PDA

View Full Version : Creationism - the anti-science.



LeBrok
30-06-17, 15:12
Very fast... you just get the proof that you have no idea about time.
Nothing strange, that you, and people similar to you couldn't understand
how much it is hundreds of thousands or millions of years, becasue you
all do not understand even how much it is 150 years.
For new members. Poster Rethel believes in creationism and 5,000 years old world.



"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms.
A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Rethel
01-07-17, 00:22
and 5,000 years old world.

It is obviously not true, that I belive, that world is 5000 years old.
You do not even know, how old is the world in the Book which you deny...:worried:

LeBrok
01-07-17, 18:21
It is obviously not true, that I belive, that world is 5000 years old.
You do not even know, how old is the world in the Book which you deny...:worried: Don't be ashamed of your beliefs and tell us exactly how old the universe is. You can only lose your "good reputation", so it shouldn't be a problem for you...

Rethel
01-07-17, 20:51
Don't be ashamed of your beliefs and tell us exactly how old the universe is. You can only lose your "good reputation", so it shouldn't be a problem for you...

Such educated person like you pretend to be, should know, how old is the world according to the Bible.
More than that - you claim, to know, that evolution is true, so you should be also familiar with the
concepts and arguments of oposition - obviously you have no idea, becasue then you would know
the age of the world, which is promoted by young-creationists. It means also, that you were only
indoctrinated, and your judgment about the world is only blind repeating what someone was told
you or what is fitting to your agenda. Zero open mindness. Why I am not surrprized?

How old is Universe it depends on the point of view, because this what can be said in 100% is,
that humankind exists 6000 years according to the hebrew text. The Universe - depending on the
interpretation - can be older, BUT there is a LOT of evidences for his youngness (so can be older
only 5 days). Btw, if the relativity of time is true, then the Universe can be older in other parts than
he is here even if he started 6k years ago, no big deal, because time would run there quicker than here.

Btw, I used to belive in old Universe for many many years, and even in old Earth, but after I became
familiar with evidences for young-one, I changed my views, especially, that text much more strongly
supports the young world than the old one. Even it is simply impossible for the world to be older than
couple thousands of years... Surely not millions, and much more not billions of years.

"Good reputation"? - Only among people like you. Nothing to be worry about.

LeBrok
01-07-17, 22:48
Such educated person like you pretend to be, should know, how old is the world according to the Bible.
More than that - you claim, to know, that evolution is true, so you should be also familiar with the
concepts and arguments of oposition - obviously you have no idea, becasue then you would know
the age of the world, which is promoted by young-creationists. It means also, that you were only
indoctrinated, and your judgment about the world is only blind repeating what someone was told
you or what is fitting to your agenda. Zero open mindness. Why I am not surrprized?

How old is Universe it depends on the point of view, because this what can be said in 100% is,
that humankind exists 6000 years according to the hebrew text. The Universe - depending on the
interpretation - can be older, BUT there is a LOT of evidences for his youngness (so can be older
only 5 days). Btw, if the relativity of time is true, then the Universe can be older in other parts than
he is here even if he started 6k years ago, no big deal, because time would run there quicker than here.

Btw, I used to belive in old Universe for many many years, and even in old Earth, but after I became
familiar with evidences for young-one, I changed my views, especially, that text much more strongly
supports the young world than the old one. Even it is simply impossible for the world to be older than
couple thousands of years... Surely not millions, and much more not billions of years.

"Good reputation"? - Only among people like you. Nothing to be worry about.LOL, why do you need to recall scientific concepts like relativity, if your all mighty god can do whatever it wants. Even screwing up scientific instruments and and pollute minds of scientists to make universe appear billions years older.

Do you believe in computer? I guess, you are using one to post on Eupedia, so I guess you do. You see, the same science and understanding of physics, which has allowed us to create computers, is also telling us that the world is 14 billion years old or some human remains are much older than 6k years. So you can't have both ways. If you believe in your computer it means that the world is 14 billion years old, earth is 4 billion years old and Mal'ta boy is about 20k years old. But if you believe in a biblical age of universe and other myths, then stop using your computer, because it doesn't exist for you.

Rethel
01-07-17, 23:11
LOL, why do you need to recall scientific concepts like relativity,

Why not?


if your all mighty god can do whatever it wants.

HE, not it, God is masculine, and is the male.


Even screwing up scientific instruments and and pollute minds of scientists to make universe appear billions years older.

It does absolutly not appear billions of years old.
This is your belive based on wishfull thinking and
wrong assumptions to justify own disbelief.


Do you believe in computer? I guess, you are using one to post on Eupedia, so I guess you do.

Yes, I belive in computer.
But you seems not to. You belive either that he made itself
or that he does not exist - or you would if you would live
1000 years ago...it would contradict your concept of the
world and natural rules which exist.


You see, the same science and understanding of physics, which has allowed us to create computers,

And this knowlegde that you have to CREATE something
should tell you, that much more advanced and complex
entities cannot made itself from nothing.


is also telling us that the world is 14 billion years old

It does not tell you that - you only assume it from the spped of light,
which does not have means, that the Universe is 14 billion years.
And btw, you have a problem with the speed at the beginning and
the existing of some galaxy 14 billions years ago - becasue if big
bang was 14 bln years ago, when and how the matter got there
and galacy formed - immidiatly? :D


or some human remains are much older than 6k years.

Surely they are not - 1) you can;'t check if method of datation is correct,
2) methods of datation are disprooved since long time. It is wishfull thinking.


So you can't have both ways.

Maybe you are not aware, but creation is based on science - on real science,
not on wishfull indoctrination like evolution, and certainly does not contradict
each other - especially there, if there is no contradiction. The only problem is
sometimes datation and ideology, not facts per se and their interpretation if
does not contradict the sanity and Scripture.


If you believe in your computer it means that the world is 14 billion years old, earth is 4 billion years old and Mal'ta boy is about 20k years old.[ But if you believe in a biblical age of universe and other myths, then stop using your computer, because it doesn't exist for you.

Very "clever" conclusion showing, you
have no idea what you are talking about.

https://i.giphy.com/media/FIauobjww90gE/200_s.gif

LeBrok
02-07-17, 04:24
It does absolutly not appear billions of years old.
Get educated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe


It does not tell you that - you only assume it from the spped of light,
which does not have means, that the Universe is 14 billion years.
And btw, you have a problem with the speed at the beginning and
the existing of some galaxy 14 billions years ago - becasue if big
bang was 14 bln years ago, when and how the matter got there
and galacy formed - immidiatly? :D
This is really funny, because first galaxy might have formed 200 million years after big bang, which should be eternity for a guy who thinks that universe is 6000 years old.

https://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html


Maybe you are not aware, but creation is based on science - on real science,
not on wishfull indoctrination like evolution, and certainly does not contradict
each other - especially there, if there is no contradiction. The only problem is
sometimes datation and ideology, not facts per se and their interpretation if
does not contradict the sanity and Scripture. Entertain us showing an example of your "science" dating the world by word of god.




Very "clever" conclusion showing, you
have no idea what you are talking about.

https://i.giphy.com/media/FIauobjww90gE/200_s.gifIf you were a real fan of Star Trek you would know that Jean Luc Picard believed in mainstream science and not your biblical mambo jambo. Wasn't he an atheist? lol. This is how I look listening to you.

Rethel
02-07-17, 18:13
Get educated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

You really don;t need to convinst me, that you know only
the one direct propaganda and that you do not even try to
think critically. Probably you are even unable to do that.


This is really funny, because first galaxy might have formed 200 million years after big bang,

1. Might
2. How do you know that? Did you see this? Did you live then?


which should be eternity for a guy who thinks that universe is 6000 years old.

Rather for you, becasue you don;t know how much it is 150 years.
You think, it was quick, and they didn't have the time to do something...

Yea, Canada is very quick... you cant do there anything yet... even marry an
Indian... you need for that ten times more time... or maybe miiiillions of yeeaars...

Maybe even Canada does not exists, becasue it is to short period of time...


If you were a real fan of Star Trek you would know that Jean Luc Picard believed in mainstream science and not your biblical mambo jambo. Wasn't he an atheist? lol. This is how I look listening to you.

Following your logic, which tells me not to belive in the computer, you must stop to belive particularly in:

- heliocentrysm - becasue guys who created this model were Christians. The main one was even a priest! Stop belive in that!
- genetics - becasue guy who created that discipline was a belibing christian.
- oceanography - you certanly can't belive in that branch of science, becasue it was developed under influence of the Bible - guy devoted itself to find one verse from the Book of Hiob, and created this science calle oceanography.
- you should also stop to belive in vaxines...
- in America, becasue this discovery was made by Christians, Bible beliving christians who cross the Atlantic...
- you should also stop beliving in dinosaurs, becasue those who discovered them where christians beliving in the Flood...

- you should also stop beliving... almost in everything waht was developed becasue everything was made by christians.
Even computer was made by christians or based on the mathematical and technological discoveries of christians.

So, be coherent, follow your own wirds, and stop to belive in all of that. Especialy you
must stop to belive in gravity, because Isaak Newton was deeply beliving christian, who
90% of his scientific works and all life devoted to the Bible. You cannot belive in gravity!
as I supposedly, according to you, cannot belive in computer and should stop to use it).

Aaa... I forgot, that you, as an higher but animal, can't think becasue you do not even know,
if you evolved enough to make reasonable judgement... maybe not, so all what you are saying
can be by definition wrong. More than that, you do not even have free will... so you cannot know,
if your choice of beliving is made rightly - you just was evolutionary determind to belive in such
things as evolutionary nonsense... because as such, you did not check other possibilities - you
just belived what you was told, and what you was determind to belive by evolutionary process,
who limited your brain to be able to get only such stories, not another, and which is ruled by
blind instincts. Such sad... such pity...

LeBrok
02-07-17, 19:43
You really don;t need to convinst me, that you know only
the one direct propaganda and that you do not even try to
think critically. Probably you are even unable to do that.



1. Might
2. How do you know that? Did you see this? Did you live then?



Rather for you, becasue you don;t know how much it is 150 years.
You think, it was quick, and they didn't have the time to do something...

Yea, Canada is very quick... you cant do there anything yet... even marry an
Indian... you need for that ten times more time... or maybe miiiillions of yeeaars...

Maybe even Canada does not exists, becasue it is to short period of time...



Following your logic, which tells me not to belive in the computer, you must stop to belive particularly in:

- heliocentrysm - becasue guys who created this model were Christians. The main one was even a priest! Stop belive in that!
- genetics - becasue guy who created that discipline was a belibing christian.
- oceanography - you certanly can't belive in that branch of science, becasue it was developed under influence of the Bible - guy devoted itself to find one verse from the Book of Hiob, and created this science calle oceanography.
- you should also stop to belive in vaxines...
- in America, becasue this discovery was made by Christians, Bible beliving christians who cross the Atlantic...
- you should also stop beliving in dinosaurs, becasue those who discovered them where christians beliving in the Flood...

- you should also stop beliving... almost in everything waht was developed becasue everything was made by christians.
Even computer was made by christians or based on the mathematical and technological discoveries of christians.

So, be coherent, follow your own wirds, and stop to belive in all of that. Especialy you
must stop to belive in gravity, because Isaak Newton was deeply beliving christian, who
90% of his scientific works and all life devoted to the Bible. You cannot belive in gravity!
as I supposedly, according to you, cannot belive in computer and should stop to use it).

Aaa... I forgot, that you, as an higher but animal, can't think becasue you do not even know,
if you evolved enough to make reasonable judgement... maybe not, so all what you are saying
can be by definition wrong. More than that, you do not even have free will... so you cannot know,
if your choice of beliving is made rightly - you just was evolutionary determind to belive in such
things as evolutionary nonsense... because as such, you did not check other possibilities - you
just belived what you was told, and what you was determind to belive by evolutionary process,
who limited your brain to be able to get only such stories, not another, and which is ruled by
blind instincts. Such sad... such pity...
So on the top of nothing what you write making sense, there is a conspiracy of the world against christian scientists of the past. This is precious, lol.

I'm glad you opened up. Now everybody can judge you by themselves.

We are still waiting for your biblical "science" proving the age of universe. Com'on don't be shy.

Rethel
02-07-17, 20:13
So on the top of nothing what you write making sense,

So you admit, that your logic has no sense.
I only followed her...


there is a conspiracy of the world against christian scientists of the past. This is precious, lol.

Interesting, where did you read this, in my post.
Did you maybe confuse me with somebody else,
did you smoke something, or you are doing this
on purpose?In any case it only witness about you...


We are still waiting for your biblical "science" proving the age of universe. Com'on don't be shy.

You are not interesting in this anyway.
You simply want very badly the theory
of evolution to be true, no matter what.

But, here is your chance:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

LeBrok
02-07-17, 20:55
So you admit, that your logic has no sense.
I only followed her...



Interesting, where did you read this, in my post.
Did you maybe confuse me with somebody else,
did you smoke something, or you are doing this
on purpose?In any case it only witness about you...



You are not interesting in this anyway.
You simply want very badly the theory
of evolution to be true, no matter what.

But, here is your chance:

Were you lying to us? You have no "biblical scientific" proof, just conspiracy theory stories of delusional people. Show us the real scientific paper about an experiment, which was repeated and confirmed, by other independent scientists, confirming directly or indirectly age of universe to be 6,000. Otherwise nobody will treat you seriously with your conspiracies and creationist "science".

For example, we know that radioactive carbon dating is in agreement with know laws of physics. This dating method is used in dating organic material like bones. That's why we know how old the bones are. This method exists for 90 years and was confirmed to work by thousands or even million of scientists around the planet in every country. Do you have your "biblical scientists" disproved this method?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Rethel
02-07-17, 21:30
You have no "biblical scientific" proof,

I gave you one example, watch it.


just conspiracy theory stories of delusional people.

Aha... if someone is not supporting your delusional belifs,
then, even if he is talking about scientific facts, he is delusional.

You just created your own conspiracy theory. Congrats.


Show us the real scientific paper about an experiment, which was repeated and confirmed, by other independent scientists, confirming directly or indirectly age of universe to be 6,000.

No evolutionist would participate in such thing and any evulotionist
paper would published such result, just the same, as you are banning
everyone, who does not fit to your leftist agenda on this forum, proving
evey time, how close minded and intolerant leftist are.

But if you want a scientific material, here you have. Probably you will not
investigate this also, becasue you allready know everything. Guy and his
research was published many times, since decades noone disproved him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlz6rIZb5BI


Otherwise nobody will treat you seriously with your conspiracies and creationist "science".

Again you are showing indcotrination and closemindness assuming, that nothing
can be true and serious, what is not about evolution and billions of years old.


For example, we know that radioactive carbon dating is in agreement with know laws of physics. This dating method is used in dating organic material like bones. That's why we know how old the bones are. This method exists for 90 years and was confirmed to work by thousands or even million of scientists around the planet in every country. Do you have your "biblical scientists" disproved this method?

I do not need biblical scientists to disprove that method, becasue atheistic
scientists do this very well, dating one part of dea animal thosands of years
different, than other part of the same organism. But if you insist:
=>>> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/

LeBrok
03-07-17, 03:02
I gave you one example, watch it.



Aha... if someone is not supporting your delusional belifs,
then, even if he is talking about scientific facts, he is delusional.

You just created your own conspiracy theory. Congrats.

I do not need biblical scientists to disprove that method, becasue atheistic
scientists do this very well, dating one part of dea animal thosands of years
different, than other part of the same organism. But if you insist:
=>>> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/
Com'on, just one research paper which was confirmed by others. Just one!
You don't want to say, that you bet all your understanding of the world on conspiracy stories?!
For god sake, just one!



I do not need biblical scientists to disprove that method, becasue atheistic You don't get it. I'm not asking about disproving our science. I'm asking you to prove "your science". Show us the research papers about creationists "science".

Rethel
03-07-17, 17:02
Com'on, just one research paper which was confirmed by others. Just one!

But it change everything - of course you will deny it.

But interesting, that when they get what it realy
means, they kicked him out and stopped publish.
Very openminded people, very... just like you...


You don't want to say, that you bet all your understanding of the world on conspiracy stories?!
For god sake, just one!

Not only one, but even if, then what? You do not have brain?
You need other people to think for you? You need Komsomolską
Prawdę to tell you what it true and what is not? Terrible...
So 500 years ago you would belive in geocentrism... and
call people who belive in heliocentrism conspiracy theorists,
idiots and silly people... maybe you would call for burning
them as you used to do here...


You don't get it. I'm not asking about disproving our science.

So even if your science is disproved, you will still
belive in her, becasue you have nothing else?


I'm asking you to prove "your science".

I guy proved, that Earth couldn't be a hot sphere during billions
of years, but had to be created instantly. Otherwise, this aureoles
wouldn't be visible.


Show us the research papers about creationists "science".

How many times are you going tyo repeat it?
I just gave you couple of materials. Use your
head at once insted of using other people to
think for you...

LeBrok
03-07-17, 22:14
But it change everything - of course you will deny it.

But interesting, that when they get what it realy
means, they kicked him out and stopped publish.
Very openminded people, very... just like you...
As we suspected there is no creationist science just storytelling and legends for people who can't grasp science, conspiracy theorists and schizophrenics.
I'm open to new ideas and new scientific hypothesis, but you failed to entertain us with even one scientific proof of 6,000 year old universe. Not mentioning, that this proof, should be validated by consecutive research of independent scientists and laws of physics. All you have are myths, conspiracies and video with attempts of poking holes in science. That's all you have!

You are the one who runs around like a chicken without head, complaining that everything doesn't make sense here, because it doesn't go with your "logic". Well, you are lost, because bible can't explain the complexity of the world, but only science does. We know science and it makes a perfect sense for us. You believe in creationism and science doesn't make sense for you. And you say that we must be wrong. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.



Not only one, but even if, then what? You do not have brain?
You need other people to think for you? You need Komsomolską
Prawdę to tell you what it true and what is not? Terrible...
So 500 years ago you would belive in geocentrism... and
call people who belive in heliocentrism conspiracy theorists,
idiots and silly people... maybe you would call for burning
them as you used to do here... Nope. You are the guy who believes in old biblical explanation of the world. The old and traditional creationism. Heliocentrism theory was confirmed through centuries, again and again, by real science. On other hand geocentrism was never ever confirmed. That's why we know that heliocentrism works and is the only true explanation. This is how science works, remember. On top of it heliocentrism is in agreement with laws of phisics, relativity and evolution of the universe. All of which were confirmed again and again. All our most complicated machines, computers and satellites work according to these laws and models. This is how we know this science is good and true!!!
In case your forgot history lessen, the christian biblical "scientists", were the once burning people for not believing in creationism and for supporting heliocentrism, and of course atheists like myself.
The funnies thing is that you think you are in a vanguard of new and true science, because it is based in bible. This is delusion. You are prescribing to old biblical beliefs and traditions which kept Europe in Dark Ages till onset of science in Renaissance. You are the typical anti-science religious zealot who prosecuted people of science, and all "the different".



How many times are you going tyo repeat it?
I just gave you couple of materials. Use your
head at once insted of using other people to
think for you...Again you have no idea who you're talking to. Here is my research and deep thoughts:

I'm using science of genome and admixtures to model populations of ancient dna. Many more around Eupedia pages.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32877-HarappaWorld-Gedmatch-post-and-compare-your-admixtures-to-ancient-and-contemporary/page17?p=503238&viewfull=1#post503238
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33560-Genetic-source-of-Unetice-Culture?p=501817#post501817

Here is my piece on beliefs:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28441-Beliefs-Explained
and
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28375-Beliefs-Spirituality-and-why-we-believe

My take on human nature:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30658-What-We-Inherited-From-Hunter-Gatherers-(The-genetic-memory-of-the-past)

Statistical correlation between number of sons and dominant haplogroups.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31845-Y-haplogroups-correlation-with-number-of-sons-R1b-I2a-Din-E-V13-G2a

Correlation between ANE and alcoholism:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29514-Alcohol-Dependency-in-Europe-goes-up-with-increased-ANE-admixture
and "nomadic gene".
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29412-ANE-admixture-and-nomadic-gene

Here is my take on origin of morality:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26777-Right-Wrong-and-Morality

Roots of communism:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29142-Were-Hunter-Gatherers-first-communists

Control factor in spirituality:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28417-World-control-factor-in-our-spirituality

Grammar simplification pointing to roots of a language:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26890-Is-complexity-of-grammar-pointing-to-roots-of-a-language

Christian values and modern world:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26958-Is-modern-Europe-product-of-christian-values

And for fun solving egg and chicken conundrum:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29690-Who-was-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg?p=429340#post429340

Now, reciprocate and show us your independent thinking.

Angela
03-07-17, 23:59
I don't get it. Rethel, aren't you a Pole? I thought almost all Poles were Catholic. Where did you get this Creationist stuff? It's certainly not Catholic teaching on the subject. This is American Protestant/Evangelical stuff. Why would you adopt it?

Fire Haired14
04-07-17, 01:33
Lebrok, can you please not give sarcastic insults like "your all might god."

LeBrok
04-07-17, 03:12
Lebrok, can you please not give sarcastic insults like "your all might god."How is it an insult to anyone?

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

davef
04-07-17, 03:25
How is it an insult to anyone?

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?
Yeah, this right here is why there can't be an almighty god.

Fire Haired14
04-07-17, 03:54
How is it an insult to anyone?

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

You say it sarcastically. Insults come in many forms, the most annoying are the ones which aren't direct and in your face.

Fire Haired14
04-07-17, 07:36
Ok Lebrok after reading your comments again I can see how it couldn't be a sarcastic insult.

Fire Haired14
04-07-17, 07:38
Yeah, this right here is why there can't be an almighty god.

No it's just nonsense, like how asking a genie for unlimited wishes is nonsense. That's why I don't like philosophy. It asks questions like that.

Maleth
04-07-17, 09:20
I don't get it. Rethel, aren't you a Pole? I thought almost all Poles were Catholic. Where did you get this Creationist stuff? It's certainly not Catholic teaching on the subject. This is American Protestant/Evangelical stuff. Why would you adopt it?

These people are everywhere now. Asia Africa promoting homophobia the 6000 year old world theory and anti science, Very pro Ultra Jews and very anti Muslim (which is ironic as they are very similar). They are driven by filthy rich (texas oil?) retired people and most of them are of a mature age. They even are working on our little Island writing on the papers mostly and sponsoring a local Pastor. Seems like they are also sponsoring movies and documentaries these days. However they are a very small group and not making much headway in Europe but more effective in Christian communities in Africa. The irony is that they are very similar to Muslim fundamentalists. They don't blow themselves up but encourage the state to incinerate the 'sinners'. If not they console themselves that god will eventually do the job. Very dangerous people.

LeBrok
04-07-17, 16:04
Another scary ultra religious movement taking over, in this case Israel.
Haredim, has grown from 30 thousand 60 years ago to 600 thousand today, 13% of Israel population. In this pace they will take over Israel making it a religious state in two generations.


https://youtu.be/sLEyvbovnPU

Angela
04-07-17, 17:17
Another scary ultra religious movement taking over, in this case Israel.
Haredim, has grown from 30 thousand 60 years ago to 600 thousand today, 13% of Israel population. In this pace they will take over Israel making it a religious state in two generations.


https://youtu.be/sLEyvbovnPU

There are secular rabbis: the rabbis of Conservative and Reform temples. Unfortunately, the ultra-orthodox have manipulated the laws so that all decisions on religion in Israel are made by their own rabbis. So, conversions performed by Reform and Conservative rabbis aren't recognized, which means that children born of gentile mothers who were taught and converted by such rabbis in the U.S. are not considered Jews.* It affects the law of return, marriage, divorce, everything. It's all because there are so many political parties that in order to get a governing majority you have to make an alliance with these smaller religious parties. The majority of Israelis had better get together into larger governing parties or they might indeed wind up like Iran.

Amazing that this educated woman thinks it's perfectly ok for her to not only work to support them all, but to cook, clean, do laundry, child care, and everything else so that he can spend the whole day, six days a week, in religious studies. Of course, the government gives them the equivalent of welfare too. In a way it's similar to the situation with the outcast Mormons. A man with 6 wives and 20+ children can't support them all, so the mothers file for welfare. What is the state supposed to do...let children starve?

I do understand what he means about feeling sorry for the young boy, but it's not much different from how the Chinese "tiger mom", as she calls herself, raised her daughters: school, tutors and special classes after school, hours of music lessons, seven days a week, no tv, no play time, no overnights at a friend's house. Of course, at the end of it is "secular" success.

*To some extent this is true in Europe too. The rabbis, even though not ultra-orthodox, are only orthodox, so the choice is orthodoxy or a totally irreligious life.

LABERIA
04-07-17, 19:04
I've read somewhere but i do not remember where, that Creationism was responsible for the technological gap between the Soviet Union and the US after the WWII. The Americans became aware of this when they saw the Russians flying in space with Gagarin. And that was precisely the breaking point between the American school system and Creationism. But i don't remember the source.

LABERIA
04-07-17, 19:26
I found it:


Creation science
Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that claims to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reexplain the scientific facts,[2] theories and scientific paradigms about geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics.[8]

History[edit]
Main article: History of creationism
The teaching of evolution was gradually introduced into more and more public high school textbooks in the United States after 1900,[37] but in the aftermath of the First World War the growth of fundamentalist Christianity gave rise to a creationist opposition to such teaching. Legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution was passed in certain regions, most notably Tennessee's Butler Act of 1925.[38] The Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957 sparked national concern that the science education in public schools was outdated. In 1958, the United States passed National Defense Education Act which introduced new education guidelines for science instruction. With federal grant funding, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) drafted new standards for the public schools' science textbooks which included the teaching of evolution. Almost half the nation's high schools were using textbooks based on the guidelines of the BSCS soon after they were published in 1963.[39] The Tennessee legislature did not repeal the Butler Act until 1967.[40]
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

Angela
04-07-17, 19:29
"Inherit the Wind" is a very famous play and film of the Scopes Trial, where an American teacher in the early part of the 20th century was prosecuted for teaching evolution. It's just fabulous. Spencer Tracy is Clarence Darrow.

This segment is from a cross-examination of the prosecutor: Creationism vs. Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8

If you don't change your mind after listening to the above you're just not rational.

The whole film is available for free on you tube and is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf6o-PTjUI

Diomedes
04-07-17, 22:36
No need to be so aggressive.


Don't be ashamed of your beliefs and tell us exactly how old the universe is. You can only lose your "good reputation", so it shouldn't be a problem for you...

Diomedes
04-07-17, 22:43
Maybe it is somewhere in the Bible. If it is there, Christians are supposed to believe it. Of course now, things stated there are all mystical in a sense and there are truths behind the words. Typical looney kabbalistic stuff.

BTW, I am not sure if Christians should have the Bible in their sacred books.


I don't get it. Rethel, aren't you a Pole? I thought almost all Poles were Catholic. Where did you get this Creationist stuff? It's certainly not Catholic teaching on the subject. This is American Protestant/Evangelical stuff. Why would you adopt it?

Angela
04-07-17, 23:26
Maybe it is somewhere in the Bible. If it is there, Christians are supposed to believe it. Of course now, things stated there are all mystical in a sense and there are truths behind the words. Typical looney kabbalistic stuff.

BTW, I am not sure if Christians should have the Bible in their sacred books.

The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. How could you be a Christian without at least the New Testament?

Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestant religions both accept evolution as part of God's plan, and the Old Testament creation stories, of which there are two different ones, by the way, are held to be stories of religion meant to teach that God created the world, not scientific textbooks.

Bergin
05-07-17, 00:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA

After this thread I am going to watch again Life of Brian.

Diomedes
05-07-17, 00:15
The New Testament is alright. I feel that the Torah is Israel specific, which is not relevant to the rest of the world, while the Gospels have a more ecumenical character.

I do not know what these religions believe now, but in the past they believed differently, which of course means that they change their dogma (which is not supposed to change axiomatically). I am not sure how frank that is. At the end of the day, if you cannot maintain the "word of the God" as it is mentioned in the Torah (and it should be specific, because God would not want to trick people with meanings behind words and sentences), then there is no reason for these religions to exist.


The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. How could you be a Christian without at least the New Testament?

Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestant religions both accept evolution as part of God's plan, and the Old Testament creation stories, of which there are two different ones, by the way, are held to be stories of religion meant to teach that God created the world, not scientific textbooks.

Rethel
15-07-17, 22:19
As we suspected

Are you in more than one person? :petrified:


Not mentioning, that this proof, should be validated by consecutive research of independent scientists and laws of physics.

Try to tell this to the people, who claimed, that capitalism
is vetter and more sufficient than communism in Soviet
Union or north Korea. Interesting, how many "consecutive
research of independent scientists" would you find there.


All you have are myths, conspiracies and video with attempts of poking holes in science. That's all you have!

You on the other habd have only one side view, showing
you only what you want to hear. Ready interpretations
and hypothesis, build on other hypothesis on and on.


Well, you are lost, because bible can't explain the complexity of the world, but only science does.

What? :petrified:

How Bible can't explain complexity of the world?
Does she claim, that the World is not complex? :petrified:


We know science and it makes a perfect sense for us.

Science is one thing, ideology is another.
Do not confuse these two. And you, I know,
that you only choose this, what makes a sense
for you - becasue you want some things to be true.


You believe in creationism and science doesn't make sense for you.

And again, you are inputing your imagination to me.


And you say that we must be wrong. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Are you sure, that you are right? How so?


Nope. You are the guy who believes in old biblical explanation of the world. The old and traditional creationism. Heliocentrism theory was confirmed through centuries, again and again, by real science. On other hand geocentrism was never ever confirmed. That's why we know that heliocentrism works and is the only true explanation.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm2.gif

You would surely know 500 years ago, that heliocentrism was confirmed
through centuries again and again, and then, you would be so genius, that
you would know, that confirmed geocentrism was not confirmed, and you
would also know 500 years ago, why people from early 2000s know why
heliocentirism works... Interesting... you cannot even understand the simple
temporal exmaple, but you claim to understand whole modern sicence. :petrified:


This is how science works, remember. On top of it heliocentrism is in agreement with laws of phisics, relativity and evolution of the universe. All of which were confirmed again and again. All our most complicated machines, computers and satellites work according to these laws and models. This is how we know this science is good and true!!!

Yea, sure, and you would know this 500 years ago...

But:

"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time


So, don;t be so sure... your guru is not.


In case your forgot history lessen, the christian biblical "scientists", were the once burning people for not believing in creationism and for supporting heliocentrism, and of course atheists like myself.

Nope. If it would be true, then Copernicus would be burned.
He not only was not burned, but he was a priest, who occiupy
coupld of important church offices. And his books were printing
without problems. Galileo was going to be burn for interpretations
of the Bible - for religion heresy - but not for scientific theories.
One atheist in Poland was behaded by civil authority for publishing
about atheism, what could ruin social order, and church was against
it - no fire, no church involved, no mass persecution.

You yourself belive in myths, but accuse others... http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm2.gif


The funnies thing is that you think you are in a vanguard of new and true science, because it is based in bible. This is delusion. You are prescribing to old biblical beliefs and traditions which kept Europe in Dark Ages till onset of science in Renaissance. You are the typical anti-science religious zealot who prosecuted people of science, and all "the different".

As above. It seems you have no idea about medieval science and
reasons, why Middles Ages are called "dark ages". Renaissance my
dear, was a product of Bible beliving people, who were much more
zealous in burnung heretics, than medieval church ever. You again
showed how mythical your "science" is.

You are also wrong about "biblical science" becasue such thing does
not exist. You seems also not know, what creationism is really about.
How pity...


I'm using science of genome and admixtures to model populations of ancient dna. Many more around Eupedia pages.

It has nothing to do with evolution and long periods of time.
Aristotle also was a deep thinking man, but this what he created is silly today.
But we are talking, not about your philosophy, but about origin of the world,
and real possibilities to check it. You are constantly escaping somewhere else.

Rethel
15-07-17, 22:21
I don't get it. Rethel, aren't you a Pole? I thought almost all Poles were Catholic. Where did you get this Creationist stuff? It's certainly not Catholic teaching on the subject. This is American Protestant/Evangelical stuff. Why would you adopt it?

I don't get it. Angela, aren't you living in USA? I thought almost all Americans were Evangelists.
Where did you get this evolutionist stuff? It's certainly not evangelical teaching on the subject.
This is leftist atheistic stuff. Why would you adopt it?


It's certainly not Catholic teaching on the subject.

It depends which catholic are you talking with.
There are even catholics geocentrists!

Rethel
15-07-17, 22:29
How is it an insult to anyone?

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

It is always better, than your beliefs that nothing exploded,
the rock became alive on it's own turning into ape who did
start to think, that is clever and evolved enaugh to discover
the truth which lies beyond this Universe...

Btw, of course God can create such rock, and at the same time
can pick it up with one finger. BUT you forgot one thing: GOD IS
NOT MATERIAL. You do not have to show us, how evolutionists
are brainless. It is obvious without it.

Rethel
15-07-17, 22:36
Another scary ultra religious movement taking over, in this case Israel.
Haredim, has grown from 30 thousand 60 years ago to 600 thousand today, 13% of Israel population. In this pace they will take over Israel making it a religious state in two generations.

So, according to your world view, it is proof that religion is more beneficial
and higher eveolved than atheism. Atheists will just extinct sooner or later.
It also means, that atheism has to be corelated with not beneficial mutation,
but rligiousity - with very beneficial mutation. So, you just prooved, that even
by evolutionary means, atheism is stupid and has to extinct, becasue can be
replaced easly even by most silly and retarded sects...

Rethel
15-07-17, 22:40
Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestant religions both accept evolution as part of God's plan,

So they will burn.


and the Old Testament creation stories, of which there are two different ones,

No, there are not.
So called "second" is about Eden, not about whole world.


by the way, are held to be stories of religion meant to teach that God created the world, not scientific textbooks.

And what if he did?

Rethel
16-07-17, 00:31
Here, about people, who were fired for discovering soft
tissues of dinosaurs, and about how laboratory did not
want 23,000 dollars for testing dinosaurs bones for C14,
and how an atheist is close minded and furious about it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

Angela
16-07-17, 18:26
I don't get it. Angela, aren't you living in USA? I thought almost all Americans were Evangelists.
Where did you get this evolutionist stuff? It's certainly not evangelical teaching on the subject.
This is leftist atheistic stuff. Why would you adopt it?



It depends which catholic are you talking with.
There are even catholics geocentrists!

Evangelicals are a decided minority in the U.S., mostly found in the south and rural communities in the west, not in major population areas. Evolution is taught in every public school in the U.S.

It is also taught in every Catholic school in the U.S., since the Church hasn't had a problem with evolution for decades. Where on earth have you been?

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

"Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_X._DiLorenzo) of Richmond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia), chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values, wrote in a letter sent to all U.S. bishops in December 2004: "Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. ""

Rethel
16-07-17, 18:52
Never getting the point, aren't you? :rolleyes2:

Bergin
16-07-17, 19:39
Never getting the point, aren't you? :rolleyes2:

Rethel,
Bacteria in hospitals evolve very fast.
We need new antibiotics quickly to be able to contrast the rate of their adaptation.

Independently of the semantics being used, this problem is critical - it involves you as much as an atheist or as a budhist.

So how do you propose to solve it?

LeBrok
16-07-17, 21:33
Nope. If it would be true, then Copernicus would be burned.
He not only was not burned, but he was a priest, who occiupy
coupld of important church offices. And his books were printing
without problems. Galileo was going to be burn for interpretations
of the Bible - for religion heresy - but not for scientific theories.
One atheist in Poland was behaded by civil authority for publishing
about atheism, what could ruin social order, and church was against
it - no fire, no church involved, no mass persecution.
.
This is a great example of you being complete ignorant, and yet in your mind so educated.

Copernik was not only astronomer but also quite accomplished economist. He wrote books on economy, which were printed and read during his lifetime. However, the book on heliocentrism, though finished way before his death and shown to few trusted people, was published only after his death, according to Copernicus wish.

I don't have time to respond to more of your imaginary universe vision. You are gullible ignorant and utter dilettante, and nothing I can write will enlighten your mind.

srdceleva
16-07-17, 21:45
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is six thousand years old anywhere. And believing in God and the Bible doesn't mean you are against science. People who believe that are ignorant then of the history and development of modern science as it almost exclusively developed from devoutly religious people. Creationism is supported by a minority of the Christians around the world and not by a majority.

Also a personal thread to attack rethel....shouldn't this issue be approached as a discussion and not a direct put down.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Bergin
16-07-17, 23:03
And believing in God and the Bible doesn't mean you are against science.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

for a good chunk of the last 6000 years, it did mean being against science (censure).
But religions do evolve too, by now.

srdceleva
18-07-17, 13:10
for a good chunk of the last 6000 years, it did mean being against science (censure).
But religions do evolve too, by now.
No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Bergin
18-07-17, 16:24
No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk


Religion has it's own rules and methods and science has it own. Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

For many centuries there have been Miracles and Saints and Divine interventions.
Any scientist going against such religious claims with empiric facts, would at least have been banished.
Do you agree?

Coexistance of science and religion is relatively young.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

LeBrok
18-07-17, 17:16
No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using TapatalkKeep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then. Everybody was raised in strong religious convictions. We can say that everybody was strongly indoctrinated from first months of their lives in christianity. They wasted half of their scientific thinking trying to consolidate religious beliefs with science.

LeBrok
18-07-17, 17:23
Religion has it's own rules and methods and science has it own. Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

For many centuries there have been Miracles and Saints and Divine interventions.
Any scientist going against such religious claims with empiric facts, would at least have been banished.
Do you agree?

Coexistance of science and religion is relatively young.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Exactly, for last couple of hundreds of years we see how christian beliefs are updated and evolve to accommodate our understanding of science. We no longer can take bible literally. Instead we have to interpret it in the way, in new way, so it is not in conflict with science. Well, but few, who are trying to "bend" and discredit science to have their bible in literary sense.

Rethel
18-07-17, 17:59
We no longer can
we have to

WHO WE??? Thou art include? :petrified:


We can say

Are you in more than one person, or what?


Keep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then.

You never admit fail, do you?
Guy did rebut your claim and
you are trying to pretend like
nothing ever happend.


Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

Actually you are right, becasue beliving God has everything to do with it!
If someone does not belive him, his beliving in him is worthless.

Rethel
18-07-17, 18:14
This is a great example of you being complete ignorant, and yet in your mind so educated.

Rather you are talking about yourself.


Copernik was not only astronomer but also quite accomplished economist. He wrote books on economy, which were printed and read during his lifetime. However, the book on heliocentrism, though finished way before his death and shown to few trusted people, was published only after his death, according to Copernicus wish.

Nope. It was presented even to the pope, and parts were published when he was alive.
He was writing and correcting his book whole life, and he was the one who start the
publishing - he simply did not manage to do on time the publishing of whole book,
and this is why it was printed finaly in the same year when he died.

And the book was later published again couple of times.
And many others scientific books were written, published and disscuss in Middle Ages.
The point is, that you either have some mythical view about the Christianity, either
you calumniate Christianity on purpose. Both are not witnessing about you good.

Now, be a good scientific cultist, and belive in 20k years old dinosaurs.

Rethel
18-07-17, 18:19
Rethel,
Bacteria in hospitals evolve very fast.

And still is a... bacteria!
Thousands of generations, and did not
evole into something else, wonderfully
proving, that macroevolution isnt real.


We need new antibiotics quickly to be able to contrast the rate of their adaptation.

Can she evolved to be fire resistant?


So how do you propose to solve it?

As above.

Bergin
18-07-17, 20:15
Actually you are right, becasue beliving God has everything to do with it!
If someone does not belive him, his beliving in him is worthless.

Rethel,
sorry I might believe in God, but maybe I prefer to believe Lilith.
Just joking, but please don't be so quick at throwing a judgement about what is/is not worth it.


Btw, I have a question to the moderators regarding the rules of the forum:
Is blasphemy allowed or not?

Diomedes
18-07-17, 20:35
I kinda like Rethel. Not necessarily because I agree with her/him, but because in this forum she/he fights the "system" and does not give a sh1t at all, hehe.

Angela
18-07-17, 22:44
Rethel,
sorry I might believe in God, but maybe I prefer to believe Lilith.
Just joking, but please don't be so quick at throwing a judgement about what is/is not worth it.


Btw, I have a question to the moderators regarding the rules of the forum:
Is blasphemy allowed or not?

Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

Bergin
18-07-17, 23:24
Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

No statement stroke me as blasphemous,... yet.


Thomas Aikenhead was the last man sentenced to death (at the age of 20) in Britain for blasphemy. The year was 1697.
He was a medical student.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111001011446/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html


The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation.


Blasphemy is still illegal in few countries (including EU ones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

srdceleva
19-07-17, 00:34
Keep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then. Everybody was raised in strong religious convictions. We can say that everybody was strongly indoctrinated from first months of their lives in christianity. They wasted half of their scientific thinking trying to consolidate religious beliefs with science.
You can deny it all u want, modern science stemmed from very religious people who cited their faith many times as an inspiration for their research and never considered it a hindrance or a contradiction to what they were doing. They were highly educated and enlightened individuals, they weren't just cradle Christians who never considered their faith and indoctrinated robots. Any one who doesn't agree with atheists is indoctrinated and can't think on his own....

srdceleva
19-07-17, 00:36
Exactly, for last couple of hundreds of years we see how christian beliefs are updated and evolve to accommodate our understanding of science. We no longer can take bible literally. Instead we have to interpret it in the way, in new way, so it is not in conflict with science. Well, but few, who are trying to "bend" and discredit science to have their bible in literary sense.
Many books and stories in the Bible were never taken literally, St Augustine wrote about this in the 4th century only American protestantism claims the Bible should be interpreted as 100 percent literal in every scripture.

srdceleva
19-07-17, 00:40
Which statements strike you as blasphemous?

I think he just meant it as a general question


Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

srdceleva
19-07-17, 00:49
Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

very popular riddle used by communists in Czechoslovakia.

I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from?

Johane Derite
19-07-17, 01:04
Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

Even when I was more atheist I really disliked this question. It's too loaded and presupposes way too many things about the concept of "God" and what it means to be powerful or omnipotent.
A truly omnipotent God would not concern himself or his will with petty things like that for even a millisecond (he would consider it an abuse or misuse of his power). Also a god who doesn't contain his own limits within himself would be a groundless, immediate, perpetually self-feeling subject and therefore insufficiently concrete and real with respect to what the concept of "God" should require.


I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from?

This is also a bit too easy to counter from the perspective of the Atheist corner. If there was life that came from matter that did not strive then the process of evolution obviously would have had plenty of time to negate it out of existence much easier than life that strived. Also, Freud actually argued convincingly that in humans the will to return to lifeless matter exists (Death Drive) and is responsible for man's self destructive behaviour.

srdceleva
19-07-17, 01:18
This is also a bit too easy to counter from the perspective of the Atheist corner. If there was life that came from matter that did not strive then the process of evolution obviously would have had plenty of time to negate it out of existence much easier than life that strived. Also, Freud actually argued convincingly that in humans the will to return to lifeless matter exists (Death Drive) and is responsible for man's self destructive behaviour.

The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. I'm not speaking about human psychology which can long to die as an escape from suffering. Where does this will come from at all. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point?

Johane Derite
19-07-17, 01:28
The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point?

Any primitive life form, no matter how basic, that did not have the drive to reproduce and ensure its genes survival, would have been negated very easily out of existence.

I'm sure there existed "melancholic" basic life forms that had no will to exist or reproduce, and just out of luck even managed to survive a couple of generations. But without the drive to survive/reproduce were very quickly annihilated. Autopoietic self-correction.

Angela
19-07-17, 01:33
No statement stroke me as blasphemous,... yet.


Thomas Aikenhead was the last man sentenced to death (at the age of 20) in Britain for blasphemy. The year was 1697.
He was a medical student.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111001011446/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html


The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation.


Blasphemy is still illegal in few countries (including EU ones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy


The authorities in power in various religious denominations claim that anything they don't believe in is blasphemy. So, the Catholic Church denounced Luther as a heretic. He promptly turned around and denounced other preachers as heretics and what they preached as blasphemous. The same thing happened with the Puritans in England, who went to the Netherlands and then the New World because they were being condemned and persecuted as heretics for their beliefs. Once they were established in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they exiled anyone who had contrary ideas, like Anne Hutchinson, who was pregnant with her umpteenth child at the time. She had to walk through the snow to Rhode Island Colony. The Catholics in their turn were persecuted in England, and had to come to Maryland for religious liberty. And so it goes....

As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves". :)

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

I absolutely don't think that belief in God or the dogmas of certain religions at all means that the person who holds such beliefs is stupid or illogical. I've met too many brilliant people who are believers. A lot of it has to do with personality type, some of it has to do with the type of religious instruction they received. Many supposed Catholics, for example, never received any rigorous theological training whatsoever, and so they were woefully unprepared for debate about these matters. Then, some people break with their faith as the result of life experiences. Again, I really can't generalize.

Sometimes, with some people, all these attempts to keep people away from "blasphemous" works has the opposite effect. I didn't know what the "Index" of forbidden works was until I was about 15. As soon as I heard about it I looked up the list and used it to attempt to read every single book on it. :) They shouldn't have bothered; my quarrel with the Church has nothing to do with theological matters.

Bergin
19-07-17, 01:46
The authorities in power in various religious denominations claim that anything they don't believe in is blasphemy. So, the Catholic Church denounced Luther as a heretic. He promptly turned around and denounced other preachers as heretics and what they preached as blasphemous. The same thing happened with the Puritans in England, who went to the Netherlands and then the New World because they were being condemned and persecuted as heretics for their beliefs. Once they were established in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they exiled anyone who had contrary ideas, like Anne Hutchinson, who was pregnant with her umpteenth child at the time. She had to walk through the snow to Rhode Island Colony. The Catholics in their turn were persecuted in England, and had to come to Maryland for religious liberty. And so it goes....

As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves". :)

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

I absolutely don't think that belief in God or the dogmas of certain religions at all means that the person who holds such beliefs is stupid or illogical. I've met too many brilliant people who are believers. A lot of it has to do with personality type, some of it has to do with the type of religious instruction they received. Many supposed Catholics, for example, never received any rigorous theological training whatsoever, and so they were woefully unprepared for debate about these matters. Then, some people break with their faith as the result of life experiences. Again, I really can't generalize.

Sometimes, with some people, all these attempts to keep people away from "blasphemous" works has the opposite effect. I didn't know what the "Index" of forbidden works was until I was about 15. As soon as I heard about it I looked up the list and used it to attempt to read every single book on it. :) They shouldn't have bothered; my quarrel with the Church has nothing to do with theological matters.

Loved Umberto Eco's ' The name of the rose' on the topic.

Did you know that blasphemy is still a crime in Italy, Germany, Greece, Poland and Ireland? Penal crime, not just administrative in some.
I was heavily surprised when I saw it today. At least something useful from this thread.

LeBrok
19-07-17, 01:57
very popular riddle used by communists in Czechoslovakia.

I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from? Oh it is "striving hard" to be dead. All the ill mutations of DNA kill all life. As for the people, all the parents without kids are the dead end of life. All the kids who die before adulthood are the dead end of life too. Till 20th century 50% of kids died before adulthood. They died and became lifeless matter. Half if not majority of life on earth dies without offspring.
But when any life fulfils these three "commandments", eat, survive, multiply, the life goes on. God is not needed for this "miracle".

Plus, what Johane Derite said.

LeBrok
19-07-17, 02:06
You can deny it all u want, modern science stemmed from very religious people who cited their faith many times as an inspiration for their research and never considered it a hindrance or a contradiction to what they were doing. They were highly educated and enlightened individuals, they weren't just cradle Christians who never considered their faith and indoctrinated robots. Any one who doesn't agree with atheists is indoctrinated and can't think on his own....How do you expect scientists to be atheists when everybody believed in god back then, when scientist could have been kicked out of church and university for heresy and couldn't continue science anymore without funds? Go, try to find atheistic scientists in Saudi Arabia!
Perhaps, you would love to answer a question why today most of scientists are atheists and agnostics, unlike general population with 25% of such people?
Are scientists more open minded and more intelligent than general public?

And no, today's science and whole enlightening movement, comes from going away from religious dogma and old traditions. Here is how little of current European Culture has to do with christianity.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26958-Is-modern-Europe-product-of-christian-values

Johane Derite
19-07-17, 02:10
How do you expect scientists to be atheists when everybody believed in god back then, when scientist could have been kicked out of church and university for heresy and couldn't continue science anymore without funds? Go, try to find atheistic scientists in Saudi Arabia!

Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

LeBrok
19-07-17, 02:26
The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. I'm not speaking about human psychology which can long to die as an escape from suffering. Where does this will come from at all. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point? You can't imply human-centric concepts to all nature. You will get nowhere doing so. Simple bacteria doesn't think, doesn't understand, doesn't feel and yet it lives and has offspring on and on and on for billions of years. It is a biological machine that has a knowledge how to eat, survey and multiply. That's all.
Pretty soon we will have robots, which will make new robots, which will make new robots, on and on and on. It even doesn't matter, if you call them alive or not, they will prove a concept that "life" or existence of machine can continue just by mechanically making a copy of itself. Pretty much till the end of world. Heck , even today this concept is already proved in computers and internet, where simple programs, viruses and malware can multiply endlessly and spread through internet. They could live "forever", as long as internet and computers exist, their world.

LeBrok
19-07-17, 02:34
Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_NewtonMost didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right? I'm sure if we dig long enough in archives, which I don't have to do right now, or even in wikipedia, we will find interesting horror stories about persecution of these few brave atheists or agnostics in science. Check post 56 for similarity, ending in execution of a student.

Bergin
19-07-17, 02:37
Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

Johane,
I mentioned earlier a young medical student that was hanged in 1697 for blasphemy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111001...aikenhead.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20111001011446/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html)

Newton was a contemporary of this kid. So clearly here was quite some pressure and a drive to survive.

And also:
In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Trinity_College,_Cambridge) as a sizar (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sizar)—a sort of work-study role.[6] (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Early_life_of_Isaac_Newton#citenote6) At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Aristotle), whom Newton supplemented with modern philosophers such as Descartes (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) and astronomers (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Astronomer) such as Copernicus (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nicolaus_Copernicus), Galileo (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Galileo_Galilei), and Kepler (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Johannes_Kepler).

Johane Derite
19-07-17, 02:39
Most didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right?
Of course they weren't.

I just meant that in relation to srdceleva (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51419-srdceleva)'s reference of Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Mendel.

Bergin
19-07-17, 02:46
Descartes:

Despite frequent moves,[30] he wrote all his major work during his 20+ years in the Netherlands, where he managed to revolutionize mathematics and philosophy.[31] In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church, and Descartes abandoned plans to publish Treatise on the World, his work of the previous four years. Nevertheless, in 1637 he published part of this work in three essays: Les Météores (The Meteors), La Dioptrique (Dioptrics) and La Géométrie (Geometry), preceded by an introduction, his famous Discours de la méthode (Discourse on the Method). In it, Descartes lays out four rules of thought, meant to ensure that our knowledge rests upon a firm foundation.


The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.


In 1663, the Pope placed his works on the Index of Prohibited Books. In 1666 his remains were taken to France and buried in the Saint-Étienne-du-Mont. In 1671 Louis XIV prohibited all the lectures in Cartesianism.

davef
19-07-17, 04:47
Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

People make mistakes and do stupid things at some points throughout life. After a rough day, my mind is fried and more prone to a "brain freeze"...hopefully you're not going to give me an infraction for a simple flaw in reasoning (assuming you have the power to punish people for saying something stupid). But if someone says something outlandishly lame such as claiming descent from 8 foot tall conquerors who took over half the planet or denying something obvious to an 8 year old, well...that's different.

And if people with low intellectual capacity bother you, how so? That's how they were born, they're that way through no fault of their own. It's your responsibility as an advisor to help them out.

To be fair, I'm not assuming they do bc I don't know what you mean by abject stupidity.

srdceleva
19-07-17, 10:13
You can't imply human-centric concepts to all nature. You will get nowhere doing so. Simple bacteria doesn't think, doesn't understand, doesn't feel and yet it lives and has offspring on and on and on for billions of years. It is a biological machine that has a knowledge how to eat, survey and multiply. That's all.
Pretty soon we will have robots, which will make new robots, which will make new robots, on and on and on. It even doesn't matter, if you call them alive or not, they will prove a concept that "life" or existence of machine can continue just by mechanically making a copy of itself. Pretty much till the end of world. Heck , even today this concept is already proved in computers and internet, where simple programs, viruses and malware can multiply endlessly and spread through internet. They could live "forever", as long as internet and computers exist, their world.


obviously a tiny cell has no thoughts lol. Im speaking about the inherent drive that is already present in the tiniest life forms. Regardless of genetic defects which make surviving harder it still strives to survive. Children who died before adulthood were still striving to survive, and even if I admit that maybe some life didnt strive to survive it doesnt answer my question as to why life strives at all to survive if there is zero point to anything, and your robot example only proves my point. Even if we create robots who have a will to reproduce and survive its because of our will. This will didnt come from no where.

srdceleva
19-07-17, 10:24
Most didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right? I'm sure if we dig long enough in archives, which I don't have to do right now, or even in wikipedia, we will find interesting horror stories about persecution of these few brave atheists or agnostics in science. Check post 56 for similarity, ending in execution of a student.


please read the actual writings of pascal and descartes. There is a plethora of proof that they devoutly believed in God and their faith, and obviously many people back then may have been christian only in name, but their views were still clearly visibile in their own writings. Would da vinci be a devout Christian today? probably not. doesnt change the fact that a massive amount of the scientists who gave us modern science were devout Christians and actually believed in what they were writing.


As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves". :)

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

this book is an interesting book about the topic, and written by an athiest. http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

srdceleva
19-07-17, 10:52
Im a theist and so are many modern scientists today (around 40%) because we dont have the same understanding of God and religion as many Atheists do. I dont view God as an old man sitting somewhere on a cloud with a beard, ready to throw lightning bolts at people. I just find it hard to believe that matter somehow became a tiny living cell, then evolved into a complex creature like humans, and that now this matter(dirt and rocks) can contemplate its own existence, and that this is all an accident. As John lennox has said many times in his debates with atheists, you cant take mechanisms like evolution or gravity, which describe a certain process in the universe and then use this mechanism as an explanation as to why God doesnt exist. Describing how laws work doesnt change the fact that we dont know why they exist in the first place or what is the purpose of their existence.

I also find it hard to deny that this life in many ways seems very spiritual. Some months ago I remember speaking to a priest, who is a good friend of mine, who was telling me how he just came back from exorcising someones house. The people who came to him were non practicing Catholics who hadnt been to church in ages and didnt have any real belief in God (like a lot of modern europeans) yet after they had played some sort of new age game with friends trying to contact the dead, had been then having problems with strange things happening in their house, like objects flying around, strange voices etc. I also was just speaking to a Catholic who converted from atheism ( and was a vehement atheist) because of a similar experience. Though im a naturally skeptical person, its very hard for me to not aknowledge that there is a spiritual aspect to this life.

One can take this as he likes but I dont find any basis for the smug, and honeslty arrogant claim that atheists somehow are the only people who think scientifically and logically. Its an attitude that was not common to the founders of modern science, and one which hinders creative thinking. Many people didnt want to believe Georg Lemaitres theory of the big bang because they thought it supported theism too much, including Einstein. Close minded thinking from both sides only leads to less progress.

LeBrok
19-07-17, 16:51
obviously a tiny cell has no thoughts lol. Im speaking about the inherent drive that is already present in the tiniest life forms. Regardless of genetic defects which make surviving harder it still strives to survive. Children who died before adulthood were still striving to survive, and even if I admit that maybe some life didnt strive to survive it doesnt answer my question as to why life strives at all to survive if there is zero point to anything, and your robot example only proves my point. Even if we create robots who have a will to reproduce and survive its because of our will. This will didnt come from no where.Again, you use your feelings in understanding of the world. The will to survive, striving to survive, is only in you and creatures with higher brain functions. It is hardwired into a brain to help humans multiply. Similar goal as with love, hunger or sexual drive, and comes with complexity of living matter.
There is no will to survive in bacteria, DNA or computer program. In these cases we have programs that make them multiply itself. This is an automatic function. We know that in certain combination of codes and atoms, self replication will occur. Without feelings, will, or a creator.

Other phenomenon might be explained by a will of feelings is "why matter always want to clamp together", creating stars and planets. Big bang or stars explosions alway scatters atoms away with big force, but atoms stubbornly stick back together to create another star or a planet. The bare truth is that it all happens mechanically according to laws of phisics.

srdceleva
19-07-17, 18:24
Again, you use your feelings in understanding of the world. The will to survive, striving to survive, is only in you and creatures with higher brain functions. It is hardwired into a brain to help humans multiply. Similar goal as with love, hunger or sexual drive, and comes with complexity of living matter.
There is no will to survive in bacteria, DNA or computer program. In these cases we have programs that make them multiply itself. This is an automatic function. We know that in certain combination of codes and atoms, self replication will occur. Without feelings, will, or a creator.

Other phenomenon might be explained by a will of feelings is "why matter always want to clamp together", creating stars and planets. Big bang or stars explosions alway scatters atoms away with big force, but atoms stubbornly stick back together to create another star or a planet. The bare truth is that it all happens mechanically according to laws of phisics.Again a computer program is designed and given a purpose. I'm not speaking about a will as in a feeling I'm speaking about an inherent trait that all life has. Obviously the question is a bit philosophical but if u just look at life as a bunch of chemical reactions and physical laws then ull be like a person staring so closely at a picture he can't even see what the image is about.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Bergin
19-07-17, 19:30
Some months ago I remember speaking to a priest, who is a good friend of mine, who was telling me how he just came back from exorcising someones house. The people who came to him were non practicing Catholics who hadnt been to church in ages and didnt have any real belief in God (like a lot of modern europeans) yet after they had played some sort of new age game with friends trying to contact the dead, had been then having problems with strange things happening in their house, like objects flying around, strange voices etc.

So basically what you are saying is:

Certain New Age games can modify the laws of physics.
Exorcism can restore the laws of physics.


Another option is:
Continuous use of certain hallucinogenic drugs leaves permanent brain damage, so do tumors.
A psychiatrist should be able to tell us more.

LeBrok
20-07-17, 04:33
Im a theist and so are many modern scientists today (around 40%) because we dont have the same understanding of God and religion as many Atheists do. I dont view God as an old man sitting somewhere on a cloud with a beard, ready to throw lightning bolts at people. I just find it hard to believe that matter somehow became a tiny living cell, then evolved into a complex creature like humans, and that now this matter(dirt and rocks) can contemplate its own existence, and that this is all an accident. As John lennox has said many times in his debates with atheists, you cant take mechanisms like evolution or gravity, which describe a certain process in the universe and then use this mechanism as an explanation as to why God doesnt exist.I don't think atheists have to prove god(s) existence. The proof of god(s) lies on believers. They claim that there is someone out there, but nobody seen it or measured it, though so many can feel its existence.



Describing how laws work doesnt change the fact that we dont know why they exist in the first place or what is the purpose of their existence. Why does it has to be a purpose? Maybe the universe is one crazy place?
And what is so great about christian purpose? To live for god's amusement? Give me a break.


I also find it hard to deny that this life in many ways seems very spiritual. Some months ago I remember speaking to a priest, who is a good friend of mine, who was telling me how he just came back from exorcising someones house. The people who came to him were non practicing Catholics who hadnt been to church in ages and didnt have any real belief in God (like a lot of modern europeans) yet after they had played some sort of new age game with friends trying to contact the dead, had been then having problems with strange things happening in their house, like objects flying around, strange voices etc. I also was just speaking to a Catholic who converted from atheism ( and was a vehement atheist) because of a similar experience. Though im a naturally skeptical person, its very hard for me to not aknowledge that there is a spiritual aspect to this life. I was a catholic for 40 years, and yes quite strict, honest and involved, and nothing like this ever happened to me. Nothing of spiritual dimension ever happened to me. I wanted to happen, I was searching it, but I never felt it. I guess, spirituality is like beauty, in eyes of beholder. And again to "understand" spirituality we must dive into a realm of feelings.



One can take this as he likes but I dont find any basis for the smug, and honeslty arrogant claim that atheists somehow are the only people who think scientifically and logically. Its an attitude that was not common to the founders of modern science, and one which hinders creative thinking. Many people didnt want to believe Georg Lemaitres theory of the big bang because they thought it supported theism too much, including Einstein. Close minded thinking from both sides only leads to less progress.You shouldn't compare something that is totally new, like new hypothesis, and how they are taken by surprised contemporaries, with ideas of god(s) old like humankind and still without definitive proof, till today based on feelings, beliefs and tradition. Idea of god(s) might be as imaginary as traditional beliefs that curses and bad spirits were behind people falling sick. Till, science came up with better and true explanation, of viruses, bacteria, parasites, cancer, environmental poison or genetic mutations.
Every hypothesis should have a limited shelf life. Either you can prove it in 100 years for example, or it is out.

LeBrok
20-07-17, 04:36
Again a computer program is designed and given a purpose. I'm not speaking about a will as in a feeling I'm speaking about an inherent trait that all life has. Obviously the question is a bit philosophical but if u just look at life as a bunch of chemical reactions and physical laws then ull be like a person staring so closely at a picture he can't even see what the image is about.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk The purpose of self replicating computer program might be as benign as to check once skills, or to see if it is possible.
What do you think is the purpose of life of bacteria? What is the purpose of human life?

LeBrok
20-07-17, 04:38
So basically what you are saying is:

Certain New Age games can modify the laws of physics.
Exorcism can restore the laws of physics.


Another option is:
Continuous use of certain hallucinogenic drugs leaves permanent brain damage, so do tumors.
A psychiatrist should be able to tell us more. There is a reason why we don't have prophets today. We keep them in psychiatric institutions.

Rethel
20-07-17, 15:41
The proof of god(s) lies on believers.

No, we don;t have to be proving you over and over again, becasue whatever
proof we will show you, you will reject it. And even if you would acknowledge
it, you would turn it into some deistic stuff at best. So, there is no point in that,
especially, that the existance of God is allready proofed.


They claim that there is someone out there, but nobody seen it or measured it, though so many can feel its existence.

You claim that there are little harming creatures, but nobody could
measure them or feel their existance yet not so long ago. I still can
not do that, neither you. So, this is the level of your thinking - yet
multiply by the fact, that you want to measure someone, who does
not exist in our dimension - who is actualy outside of any dimension.


I was a catholic for 40 years, and yes quite strict, honest and involved

A biggot?


and nothing like this ever happened to me

You were an apostate and idolater - what do you expected.


I was searching it, but I never felt it.

You wanted to be demon possesed?


based on feelings, beliefs and tradition.

If this was your whole religious base, then nothing strange, that you failed.

LeBrok
20-07-17, 16:51
No, we don;t have to be proving you over and over again, becasue whatever
proof we will show you, you will reject it. And even if you would acknowledge
it, you would turn it into some deistic stuff at best. So, there is no point in that,
especially, that the existance of God is allready proofed.



You claim that there are little harming creatures, but nobody could
measure them or feel their existance yet not so long ago. I still can
not do that, neither you. So, this is the level of your thinking - yet
multiply by the fact, that you want to measure someone, who does
not exist in our dimension - who is actualy outside of any dimension.



A biggot?



You were an apostate and idolater - what do you expected.



You wanted to be demon possesed?



If this was your whole religious base, then nothing strange, that you failed. Common Rethel, show us power of your creative brain, that you are able to understand and pull conclusions by yourself. Show us your work, that you understand what you preach. Show us that you are not a migger follower of creationist cult, that you are not just a blind believer.

Again, this is my own independent thinking and writing on many complex subjects:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34287-Creationism-the-anti-science?p=513399&viewfull=1#post513399

Rethel
20-07-17, 20:05
Common Rethel, show us power of your creative brain, that you are able to understand and pull conclusions by yourself. Show us your work, that you understand what you preach. Show us that you are not a migger follower of creationist cult, that you are not just a blind believer.

Whatever I say, you will answer the same. So what's the point?
Just like you were doing when you are a biggot cathol. Biggotic
atheists are probably even worse, especially these, who at one
point, were enlightend by Dawkins and similar previously being
religious biggots - similarly close minded.

As for the link, I gave you uranium hallows or 20,000 years old
dinosaurs - who were even coincidently published, and many
other things, but you reject it all not even investiaging it.

You simply don;t want to know the truth.

And your logic is, like logic of a commie in USSR who would
want to proofs from scientific soviet world, that capitalism is
better system than socialism. Such materials would be never
published, so such demands would witness only how much
delusional such person is. The same is here.

Angela
20-07-17, 22:15
What a world we live in that the compatriots of Copernicus and John Paul II are learning their science and religion from half-illiterate American fundamentalists. It's really sad.

It almost makes me wonder if universal suffrage is such a good idea.

Rethel
20-07-17, 22:38
What a world we live in that the compatriots of Copernicus and John Paul II are learning their science and religion from half-illiterate American fundamentalists. It's really sad.

Copernicus was a creationist.
JP2 actually too - at least offcially,
becasue he did not change the official
teaching on that matter.


It almost makes me wonder if universal suffrage is such a good idea.

Of course is not.
One of the stupidest idea ever.

Vallicanus
20-07-17, 23:35
Neither atheists nor theists/religious types are able to prove the existence or non-existence of "God". We just don't know and can only speculate.
Fanatics on both sides are narrow-minded prigs.

However, to think the Earth is only a few thousand years old instead of millions of years old is totally insane.

Christian beliefs like the Trinity are ludicrous.

Rethel
21-07-17, 00:03
We just don't know and can only speculate.

Yes we know, and we do not have to speculate.
Firstly, the very thing that you are alive, and all around you witness' about the Creator and God's existence.
Secondly, the conscience, morality and the feeling of bad and wrong witnesses about the higher law giver.
Thirdly, the very need of God which is implemented in all humans and universality of a belive witness' that there is Someone.
And fourly, the most important, we know about God, because he did reveal himself to us through the Book and prophets.
Fifly, this what God said, was always fullfield witnesseing, that his Word is true and comes from higher source.

So, there is no need for speculations. God is allready known since thousands
of years, preached to every nation, tribe, language and country through centuries,
and his Book is the most translated and spread Book in history. If someone want to
know him, he is just around, becasue:

- every one that asketh receiveth;
- and he that seeketh findeth;
- and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

So there is no need for speculation.
Everyone who want to know God, can achieve it.


However, to think the Earth is only a few thousand years old instead of millions of years old is totally insane.

Why, because someone did tell you that?


Christian beliefs like the Trinity are ludicrous.

Trinity is not biblical beliving, but influence of the apostates.

Bergin
21-07-17, 00:45
Rethel,
May I ask your opinion about Scientology?

Rethel
21-07-17, 00:51
Rethel,
May I ask your opinion about Scientology?

What can be said about ideology based
on comics and sci-fi literature from 1960s?

Idiotism.

Bergin
21-07-17, 02:38
What can be said about ideology based
on comics and sci-fi literature from 1960s?

Idiotism.
Thank you Rethel, I tend to agree with you.
I really wonder how come the people inside Scientology do not see it.
Any idea?

LeBrok
21-07-17, 02:50
Thank you Rethel, I tend to agree with you.
I really wonder how come the people inside Scientology do not see it.
Any idea? Same way Rethel and alike can't see their insanity. Believe, believe, believe...
"What can be said about ideology, which takes its aspiration in medieval creationism?"
Idiotism.

LeBrok
21-07-17, 02:52
Whatever I say, you will answer the same. So what's the point?
So you have nothing to show for, no original thought in you. You are the mindless follower then. You are exactly what you always accuse people to be. Mindless follower of some crazy idiotic cult.

davef
21-07-17, 07:04
I agree with Angela and Rethel, in that universal sufferage is a bad idea! A well known elected official spends most of his time golfing, creating conspiracies to distract us and make us forget about his corruption, arguing with celebrities and posting nasty tweets on twitter against those who oppose him, electing CEO's into positions of power so they have more direct control and can more easily lift restrictions against building power plants in national parks amongst other similar offenses, failing again and again to reform health insurance in spite of being a brilliant businessman or negotiator, and making it obvious that he received "help" during the elections by blocking off authority figures from investigation regarding "collusion".

Vallicanus
21-07-17, 09:27
Yes we know, and we do not have to speculate.
Firstly, the very thing that you are alive, and all around you witness' about the Creator and God's existence.
Secondly, the conscience, morality and the feeling of bad and wrong witnesses about the higher law giver.
Thirdly, the very need of God which is implemented in all humans and universality of a belive witness' that there is Someone.
And fourly, the most important, we know about God, because he did reveal himself to us through the Book and prophets.
Fifly, this what God said, was always fullfield witnesseing, that his Word is true and comes from higher source.

So, there is no need for speculations. God is allready known since thousands
of years, preached to every nation, tribe, language and country through centuries,
and his Book is the most translated and spread Book in history. If someone want to
know him, he is just around, becasue:

- every one that asketh receiveth;
- and he that seeketh findeth;
- and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

So there is no need for speculation.
Everyone who want to know God, can achieve it.


All vague babble, sorry.
You are certainly not a convincing preacher.

Somebody told you that nonsense about the recent origin of the Earth when palaeontology and geology make it clear that the Earth is millions of years old.

LeBrok
21-07-17, 16:32
All vague babble, sorry.
You are certainly not a convincing preacher.

Somebody told you that nonsense about the recent origin of the Earth when palaeontology and geology make it clear that the Earth is millions of years old.
Not to mention that all the science branches are in total agreement here. Age of our Earth and evolution of life on Earth is in total agreement with laws of physics, geology, biology, archeology, chemistry, and so on. It is only not in agreement with beliefs and feelings of creationists and few alike.

Rethel
21-07-17, 17:53
Thank you Rethel, I tend to agree with you.
I really wonder how come the people inside Scientology do not see it.
Any idea?

Because they just do not want to.


Same way Rethel and alike can't see their insanity. Believe, believe, believe...

The fact, that you were beliving becasue someone told you
to do that, it doesn;t mean, that your behavior was correct.
Now you on the same basis belive in atheism and evolution.
Actually nothing changed, blindness remains.


"What can be said about ideology, which takes its aspiration in medieval creationism?"
Idiotism.

And here you are showing that you are unable to see and jugde the difference.
It also means, that you are speaking about things, which you do not understand.
But I am affriad, that you just hate it, maybe even you just hate God.


So you have nothing to show for, no original thought in you. You are the mindless follower then. You are exactly what you always accuse people to be. Mindless follower of some crazy idiotic cult.

I did allready show you things. You did not even bother to examine them.


Not to mention that all the science branches are in total agreement here. Age of our Earth and evolution of life on Earth is in total agreement with laws of physics, geology, biology, archeology, chemistry, and so on. It is only not in agreement with beliefs and feelings of creationists and few alike.

Now matter how many times you will repeat it, it will not become true.

Rethel
21-07-17, 18:01
You are certainly not a convincing preacher.

Maybe I am not convincing, becasue I am not talking what you want to hear?
You just do not want to be convinced, like LeBrok. On one post, he was claiming
that one or two guys did live 20k and 40k years ago becasue C14 showed it, but
when he became awarem, that the same method dated dinosaurs at the same age,
he just ignored it and pretend that nothing happend. The same with the fact, that
C14 simly cannot be at all in at leat 65 mln years old remains. He probably was
searching internet, but obviously did not find anything - other wise, would be crying,
how it can be "explained" and how stupid are creationists.

But lets suppose, I would convince you, that evolution
is a bullshit. And what would you do with that fact?

Vallicanus
21-07-17, 18:11
It's you who will not listen to reason.

Bergin
21-07-17, 19:02
Rethel,
I will not try to convince you of my ideas, but would like you to pose yourself some questions and be impartial in the answer.
As mentioned, quite few scientist had a religious background, and yet they could be impartial.



The Andromeda Galaxy, it is visible by naked eye on a moonless night (make me happy and just look it up on wikipedia).
It's distance from earth (basically our eyes) is 2.5 million light years.

That means that the light photons that hit our eyes today were emitted from Andromeda 2.5 million years ago.
Somehow you might want to evaluate that fact impartially - are the scientist making up these numbers?

LeBrok
21-07-17, 20:30
Rethel,
I will not try to convince you of my ideas, but would like you to pose yourself some questions and be impartial in the answer.
As mentioned, quite few scientist had a religious background, and yet they could be impartial.



The Andromeda Galaxy, it is visible by naked eye on a moonless night (make me happy and just look it up on wikipedia).
It's distance from earth (basically our eyes) is 2.5 million light years.

That means that the light photons that hit our eyes today were emitted from Andromeda 2.5 million years ago.
Somehow you might want to evaluate that fact impartially - are the scientist making up these numbers?
He will tell you that laws of physics were different in the past, that's why. Creationists band laws of physics so the world agrees with the bible.

LeBrok
21-07-17, 20:36
Maybe I am not convincing, becasue I am not talking what you want to hear?
You just do not want to be convinced, like LeBrok. On one post, he was claiming
that one or two guys did live 20k and 40k years ago becasue C14 showed it, but
when he became awarem, that the same method dated dinosaurs at the same age,
he just ignored it and pretend that nothing happend. The same with the fact, that
C14 simly cannot be at all in at leat 65 mln years old remains. ?C14 is very accurate till 50 kya. It is enough to disprove 6 ky old universe. We don't even need to get into details how to measure age of dinosaurs. Keep it simple to understand your fallacy. Now go tell us how god changed laws of physics.

Angela
21-07-17, 20:53
I just wonder how someone could get through a normal high school and not have taken basic science courses. It's just amazing to me. The only places here that teach this 6,000 year old earth nonsense are people "educated" in small fundamentalist schools.

Diomedes
22-07-17, 22:10
Atheism is just a hypothesis which will never be proved. Of course, this belief per se is not scientific. If anything, it is another form of "religion". So sad that these people do not see this and sometimes they behave like the old Spanish inquisitors. Just look around you how many of them talk.

Angela
22-07-17, 22:40
Atheism is just a hypothesis which will never be proved. Of course, this belief per se is not scientific. If anything, it is another form of "religion". So sad that these people do not see this and sometimes they behave like the old Spanish inquisitors. Just look around you how many of them talk.

Diomedes, one can believe in God and still accept science. Most of the people I know are like that. As far as I'm concerned this is just about this 6,000 year old earth nonsense. No one with a brain in his head could accept that...

Diomedes
22-07-17, 22:53
^ I did not say the opposite. I agree with you.

Rethel
24-07-17, 03:43
C14 is very accurate till 50 kya.

So you must belive in 20,000 years old dinosaurs.


We don't even need to get into details how to measure age of dinosaurs.

The thing is, that they have C14. They should have none => they are not 65 mln years old.
It is debunked by your own science in which you trust and use to fight the truth.

Rethel
24-07-17, 03:50
Diomedes, one can believe in God and still accept science.

But the thing is, that evolution is not a science.
It is a myth and the greatest stupidity ever.
Even ancient myths were on the higher level
and more inteligent than that story.


No one with a brain in his head could accept that...

So, if someone belive in evolution is wise.
If someone don;t belive - is not wise.

99% of belivers of evolution belive becasue they were just told that.
The same was you and Lebrok. You did not yourself check it. You only
know, what somebody else did tell you. So, how it makes you wise?

More than that, whole modern science was made by creationists.
Isaak Newton even wrote, that atheists (yes! they existed, imagine
that!) are idiots - the biggest morons ever. He was not clever and
was not a scientist? So, you cannot belive in gravitation. The same
in heliocentrism, becasue it was made by a priest! Aaaa... and the
oceanography was inspired by one verse from the Bible. You as a
wise human do not belive in that mambo jubo called oceanography
either. And genetics... and vaccines... aso aso aso...

Rethel
24-07-17, 03:56
He will tell you that laws of physics were different in the past, that's why. Creationists band laws of physics so the world agrees with the bible.

Not law of phisics, but enviroment... you don;t even know, what you oppose? http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm2.gif
Quick example: earths atmosphere contain in the past 32% of oxygen. It is a
fact acknoledge by evolutionists. Today oxygen is 21%. Do you think this did
not influence anything? Really? If you would reasoning something, assuming,
that oxygen was always 21% - your results would be wrong. But this is on
what is based your "wisdom" in other reasonings...

Rethel
24-07-17, 04:01
The Andromeda Galaxy, it is visible by naked eye on a moonless night (make me happy and just look it up on wikipedia).
It's distance from earth (basically our eyes) is 2.5 million light years.

Yes.


That means that the light photons that hit our eyes today were emitted from Andromeda 2.5 million years ago.
Somehow you might want to evaluate that fact impartially - are the scientist making up these numbers?

But it doesn;t mean, that this light was coming to us 2.5 mln years.
When God did create stars, he did it together with visible for us light.
He did not wait, until this light will come to us on earth... And if the
Universe is expanding, and some verses suggest that God did expand
it from the area closer to earth, then this ligh the more was taken from
"here" with the star to the place where it is now. So actually this light is
not coming to us, but is going away from us. And the speed of light is
not necessarly constant, especially in different places in the Universe
and in the different enviroment.

Bergin
24-07-17, 04:44
But it doesn;t mean, that this light was coming to us 2.5 mln years.
When God did create stars, he did it together with visible for us light.
He did not wait, until this light will come to us on earth... And if the
Universe is expanding, and some verses suggest that God did expand
it from the area closer to earth, then this ligh the more was taken from
"here" with the star to the place where it is now. So actually this light is
not coming to us, but is going away from us. And the speed of light is
not necessarly constant, especially in different places in the Universe
and in the different enviroment.

Still, from our knowledge, at least from after creation (big bang, creation, whatever) the laws of physics have been stable.
We might not know what happened before (and we don't), but we do now sufficiently about what happened after.
So we should see some Doppler shifts if light goes back and forth (like the sound-change of a running ambulance), given that light has to follow the book too.

Rethel
26-07-17, 13:51
Still, from our knowledge, at least from after creation (big bang, creation, whatever) the laws of physics have been stable.
We might not know what happened before (and we don't), but we do now sufficiently about what happened after.
So we should see some Doppler shifts if light goes back and forth (like the sound-change of a running ambulance), given that light has to follow the book too.

But it has not necessarly mean, that the emitter of the light is such and such old.

I gave you another example.
Let's say, that bunch of scientists go into a time machine and
took back to the time one second after creation of Adam.

They would meat him and ask: who are you and how old are you.
He would say: I am Adam, and I am one second old.

Scientists would laugh as crazy after waht they would put him unto their research
using whole knowledge which they have to determine who he is and jow old is he.

The result which they would have would be like: men, 25, speaking X language,
living as an outcast, naked, none civilization, his language is similar to this and
this (or to none), => his tribe must be hundreds of thousands of years old, to
be able to evolve such complex and clear language, and his family must live
somewhere neaby.

What errors would they do?

1. There is no hundreds thousands of years in which his language evolved.
Error: wrong datation at least 31536000 x 100,000 x [number of hundrests
which they would say] times too long, as it is in reality. If they judge it as
300,000 years then result would be: 9,460,800,000,000 TIMES too big.

2. He has no living family anywhere. No parents, no grandparents no aso...
also error in datation of humankind 31536000 x 30 x [number of generations
which they would propably guessed he had since the begining of humanhind
according to them]. Lets say as previously 10,000. Same big error would be.

3. His age would be 31536000x25 ergo 788,400,000 TIMES too big as it was in reality.

So, think now, how other datations can be wrong also.

Bergin
26-07-17, 15:45
But it has not necessarly mean, that the emitter of the light is such and such old.

I gave you another example.
Let's say, that bunch of scientists go into a time machine and
took back to the time one second after creation of Adam.

They would meat him and ask: who are you and how old are you.
He would say: I am Adam, and I am one second old.

Scientists would laugh as crazy after waht they would put him unto their research
using whole knowledge which they have to determine who he is and jow old is he.

The result which they would have would be like: men, 25, speaking X language,
living as an outcast, naked, none civilization, his language is similar to this and
this (or to none), => his tribe must be hundreds of thousands of years old, to
be able to evolve such complex and clear language, and his family must live
somewhere neaby.

What errors would they do?

1. There is no hundreds thousands of years in which his language evolved.
Error: wrong datation at least 31536000 x 100,000 x [number of hundrests
which they would say] times too long, as it is in reality. If they judge it as
300,000 years then result would be: 9,460,800,000,000 TIMES to big.

2. He has no living family anywhere. No parents, no grandparents no aso...
also error in datation of humankind 31536000 x 30 x [number of generations
which they would propably guessed he had since the begining of humanhind
according to them]. Lets say as previously 10,000. Same big error would be.

3. His age would be 31536000x25 ergo 788,400,000 TIMES too big as it was in reality.

So, think now, how other datations can be wrong also.

Rethel,
all scientific measurement are always reported with an error bar.
Meaning that every observed measurement is part of a distribution of probabilities.

So nothing is excluded, (even your theories), but they are associated with a probability that is so infinitesimally small.
At the end, science will only give you a quantitative advice and understanding,
but
it is your choice if you want to plan/define your existence on winning the lottery.

noman
28-07-17, 23:44
I am Muslim, but I am of Centrist ideology, so I don't believe everything I read. I do check and balance to make sure nothing contradicts, before drawing any conclusion.

For Example: I don't believe that this Earth or Universe is just couples of thousand years old, when religious scriptures have clearly talked about Pre-Adamite era, which went for millions of years, as stated in the religious books. There were species living on Earth before Adam and Eve, so when scientists and researchers find out some fossils, which are 700,000 years or 800,000 years old, I don't deny them at all. We do share share genes with them, and in fact, even with a banana. Not shocking at all, since their creator was ONE (my believe). I do believe that mankind has evolved throughout whole these years, had several impacting factors like diet, climate, and geographical locations, which made us look different from one another. However, I do deny that humans actually evolved from previous species.
Moreover, I don't accept that The Out of Africa Theory, but I do believe in Multi-Regional Theory denying the theory that we still came from Africa. Religion never defines the age of Earth and Universe in Thousands, but in Billions. Adam and Eve were sent to Earth after Last Glacial Period, which ended up 11,000 to 12,000 years BP. Modern Humans on Earth have just lived for 10,000 years, so Adam and Eve came to Earth approximately 10,000 years BP. Adam was a farmer, and first farming happened on Earth 10,000 years ago (read it, and also watched a video by BI Science). I don't know whether there were different races before Noah, but Multi-Regional Theory makes sense, when Noah's sons departed their way to different regions of the Earth. I am still clueless about the East Asian (Mongoloid) race. I am thoroughly looking for answers.

Rethel
29-07-17, 00:17
when religious scriptures have clearly talked about Pre-Adamite era, which went for millions of years, as stated in the religious books.

No, they are not talking anything like that.
Stop repeating mahometian lies and fairytails from Xth century.

Adam was the first man. Period.
There was non pre-Adamic whatsoever.
This is satanic lie.


Religion never defines the age of Earth and Universe in Thousands, but in Billions.

And again you are spreading lies.
Bible clearly define, that God created
Adam about 6000 years ago on the
sixth day of creation. Period.


Adam and Eve were sent to Earth after Last Glacial Period, which ended up 11,000 to 12,000 years BP.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCyLlW_WsAEVJbO.jpg

Rethel
29-07-17, 00:24
Rethel,
all scientific measurement are always reported with an error bar.
Meaning that every observed measurement is part of a distribution of probabilities.

Ok, but you must take unto account, that the real error can
be much bigger, that they are ready to "admit" it can be.
Actually, they have no idea how big error
can be, becasue noone ever checked it.

Fpr example, hg I1 was dated 40,000 years. Now is 3180. It is not a
mistake - it is clear evidence, that they do not have an idea what they
are talking about. Such examples are plenty.


So nothing is excluded, (even your theories), but they are associated with a probability that is so infinitesimally small.

Probablity that everything made themselves
from exploding nothingness is equal zero...
Or even less if it is mathematically possible.


At the end, science will only give you a quantitative advice and understanding,

No, they are inforcing it, as a only true truth,
calling anyone who does not agree with their
view an idiot, and not allowing any public
debate or diversity on that matter, and they
insist to teach this lies small children.


it is your choice if you want to plan/define your existence on winning the lottery.

If it would be a choice, then they would not
forcibly teach it as the only obligatory truth.

LeBrok
29-07-17, 00:28
No, they are not talking anything like that.
Stop repeating mahometian lies and fairytails from Xth century.

Adam was the first man. Period.
There was non pre-Adamic whatsoever.
This is satanic lie.



And again you are spreading lies.
Bible clearly define, that God created
Adam about 6000 years ago on the
sixth day of creation. Period.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCyLlW_WsAEVJbO.jpgBe more civil towards your "opponents" or you are out. And stop using atheist as to convey your emotions, lol.

Rethel
29-07-17, 00:29
Be more civil towards your "opponents"

What is not civil this time?


And stop using atheist as to convey your emotions, lol.

Why? I am tolerant :smile:

LeBrok
29-07-17, 00:39
I am Muslim, but I am of Centrist ideology, so I don't believe everything I read. I do check and balance to make sure nothing contradicts, before drawing any conclusion.

For Example: I don't believe that this Earth or Universe is just couples of thousand years old, when religious scriptures have clearly talked about Pre-Adamite era, which went for millions of years, as stated in the religious books. There were species living on Earth before Adam and Eve, so when scientists and researchers find out some fossils, which are 700,000 years or 800,000 years old, I don't deny them at all. We do share share genes with them, and in fact, even with a banana. Not shocking at all, since their creator was ONE (my believe). I do believe that mankind has evolved throughout whole these years, had several impacting factors like diet, climate, and geographical locations, which made us look different from one another.

That's awesome!


However, I do deny that humans actually evolved from previous species.
Moreover, I don't accept that The Out of Africa Theory, but I do believe in Multi-Regional Theory denying the theory that we still came from Africa. Religion never defines the age of Earth and Universe in Thousands, but in Billions. Adam and Eve were sent to Earth after Last Glacial Period, which ended up 11,000 to 12,000 years BP. Modern Humans on Earth have just lived for 10,000 years, so Adam and Eve came to Earth approximately 10,000 years BP. Adam was a farmer, and first farming happened on Earth 10,000 years ago (read it, and also watched a video by BI Science). I don't know whether there were different races before Noah, but Multi-Regional Theory makes sense, when Noah's sons departed their way to different regions of the Earth. I am still clueless about the East Asian (Mongoloid) race. I am thoroughly looking for answers. We'll you just denied science. We have human (homo sapiens sapiens) remain dated by science to 100 thousand years ago in Eurasia, and in Africa even longer. We also discovered other hominids who lived in Eurasia before HSS, like Neanderthals. We also know that people interbreed with them, and modern humans carry part of their DNA. It is all in undisputed science form, the dating remains and their DNA, and well documented, through population genetics, evolution of HSS through last 50 ky, till today.

It only doesn't make sense for religious zealots like Rethel.

noman
29-07-17, 01:14
No, they are not talking anything like that.
Stop repeating mahometian lies and fairytails from Xth century.

Adam was the first man. Period.
There was non pre-Adamic whatsoever.
This is satanic lie.



And again you are spreading lies.
Bible clearly define, that God created
Adam about 6000 years ago on the
sixth day of creation. Period.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCyLlW_WsAEVJbO.jpg

Ok, first of all. Not every religion believes in Adam and Eve, but Abrahamic. Second, it looks like you have never read any other religion completely. If you read, you will figure out that Manu in Hinduism is resembled as Noah due to the similarity of "Great Flood".Third, religion did talk about Pre Adamite era. I follow Sufism. Take a look!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite#In_Sufism
Fourth, I am not spreading any lies. If you want evidences from religious scriptures, I can provide that too.
Fifth, if you really believe that Adam and Eve came 6000 years ago, then you must have your family tree. Right? What generation of Adam and Eve are you?

noman
29-07-17, 01:21
That's awesome!

We'll you just denied science. We have human (homo sapiens sapiens) remain dated by science to 100 thousand years ago in Eurasia, and in Africa even longer. We also discovered other hominids who lived in Eurasia before HSS, like Neanderthals. We also know that people interbreed with them, and modern humans carry part of their DNA. It is all in undisputed science form, the dating remains and their DNA, and well documented, through population genetics, evolution of HSS through last 50 ky, till today.

It only doesn't make sense for religious zealots like Rethel.

As I stated already, I don't believe COMPLETELY in what Science or Religion says. I do always have opinions about it. Pre Adam species are referred as "NasNas" in religion. They looked similar to us, but didn't had mental intelligence, as we humans have. I just connect it to the point that our common ancestors is the direct descendant of previous species.

It's always good to see others's perspective and learn from it.

LeBrok
29-07-17, 01:36
As I stated already, I don't believe COMPLETELY in what Science or Religion says. I do always have opinions about it.That's fine. Check our population genetics section. After reading it you should have much wiser opinion. Genetics and population genetics is a tricky subject. It might take a while for all of this to sink in, sort of speak.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/

noman
29-07-17, 04:41
That's fine. Check our population genetics section. After reading it you should have much wiser opinion. Genetics and population genetics is a tricky subject. It might take a while for all of this to sink in, sort of speak.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/

Thank you for sharing!

Diomedes
29-07-17, 14:04
The first man in the Hebrew texts (Hebrew mythology). Why do you rely so much on the Bible? As a Christian you should consider first and foremost the Gospels.



Adam was the first man. Period.
There was non pre-Adamic whatsoever.
This is satanic lie.

And again you are spreading lies.
Bible clearly define, that God created
Adam about 6000 years ago on the
sixth day of creation. Period.

Rethel
29-07-17, 15:38
That's awesome!

We'll you just denied science. We have human (homo sapiens sapiens) remain dated by science to 100 thousand years ago in Eurasia, and in Africa even longer. We also discovered other hominids who lived in Eurasia before HSS, like Neanderthals. We also know that people interbreed with them, and modern humans carry part of their DNA. It is all in undisputed science form, the dating remains and their DNA, and well documented, through population genetics, evolution of HSS through last 50 ky, till today.

It only doesn't make sense for religious zealots like Rethel.

And you have also dinosaurs dated 20k years old, which you hipocritically don't admit...

Rethel
29-07-17, 15:42
Ok, first of all. Not every religion believes in Adam and Eve, but Abrahamic. Second, it looks like you have never read any other religion completely. If you read, you will figure out that Manu in Hinduism is resembled as Noah due to the similarity of "Great Flood".Third, religion did talk about Pre Adamite era. I follow Sufism. Take a look!

Yes, I read.
The very fact, that I read it, does not make it true.


Fourth, I am not spreading any lies.

Yes, you are. If you are talking about Adam and Eve, and about
Abraham's faith, and you are talking something else about them,
than truth, then you are spreading lies.


Fifth, if you really believe that Adam and Eve came 6000 years ago,

And you just make it worse, putting a lie in my mouth.


then you must have your family tree. Right? What generation of Adam and Eve are you?

Idk, but probably some +/- 150.

Rethel
29-07-17, 15:50
The first man in the Hebrew texts (Hebrew mythology). Why do you rely so much on the Bible? As a Christian you should consider first and foremost the Gospels.

Why the Gospels?
But, if you insist, the Gospel teaches:

In reply he [Jesus] said: “Did YOU not read that he who
created them from [the] beginning made them male
and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the
two will be one flesh’?" This is quote from Genesis 2.

The same is quoting Paul the Apostole in Ephesians.

Why people always make statements about the Bible, not having idea about her? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4s8_IIXEkSWl7JQBWAL3slaxWFJPku 6UkFhBsFFcRCP94sOCk9HwcR94

Diomedes
29-07-17, 16:23
Yes, I agree. There are two sexes, male and female. I did not say the opposite.


Why the Gospels?
But, if you insist, the Gospel teaches:

In reply he [Jesus] said: “Did YOU not read that he who
created them from [the] beginning made them male
and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the
two will be one flesh’?" This is quote from Genesis 2.

The same is quoting Paul the Apostole in Ephesians.

Why people always make statements about the Bible, not having idea about her? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4s8_IIXEkSWl7JQBWAL3slaxWFJPku 6UkFhBsFFcRCP94sOCk9HwcR94

LeBrok
29-07-17, 16:26
And you have also dinosaurs dated 20k years old, which you hipocritically don't admit...There must have been dated by your scientists, lol. Anyway it is my older than your Universe not mine. Your world is collapsing not mine.

There is a scientific consensus that dinosaurs were gone around 70 million years ago. 99.9% of dating Dinosaur bones come in big millions of years. If something comes in thousand of years must be a mistake, bad instrument calibration, misprint in publication or newspaper. But for you and your cult it is a proof. How crazy is this?!!! All your argumentation, all your "science" for gullible people, comes from looking for such mistakes. Do you realise how ridiculous it is? It only proves that people make mistakes, that we are not perfect. It doesn't prove that there are different laws of phisics in universe.

Diomedes
29-07-17, 18:39
Unfortunately in our modern society you see this basic, yet essential teaching torn apart. I am talking mostly about the issue of relationships and the high divorce rate, and the many other "sins" of the modern world.



In reply he [Jesus] said: “Did YOU not read that he who
created them from [the] beginning made them male
and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the
two will be one flesh’?" This is quote from Genesis 2.

Rethel
29-07-17, 18:54
There must have been dated by your scientists,

Unfortunatly not.
I gave the link, check it.
You show again, how close minded you are.


lol. Anyway it is my older than your Universe not mine. Your world is collapsing not mine.

1. No, becasue I do not rely on this method - you do.
2. There are always other interpretations possible if something.
As I said, I used to belive in Old Earth many years. Couple of
thousands of years is not so big problem for me.


There is a scientific consensus that dinosaurs were gone around 70 million years ago. 99.9% of dating Dinosaur bones come in big millions of years. If something comes in thousand of years must be a mistake, bad instrument calibration, misprint in publication or newspaper.

Of course it has to be, to prove your false point, which you want to be true.
Btw, non fossilized cells, neither poo, cannot survived millions of years. The
more C14 - but it is, in every dinosaur's - they just do not want to measure it.


But for you and your cult it is a proof.

It is proof, that 1. evolution didn;t happen, 2. that wolrd is not so old, as you claim.
It is enaugh. You cannot have billions of years old Earth, becasue the uranium aureoles proof that is not.
The same with other planets of stars - there are conditions which make it impossible for them to be such old.
But you simply don;t care - all you care is nicy theory which fits to your ungodly agenda.


How crazy is this?!!! All your argumentation, all your "science" for gullible people, comes from looking for such mistakes. Do you realise how ridiculous it is? It only proves that people make mistakes, that we are not perfect. It doesn't prove that there are different laws of phisics in universe.

Biggotry... biggotry... it is still in you... and blinds you...

Diomedes
29-07-17, 19:40
Rethel, you are "The Crusader" bro! Give 'em some pain.

LeBrok
30-07-17, 01:12
Unfortunatly not.
I gave the link, check it.
You show again, how close minded you are.

You are ignoring 99% of science when bones where dated correctly without mistakes. In your case, we are talking of not only being closed minded but also blind.

Angela
30-07-17, 02:33
You are ignoring 99% of science when bones where dated correctly without mistakes. In your case, we are talking of not only being closed minded but also blind.

LeBrok, you can't reason with people who are incapable of it. There are all manner of things about which reasonable people can disagree, but the age of the earth is not one of them.

@Diomedes,
Does the Orthodox Church not allow for annulments?

noman
30-07-17, 02:43
Yes, I read.
The very fact, that I read it, does not make it true.

LOL! How old are you 12? You think whatever you agree with right, no matter what the evidences are saying.



Yes, you are. If you are talking about Adam and Eve, and about
Abraham's faith, and you are talking something else about them,
than truth, then you are spreading lies.


See, you don't have any argument. All you are doing is attacking back with your emotions.


And you just make it worse, putting a lie in my mouth.
Not an argument



Idk, but probably some +/- 150.

You don't know, so how did you come up with that number?

LeBrok
30-07-17, 03:03
LeBrok, you can't reason with people who are incapable of it. There are all manner of things about which reasonable people can disagree, but the age of the earth is not one of them.

I know, I might be insane still trying and trying... and hoping that maybe a simple observations will open his eyes.

davef
30-07-17, 05:44
When I took Calculus II, I got a few exam questions wrong. Does that mean integration or estimation using series and limits is wrong?

Diomedes
30-07-17, 18:02
I think they do not, but I do not follow them closely and it's been years since I had Theology classes at school. The annulment is a something made by the state.



@Diomedes,
Does the Orthodox Church not allow for annulments?