Originally posted by john124
Actually the fascinating simulation of an asteroid hitting the Earth is a lot more interesting, hence the title of the thread.

Originally posted by john124
No, because it's nothing to do with actual religious beliefs.

Originally posted by john124
Rather, it's the assertion that religious people often deny the obvious reality of our universe and its often destructive nature, just because the sun is shining and birds are singing outside their home on planet Earth.

Originally posted by john124
Haha, it's common that believers in god tend to shy away from science because they fear the known may scare them.

Originally posted by john124
After all the bashing of science on religious threads, why would I shy away from giving my opinion on religious beliefs.

Originally posted by john124
And the proof of that is where?

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Jeremiah 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Raup and Sepkoski that suggests an extinction event of some magnitude occurs about every 26 million years.

Originally posted by john124
I prefer reality than stories.

Raup and Sepkoski that suggests an extinction event of some magnitude occurs about every 26 million years.

Originally posted by john124
I'm not trying to debunk the bible, that has already been done.

abnormal :
A person or object that is not normal; Not conforming to rule or system; deviating from the usual or normal type; Of or pertaining to behaviour that deviates from norms of social propriety or accepted standards of mental health.

Originally posted by john124
I tend to see this "bigger picture" as a "smaller picture" part of a narrowly focussed belief that god is great when any such creator is apparently as flawed as humankind playing Sims.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

Originally posted by john124
Attributing something as non-understandable to a human, and asserting that you understand it in order to make the assertion that nobody else does, is laughable.

Originally posted by john124
Thanks for the early morning laugh.

Revelation 14: 14-20
And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Originally posted by john124
The bible is bunk.

Originally posted by john124
That's a pointless statement because a significant number of people on this planet are athiests. If I were the only person, you'd have a fair point, but that's not the case at all.

Originally posted by john124
The majority believing in god doesn't prove god's existence.

Originally posted by john124
Yea that kind of nonsense might work in the US with peer-pressure to force others to buy into the god delusions, but I'm English and my country has a largely non-religious population.

Originally posted by john124
We have churches yes, and many folks may even have christian on record as their religion, but the majority simply don't go to church, and the majority of our kids find religious education at school pointless, which it generally is.

2Thess 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Timothy 3
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Originally posted by john124
The same process as before.... after several millenia the planet cools enough for liquid water to form, and undersea vents are ideal conditions for life to emerge.

Originally posted by john124
It isn't completely understood but don't get all false dichotomy and assume your guess is any meaningful than the infinite number of possibilities that remain unproven.

Daniel 11:38- But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:

Originally posted by john124
Please demonstrate where I've been ignorant of science.

Until the 19th century the dominant scientific beliefs in Europe were founded on the biblical narratives of Creation and the universal deluge. Other ancient deluge myths have been discovered since then, explaining why the flood story was "stated in scientific methods with surprising frequency among the Greeks", an example being Plutarch's account of the Ogygian flood.
Earth's history was viewed as the result of an accumulation of catastrophic events over a relatively short time period, before the depth of geological time was appreciated. In this way they were able to explain the observations of early geologists within the framework of a short Earth history.

Originally posted by john124
I'm specifying my opinions on religion. After all, religious beliefs are all opinions, but I'm basing mine on observations rather than fantasies. Not choosing to completely interpret religion in a fantasy sort of way doesn't mean I don't see how you all fantasize.

Originally posted by john124
Uniformitarianism is a rather simple term that becomes invalid when the observable universe has changing processes.

From around 1850 to 1980, most geologists endorsed uniformitarianism ("The present is the key to the past") and gradualism (geologic change occurs slowly over long periods of time) and rejected the idea that cataclysmic events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or floods of vastly greater power than those observed at the present time, played any significant role in the formation of the Earth's surface. Instead they believed that the earth had been shaped by the long term action of forces such as volcanism, earthquakes, erosion, and sedimentation, that could still be observed in action today. In part, the geologists' rejection was fostered by their impression that the catastrophists of the nineteenth century believed that God was directly involved in determining the history of Earth. Catastrophism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was closely tied to religion and catastrophic origins were considered miraculous rather than natural events.

Over the past 25 years, however, a scientifically based catastrophism has gained wide acceptance with regard to certain events in the distant past. One impetus for this change came from the publication of a historic paper by Walter and Luis Alvarez in 1980. This paper suggested that a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) asteroid struck Earth 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period. The impact wiped out about 70% of all species, including the dinosaurs, leaving behind the so-called K-T boundary. In 1990, a 180 kilometres (110 mi) candidate crater marking the impact was identified at Chicxulub in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.
Since then, the debate about the extinction of the dinosaurs and other mass extinction events has centered on whether the extinction mechanism was the asteroid impact, widespread volcanism (which occurred about the same time), or some other mechanism or combination. Most of the mechanisms suggested are catastrophic in nature.
The observation of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 cometary collision with Jupiter illustrated that catastrophic events occur as natural events.

Originally posted by john124
Science isn't about absolute certainties, and scientists can only work with the evidence we have otherwise science wouldn't be science would it!

Originally posted by john124
The world has not ended.

Originally posted by john124
Religions are the product of man, and man has always been savage.