God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

a reply to: edmc^2

You don't need a spaceship to confirm the fact that the earth is floating in space. Just flying around the earth will allow you to visually confirm that.

Hell just walking around the earth would tell you that. Mapping out the earths surface, would also show you that visually as well. Since I don't recall there ever being a map showing a string or stick or anything going from the surface of the planet out into space somewhere I'm guessing it was pretty clear that the earth wasn't attached to anything else.

a reply to: edmc^2

I offer you the whole of science neighbour. Not the adulterated word of man. My ancestors believed that the universe was order emerging from Chaos. All by its self.

So there are many logical answers. Not just one. WE have evidence for the Big Bang, yet none for your Deity being the sole creator.

a reply to: Noinden

I don't know who your ancients were but I must say they certainly knew something about something and said it in a very profound way.

Order emerging from Chaos is what some of our most recent mathematics is showing us as well. The way mandalas were used in the past to visualize Order from Chaos, Fractals are doing the same today. Same message, thousands of years apart but from the same source.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

There's plenty of doubt that he had advanced knowledge. A lucky guess. Maybe he heard it from someone else. None of what he said proves that god did anything. And your ignoring this one as usual

For the pillars of the earth are theLord’s, and He has set the world upon them. (1 Samuel 2:8)

And your ignoring this one to nobody's surprise

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone[?] (Job 38:4–6)

As I said you can't just pick and choose one vague statement that is semi correct and ignore the other scriptures that are in direct conflict with science. That is being dishonest.

And how are these scriptures in direct conflict with science?

a reply to: edmc^2

If you actually need to ask that question then you've proven that you don't understand science.

The earth doesn't have pillars. Direct conflict with science and direct conflict with your precious Job verse.

The earth does not have foundations nor a cornerstone. Again direct conflict !

Thanks for playing take home the consolation prize.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

I offer you the whole of science neighbour. Not the adulterated word of man. My ancestors believed that the universe was order emerging from Chaos. All by its self.

So there are many logical answers. Not just one. WE have evidence for the Big Bang, yet none for your Deity being the sole creator.

Yet your ancestors were not humans?

And that somehow their words are adulterated?

But if you insist let's then compare and contrast you ancestor's words with Bible.


Right off the bat, the Bible states:

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(Psalm 19:1) . . .The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.

(Hebrews 1:10) And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.

(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Hence, the creation of the "heavens and the earth" is not through chaos but of order. Like a "house is constructed by someone".

So what say your ancestors?

How did the universe come to be - according to them?

a reply to: edmc^2

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.

From

www.huecotanks.com...

So according to genesis the earth was formed before there was any light. Incorrect. Not congruent with modern science.

Also from the same source:

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened",

More nonsense from the bible which you claim is scientifically accurate. Again we are still in the first book and I'm leaving some out because you have shown a repeated pattern of ignoring the evidence anyways.

One more just because maybe you will actually address it.

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. 

Strike three. You think if the writer or genesis got his information from the creator that they would know aquatic organisms existed long before anything else. However they didn't.


Let's not forget that in Genesis 1:1 the word elohim was used which means it stated "In the beginning the GODS created the heavens and the earth". Implying more than one god.

a reply to: mOjOm

What I wrote was the very basis of cosmology from the Indo-European speaking peoples.

a reply to: edmc^2

Why is it that you completely ignore anything to counter your "proof" and just attack or insult the poster?

Normally that's a good sign that you have lost the argument, but you lost that pages ago.

a reply to: edmc^2

Nice attempt at semantics. However science interprets the evidence, religion feels things. I trust what I can measure over what I can feel in this case neighbour.

You need to broaden your learning, and step away from the Abrhamic works. Try the Halvamal, the Tain, the various Veda etc

a reply to: TerryDon79

To accept that there is counter to his (?) "proof" would require that there is acceptance that he may be wrong, we know that is never going to be admitted. Thus the response will be ad hominem attack.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

To accept that there is counter to his (?) "proof" would require that there is acceptance that he may be wrong, we know that is never going to be admitted. Thus the response will be ad hominem attack.

Yeah. I've certainly noticed the "I'm right and there's nothing you can say to change my mind" *sticks fingers in ears* "lalalalalalala" attitude from him/her/it.

How can people expect to grow intellectually if they blindly dismiss anything that might disagree with them?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I honestly believe sometimes that fanatical religion is an illness of the mind...

literally being afraid to find out your religion is wrong, to the point where said person will completely ignore anything that comes even close to hitting that soft spot

The best example is the whole Noahs ark thing... the story is purely an impossibility, yet few Christians will actually admit to that... and im pretty sure ALL of them know its just a story

a reply to: TerryDon79

Learning is the devils work Terry, you know that Mind you I aspire to be like the intellectuals of my ancestors, not a docile sheep

a reply to: TerryDon79

The thing is if science showed me solid evidence of god or if he came down and performed a miracle I would change my beliefs.

a reply to: Akragon

Don't get me started on Noah's bloody boat.

"Big flood covered the whoooooooole world!" Apart from there's far from enough liquid and solid water available to even cover all land masses, let alone to the tops of mountains.

And then there's the logistics of getting all the animals on a boat. And feeding them. And them not eating each other. And all the plants would die off under the water. And I'm sure I've missed stuff, but it's just an impossibility anyway.

Stupid wooden raft.

a reply to: Noinden

That's what I don't understand.

Religion has been around for bloody years. Way before a Christ story. Yet people evolved intellectually and made observations and scienced the crap out of stuff.

Nowadays, a lot of religious fundamentals have gone backwards a thousand years in their thinking.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TerryDon79

The thing is if science showed me solid evidence of god or if he came down and performed a miracle I would change my beliefs.

You and me both mate(ess?). I've actually been thinking of a creator/God/something lately and I'm not opposed to the idea. It's just that one (or many) aren't needed, based on science. If they're not needed, why would the exist. Kind of a circular argument with myself.

But yeah, if something tangible happened then I would change from a lack of belief (with ponderings) to a full on belief.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well apparently only our bodies evolved... Not everyones mind... lol

I think the best part of the Ark story is how the animals managed to get to all the other continents from one mountian in the middle east where said raft landed afterwords...

I guess they swam it...

a reply to: Akragon

I have too many favorite parts of that story. It's too easy. And although many Christians concede that it is merely a story some believe it to be the factual history.

What I don't understand is if one part is a story how do you know other parts are not. And who decides what is allegory and what is historically true?