Who wants to argue creation?

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phantom423

Well that's a matter of faith which, of course, you're entitled to. As for science, as a scientist myself, I don't believe in absolutes - not now or ever.

Is existence not absolute? If I fall into an active volcano, will I not die? Maybe our perception of absolutes aren't the same?

**edit** Does 1+1 ever equal anything other than 2?

Yes. In base 2, 1 + 1 equals 10

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phantom423

Well that's a matter of faith which, of course, you're entitled to. As for science, as a scientist myself, I don't believe in absolutes - not now or ever.

Is existence not absolute? If I fall into an active volcano, will I not die? Maybe our perception of absolutes aren't the same?

**edit** Does 1+1 ever equal anything other than 2?

if you dont use protection maybe.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phantom423

Well that's a matter of faith which, of course, you're entitled to. As for science, as a scientist myself, I don't believe in absolutes - not now or ever.

Is existence not absolute? If I fall into an active volcano, will I not die? Maybe our perception of absolutes aren't the same?

**edit** Does 1+1 ever equal anything other than 2?

Yes. In base 2, 1 + 1 equals 10

Base 2 is a numbering system. Read my post below.

a reply to: Phantom423

There are no posts below that one... But in any case, you should realize that I was being facetious.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Phantom423

There are no posts below that one... But in any case, you should realize that I was being facetious.

Sorry, I meant above to JohnFisher

a reply to: Phantom423

Is existence absolute? Well, can you prove that you even exist?

well, we're communicating. I'm not sure if I can prove that I exist. To whom should I prove it? Oh wait, I think I just did lol.

But the 1+1 bit is interesting. I'll have to look into that.

originally posted by: eisegesis

I absolutely respect the right for anyone to think for themselves, but in my opinion the Bible takes away from one's ability to do that effectively without prior convictions getting in the way observable, repeatable experiments.

The interesting thing here is it may not be the Bible that does this.

In a fair and studied review many "Christian Views" on varying topics have no Biblical support.

Take that Adam was the first man, and he and Eve populated the earth. This is a Christian View. Genesis clearly shows this Christian View is a False One, since on the 6th day, God and the Sons of God made man (both male and female) in the image of God and the Sons of God.

The distinction of these creations is the traits associated with each.

6th Day Man, was the "Hunter Gatherer", and as science confirms, long predates the introduction of the Farmer/Gardener that was the role of Adam and his descendants.

The main point here is that it is not the Bible that is clouding matters up. It is more so the Doctrines, Theologies, and Dogma that man wishes to express, that restricts free thought and forbids understanding based on the specific tenets of the various assortment of Christian denominations.


Wasn`t trying to pick on you specifically, but thought this should be at least considered.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phantom423

Is existence absolute? Well, can you prove that you even exist?

well, we're communicating. I'm not sure if I can prove that I exist. To whom should I prove it? Oh wait, I think I just did lol.

But the 1+1 bit is interesting. I'll have to look into that.

How do you know you're not a figment of someone's imagination? Are you real or are you fiction?

a reply to: ccseagull

Very good effort has been put forth in your post. You seemingly have a pretty good grasp on the subject,

A few things to consider.

You note the First Earth Age, which Science suggest is Billions of years old, and the destruction that occurred

Pick a number, for the earths age, and that fine . Seems I recall 4.5 Billion recently being suggested, but thats not important.

It is the Fall and the reason for Genesis 1:2 this is impportant. Now the Translation du jour is `and the earth was without form, and void..........`.

Looking at the Original Text, this expressed viewpoint of the Irish Monks who where producing a English Translation for the Mason, King James, could also have been expressed as follows.

Genesis 1:2 and the earth became a waste and a desolation............

With this to consider, it makes the words expressed further in the Genesis (RE)-Creation Account meaningful.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Several things to note.

First: MAN is a specific apposed to fish, fowl, creepeth etc..... It seems to be utilized in a familiar sense.
Second: MAN, both male and female, are created in `Our` image, instead of what they once where.
Third: MAN is thus created in the Image of GOD and the Sons of God, denoting an alikeness, but also inclusive of differences.

These are the Races, of that time, that encompassed the planet surviving on the Hunter, Gatherer principle that is clearly defined in the above scripture. These peoples still survive today, such as the Aborigines of Australia, South American Tribes in the Amazon. I could go on and on through Asia, Africa, and the Arctic.


One thing not clear in this topic is `Lifespan`. But that`s another subject

So it seems, as Science suggests, there was some creational event occurring for Millions and Millions of years. Some could define this as Evolution, but it is still part of the same occurrance regardless of what we call it. Satan and his cohorts get involved in doing whatever it was they opted to do, and this earth age comes to an end. We now enter the Genesis `RE-Creation`story.

We have the 6th Day Creation. IT is VERY GOOD.

After the Day of Rest, the subject of a Gardener is broached. Adam is created with specific instruction.

GOD looks around and in Genesis 2:5 it concludes ........... and there was not a man to till the ground. (FARMER)

GOD Creates Adam in a SPECIFIC act and with Specific intent.

Now with that done, the man, Adam was alone. There was no one like him. Of course some argue Lilith may have been around but thats another subject again.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

So he needs someone like him, and GOD makes him a Farmer Chick, who ends up being called Eve. She comes from Adam so she is `Like` Him, apposed to the Divergent Races of the 6th Day.

I offer the following for your reiew under a title Satan and his Descendants www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry, but it offers something to consider further in respects to Cain, and his Parentage. You may find it of interest. You may also find it otherwise, but such is life..

Anyways, it is always nice to see someone who has a good basic understanding of something they wish to express or discuss. It is something that isn`t always the case.

Good evening

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phantom423

Is existence absolute? Well, can you prove that you even exist?

well, we're communicating. I'm not sure if I can prove that I exist. To whom should I prove it? Oh wait, I think I just did lol.

But the 1+1 bit is interesting. I'll have to look into that.

Communication through fiber optics from behind firewalls doesn't prove anything remotely close to existance. For all we know you're just an algorithm floating freely through the interwebs.

originally posted by: cooperton
Gravity is an acceleration (m/s^2) so it would trump speed (m/s).

Where did you come up with that idea? Why would gravity trump any orbiting object's momentum, regardless of of speed? Look up terminal velocity for proof of this. There is a maximum speed you can accelerate to from gravity, even in free fall. Gravity does not cause objects to accelerate forever. There's no reason the earth should keep moving faster and faster.

Since the Sun is the major gravitational force acting upon the earth, the earth should be accelerating, increasing its speed, toward the sun. And that's what I can't wrap my head around.

Why do you think the earth should be accelerating (getting faster and faster)? I asked you to break down the math on this before. There is no reason the earth should keep accelerating. None at all. It's basic physics 101. Newton's law of motion states that in a vacuum, objects stay in consistent motion until acted upon by another object or force. Basically if you could throw a baseball while in space, the baseball would go the exact speed you threw it at and continue to go that speed indefinitely until it is stopped or slowed down by another force or object.

Your golf ball example is good, but, what are the odds that we get a bunch of planets to behave in such a way around the sun? I could see maybe one planet, but 8?

Pretty high since lots of stars have planets orbiting them. It's really about the laws of physics and momentum. Gravity is considered one of the weaker forces in the universe. Remember, some of these planets are hundreds of millions of miles away from the sun.

I find it hard to believe that the planets reached that perfect golf-ball-swirling-around-funnel speed with nothing but chaos to govern their harmony.

I don't understand why it's hard to believe. In the very early formation of our solar system there were likely dozens of planets that either got sucked in to the sun or other planets, or left orbit. The earth struck a rather large object that ended up forming the moon. Speaking of the moon, the moon is a great example of an object that's moving too fast for earth's gravity to hold.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: IpoopThere4IAM
"Facts" change ALL the time in science - Saying SOMETHING is true, can be true, but claiming to know the truth.. Is just ignorant..

Statements like this irk me. Facts do not change all the time in science. That is a terrible generalization of how science works. Theories are updated when new facts are discovered, and facts lead us to the truth... so yeah, it's valid and no facts don't change "ALL the time".

originally posted by: JohnFisher
To which advancement are you referring? One could effectively argue that faith is highly advantageous where science can more easily lead to overall moral transgression. Sure, religiosity can too. But my point about the light, simply put, is one's opinions of the world are restricted by fallible information that will likely change 100 times in 1000 years. Science is great, but without faith it only throws is into a rat race or a wild goose chase.

I hate to tell you this, but nothing is infallible, not even your faith. The bible was written by fallible humans, so to think it's correct requires a huge amount of faith in man. Science = facts and data, Faith = blind belief. Science and faith are completely separate and they should be. Dismissing science and insinuating that it's unreliable because it is fallible is downright dumb. Claiming one religion or faith is infallible simply because they refuse to update their holy books to make them relevant for modern times, means nothing. It is called stubbornness, not infallibility.

on't get me wrong, I love science! It just doesn't have any absolutes. I'd be willing to bet that even our understanding of scientific laws will change over time. There must be absolutes, which the notion of a God, or designer, fulfils. Heck, math gives evidence of absolutes and eternity.

Why does not having absolutes become a detractor for science? That's a good thing. It's better than being stubborn when your view gets outdated, yet still clinging on to it as if it's infallible. Why must there be absolutes? How does the idea of god fill any of it? How does math give evidence of eternity?

Is existence not absolute? If I fall into an active volcano, will I not die? Maybe our perception of absolutes aren't the same?

**edit** Does 1+1 ever equal anything other than 2?

Math is not science. He was referring to science, not math. Math is a system created by us, to measure and calculate things. Even existence is not absolute, as you cannot prove to me that you even exist.

Deja poo, thank you for a damn good belly laugh!
Anyway, to the matter in hand, I sometimes wonder about the human organism, why would it evolve to be able to produce dilute sulphuric acid to break down food in a stomach, that also had to evolve a lining that would resist the attack of dilute sulphuric acid, and arteries to transport the food chemicals to the parts where they are needed? then veins to transport the 'used' blood back to wherever its needed? Teeth? voice box? tongue? lungs? fish don't have lungs, we evolved from fish?
Why kidneys? liver? gall bladder? spleen? prostate gland? how was it decided that our wrists should rotate through 180 degrees?
And our head should do the same?
I can see why all our senses are so close to our brain, (apart from touch) .
Just why do we have so much junk inside that is home to so much germs, virus's, and pathogens, like we have gangrene in our blood!

originally posted by: pikestaff
Deja poo, thank you for a damn good belly laugh!
Anyway, to the matter in hand, I sometimes wonder about the human organism, why would it evolve to be able to produce dilute sulphuric acid to break down food in a stomach, that also had to evolve a lining that would resist the attack of dilute sulphuric acid, and arteries to transport the food chemicals to the parts where they are needed?

Because it helped humans survive.

then veins to transport the 'used' blood back to wherever its needed? Teeth? voice box? tongue? lungs? fish don't have lungs, we evolved from fish?

This is a loaded statement and broad generalization. Humans didn't evolve from fish. They evolved from previous hominid ancestors and ancient apelike ancestors before that. Your questions are all answered by "they helped homo sapiens survive". None of those organs are unique to humans except maybe the voice box, but animals have them, they are just much different than ours.

Why kidneys? liver? gall bladder? spleen? prostate gland? how was it decided that our wrists should rotate through 180 degrees?
And our head should do the same?

It wasn't decided. Wrists that rotate helped humans utilize tools, which helped them survive. Most of those features evolved long before humans. Without the kidneys or liver to filter poisons from what we consume, human fatality would increase drastically.

I can see why all our senses are so close to our brain, (apart from touch) .
Just why do we have so much junk inside that is home to so much germs, virus's, and pathogens, like we have gangrene in our blood!

Precisely why we were not created. Why would a creator need to use bacteria to keep us alive? It doesn't make sense to design something so prone to failure. You can ask questions about why things are the way they are until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't get us anywhere. You should do some research into biology and evolution if you REALLY want answers and aren't just bringing up those points to argue against evolution.

a reply to: Shane

Shane - thank you! I am going to read up on what you suggested. And I will respond to your message, most likely tomorrow. Thanks, I love how God's word is always revealing more of what we haven't been aware of before.

Talk soon!

a reply to: agentscoly

An eclipse proves nothing.

Wrong!
It proves the moon casts a shadow.

Anyone can take a book written 3500 years ago and twist the words around to suit a particular situation.

WTF are you talk'n about?

You cannot even fathom the true meaning because the words are so diluted, muddled what have you...

Provide some examples please?

Religion is nothing more than a way to control the feeble minded masses.

But you are the best evidence that this just isn't true.

But I have to ask, how ya gonna feel when you die and realize that you have wasted your whole life on a fairy tale...

And I also must ask, when are you gonna wake up and see how
wasted life would be if it were just a fairytale?

Fairytales aren't coroborated by archeaology time and time again.

a reply to: randyvs

kudos for having the patience to respond to that nonsense, all the while full of wit. 5 stars.

a reply to: Barcs

Yes they do. Only constants like " Gravity exists in some way " can be 100% factual - How it works, our control over it, etc, the ideas constantly change - Maybe neutrinos are faster than light therefore blowing up einsteins equations, we still don't know what most of the universe is - We call it dark matter, dark energy, etc - But don't know what we're talking about. Science is unreliable at best.

Regardless, science and the pursuit of knowledge fascinates me. Temporary working theories on how things work are very interesting, but I'll never label them as "truth"

originally posted by: randyvs

Yet science has never claimed that there is no god. As god can't really be observed in any objective, empirical, repeatable way that we know of, it's not a subject relevant to science as yet. Perhaps it could be relevant to neuroscience? I don't really mean that in a condescending way either. If there is "something", experience of it via consciousness (that many people claim) seems at least plausible.

Your beef isn't (or shouldn't be) with science Randy. It's not hard to see the benefits it has brought to modern man. It appears to be more with those who don't believe (us atheists) who use science to quite rightly point to certain inaccuracies in claims made by scripture. IMO, it's only the portrayal of "god" as given by religion and the accompanying empty (or easily disprovable) claims as if they were facts, that I object to. Apart from this (and ultimately), who knows? Though if there is a "god" of some sort, it will be more likely to complement our understanding of science, rather than completely contradict it as religious notions of god usually do (to the point of being obvious folklore/fairy tales).

If you want to believe, believe away. The OP is not really any different to the Ray Comfort/banana fallacy. This alone doesn't make the claim wrong (claims aren't necessarily wrong, simply because they are put forth via fallacies). It does make it, as yet, unsubstantiated in any genuine way though. Not very convincing.