01 Dec 12
Originally posted by SoothfastLMAO! Who wrote that? That's good stuff!
I see. Do you also still believe all of the following that you posted once?
I agree with you, I believe that there are many apocalyptic presences which are being inflicted upon us as a people, and a nation, and as a world. I've often felt that not being able to view the ultraviolet spectrum was God's punishment on us for original sin, because ...[text shortened]... perhaps a referee, and it's led me to believe that zebras are God's chosen animals.
01 Dec 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57That is one approach, but another approach is to say that the Bibilcal text is not taken literally enough.
I have yet to hear a scientist try to disprove the existence of God, they may in the course of research discover facts that contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, but as you pointed out that is not the same thing at all.
A man by the name of Gerald Schroeder, who is a scientist and part time theologian, came up with some interesting discorveries. He studied some ancient Jewish philosphers and rabbis and found that some of them had concluded that the 6 days in Genesis were not a literal six day, just from studying the Hebrew text. Men like Nachmanides, decided that the wording in Genesis was the key.
The first six days in Genesis are denoted as morning and evening. A very odd way to keep track of time to say the least, but if we look at the root words we see that the term "erev" is used to denote evening and "boker" is used to denote morning. However, looking at their root meanings, erev means chaotic and disorderly and boker means discernable and orderly. So essentially creation was toggling back and forth from disorder into order is what the text is trying to say. Keep in mind, this is not an attempt to fit an ancient text into the modern day scientific by men such as Nachmanides, this is simply a display of their expertise in action regarding the Hebrew language. However, looking at the KJV we are dumbfounded to see how this could be interpreted this way. Nontheless, there are other clues in the KJV to suggest that something more is going on. For example, the sun was not created the first day, so what was a day? Is not a day the earth spinning once on its axis as it spins around the sun? Also in Genesis 2:4 it says, "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and earth when they were created." What happened to six mere days?
Schoeder throws the young universe theory entirley out the window. He correctly states that the age of the universe has been determined using a variet of independent measurements including radioactive dating, doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 degree above zero" radiation background. For one of these measurements to be off might be arguable, but all three? No.
Schroeder wrote a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" that outlays his findings and beliefs. He even came up with a theory all his own regarding the six days all based upon Einstein's theery of relativity. As Einstien correctly pointed out, time is relative to the observer, so before man was created time is only relative to God, however, once Adam came on the scene time begins relative to the human race. His theory hinges on the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. Essentially, he states that with each day in the Bibilcal text time halves. That means that day one was 8 billiion years, day two was 4 billion years, day 3 was 2 billion years etc. In fact, it matches day 5, when sea creatures were created, with such events as the Cambrian Explosion.
So that covers the age of the earth Biblically. The other issue is the age of mankind. Schroeder again enlists the help of ancient scholars like Nachmanides to show that it was theorized that Adam and Eve were not the only "humanoid" creatures in the garden. Again, how they get this from Genesis is baffling, but they did just the same from the original Hebrew text. They theorized that Adam became 'human" once God breathed a "life spirit" into him, but only then. The implication being that various humanoid creatures could have existed for a very long time and in unknown numbers and from unknown origins.
For those of you who scoff at such notions, just read Genesiis again. Why does God speak to the waters to produce life on land? Why not just pop things into existence from nothing? Why is man made from the dust of the earth etc?
As for the Big Bang, this theory was first proposed by a theologian. Today we know a great number of things about this explosion of matter. Here are a few facts.
1. There is a strong force constant.
-if larger: no hydrogen would form, atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
-if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form; again, no life chemistry
2. There is a weak force constant
-if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.
3. There is a gravitation force constant
- if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly.
-if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
And the list goes on and on and on. In fact, when looking at the complexity of living creatures, it is comparable to the comlexity and fine tuning of the material universe. To think that these events just happened on their own to me is beyond absurd.
I suppose one thing we can all agree on is that it all is a mystery and always will be, but it is fun trying to peice things together whether you are a person of faith or otherwise.
01 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhen I find some time I'll watch that movie. I saw it's on Youtube. Incidentally, on that particular channel some "interesting" links could be found. For instance http://www.darwinistdictatorship.com/index.php ("darwinism is a shamanist religion - a secret fascist organization was founded in order to defend this pagan religion derived from the Sumerians" ), http://www.darwinistdictators.com/ and http://www.evolutionisnotscientific.com/index.php.
When I watched the movie "Expelled" I heard Dawkins say that evolution disproved the Bible.
Funny stuff.
Why was it "funny stuff"?
Originally posted by Great King RatPeople make the assumption that elements of evolution are devoid of divine guidance. I think even Darwin assumed as much. Simply put, evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
When I find some time I'll watch that movie. I saw it's on Youtube. Incidentally, on that particular channel some "interesting" links could be found. For instance http://www.darwinistdictatorship.com/index.php ("darwinism is a shamanist religion - a secret fascist organization was founded in order to defend this pagan religion derived from the Sumeria om/ and http://www.evolutionisnotscientific.com/index.php.
Why was it "funny stuff"?
In the movie Expelled, the movie attacks the theory of evolution in large part, I suppose on the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutally exclusive, but my favorite scene is when he asks a scientist about abiogenesis. The scientist says that it was probably intiated on the backs of crystals. The exchange is pretty humorous.
Although I may not agree with all the premises of evolution, my main beef is with abiogenesis. The movie does point out, I think rather successfully, what happens when we stop being politically correct. This can occur in any field because we are all political creatures and become most upset when are beliefs and assumptions are challenged. I suppose it beats being burned at the stake which used to be the penalty for such thinking.
01 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI did not say "vast" majority of Republicans, but only a majority of Republicans (about 60% ) believe that the Earth has been here 6000 years. I did say that a vast majority of evangelicals believe that the Earth has been here 6000 years. And the evangelicals are the major force in the Republican Party. Not much room in the Republican Party for science or free thinkers.
First of all, I'm not a Republican. Secondly, I could care less how many of "me" there are.
However, you hate the GOP, so coming up with numbers showing that the vast number of them think the earth is only 6000 years old I suppose would be beneficial to your cause.
Who knows, maybe you can find some that think God wants women to be raped while your at it.
Nevertheless, not only do a majority of the Republican rank-and-file believe that the Earth has only been here 6000 years but many Republican state and US legislators, and several 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and many in the Republican Party leadership believe that the Earth has only beein here 6000 years.
Mark Rubio, a popular likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate refused to directly answer the question as to how old the Earth.
01 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by my2sonsDo you think God created man through evolution, and that the Genesis stories of creation, for example, are only symbolic? Ot do you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
so you are telling me that by looking at a bunch of rocks, some nut says the earth is billions of years old. What a joke that is! Bet you believe in global warming too.
Since all atheists are liberals, when they end up in hell, their fat asses will be crispy fried, but it won't be from global warming, it will be from a different kind of warming.
By the way, you are the typical Republican. Slightly ignorant. Religious brainwashed. Reject science. Accept superstition.
01 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672You wrote it. On page 10 of this thread: Thread 13075.
LMAO! Who wrote that? That's good stuff!
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's slightly more complicated than that:
The beast was Nero. In Greek Caesar is spelled Kaiser. If you apply kabbalistic numerology to "Nero Kaiser" you get 666.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast
In most manuscripts of the New Testament the number is 666, but the variant 616 is found in critical editions of the Greek text, such as the Novum Testamentum Graece. Most scholars believe that the number of the beast (v.18) equates to Emperor Nero, whose name in Greek when transliterated into Hebrew, retains the value of 666, whereas his Latin name transliterated into Hebrew, is 616.
Lower down the relevant page there's a more detailed account of how this numerology works.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeywhodey, it's a story. An allegorical piece of ancient poetry, nothing more, nothing less.
That is one approach, but another approach is to say that the Bibilcal text is not taken literally enough.
A man by the name of Gerald Schroeder, who is a scientist and part time theologian, came up with some interesting discorveries. He studied some ancient Jewish philosphers and rabbis and found that some of them had concluded that the 6 days in Genesis ...[text shortened]... trying to peice things together whether you are a person of faith or otherwise.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodey
People make the assumption that elements of evolution are devoid of divine guidance. I think even Darwin assumed as much. Simply put, evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In the movie Expelled, the movie attacks the theory of evolution in large part, I suppose on the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutally exclu ...[text shortened]... d. I suppose it beats being burned at the stake which used to be the penalty for such thinking.
People make the assumption that elements of evolution are devoid of divine guidance. I think even Darwin assumed as much. Simply put, evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In The Descent of Man,which I am reading currently, Darwin argues not against Creation but against Special Creation. He suggests that it is not reasonable to envisage God creating over and over again as the need arises and makes more sense that God set up His Creation and allowed nature then to proceed in an orderly manner. This he says is a more credible way to envisage Creation.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by finneganAre you saying that God should have consulted Darwin beforehand?People make the assumption that elements of evolution are devoid of divine guidance. I think even Darwin assumed as much. Simply put, evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In The Descent of Man,which I am reading currently, Darwin argues not against Creation but against Special Creation. He suggests that it is n ...[text shortened]... then to proceed in an orderly manner. This he says is a more credible way to envisage Creation.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by finneganBut if you're omnipotent then surely everything comes effortlessly and considerations of economy and efficiency are not germane.People make the assumption that elements of evolution are devoid of divine guidance. I think even Darwin assumed as much. Simply put, evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In The Descent of Man,which I am reading currently, Darwin argues not against Creation but against Special Creation. He suggests that it is n ...[text shortened]... then to proceed in an orderly manner. This he says is a more credible way to envisage Creation.
Also I have a hard time envisioning an omniscient being setting up natural laws, including principles of biological evolution, and then saying "Surprise me."