just another divisor, and particularly powerful one at that. In that respect, it can easily be blamed in my opinion.

Maybe so, but 9/10 religion causes problems and people commit to actions that aren't actually condoned by the religion they apparently serve. Religion and faith are completely different things and most people (not you) don't understand that, so they just target religion and people of faith as "evil". When in fact it is the old age tradition and misinterpretation of a book which causes the problem, not the book itself, or people dedicated to that religion.

[system7]

One of the things that mystified me about Pacifism, is the question of what you do when a guy with a gun comes after you. Should you start carrying a gun yourself and give up on ideals?

The answer is that you will behave correctly when confronted, and sidestep the issue. But you might be the sort of person who sees what the real issue of violence in society is, and work toward solving that a bit too.

My security work gets me into some pretty hairy situations, especially with alcohol involved, and I'm always a bit shocked at how rigid and unperceptive my colleagues can be. You can usually defuse situations before they even kick off with a bit of relationship building and perceptiveness. It's a learning thing.

As it goes, I do think that the business of purely being oncerned with making money has a big downside. We really should care about our values too in society. And we should care about the World in general. Because we are making a serious mess of things IMO.

[WeeMan411]

As I said to you earlier I would be perfectly happy if all views were taken into account when taught in schools, although the Jewish, Muslim and Christian views on creation are pretty much the same. They are not taught equally however, when are Biblical scriptures ever quoted in science, and when are there any talks or discussions of evidence that supports creation and disproves the Big Bang theory? I remember at school all I ever got was Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang - drill, drill, drill then the only time Christianity was mentioned "Theory of creation - God created the world in 6 days", and that was it. That is bias, one sided, and does not promote freedom of choice.

When exactly did you go to school? I left school 5 years ago, I was taught things such as the big bang theory (the one you seem to love bringing up so much) in SCIENCE classes, the creationist THEORIES, I was taught in RE. Now I'd be pretty annoyed if I was being taught that some "God" poofed everything into existance in a physics class. I was taught both theories among other things, and I made the decision that God does not exist based on the lack of evidence to support it. Other theories such as evolution have HUGE amounts of evidence supporting them, whereas again a lack of for the other side of the arguement.

All this brainwashing talk is totaly one sided aswell. If your a kid, and someone tells you "if you do x, y and z you'll go to ****", chances are that's going to scare you a bit and you'll do or don't do those things to stop that from happening. Now you can say as they grow up they can do research or whatever and make a choice, but that isn't always the case. Some people get into the habbit and can't stray from it. That's brainwashing.

Also, can you quit with the Big Bang Theory stuff, cause that seems to be the only theory you know of for the creation of the earth that isn't in the Bible. There are a number of them not just that 1. 1 last question though to you Nath, do you believe in the laws of science?

Someone said above something about who are we to say God and Jesus didn't exist, well I could ask you the opposite, who are you to say they do exist?

Also, proof an all powerful God capable of doing anything can't exist, could God create something indestructible that he could not destroy? Cause if he can, he isn't all powerful, and if he can't he's not all powerful :D

Now that this discussion is over, time for CAKE!

[nash1979]

All this brainwashing talk is totaly one sided aswell. If your a kid, and someone tells you "if you do x, y and z you'll go to ****", chances are that's going to scare you a bit and you'll do or don't do those things to stop that from happening. Now you can say as they grow up they can do research or whatever and make a choice, but that isn't always the case. Some people get into the habbit and can't stray from it. That's brainwashing.

your rather misguided, here is what actual brainwashing is:

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.

Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified, by psychologists including Margaret Singer, to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements (NRMs). A third-generation theory proposed by Ben Zablocki focused on the utilization of mind control to retain members of NRMs and cults to convert them to a new religion. The suggestion that NRMs use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal controversy. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Sociological Association have found any scientific merit in such theories




Someone said above something about who are we to say God and Jesus didn't exist, well I could ask you the opposite, who are you to say they do exist?

That would have been me, your only basing your fact on a human scientist findings, a human being is the most unreliable source known to man.
Prime example: A crime is commited we shall say an armed robbery for example, at 12pm saturday, its very busy, the robbers leave the scene in a Red mondeo. When the police interview the 30+ witnesses. The ones who saw anything will give the colour of the car as anything but red, the other half will say there wasnt a car, probably only 1 person will get it right.

Humans see what they want to see, and not what is actually infront of them. In otherwords they are useless in a situation.



Also, proof an all powerful God capable of doing anything can't exist, could God create something indestructible that he could not destroy? Cause if he can, he isn't all powerful, and if he can't he's not all powerful :D


What are you asking here, also im not god so i cannot give you the answer to question, maybe you should try praying and ask the question then.

[NathObeaN]

When exactly did you go to school? I left school 5 years ago, I was taught things such as the big bang theory (the one you seem to love bringing up so much) in SCIENCE classes, the creationist THEORIES, I was taught in RE. Now I'd be pretty annoyed if I was being taught that some "God" poofed everything into existance in a physics class. I was taught both theories among other things, and I made the decision that God does not exist based on the lack of evidence to support it. Other theories such as evolution have HUGE amounts of evidence supporting them, whereas again a lack of for the other side of the arguement.

All this brainwashing talk is totaly one sided aswell. If your a kid, and someone tells you "if you do x, y and z you'll go to ****", chances are that's going to scare you a bit and you'll do or don't do those things to stop that from happening. Now you can say as they grow up they can do research or whatever and make a choice, but that isn't always the case. Some people get into the habbit and can't stray from it. That's brainwashing.

Also, can you quit with the Big Bang Theory stuff, cause that seems to be the only theory you know of for the creation of the earth that isn't in the Bible. There are a number of them not just that 1. 1 last question though to you Nath, do you believe in the laws of science?

Someone said above something about who are we to say God and Jesus didn't exist, well I could ask you the opposite, who are you to say they do exist?

Also, proof an all powerful God capable of doing anything can't exist, could God create something indestructible that he could not destroy? Cause if he can, he isn't all powerful, and if he can't he's not all powerful

Now that this discussion is over, time for CAKE!

You obviously didn't think of the words coming out of your mouth before you opened it. "Poof", God created the universe, an intelligent designer. You believe - "poof" the universe exploded, from nothing? - Who sounds the more stupid here?

I wouldn't expect Creation per say to be taught in science, even if there are scientific and historical evidence that support it, but intelligent design isn't taught in science either. There isn't "tones" of "proof" for evolution, if anything there is more proof against it. If you did your research you would find it is based on a huge amount of lies.

Some examples:

Most of the transitional apes were manufactured around other bones, one ape was manufactured around a pigs tooth, others were later found simply to be small apes. Scientists also rave about finding one or two “transitional apes”, if there were transitional kinds, we should have found millions by now, not one or two, Darwin himself said this.

Evolution teaches that the reptilian kind evolved into a bird kind. This is scientifically impossible both because reptilians would first have to learn how to fly, they would then have to grow feathers, but the obvious point that evolutionists ignore - The lungs of a bird are different to every other being on the planet, they have a one way system, whereas reptilians and humans alike have a lung that intakes and outtakes through the same lung, birds intake into the lung then outtake through a separate chamber. If reptilians were to slowly evolve this lung they would actually die of extinction because the process needed would have been "millions of years" of having a dysfunctional lung, reducing their fitness/breathing capacity and eventually they would have died. It also goes against Darwin's "survival of the fittest".

A quote to explain a basic flaw in carbon dating:

"Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)
- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)
Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)
Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did. "

Some examples from the past Scientists don't like to talk about:

Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)


You base your "evidence" on tools that have been used above. Need I say more?

There is plenty of proof that supports the Bible, and plenty of evidence in the world around us that scream at a creator. The reason you made your mind up that there wasn't a God is because you had already made your mind up there wasn't any evidence without actually researching for some.

Your last statement is just ridiculous as well; you are saying God can't be true because you don't understand him, that argument sounds like something a 5 year old would bring up. There are many things we will never understand about God, we live in a universe governed by strict laws such as time, matter, energy, God lives outside of those laws, so God can do anything outside of our laws. For example time, time was created by God, therefore God did not need a beginning, and he can already see the end of time. Einstein’s very own theories were later on proved to be true that time is in fact an element of our universe that binds it together, and time and space coincide with each other.

[Helior]

"Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)
- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)
Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)
Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did. "

Oh come on now, this has been discredited so many times.

[NathObeaN]

Oh come on now, this has been discredited so many times.

Funny how you ignore everything below that.

[Helior]

Funny how you ignore everything below that.

Not really, i don't have time to check them out, but even if they are true, its not a big deal.

Do the same experiment enough time and there will always be anomalous results, science is based on repeated observations. Show me that even 1% of tests produce such results and i'll be interested.

[gurusan]

How about simple geology? That easily tells us that the earth is billions of years old.

Just look at the Himalayas and Hawaii, and the continental plates. Evidence aplenty.

Or just visit the Grand Canyon, truly an incredible place.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

back to the radio carbon, world is less that 10,000 years old? :/

then how do you explain SE-82?

lol i thought this subject ended with the conclusion that he doesnt know what he is talking about thus end of.

i thought this discussion was concluded that this was about social morality rather than creationism. i guess i am wrong, i am gonna unsubscribe from this topic, it bores me now.

[system7]

I think you all went wandering on the science versus the Bible issue here, me hearties. :huh:

We were discussing the *** couple in Malawi. As it goes, I got quite irritated last night when a drunken and playful *** man started harrassing me at work. :eek:

He seemed to find me very attractive, which is unsurprising I suppose. :cool:

But honestly, he needed a slap. :D

[WeeMan411]

That would have been me, your only basing your fact on a human scientist findings, a human being is the most unreliable source known to man.
Prime example: A crime is commited we shall say an armed robbery for example, at 12pm saturday, its very busy, the robbers leave the scene in a Red mondeo. When the police interview the 30+ witnesses. The ones who saw anything will give the colour of the car as anything but red, the other half will say there wasnt a car, probably only 1 person will get it right.

Humans see what they want to see, and not what is actually infront of them. In otherwords they are useless in a situation.

You do realise this statement also COMPLETELY discredits the Bible right? The bible was written by MAN, who in your own words is "the most unreliable source known to man". And yes, humans see what they want to see, like maybe some omnipotent being who they can use to explain things they don't currently understand?

@Nath

You keep going on and on about how all scientific research is wrong, and that there are heaps backing up the Bible, where exactly is this? Not once have you stated credible research into it that shows the stuff in the Bible is true. Saying it prophecised stuff also doesn't prove anything, the Mayan's also prophecised events occuring, and they believed in several Gods not your one God.

Inteligent design should not be taught in science. It's rediculous to just say some God made something just because we do not currently understand how it works. People used to believe great beasts or gods were what controlled the movement of the sun in the sky, not to mention countless other events which we now know today as science and nature at work. It's too easy to just say, we don't understand, it must have been the spagetti monster in the sky who made it.

[NathObeaN]

Not really, i don't have time to check them out, but even if they are true, its not a big deal.


Do the same experiment enough time and there will always be anomalous results, science is based on repeated observations. Show me that even 1% of tests produce such results and i'll be interested.

Not a big deal? It proves the tools they are using have massive flaws in them and can give ridiculously inaccurate results, how could a living specie be 23,000 years old. That isn't exactly a "little mistake".


How about simple geology? That easily tells us that the earth is billions of years old.


Just look at the Himalayas and Hawaii, and the continental plates. Evidence aplenty.

Or just visit the Grand Canyon, truly an incredible place.

Ever heard of the flood? Science backs up the flood perfectly well, funny how there are many documents and scientific evidence that support a mass of worldwide local floods, surprising that add all those "local" floods up together and you end up with one global flood. If anything the Grand Canyon actually backs up the flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp)


back to the radio carbon, world is less that 10,000 years old? :/


then how do you explain SE-82?

lol i thought this subject ended with the conclusion that he doesnt know what he is talking about thus end of.

i thought this discussion was concluded that this was about social morality rather than creationism. i guess i am wrong, i am gonna unsubscribe from this topic, it bores me now.

Please save the insults that I don't know what I am talking about when I am about the only person in this debate who has provided external sources, including pictures to back up my argument. I haven't read too much into SE-82 but I understand that the half life out pasts the age of the earth given in the Bible. The problem is once again you are looking at it with a worldly view and taking God out of the picture (we are arguing as to whether or not there is a God in case your forgot), why would God create everything at it's birth stage. God said "let there be light" not "let there by trillions of stars and then i'll just let the light take billions of years to reach earth so no one can see it", God created Adam and Eve as man and woman, not baby boy and baby girl, God created the universe to exist from day 1, he didn't created a pool of amino acids that would take billions of years to evolve.


You do realise this statement also COMPLETELY discredits the Bible right? The bible was written by MAN, who in your own words is "the most unreliable source known to man". And yes, humans see what they want to see, like maybe some omnipotent being who they can use to explain things they don't currently understand?


@Nath

You keep going on and on about how all scientific research is wrong, and that there are heaps backing up the Bible, where exactly is this? Not once have you stated credible research into it that shows the stuff in the Bible is true. Saying it prophecised stuff also doesn't prove anything, the Mayan's also prophecised events occuring, and they believed in several Gods not your one God.

Inteligent design should not be taught in science. It's rediculous to just say some God made something just because we do not currently understand how it works. People used to believe great beasts or gods were what controlled the movement of the sun in the sky, not to mention countless other events which we now know today as science and nature at work. It's too easy to just say, we don't understand, it must have been the spagetti monster in the sky who made it.

I have provided links, quote and pictures. There is another one above if you have missed them. You also seem to forget that the Bible has quotes in it from Jesus, being the Son of God that came in human form and he and all his followers died excruciating deaths, being skinned alive is just one of them, all of the disciples and many more went through the most horrific deaths and tortures you could imagine, they would not have done this simply to "write a book". Therefore it's not just written by a "group of humans" but has documented writings from Jesus as well. The problem is you have to believe that Jesus was in fact the Son of God to accept it's not just written by men. Every person in an argument is bias, I am bias towards the bible, you are bias against it, that's just the truth of an argument, otherwise we wouldn't be here.


Really tired of this debate now and being told 1. I don’t have any evidence, yet I am the only one that has provided links, quotes and pictures. Where is your evidence? 2. I am fed up with being told I don't know what I am talking about when I have backed up nearly every statement I have made. 3. It doesn't matter what argument/evidence I put forward, it either gets ignored or I get told "I don't know what I am talking about". If that is the case then provide some evidence against me, prove to me the Bible is wrong, prove to me God doesn't exist. It's like arguing with a brick wall and I have gotten quite tired of it. If you are really that interested do some research instead of telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You aren’t going to find any truth in life, or evidence to back up your argument by sitting on this forum with a chip on your shoulder against creationists and people of faith/religion. Good luck to anyone that actually gets off their backside to do some research. That doesn’t mean watching a discovery channel documentary where a scientist says “this rock is billions of years old”.

[NathObeaN]

Some videos that you may wish to watch (can't get the YouTube embedding to work) Sorry for the poor video quality but it can’t be helped:

"Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design"

Documentary proposing evidence behind the theory of ID.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IV... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc)

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7gV4... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7gV41PNcA)

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-ll0... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-ll0SZXNk)

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQTMf... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQTMfG4FB4)

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpNt8d... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpNt8d2jgSU)

Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQh1E_... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQh1E_jT8iw)

Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWU... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWU...)

"FOSSILS HAVE DISCREDITED EVOLUTION"

For those of you that don't want to accept creation but are willing to be open minded towards scientific evidence against evolution.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q03WDgQ0jc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q03WDgQ0jc&feature=related)
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHE-6W6sEuQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHE-6W6sEuQ&feature=related)
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YEcMLLWNQU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YEcMLLWNQU&feature=related)
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGDbeqRBV8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGDbeqRBV8&feature=related)
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZ-SS3gv8c&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZ-SS3gv8c&feature=related)
Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SNeRiQS2eo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SNeRiQS2eo&feature=related)
Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G33B-U66CWc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G33B-U66CWc&feature=related)

[gurusan]

Ever heard of the flood? Science backs up the flood perfectly well, funny how there are many documents and scientific evidence that support a mass of worldwide local floods, surprising that add all those "local" floods up together and you end up with one global flood. If anything the Grand Canyon actually backs up the flood.

I was referring to proof of the world being more than 7000 years old.

Anyway, that site is laughable. The "coconino sandstone" layer they are referring to is 260 Million years old. Humans weren't even close to being around at that time.

[NathObeaN]

I was referring to proof of the world being more than 7000 years old.

Anyway, that site is laughable. The "coconino sandstone" layer they are referring to is 260 Million years old. Humans weren't even close to being around at that time.

Once again you are basing your "facts" on tools that scientists use that have flaws in them. You are also basing your views on the assumption that evolution is a proven fact, it isn't. You seem to miss the point that site to arguing against the grand canyon having to formed over millions of years old. You reply is that well it's millions of years old, that site is a load of rubbish..?

[gurusan]

Ehh? What does evolution have to do with anything? The Colorado river has carved that canyon over eons, geologists can calculate the age of various soil depths in a variety of ways.

You are dismissing science when it's convenient for you and then pointing to various websites when you think that it works for you. Serious "filtering" thinking errors going on here.

I'd advise that you go take a college course on basic earth science or something at the very least. Googling all the information to draw up your views is clearly not working for you.

[NathObeaN]

Ehh? What does evolution have to do with anything? The Colorado river has carved that canyon over eons, geologists can calculate the age of various soil depths in a variety of ways.

You are dismissing science when it's convenient for you and then pointing to various websites when you think that it works for you. Serious "filtering" thinking errors going on here.

I'd advise that you go take a college course on basic earth science or something at the very least. Googling all the information to draw up your views is clearly not working for you.

I said evolution because you said it formed before humans were around. That fits with the theory of evolution does it not?

I am not dismissing science when it is convenient, what a load of tosh. I am saying science backs up the global flood mentioned in the Bible. That site provides evidence that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by the ways scientists describe but in fact backs up the global flood. How do you explain that there are curved erosion lines along various mountains around the world? Such, which only could have been formed by dramatic floods. I have already given evidence that at least one of the tools scientists use to date things has major flaws to them; I seriously would not be surprised if the others had flaws in them.

Again, as I replied to someone above, just because "science" shows that something is dated to be millions of years old doesn't disprove the Bible. It coincides. God didn't create a simple and bare universe with no features or life. He created a universe with things already in existence so that life could be supported. For example, if he just created the sun, but no light, and left the light to travel the 8~ minutes that it does to reach the earth, life would have died instantaneously. I do not expect you to believe my views on creation, but to say that the science you propose disproves the bible simply isn't true.

[system7]

Intelligent Design (ID) looks like hoey to me. :)

Last part of ducumentary is a leap of faith, nothing more. Sorry.

Cj3PWUF7zAw

It is not science to say ID just leaps out at you as the likely explanation. All that spooky dreamy music and pictures of the wonders of nature doesn't prove a case.

Evolution has taken billions of years to get to the higher life forms, but life started out simply as amino acids which naturally evolve to DNA as far as we currently know. Natural selection works all around us, especially in a rapidly changing environment.

Naturally there are things we don't yet understand about how likely or unlikely life is able to prosper in the universe, but all that information theory stuff was frankly baffling people with nonsense. DNA and life is highly ordered, but you don't need to ask who designed it.

It is my observation that nature in the raw is brutal and bloodthirsty and has few ethics. There may be no point to life, maybe it just happens. For all that, if you want an answer, you have to ask the right question. And our science may just be asking the wrong one here. It may be better to ask what Intelligence really is.

We really haven't even understood how are own minds work. Religeons in fundamental forms give a clue and the Bible is certainly an interesting read, but you are probably then better off just quietly observing yourself in interaction with society and the world to understand thought and time and even death without trying to change or control thought. Then thought can finally be silent and everything changes. :)

(The speaker makes no claim to be enlightened. :D)

[MaleKumA]

you see what you want when youre blind to all. as they say you will find what youre looking for even if it isnt the most accurate interpretation.

[WeeMan411]

I said evolution because you said it formed before humans were around. That fits with the theory of evolution does it not?

I am not dismissing science when it is convenient, what a load of tosh. I am saying science backs up the global flood mentioned in the Bible. That site provides evidence that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by the ways scientists describe but in fact backs up the global flood. How do you explain that there are curved erosion lines along various mountains around the world? Such, which only could have been formed by dramatic floods. I have already given evidence that at least one of the tools scientists use to date things has major flaws to them; I seriously would not be surprised if the others had flaws in them.

Again, as I replied to someone above, just because "science" shows that something is dated to be millions of years old doesn't disprove the Bible. It coincides. God didn't create a simple and bare universe with no features or life. He created a universe with things already in existence so that life could be supported. For example, if he just created the sun, but no light, and left the light to travel the 8~ minutes that it does to reach the earth, life would have died instantaneously. I do not expect you to believe my views on creation, but to say that the science you propose disproves the bible simply isn't true.

Why is it whenever facts are placed in front of creationists showing things are thousands or millions of years old, they come out with, "well God put them there". Thats a total cop out. Also, link off one of your videos you posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5RQT66TvY&feature=related

There's no evidence of evolution? That video shows a tiny amount of the evidence backing it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c

And that's an old video, but funny as **** never the less. Bananas much like other crops and animals have been selectively breed over years and years to get traits that we desire. This itself shows evolution at work. Desirable strong traits are kept, while unwanted or useless traits are eventually lost.

And your statement about the Grand Canyon, you know there are serveral different types of weathering and erosion that can cause curved lines? For example, lets say you have a totaly straight wall of rock, over time chunks get carved out due to frost, wind, etc. these chunks get bigger and bigger forming curved edges. The faces get smoother by wind weathering the surfaces. So to say they are curved, it must have been a flood is pretty stupid.

[NathObeaN]

Why is it whenever facts are placed in front of creationists showing things are thousands or millions of years old, they come out with, "well God put them there". Thats a total cop out. Also, link off one of your videos you posted:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5RQT66TvY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5RQT66TvY&feature=related)

There's no evidence of evolution? That video shows a tiny amount of the evidence backing it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c)

And that's an old video, but funny as **** never the less. Bananas much like other crops and animals have been selectively breed over years and years to get traits that we desire. This itself shows evolution at work. Desirable strong traits are kept, while unwanted or useless traits are eventually lost.

And your statement about the Grand Canyon, you know there are serveral different types of weathering and erosion that can cause curved lines? For example, lets say you have a totaly straight wall of rock, over time chunks get carved out due to frost, wind, etc. these chunks get bigger and bigger forming curved edges. The faces get smoother by wind weathering the surfaces. So to say they are curved, it must have been a flood is pretty stupid.

The video is funny? No it just proposes a theory other than the one you like. EDIT: Thought you were on about the video I put forward, the video you are on about is indeed funny.

I didn't say the erosion lines had to be caused by water because it is curved, I meant because of the type of rock, and the nature in which they have been eroded.

The type of evolution you are talking about is known as micro-evolution, scientists have proof of this, for instance the multiple types of dogs that can be selectively bred. Scientists have no proof of macro evolution what so ever. It still remains a theory. Marco evolution means an evolutionary transition from one specie to the other. Have you ever asked yourself if there have been billions and billions of years of evolution why they still struggle to find a transitional ape? There aren't any. The only transitional apes they have found turn out just to be micro evolution divertive of plain old apes. If evolution was true there would be millions and millions of transitional species in the fossil record, they don't have any, all they have is species that "look the same", for instance a human and an ape. There is no hardcore scientific evidence whatsoever that Marco evolution has ever occurred in earth's history. That second video I provided also proves, via observational evidence – aka science, that the species that exist today, have always existed, there hasn’t been any macro evolution, they have stayed exactly the same from day one.

The videos you provide aren't proof of evolution, they are a bunch of pictures showing species that once existed, and some of them still exist. Those pictures are like saying well a dog evolved from a cat because it has 4 legs, but it's bigger.

[system7]

It would seem to me that new species are created through mutation and stressed small populations of God's creatures. The transition might be rapid. I don't have a problem with that. There was a time, perhaps as recently as 10,000 years ago when the sturdy Neanderthals were the other human species or cousin on Earth.

It was only a thousand years ago that isolated New Zealand had no mammals whatsoever, and windborne ferns dominated the plants while evolved flightless birds had filled the usual mammal niche. Hence the damage that hedgehogs and rats and rabbits and introduced plants do to the unique ecology of isolated islands.

The mule is a good example of a transition on the verge of sterility:

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). All male mules and most female mules are infertile.

Mules and Hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.


Nature is wonderful. Full of surprises. Shame we do not respect it more. :)

[system7]

HaHa. This Human Rights business is getting out of hand...:D

A Judge has ruled that rejecting UK asylum claims based on harrasment of homosexualists in their home country is wrong. Home secretary Theresa May has taken this on board.

Apparently, if you are harrased by your fellow villagers in Africa for kissing a person of the same ***, you now merely need apply for asylum in the UK. Presumably Brighton...:rolleye:

(This in in the same silly-season week that notorious drunk model Lindsay Lohan twittered that jailing her for being drunk and misbehaving again went against her human rights under the United Nations Charter...:D)

[waba]

haha yes the lindsey lohan thing was a joke, i bet she is out in a week. what was also incredibly stupid was the blocking of Hamza's extradition to the USA because it may be in violation of his human rights....

[nash1979]

I think you all went wandering on the science versus the Bible issue here, me hearties. :huh:

We were discussing the *** couple in Malawi. As it goes, I got quite irritated last night when a drunken and playful *** man started harrassing me at work. :eek:

He seemed to find me very attractive, which is unsurprising I suppose. :cool:

But honestly, he needed a slap. :D

I hope you didnt drop anything and have to bend over, LMFAO....

Persistant *** or straight people need a slap full stop for acting like that, no means no...