Results 1 to 15 of 297

Thread: Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

    After reading through the thread on Christianity and why one believes, I have to state...it's why I incapable of ever doing such in my life. There are some grossly blatant incorrect things about evolution as well. Evolution is not a game of chance like in Monopoly or Blackjack. After shooting down some misconceptions about evolution, we'll talk about GOD strictly from a philosophical sense then dismantle Christianity.

    The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favors mutations that provide some advantage. And the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

    The phrase "survival of fittest" is widely misunderstood!!
    Many wrongly assume it means that evolution always increases the chances of a species surviving.Evolution sometimes results in individuals or populations becoming less fit and may occasionally even lead to extinction.

    There are several ways in which evolution can reduce the overall fitness of individuals or of populations. For starters, natural selection can take place at different levels – genes, individuals, groups – and what promotes the survival of a gene does not necessarily increase the fitness of the individuals carrying it, or of groups of these individuals.

    (See sickle cell trait vs sickle cell anemia...one reduces malaria, the other devastating completely)

    Now let's talk about Christianity...you first have to talk about it's origins.

    When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a MYTH.

    In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

    So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy,turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks...HOW COMES THAT'S NOT A MYTH???

  2. #2
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default God Is Amoral

    God is amoral, folks. Hate to break it you (okay, not really) but yes your GOD completely amoral in nature...assuming for a moment he does in fact even exist.

    All religions rest popularly as they do on Pascal's wager, which states as follows:

    1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

    2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

    3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

    4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

    Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry. This is nothing more than religion through fear of an eternal punishment ultimately which has never been empirically proven to exist. But,such cannot be considered a true path to "GOD" because if one believes all "GOD" is pure goodness it is illogical. Which I shall get into later...

    But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves, Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

    "Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.

    It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII

    God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way.

    If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genesis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

    If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe? We'll come back to that one later as well.

    You are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

    But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.

    Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.

    God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.

    God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.

    If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.

    God has to be amoral as well. Why?

    Because since God must make only the most moral optimum choice, he has no free will. As well he is not omniscient because every choice he was going to make was perfect and already decided. So God would have to be amoral by default.

    Either what is right or wrong is simply because God says so or God says what is right or wrong because it is, simply. God's command for this to be right would have to set up a standard to which there is no moral reasoning for following, and then this only becomes followed out of fear. Then on the other hand God's command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethics have nothing to do with religion and never flowed from it by divine inspiration.

    (This would negate Moses, and the bible as a foundation for laws, other than symbolism.)

    Then how do you explain evil?

    "The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.

    It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.

    The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

    What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales.

    Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    God is amoral, folks. Hate to break it you (okay, not really) but yes your GOD completely amoral in nature...assuming for a moment he does in fact even exist.

    All religions rest popularly as they do on Pascal's wager, which states as follows:

    1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

    2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

    3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

    4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
    God does not intend at all for the majority of mankind to live in heaven. Why prepare the earth for human life if you just wanted those persons in heaven with you for all eternity anyways? That is purposeless, and not in the character of Jehovah. Whatever his purposes are, he fulfills them. Hell is not a fiery place of torment, that is a lie promoted through misrepresentation of the bible. Period. It is however mankind's resting place, even Jesus once had to be risen from there. And he had no faults, there was no reason for him to ever see hell since he was sinless. Unless of course hell is just a mandatory place where all dead people have to rest a bit. That makes only logical sense.


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry.
    It takes more than simple belief in God to have his approval.


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves, Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

    "Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.
    So what this genius is stating is, that the one who makes voice box and language is not capable of making sure that all of those is any will have his word to know the truth? Yea, that explains why the bible is translated in whole or part in more than 2,300 languages and is thus available to more than 90 percent of the worlds population today. On the avg, more than a million bibles each week are distributed. Billions of copies of either the whole bible, or part of it has been produced. What book has stood the test of time like it? Has the historical and scientific accuracies it has? The fact that you cannot get rid of this book says a lot about it's author if one uses logic. If one cannot even rid the world of God's book(and they have tried), how can they stop him from fulfilling his other purposes? Clearly, there is no other book in history like the bible.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII
    Good thing for reason! It is reasonable to acknowledge all of these wonderful creations and say hmm, there had to be a designer for all of these things. But lemme ask, reason is behind the theory of evolution?

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way.
    Jesus was born from a virgin for the sole purpose of being made a perfect human. Yet he was not aloof. He was the most loving human to ever live. So your philosophy is shot down right there.



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genesis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

    If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe.
    Again, the same with Jesus who was perfect, Love. For God to have all that power and not create even though he is self sufficient, would be selfishness. God is too loving for that. If you were perfect, would you not love yourself? Or others? Would you sit being all powerful and not create? Just be happy within yourself? likely not. So then why would God?


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    You are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

    But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.
    Everything that God makes is perfect of itself. Animals are perfect in themselves, stars and planets in themselves, and intelligent life form (humans and angels) in themselves. They are his boundaries to set. And with free will, sin can certainly exist. That is the only way it CAN in fact exist. Without it, it would just be a law. Robotic. God set a righteous way for life, his way. Anything in opposition is unrighteous. Satan, Adam and Eve chose to deviate from God's righteousness. And because of it, we all see the benefits of living righteous, religious OR NOT. God set the boundaries to care for the earth. We all see the benefit of being more aware of it now that mankind has ruined the earth beyond repair.

    God did not make us imperfect, or ruin the earth, we chose to do it apart from him, as if we were the ones who made all things. Our fault, not his.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.
    Who said God NEEDED to create? he chose too, out of love. There is a difference between needing and choosing. And he does not create without purpose. Does not happen.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.
    God can choose to do whatever he wants. It is part of being God. However, he is Holiest of all, and is the meaning of righteousness. Having the ability to do something, and actually doing something is totally different. The fact that God chooses to act wisely having all the power in the universe is a testament to his righteousness. If you had it, what would you do with it?



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.
    If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.
    Explain to me how God cannot have free will, but his intelligent creations do, and they are made in his image? Clearly Jesus exibited free will, and he was perfect, so how could the one creating him from a virgin not have free will? Jesus died without ever breaking any of Gods laws. He was tempted just like the rest of us to make wrong choices, yet he did not. So one does not have to be imperfect to be faced with choice.

    For instance, while driving, if you see a sign that says one way street and you obey it 100 out of 100, even though you could run down the opposite end of the street, would contemplating going down the street actually go against your perfect record of actually obeying the law? Or would you have to actually do it for it to count? Take Adam and Eve for example. God made them and their surroundings perfect. He placed the tree in the Garden that they were forbidden to eat from. For some time after that command, they continued to live in peace and harmony with God. Why? Clearly because even though they were faced with a possible wrong choice, they did not act on making it. So while they had a choice to do wrong, it did not make them imperfect facing it. They however became imperfect when they CHOSE to do what God said not.

    Having free will does not count against you being perfect. It is making the choice to do the wrong thing while being perfect that makes you imperfect.

    This answers your amoral questions as well.



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Then how do you explain evil?

    "The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.
    Allowing something, and being the cause for it is totally separate. Evil only exists because of sin and the choice of those to do evil. The sin part you cannot help, you are imperfect. But when you know what is wrong, and still do it, says that you are choosing to do the wrong thing. That is where the problem lies. You can choose to do right whether perfect or imperfect. It is much tougher imperfect because of your imperfect nature. But it is doable. Just not perfectly. God plans to fix the imperfect part very soon on humanity's part.

    Now as far as heaven. You may need to read the bible more to understand the ramifications of it better. In revelations chapter 12 the bible speaks of the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven. and it says regarding those who remained loyal to God who did not get cast out " TO BE GLAD YOU WHO RESIDE IN THE HEAVENS". Why? Because the devil was allowed to remain in heaven for some time to persuade other angels that they can live apart from Gods righteous rule. This points back to the whole issue at hand of universal sovereignty. So there HAD to be suffering in spiritual sense for those who were still trying to do Gods will when they see others disobeying him. The same sorta struggle that humans on earth face. Now as far as disasters and such, the bible speaks of no such things in heaven, but suffering spiritually is still a form of suffering.

    And God has only allowed all the suffering in any form to exist to prove that if all intelligent life would obey his righteous rule, there would be no suffering. He plans to fix all wrongs for the sake of those who despite all the suffering, still hope in him and do his will. Hence, respecting his side of the sovereignty issue. That is why the bible says in revelations 12:12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.” Those in the heavens no longer have to deal with the devil. We do.. for a short period of time...

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.
    Well God tried to do that with Adam and Eve in the Garden. They did not have to suffer.. they only did when they disobeyed God. HE WARNED THEM what would happen if they disobeyed. He told them they would be evil if they ate from the tree. So they did not have to experience it to know what it would mean. They chose too out of selfishness. Clearly if he did that for humans, he did it for the angels before hand as well. But again, God will not let his purpose be thwarted by his creations. He put a plan into action to fix things right then.

    Babies or unborn children will have the opportunity to live again on earth during the resurrections.. Not going to heaven. Not many are. a set number have that hope, and they are sealed.


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

    What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales.

    Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place.
    God is love. His intelligent creations love as well. In order to have love, you MUST have free will. Without it, you cannot love. But the issue is, if you can choose to exercise love, you can also choose not too. So God did not create evil, but evil is in direct opposition of love. But one does not have to be evil. They choose it. That much is clear starting with him. He has absolute power and no one can stop him. Yet out of love his gives us free will. We can eat bread and water to survive. But he gives us taste buds and variety to enjoy life more fully. We have a brain that allows us to never stop learning, and create from what we learn. He could have made us like we make computers...

    Point is, if everyone exercised love, evil would be a thing of the past and never come up. No one is doomed to it, they choose it. Like they can choose to love as God does.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    After reading through the thread on Christianity and why one believes, I have to state...it's why I incapable of ever doing such in my life. There are some grossly blatant incorrect things about evolution as well. Evolution is not a game of chance like in Monopoly or Blackjack. After shooting down some misconceptions about evolution, we'll talk about GOD strictly from a philosophical sense then dismantle Christianity.

    The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favors mutations that provide some advantage. And the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

    The phrase "survival of fittest" is widely misunderstood!!
    Many wrongly assume it means that evolution always increases the chances of a species surviving.Evolution sometimes results in individuals or populations becoming less fit and may occasionally even lead to extinction.

    There are several ways in which evolution can reduce the overall fitness of individuals or of populations. For starters, natural selection can take place at different levels – genes, individuals, groups – and what promotes the survival of a gene does not necessarily increase the fitness of the individuals carrying it, or of groups of these individuals.

    (See sickle cell trait vs sickle cell anemia...one reduces malaria, the other devastating completely)

    Now let's talk about Christianity...you first have to talk about it's origins.

    When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a MYTH.

    In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a MYTH.

    When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

    So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy,turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks...HOW COMES THAT'S NOT A MYTH???
    I'll speak briefly on this subject. In the religious thread, I have posted several posts on how evolution cannot have taken place based not only by biblical standards, but by scientific standards as well. If the ones who are trying to prove that evolution in fact has taken place cannot prove it, how is it then a fact? Some scientists even say it is dogma that other scientists believe in evolution, because they just don't want to believe in a creator. They cannot even reproduce the theories of evolution they have. Why? It's not a fact. It did not happen. We were all created by Jehovah. Period.

    Again with these other so called Gods or sons of God. None of those other supposed sons of God were prophesied about for one. Jesus was Prophesied about three chapters into the bible (genesis 3:15) And he was prophesied about all throughout the Hebrew scriptures. All of them happened.

    Now, where are the prophesies about Alexander the great before he was born? Show please? Oh I have one! In the bibles book of Daniel where the angel tells how in a nutshell his tumultuous adult life would be lived, and how he'd die suddenly. Nothing about a virgin mom! Where are the prophesies about these people you have posted?

    Also one big difference is that there is ample proof that Jesus actually existed. There is no proof of such as some of the persons on your list. Hence, myth. Not hard, just common sense.


    And let me ask this. When Moses killed a man in Egypt, and the Egyptians were looking for him, where was their God to help them find him, and make sure he does not escape? Lets go back a little bit further. Where were their Gods when all the Israelite first born sons were all killed cept for Moses, spared by whom? AN EGYPTIAN QUEEN of all things! Would NOT Osirus or someone step in and stop this madness? NO! THEY TOOK HIM IN! And when Jehovah told Moses to head back to Egypt and free his people, who were slaves and he returned to the place where he was once a fugitive, where was OSIRUS? When Jehovah brought the ten plagues upon Egypt? OSIRUS ANYONE? IM PRETTY SUUUUUUUURRRRREEEEEE, THEY PRAYED TO HIM! Why are the lowly Israelites protected from all the plagues, but the Egyptians all feeling the wrath, and they are IN THE SAME PLACE? OSIRUS, HELP YOUR PEOPLE PLEASE! Not only did the Israelites leave healthy, but they left with the Egyptian gold and mule! DANG OSIRUS! YOU JUST GOT PUNKED! HELP YOUR PEOPLE!! JEHOVAH, GOD OF JESUS DOES!

    Point is, that those other so called Gods are not God's at all. Jehovah is. He has proven it time and again, and will do so again very shortly for all mankind to never mistake that he alone is God.

  5. #5
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Knickfan4realz, your very long attempt to disprove Christianity is something that obviously got to you. That is what happens to many scientist that really look into the comparison between a Creator and Evolution. You do know that many scientist, who were extreme Atheist, came to the conclusion that a Creator is the only possible solution to why we live in this universe and world today. I will explain that later.

    Knickfan4realz, im going to give you an argument that is very simple, it's called the Cosmological Argument that proves the Universe had a Beggining.
    Start out easy...
    A)Everything that had a beggining had a cause
    B)The universe had a beggining so therefore it had a cause
    C)The only two possibilities are that there is NO beggining or there is a beggining.

    There are 5 reasons to support that their is Evidence that the Universe had a Beggining, which goes against the Athiest view.

    1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
    explanation- The Universe is running out of usable energy so the Universe has a finite amount of energy. If there was NO Beggining then that energy would have run out a long time ago. The Universe overtime will have disorder and no scientist has disproven this.

    2) The Universe is Expanding
    explanation- if you rewind the Universe, in an Atheist view, it will go from what it is now all the way back to, NOTHING. This is a mathmatical and logical statement. So all of a sudden it went from Nothing to Something? If you say that im wrong because of Natural Law, your wrong because Natural Law cannot disprove this because Natural Law wasnt around. Aristotle once quoted "Nothing is what rocks dream about."

    3) Radiation Echo
    explanation- Bell Labs 1965, two scientist named Wilson and Penziest found a sound from an initial explosion and after much time the sound was still there from the orginal explosion, this disproved the Steady State Theory which was said that the Universe was eternal. Look up the Steady State Theory if you didnt know it becuase it's what Evolutionist belived and some still do. Agnostic Astronomer Robert Gastro supported that this discovery proved the Steady State Theory false.

    4)Great Mass of Matter
    explanation- In 1992, the Hubble Space telescope reported that it found a great mass of matter found in the Universe. An example would be like an exploding chair with the matter being a chunk of that chair. This Great mass of matter was an explanation of the Big Bang Theory. The odds of seeing that chunk of matter from the Big Bang is the same odds of a believer seeing God through a telescope.

    Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow- "Scientist have pinned themselves into a corner because by using their own methods they have discovered that the universe began abruptly in an act of Creation. This traces that every living thing has been found from a product of forces they cannot discover, that there are or what i call, Supernatural forces at work which is a scientifically proven fact. And that the Biblical view seems to be the right view."

    5)End of Infitine time is impossible
    explanation- If you follow a Biblical timeline, you cannot traverse an infinite number of days...End of an infinite???? By definition inifinte has no end. If we're at the end of history, there must have been a beggining because today would have never gotten here.
    Conclusion: Universe must have had a beggining.

  6. #6
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Continued... and other Scientist quotes.

    Continued........

    If the Universe had a Beginning then it must have had a Beginner.

    Two Options:
    Atheist Veiw: No one created something out of nothing
    Theistic View: Someone created something out of nothing

    Question for you Knickfan4realz, If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

    Einstein's Theory of Relativity proves that there must have been a Beginning.

    Quotes from SCIENTIST that ARENT CHRISTIAN

    Atheist Anthony Kenny: "Atheist must believe the matter of the Universe came from Nothing, by Nothing."

    Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow from his book: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greated by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    • God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), p. 107. (p. 116 in the '78 edition)
    Robert Geisure: Every effect has a cause and every Beginning has a Beginner.

    Therefore the Universe must have a cause for it's Beginner.

    Explanation of The Law of Causality (cause and effect) quotes from Robert Jastrow:

    The Universe exists and is real. Atheist and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (I.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?”

    It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well.

    Ref. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

  7. #7
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.

    We were not all created by Jehovah. That's not factual in of itself. You BELIEVE you were created by Jehvoah. Big differece to beliving in something because your faith requires you to do so, and another to suggest that factually mankind and all things in the universe were created by what you think is a supreme external force outside the laws of nature, physics, biology, and chemistry.

    So because the other people folks thought were GOD's don't count because no one said nothing earlier? What kind of BS is that? Seriosuly. If no one would have prohpezied about Jesus...then you're telling me based on that assumption that folks today would not be walking around as Christians? People believe what they wish. Fact remains people saw Zeus, Osiris, Alexander as GODS. Jesus his very existence comes from pagan mythology...man born to a GOD and a mortal woman...roman, greek, eygptian history is filled with these..and by the way they existed millenias before Chrisitanity even came about..that's world history right there...and it's factual.

    The Bible is not source proof of anything, do I really have to engage you into a discussion of why it can't be used as a source of historical fact?

    There were a few prophecies about Alexander the Great being a GOD, but those came after his life. People attirbuted to him he was a GOD for all the known world that he had conquered. But he wasn't the first leader of a society to be ascribed himself as GOD's so called representative. Louis XVI, The Pope, Hitler, Stalin, Juliuis Ceasar, Nero, Caligula, Seti I, Seti II, Tut, Nerftiti....just to name a few more examples of leaders who were described and held as GODs by the common people in their society. Hell even the english had their versions...Henry VIII, Edwards VII, Victoria II..etc....you don't see a pattern here??

    All the persons on that list with the exception of Vespatian, Augustus, and Alexander are/were actual persons. The rest of them just simply their GOD's at the time the people believed in, worshipped, sacrificed for, fought for, died for, believed blessed them...just like this Jesus person.

    Where is this evidence Jesus was a real actual person? Because reading through the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans, and Eygptians who by they way conquered the supposed holy lands at various times in their empires respective histories...exchanged cultures, and ideals with the people's as well. Wouldn't be a logical shock if someone decided to incorporate all these stories, and powers..into their own hero. Basically, Jesus is a rip-off of other myths..and better one's too I might add..far more entertain and harmless.

    It's funny the Egyptians with their vast tapestry of history, and record keeping...have no mention of this "Moses" person, or any of the plaque's that happened or anything. You would think something so huge, and big in human history..one of their scribes would have wrote this down on some kind of official stone or parchment...but no instead it only finds itself in books about fairytales like religion.

    You haven't proven there is a GOD, there is a Jehovah. All you have done is sit here and expose your beliefs, as fact. No more no less.

    And by the way...let's assume for a second all the bull**** your talking is true...how do you know for a fact GOD is a Christian??

  8. #8
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Whatever his purposes are, he fulfills them? That's what you said. Now if that were at any point a truthful statement...then how do you know to serve him is one of the things you must fulfill without having been previously told by another person...more than likely a parent?? God's approval you say? Then what about the subject of killing in GOD's name, where is the approval on that?...

    No you moron. What Thomas Paine was saying that...an intelligent all knowing all powerful being would not use human language to deliver his cosmic message. Because an already intelligent being would know human language not only changes, but also morphs, and different words have different interpretations. You see an intelligent GOD would already know **** like this to begin with, not this galactic underachiever you people would blindly follow off a cliff if the megaphone was loud enough for you to hear it. For GOD, to use human language would signify he's not that bright in the first place. Because he's not aware of human language being so changeable over the course of time. He would have too see it coming, (wait that doesn't mean that anymore, so I've got to redo my message and use these words because those words don't mean what they used to...and if people interpret them WRONG it's going to **** up my message) an intelligent GOD would know and have already seen that coming. So using human language more or less is the sign of a stupid GOD. Also that does not explain why the bible is translated and you find it everywhere. The reason why you find the bible largely everywhere is the printing press by Gutenberg. It became portable and gave everyone access to read it, and it's various translations into so many languages across the globe is nothing more than marketing of the religion itself, and being placing value on the book of fables as being worth the effort to translate and worth printing up.

    Who wrote the bible by the way? Such an important book like that...no one wanting to take the credit. Seems rather suspect. You can't ascrbie the gospels to the name on them like LUKE to Luke, or John to John..simply because they are all written after the events have already happpend on average by about 170 years. So if they were written centuries after they event took place..and these were collections of stories passed down from one generation to the next...which isn't a far step from reality...then A) what's missing, B) what's mistranslated, C) who actually physically took to task of putting it all on paper. Not even going to get into the idea of the official canon yet.

    We can easily get rid of the book, I've never seen the bible teach a man anything useful or factual. I have seen it inspire hatred, slavery, stupidity, gullibility, sexism, racism, homophobia, and war howver.

    Evolutionary fact was made based on scientifc analysis and observation. Actual provable ideads, like I'm typing on a computer. The language I am typing in is English. I've never known Darwin to cause any wars, inspire slavery, or stupidity.

    God choose to create out of love? That's just reaching and assumptive. God's does not create without a purpose you say? So there are no leftover parts? Then why are humans still born with an appendix? It serves no function in humans today other than when it gets infected and has to be remove in case of death. Surely, he could just snap his cosmic fingers and poof every human with one now..would no longer have one. Fact is however it is proof of evolution its vestigal. Meaning serving no current function. And eventually humans will be born without one, being further proof of evolution. God can do whatever he wants? Even break the rules of justice and morality? By impregnating another man's wife..or young woman? Killing innocents in a flood? Making his half man/half GOD son...pay for the sins of other people? Even the Jews and Muslims don't agree with that nonsense. And they are more devout, more than likely than any Christian.

    God chooses to act wisely? Hurriance Katrina. Enough said. Surely GOD could've gotten off his cosmic ass and saved those people who drowned in those nursing homes and hospitals! Or maybe parted the waters so families wouldn't have to jump to their death and die of starvation, hypothermia, or disintery? Act wisely my ass!

    Jesus did not exercise free will. If he did he would not have sacrificed himself. He's very clear of acknowledging he has a duty to die, not that he states he has a choice. If he had a choice, he could've just forgiven all sins..and kept on rolling but no he had to die in order to forgive. Which is the actions of a sadistic GOD, and it's followers. Jesus was not born to a virgin either, the proper translation would be young woman. Difference between being a young woman of say 23, and being a virgin as well. C'mon now. You really want me to believe Joseph never consumated his marriage with his wife? Now your just being gullible and stupid.

    Glad you brought up Adam and Eve, just further proof of his stupidity. First off you create these two people. Alright. You place them in a garden with a talking snake whose capabilities you know are going to **** up your creations. That's one. Two, you place a tree there in the middle of it..they are not supposed to eat from. Why place it there in the first place? Why not just not create the tree?

    And don't give me he was testing them bull****. Because they did not have any knowledge at all prior to eating it. If God would've gave them knowledge however before eating it, they would not have. They did not know what death was, they could not have had any idea of the concept. After all, they had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. So when GOD told them before they ate it, to eat of this tree you will surely die...GOD had to know wouldn't make sense to them because..they didn't know what the **** death was...they couldn't have so what you're saying ain't gonna fly. Your also ****ing up the story...after they ate it...they hid...again, GOD didn't pick up on this...after the fact...nor did he stop them before they were about to anyway. And he then kicked them out.

    This proves my point about him being amoral. Because if he was moral, caring, loving all those attributes you ascribe...HE WOULD'VE STOPPED THEM. But he didn't. No why would a loving GOD want to punish his creation, that he knows didn't have any prior knowledge?

    Your GOD is a sick bastard. That's like beating a child with a belt for running around when you know damned good and well they don't understand you, and you haven't attempted to teach them anything.

    Sin is bull****. First off, define wrong. And two, what about people who believe what they are doing is right...but then is wrong? It doesn't count against them, but will count against someone else? Bull**** once again. I kill a child molester. I felt I was right and justified. But I am wrong. But I think I am right. So which one am I?

    All intelligent life who obeys GOD does not suffer? Definition please. Are plants and animals included in that? UFO's as well?

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.
    Read the last page of the religious thread for some more on the supposed evolution as fact theory you guys have. It is a fact that humans die, but evolution is not a fact, it is a belief, a faith. That in effect is your God you know, science and evolution. Your God. Chance. Yes, you worship chance. Here is some stuff on your origin of live.

    Moods Change—Riddles Remain

    In the years since, however, that optimism has evaporated. Decades have passed, and life’s secrets remain elusive. Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Stanley L Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Other scientists share this change of mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

    Indeed, laboratory work bears out Kenyon’s assessment that there is “a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.” After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”

    Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.” True, indeed.

    Appendix A, “Teamwork for Life” (pages 45-7), reviews some basic details of the intriguing teamwork between protein and nucleic acids in our cells. Even such a glimpse into the realm of our body cells elicits admiration for the work of scientists in this field. They have shed light on extraordinarily complex processes that few of us even think about but that operate every moment of our lives. From another standpoint, however, the staggering complexity and precision required returns us to the question, How did all of this come about?

    You may know that origin-of-life scientists have not ceased trying to formulate a plausible scenario for the drama about the first appearance of life. Nevertheless, their new scripts are not proving to be convincing. (See Appendix B, “From ‘the RNA World’ or Another World?” page 48.) For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: “At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

    Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, no solutions were forthcoming. Instead, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who convened had “grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.”

    Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a “prebiotic soup,” undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved?

    Why the Riddles?

    A person today can look back over nearly half a century of speculation and thousands of attempts to prove that life originated on its own. If one does that, it would be hard to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Speaking about origin-of-life theories, Crick observed that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment.

    If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” And the picture has not improved.

    Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as saying: ‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’ Are you comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ‘bending’ of the facts?

    There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?

    Information and Intelligence

    Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:

    “We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

    The more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source. What source?

    As noted earlier, millions of educated individuals conclude that life on earth must have been produced by a higher intelligence, a designer. Yes, after examining the matter fairly, they have accepted that even in our scientific age, it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:

    Stanley Millers experiment.
    Classic but Questionable

    Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

    The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

    In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

    Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

    And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

    Why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.”

    Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

    There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

    [Footnote]

    Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed.

    More.
    Professor Michael J. Behe stated: “To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”

    “A Deliberate Intellectual Act”

    British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has spent decades studying the universe and life in it, even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space. Lecturing at the California Institute of Technology, he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins.

    “The big problem in biology,” Hoyle said, “isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be?”

    Hoyle added: “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.
    So now you will insult the intelligence of persons who spend countless hrs trying to prove what you believe, but because they exercise logic along with their vast knowledge, and come to a different conclusion than you and those who believe like you, simply because they disagree? Take away their degrees! They cannot be REAL SCIENTISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH EVOLUTION!! Wow.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    We were not all created by Jehovah. That's not factual in of itself. You BELIEVE you were created by Jehvoah. Big differece to beliving in something because your faith requires you to do so, and another to suggest that factually mankind and all things in the universe were created by what you think is a supreme external force outside the laws of nature, physics, biology, and chemistry.
    If you would read the creative days post in the religious thread, it may help you to know that Science itself pretty much would agree that how the creative days are said to have happened, evolution would have happened that way.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    So because the other people folks thought were GOD's don't count because no one said nothing earlier? What kind of BS is that? Seriosuly. If no one would have prohpezied about Jesus...then you're telling me based on that assumption that folks today would not be walking around as Christians? People believe what they wish. Fact remains people saw Zeus, Osiris, Alexander as GODS. Jesus his very existence comes from pagan mythology...man born to a GOD and a mortal woman...roman, greek, eygptian history is filled with these..and by the way they existed millenias before Chrisitanity even came about..that's world history right there...and it's factual.
    For a fact I'm telling you there would not be Christianity if not for the prophesies and appearance of Jesus fulfilling these prophecies. And the fact that the God of the bible can say what will happen centuries before they do and they happen exactly as he says lends credibility to him being the true God, would it not? Jesus very existence did not stem from pagan myths, because all the bible prophesied about Jesus he fulfilled, or will very shortly. There is a difference.

    And again, the fact that these other societies had Gods, means they just rightly acknowledged a higher being. Does not mean they got it right. Same as with evolution. It basically means this all had a beginning, but it discredits intelligent design, and runs with chance as the intelligent design. Something came from nothing, by chance.. Great.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The Bible is not source proof of anything, do I really have to engage you into a discussion of why it can't be used as a source of historical fact?
    Yes, please engage me. Please tell me how the Christians in Jerusalem between 66 ce and 70 ce knew to flee to Judea to save themselves from utter destruction like the Jews who remained their by NOT heeding Jesus' warning to FLEE WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM ENCAMPED BY STAKES. The only people to survive that destruction were the Christians who heeded the warning and the Jews who were taken into captivity by the Romans. Jesus told that prophecy before he died almost forty years earlier. That is just one. Engage me though.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    There were a few prophecies about Alexander the Great being a GOD, but those came after his life.
    So then how is it a prophecy? It has to be foretold to be prophetic. Thought you knew that? I mean, the bible has a prophecy about Alexander, BEFORE he lived it. Even said who would take over his Kingdom from within his cabinet. And it was not his sons or family members. Astounding. So which would one with common sense believe to be true? The one that came AFTER he had conquered, or the one that tells his life, and untimely death, and who will take over his vast kingdom long before he was even born? I will let you tell it.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    People attirbuted to him he was a GOD for all the known world that he had conquered. But he wasn't the first leader of a society to be ascribed himself as GOD's so called representative. Louis XVI, The Pope, Hitler, Stalin, Juliuis Ceasar, Nero, Caligula, Seti I, Seti II, Tut, Nerftiti....just to name a few more examples of leaders who were described and held as GODs by the common people in their society. Hell even the english had their versions...Henry VIII, Edwards VII, Victoria II..etc....you don't see a pattern here??
    Yea, people are mislead. That is the pattern. Clearly these persons were not actual Gods, they were human. Even Jesus was human. Humans are not Gods. But one of those humans is the son OF GOD. And all things written beforehand about him he fulfilled during his life, or will in th every near future. Big, big difference.



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    All the persons on that list with the exception of Vespatian, Augustus, and Alexander are/were actual persons. The rest of them just simply their GOD's at the time the people believed in, worshipped, sacrificed for, fought for, died for, believed blessed them...just like this Jesus person.

    Where is this evidence Jesus was a real actual person? Because reading through the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans, and Eygptians who by they way conquered the supposed holy lands at various times in their empires respective histories...exchanged cultures, and ideals with the people's as well. Wouldn't be a logical shock if someone decided to incorporate all these stories, and powers..into their own hero. Basically, Jesus is a rip-off of other myths..and better one's too I might add..far more entertain and harmless.
    The evidence is all around you Jesus existed. The things he said would take place during our time are taking place, exactly how he said they would. The Christians who lived past 70 ce listened to him and owe their lives to him foretelling what would happen, and how to escape the tragedy of the destruction of Jerusalem that year. How would they know what to look for to escape if not forewarned? The Jews there thought Jehovah had once again saved them when the romans in 66 ce encamped the army and for whatever reason.. just left. Why did the Christians decide to flee, When millions of Jews stayed?

    But concerning our time, Jesus said this in mathew 24:14: AND THIS GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM WILL BE PREACHED IN ALL THE INHABITED EARTH FOR A WITNESS TO ALL THE NATIONS, AND THEN THE END WILL COME.

    That massive preaching work has been going on for quite awhile now. Another prophecy turned true.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    It's funny the Egyptians with their vast tapestry of history, and record keeping...have no mention of this "Moses" person, or any of the plaque's that happened or anything. You would think something so huge, and big in human history..one of their scribes would have wrote this down on some kind of official stone or parchment...but no instead it only finds itself in books about fairytales like religion.
    Would you keep a record of such a blow to all you know, love and believe? Jehovah shattered everything they believed in. Their many Gods could not protect them, while the God of their slaves not only protected his people, but they prospered throughout the ordeal. Even the surrounding nations recognized Jehovah was behind it. And the Jews as his people prospered for over 1500 years after that due to him. True story.


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    You haven't proven there is a GOD, there is a Jehovah. All you have done is sit here and expose your beliefs, as fact. No more no less.

    And by the way...let's assume for a second all the bull**** your talking is true...how do you know for a fact GOD is a Christian??
    Again, you would have to wanna truly accept that there is a God. God reveals himself to those truly seeking him. Right now, you are saying there is no God. Kinda tough for you to put faith in something you don't feel is real or tangible. Proof can smack you in the face and you would not know it. You would have to understand why all these things have taken place, and to do that you would have to peer into God's written word, the bible, which you regard as a fairytale.

    So the issue here is not God at all, it's you.

  11. #11
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    A)
    B)The universe had a beggining so therefore it had a cause
    C)The only two possibilities are that there is NO beggining or there is a beggining.
    That argument of course only works if you assume that that we indeed live in a universe. As soon as you believe in a multiverse theory in witch universes come into existence like bubbles in a foam bath and vanish similarly, infinity becomes a valid physical and philosophical option. Cause becomes an obsolete concept. The multitude of possible option makes the junk yard argument fit like the piece of a puzzle: In numerous other -- almost parallel -- universes the evolution could have, but did not -- take place. It al boils down to likelihood and pure chance. Quantum mechanics is more than one hundred years old and indeterminacy and pure chance have become valid categories in physics by now. On a quantum level, processes take place that seem to be completely unrestricted by any laws of physics. These processes on a micro level might produce -- on a macro level -- a multitude of outcomes in a infinite universe, which allows for evolution despite its relative unlikelihood.

  12. #12
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by pat
    That argument of course only works if you assume that that we indeed live in a universe. As soon as you believe in a multiverse theory in witch universes come into existence like bubbles in a foam bath and vanish similarly, infinity becomes a valid physical and philosophical option. Cause becomes an obsolete concept. The multitude of possible option makes the junk yard argument fit like the piece of a puzzle: In numerous other -- almost parallel -- universes the evolution could have, but did not -- take place. It al boils down to likelihood and pure chance. Quantum mechanics is more than one hundred years old and indeterminacy and pure chance have become valid categories in physics by now. On a quantum level, processes take place that seem to be completely unrestricted by any laws of physics. These processes on a micro level might produce -- on a macro level -- a multitude of outcomes in a infinite universe, which allows for evolution despite its relative unlikelihood.
    Pat, read the rest of what I said. Dont take something out of context and try to prove it wrong. I stated something, than i gave my explanation.

  13. #13
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Pat, read the rest of what I said. Dont take something out of context and try to prove it wrong. I stated something, than i gave my explanation.
    I am not trying to prove that God does not exist. It is only that seeing the bible as verbally inspired is a dead end street. Evolution and the creation are not alternative explanations of the same thing but different modes of explaining life. A religious/mythological one and a scientific explanation.

    Personally, I would describe myself as an agnostic and I very much value the comforting effect religion can have on individual people and a society as a whole. However, trying to compete with scientific theories that have proven helpful again and again, can ultimately only harm Christianity and any other religion trying to castrate free thinking. The only way postmodern Christianity is thinkable is not as an alternative to science but as an alternative -- mythological -- explanation of the same processes. The example of quantum physics given above, and the piece on thermodynamics by KnicksFan4Realz only exemplify the kind of problems any religion has to face in the long run, if offered as an competitive alternative to evolutionary theory and not as a man-made mythological explanation of evolutionary processes which are -- taking into consideration the multiversum-theory -- not unlikely at all.

    And just because Darwin is slightly outdated and I find the somewhat dated language slightly annoying, I would very much recommend Stephen Jay Gould's The Richness of Life: The Essential Stephen Jay Gould and as far as the relation of science and religion is concerned
    "Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox: Mending and Minding the Misconceived Gap Between Science and the Humanities."
    Last edited by pat; Jul 22, 2008 at 15:29.

  14. #14
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Let's talk about this bible for a moment some are unfortunately behind enough to say is accurate. When it comes to the issue of prophecy it's far to convenient to say well someone wrote something 2000 years ago, and THEN WHEN its re-interpreted to FIT today's context call it a true propechy. Prophecies must be specific.

    Edgar Cayce would be a better example to use if you were going to use one. He was specific he gave specific names, dates, years, months, places..etc. He didn't plop down and just say generic things or in some kind of poetic prose code, like much of the Bible uses and people do till this day. Nostradamus wrote thousands of prophecies...how come no church is worshipping him today? How come his writings are not reveared as insight into the eyes of GOD..after all if you believe his works to be truth?

    The bible is a collection composing of 62 books not including the Apocrypha. Such a document can't ever be the inspired word of a GOD. For example, Nehemiah, calls for the preservation of racial purity by the prohibition of inter-racial marriages, while Ruth has for its heroine a Moabite woman who married a Jew. As another example, the book of Proverbs extols living the good life which it says is God's reward for righteous living while Ecclesiastes says life is meaningless and prosperity is accidental.

    The New Testament stands in an uneasy contrast with the Old. The Old Testament says that the Jews are the chosen people of God. This God may sometimes abandon them as a punishment for their unfaithfulness but the severance was always only temporary. Yet in the New Testament we are shown that the Jews are completely severed from God and are in fact responsible for the murder of his Son.

    The Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories crammed in from other cultures, that were given a glossier coating of BS. None of the ideas in it are original, they come from ancient Persia...as well influenced by Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.

    The books of the Bible are books of testimony. Unlike treatises on mathematics and logic, where the correctness of the argument can be inferred from the written sources themselves, testimonials invariable involve a person or persons telling you something actually happened. Thus the integrity of the person giving the testimonial is of utmost importance. For that integrity is what makes us trust what he or she says. The Bible makes testimonies about things that are, by any reckoning, out of the ordinary.

    There are testimonials about the appearances of God to some of his prophets, about tremendous miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea and even about a man walking on water! Surely on such incredible testimonies, the integrity of the person telling the stories must be scrutinized very very closely.

    Remember the old maxim: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

    As a corollary to that, we should demand that the incredible stories demand impeccable integrity on behalf of the storyteller to be believed.

    The first step towards examining the integrity of a person is, of course, to know his or her identity. It is therefore not surprising that Jewish and Christian traditions ascribed the authorships of the books in the Old Testaments to well known Jewish kings and prophets: the very characters mentioned in the Bible. To Moses, certainly the most important figure in Judaism, was attributed the authorship of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

    In a similar trend, Joshua, Moses' successor, was supposed to have penned the book that has his name as the title. Other important figures in Jewish history, such as David and Solomon, also have books attributed to them.

    There is a similar trend in the New Testament. Most books in the New Testament had their authorship attributed to the disciples of Jesus, or at least their immediate followers. For examples the two letters of Peter were supposed to have been written by the apostle himself, while the gospel of Mark was presumed to have been written by one of Peter's followers.

    These attribution of authorship were accepted, almost without question, by Christians for close to two millennia. In the 19th century, with the use of the methods critical historical research to the books of the Bible, these traditional beliefs were slowly but relentlessly eroded. The research has reached a point where almost all the books in the Bible are no longer held to be written by the people tradition thought them to be.

    This valid discovery, however, is very rarely communicated to the lay public. When it is conveyed at all, it is normally preceded with attempt on behalf of the scholars to cushion the "blow" on the reader. As a result, to this day most lay Christians and (of course) all fundamentalists hold firm to these traditional attribution of authorship.

    Just gonna use Genesis as an example....

    For many centuries, both Christian and Jewish theologians believe that the stories were given by God and thus owed their origins purely to divine inspiration. However in the nineteenth century, British archaeologists unearthed seven tablets containing the Babylonian myth of creation known as Enuma Elish.

    Like the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, archaeologists have assigned the date of composition of this work to around 2000 BC. Although the story differs in specifics to that told in Genesis, the similarities in the general tone has convinced archaeologists that the Genesis account had been fundamentally derived from the Babylonian one. Some of the similarities include:

    The reference to the initial state as being a disordered chaos of water.

    Genesis 1:1 refers to the “darkness” upon the face of the deep. In the Babylonian myth, in the beginning there was only Apsu, the sweet water ocean and Tiamat, the salt water ocean. In fact, archaeologists have generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word for the chaos of the waters or “the deep”, tehom, is actually derived from the Akkadian Tiamat.

    The creation of a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below.

    In Genesis 1:6-8 God is said to have created the firmament on the second day of creation. In the Babylonian myth, Marduk, son of the Ea the god of wisdom, killed Tiamat and split her into two. The upper half of Tiamat was fixed onto the sky to keep the waters above in place.

    The sequence of successive acts of creation.

    In the Babylonian myth, after Tiamat was killed, the firmament was created by Marduk to separate the waters above from below. Then he created the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars. Finally man was created. This order is very closely paralleled in Genesis I where the firmament was created on the second day, the sun, moon and stars on the third day and man on the sixth day.

    It thus cannot be denied that the creation myth from Genesis must have been derived from the Babylonian one.

    To quote the late Professor S.H. Hooke (1874-1968) an expert on Old Testament Studies:

    "In spite of the complete transformation of the Babylonian material effected by the priestly writer, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the original form of the creation story upon which he is depending is ultimately of Babylonian origin".

  15. #15
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    The Sumerian paradise is called Dilmun. (It should be noted, however that Eden (edinu) was also originally a Sumerian word, meaning ‘plain’ or “steppe’.) Dilmun was a divine garden where sickness and death do not exist. We will now follow Hooke’s paraphrasing of the Sumerian paradise myth;

    According to Sumerian myth the only thing Dilmun lacked was fresh water; the god Enki (or Ea) ordered Utu, the sun-god, to bring up fresh water from the earth to water the garden.

    In the myth of Enki and Ninhursag it is related that the mother-goddess Ninhursag caused eight plants to grow in the garden of the gods. Enki desired to eat these plants and sent his messenger Isimud to fetch them. Enki ate them one by one, and Ninhursag in her rage pronounced the curse of death upon Enki.

    As the result of the curse eight of Enki’s bodily organs were attacked by disease and he was at the pain of death. The great gods were in dismay and Enlil [the chief god] was powerless to help. Ninhursag was induced to return and deal with the situation. She created eight goddesses of healing who proceeded to heal each of the diseased parts of Enki’s body. One of these parts was the god’s rib, and the goddess who was created to deal with the rib was named Ninti, which means “lady of the rib”.

    The similarity between the above myth and that of Genesis’ is obvious to see. The similarity include:

    * The setting- a garden in paradise.
    * The watering of the gardens with water from the earth.
    * The consumption of forbidden fruits, by Adam and Eve in Genesis and by the god Enki in the Sumerian myth.
    * The curse upon the person (s) who ate the fruit.
    * The creating of a female from the rib of the male in Genesis and the creating of a female to heal the rib of the male in the Sumerian precursor.
    * The name of the female thus created. In Genesis, Eve, or in its original semitic form Hawah, means life. In the Sumerian myth, the word ti from the name Ninti has a double meaning; it could mean either ‘rib’ or ‘life’. Thus Ninti can be rendered as “lady of the rib” or “lady of life”.

    That is not all, the Babylonian myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh also contains an episode that doubtless also influenced the writers of Genesis. In it Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality, was told by Utnapishtim (the Babylonian “Noah”) that there exists a plant at the bottom of the sea that has the property of making the old young again.

    Gilgamesh dived into the sea and brought up the plant. However the plant was stolen while he was taking bath. The thief who stole the plant of everlasting youth away from him was none other than the serpent!

    That Babylonian myths should influence the stories in the Bible is really not surprising. The Babylonian empires were influential throughout the whole middle eastern region for over three thousand years. The history of Jews is also very closely tied to Babylon. For it was there that the Jews were taken into exile in the year 587 BC.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •