Many things are uncertain. You follow a scripture you believe represents the word of God by an author who is unknown, yet you redicule poeple who are following scientific evidence that exists. Don't you find it odd how few people change religions. Most folks just follow the same religion that there folks did. How did that work for Jim Jones children? Every religion swears to be right and feels a duty to point contrarians as being wrong. How can you be so sure? Most are simply sheep following the rest of the herd. Religion is also often reinforced with fear of punishment or shame. Ironically like most uneducated people parent their children. Just throw out "because I said so". Religion has always been about control and money, and it always will. Everybody has the freedom to have their own opinions. Just make sure they actually are your opinions. Be right or be wrong. Just don't blindly follow anything you haven't researched wihout undo influence.
1. Yes many things are uncertain...that's for sure! Not every book in the Holy Bible has an author unknown, the vast majority do have known writers but still we believe the author indirectly through "inspiration" is God.
2. But those scientific evidence are not exactly evidence but merely guesses, hypothesis, theories but no proof that can be disputed because they're not factual and it doesn't give us any concrete answers for our origin, which mankind through the ages continually seek but don't come up with any real genuine answers.
3. As for me rediculing the "heathens" that clearly appears to be a partisan view you're taking and not fair and balanced. If you're going to reprimand me on my conduct, I suggest you also reprimand the heathens too, for if you skim through the entire thread you will see that the heathens are doing the bulk of the rediculing. But it's not to say I'm trying to get even or something but it's just that when it presents itself at times I engage in a little redicule, after all I do have a sense of humor.
4. No, people change religions all the time...why? I can only speculate, that perhaps it's because they are not satisfied with what they have.
5. Jim Jones clearly appeared to have been a wicked person for what he had done, I believe God will judge him accordingly and justly. As for the innocent children I believe they're in good hands with the Lord.
6. No where in the Christian faith have we declared to be right and everybody else wrong. Can you point that out in the Holy Bible that says that? Brother Rostos and I never claimed that the Christian Faith is the right one.
7. It's not a matter of being sure, but rather a matter of having genuine uncompromising faith.
8. Yes, I can agree with you that most are sheep and not really devout followers, that's why Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it. ---Matthew 7:13-14
9. Religion indeed has been reinforced with fear of punishment or shame but on the bright side and I know it's not realistic, but what if everybody followed the commandments think how much better this world would be. Again like I said it is not realistic because man has a sinful nature and this is indeed an evil world but not entirely evil for there are godly righteous people among us.
10. In a democratic country like the United Sates and other democracies around the world we do have our freedom of opinions besides other freedoms.
11. Yes, I agree one should not follow anything blindly without research and wise careful thought behind their decisions.
Well it was nice chatting with you! Take care & God Bless!
In my distress I prayed to the Lord, and the Lord answered me and set me free. ---Psalm 118:5
Praise the Lord Almighty!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by 40Down:
Many things are uncertain. You follow a scripture you believe represents the word of God by an author who is unknown, yet you redicule poeple who are following scientific evidence that exists. Don't you find it odd how few people change religions. Most folks just follow the same religion that there folks did. How did that work for Jim Jones children? Every religion swears to be right and feels a duty to point contrarians as being wrong. How can you be so sure? Most are simply sheep following the rest of the herd. Religion is also often reinforced with fear of punishment or shame. Ironically like most uneducated people parent their children. Just throw out "because I said so". Religion has always been about control and money, and it always will. Everybody has the freedom to have their own opinions. Just make sure they actually are your opinions. Be right or be wrong. Just don't blindly follow anything you haven't researched wihout undo influence.
1. Yes many things are uncertain...that's for sure! Not every book in the Holy Bible has an author unknown, the vast majority do have known writers but still we believe the author indirectly through "inspiration" is God.
2. But those scientific evidence are not exactly evidence but merely guesses, hypothesis, theories but no proof that can be disputed because they're not factual and it doesn't give us any concrete answers for our origin, which mankind through the ages continually seek but don't come up with any real genuine answers.
3. As for me rediculing the "heathens" that clearly appears to be a partisan view you're taking and not fair and balanced. If you're going to reprimand me on my conduct, I suggest you also reprimand the heathens too, for if you skim through the entire thread you will see that the heathens are doing the bulk of the rediculing. But it's not to say I'm trying to get even or something but it's just that when it presents itself at times I engage in a little redicule, after all I do have a sense of humor.
4. No, people change religions all the time...why? I can only speculate, that perhaps it's because they are not satisfied with what they have.
5. Jim Jones clearly appeared to have been a wicked person for what he had done, I believe God will judge him accordingly and justly. As for the innocent children I believe they're in good hands with the Lord.
6. No where in the Christian faith have we declared to be right and everybody else wrong. Can you point that out in the Holy Bible that says that? Brother Rostos and I never claimed that the Christian Faith is the right one.
7. It's not a matter of being sure, but rather a matter of having genuine uncompromising faith.
8. Yes, I can agree with you that most are sheep and not really devout followers, that's why Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it. ---Matthew 7:13-14
9. Religion indeed has been reinforced with fear of punishment or shame but on the bright side and I know it's not realistic, but what if everybody followed the commandments think how much better this world would be. Again like I said it is not realistic because man has a sinful nature and this is indeed an evil world but not entirely evil for there are godly righteous people among us.
10. In a democratic country like the United Sates and other democracies around the world we do have our freedom of opinions besides other freedoms.
11. Yes, I agree one should not follow anything blindly without research and wise careful thought behind their decisions.
Well it was nice chatting with you! Take care & God Bless!
In my distress I prayed to the Lord, and the Lord answered me and set me free. ---Psalm 118:5
System, since heaven is where God lives, it must contain more physical and temporal dimensions than those found in this physical universe. We cannot imagine, nor can we experience in our current bodies, what these extra dimensions might be like. The new universe will have entirely different physical laws. Some of the differences that stand out are the new earth will have no sea, there will be no sun or moon, gravity will be absent or greatly reduced, no more death, suffering, pain, and new bodies. The laws of thermodynamics seem to be absent from the new creation, since the Bible tells us that there will be no heat. The lack of eating in heaven goes along with the idea that thermodynamics will be absent there. Finally, the Bible says "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption," suggesting a release from the laws of thermodynamics. To a certain degree, we will be given some of the characteristics of God in heaven. Without at least the dimensional characteristics of God, we would not be able to see Him, which the Bible says we will do. Seems there will be no marriage or sexual differences among those in heaven, since reproduction is unnecessary. This concept is supported by verses that indicate that males and females are spiritually equal. Besides receiving a new body, those who enter heaven will be given a new name, and will be incapable of committing sin. One of our first acts in heaven will be to help judge the world, specifically the angels, the fallen rebels. Besides acting as judges in heaven, the Bible says that we will reign with God in heaven. Exactly what this reigning entails is not defined. However, we will also be serving God directly. The Bible says that we cannot imagine what heaven will be like, but that it will exceed our expectations. Each of us in heaven will be revealed in glory. Bible speaks that all spiritual creatures recognize that their spirits are eternal and will go through judgment of God, based upon their adherence to the laws of God. However, there are those who have told themselves long enough that there is no God that they have had this conscience or built-in eternity in their hearts dulled to the point that they no longer respond to it. According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimesions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us. The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to us that can only exist in the confines of our universe. The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do. We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls and could not know what happens outside of his sight. Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time not only space, but also time has a beginning, at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward forget the time travel movies, this is scientifically impossible. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began confirming that God exists either outside of time altogether or in at least two dimensions of time. The Bible states God can compress or expand our time line based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist external to our dimension of time. For second question, one part of the answer would be in the English translations of the Hebrew scriptures that say that God is jealous. God's "jealousy" is primarily restricted to a jealousy over the worship of idols that competes with His love to prevent a relationship with Him, where jealousy between people takes on quite a number of forms. There are two different Hebrew words to describe jealousy, one refers to a passionate jealousy or envy. The second takes on a wide range of meanings from sexual passion (or jealousy) to a zeal for God to anger or envy. I guess the majority, if not all atheists apart of this thread think that God should not be jealous bc, as an English word, "jealousy" has virtually universal negative connotations. In the original languages in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English do not always have negative connotations. The Greek word often translated "jealous" is into a word that the English lanuage gets the word "zealous" referring more to zeal and ardor rather than jealousy. If you understand western politics, the vacum left by the Greek Gods that were used by politicians of the day have been filled in modern times by celebrities. You can look at the worship of God as not being distracted by idols of your times, where as today celebrities have filled this vacum. The stars of todays entertainment be it sport or television are the new idols of the west, just look at how they have filled the vacum left by the Gods of Greece and Rome in our society.
0
System, since heaven is where God lives, it must contain more physical and temporal dimensions than those found in this physical universe. We cannot imagine, nor can we experience in our current bodies, what these extra dimensions might be like. The new universe will have entirely different physical laws. Some of the differences that stand out are the new earth will have no sea, there will be no sun or moon, gravity will be absent or greatly reduced, no more death, suffering, pain, and new bodies. The laws of thermodynamics seem to be absent from the new creation, since the Bible tells us that there will be no heat. The lack of eating in heaven goes along with the idea that thermodynamics will be absent there. Finally, the Bible says "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption," suggesting a release from the laws of thermodynamics. To a certain degree, we will be given some of the characteristics of God in heaven. Without at least the dimensional characteristics of God, we would not be able to see Him, which the Bible says we will do. Seems there will be no marriage or sexual differences among those in heaven, since reproduction is unnecessary. This concept is supported by verses that indicate that males and females are spiritually equal. Besides receiving a new body, those who enter heaven will be given a new name, and will be incapable of committing sin. One of our first acts in heaven will be to help judge the world, specifically the angels, the fallen rebels. Besides acting as judges in heaven, the Bible says that we will reign with God in heaven. Exactly what this reigning entails is not defined. However, we will also be serving God directly. The Bible says that we cannot imagine what heaven will be like, but that it will exceed our expectations. Each of us in heaven will be revealed in glory. Bible speaks that all spiritual creatures recognize that their spirits are eternal and will go through judgment of God, based upon their adherence to the laws of God. However, there are those who have told themselves long enough that there is no God that they have had this conscience or built-in eternity in their hearts dulled to the point that they no longer respond to it. According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimesions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us. The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to us that can only exist in the confines of our universe. The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do. We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls and could not know what happens outside of his sight. Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time not only space, but also time has a beginning, at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward forget the time travel movies, this is scientifically impossible. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began confirming that God exists either outside of time altogether or in at least two dimensions of time. The Bible states God can compress or expand our time line based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist external to our dimension of time. For second question, one part of the answer would be in the English translations of the Hebrew scriptures that say that God is jealous. God's "jealousy" is primarily restricted to a jealousy over the worship of idols that competes with His love to prevent a relationship with Him, where jealousy between people takes on quite a number of forms. There are two different Hebrew words to describe jealousy, one refers to a passionate jealousy or envy. The second takes on a wide range of meanings from sexual passion (or jealousy) to a zeal for God to anger or envy. I guess the majority, if not all atheists apart of this thread think that God should not be jealous bc, as an English word, "jealousy" has virtually universal negative connotations. In the original languages in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English do not always have negative connotations. The Greek word often translated "jealous" is into a word that the English lanuage gets the word "zealous" referring more to zeal and ardor rather than jealousy. If you understand western politics, the vacum left by the Greek Gods that were used by politicians of the day have been filled in modern times by celebrities. You can look at the worship of God as not being distracted by idols of your times, where as today celebrities have filled this vacum. The stars of todays entertainment be it sport or television are the new idols of the west, just look at how they have filled the vacum left by the Gods of Greece and Rome in our society.
Why does God need you to believe in Him or Her in order for you to be saved? Seems awfully selfish.
So you love your parents because they gave birth to you, created you, gave you life, but a being that not only gave the opportunity for you to have life, gave life to the people that created you and created life in general doesnt deserved to be loved?
Furthermore, the being that can give you eternal life if you lived by his rules (with his rules being the ultimate desire of ever human being on the earth) doesnt deserve to be loved?
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
Why does God need you to believe in Him or Her in order for you to be saved? Seems awfully selfish.
So you love your parents because they gave birth to you, created you, gave you life, but a being that not only gave the opportunity for you to have life, gave life to the people that created you and created life in general doesnt deserved to be loved?
Furthermore, the being that can give you eternal life if you lived by his rules (with his rules being the ultimate desire of ever human being on the earth) doesnt deserve to be loved?
I went to church this weekend (my gal is Catholic.....we've discussed it many times...we live with our differences).
The Priest said, "it is right to give him praise." I don't understand. He has the ability to give ever lasting life, but he can't prevent 6 million person from being slaughtered?
Someone says, "free will" and another says, "God has a plan for all of us." Which is it?
So which one is it?
Do you want free will, the ability to do what you want, when you want and how you want? Or do you want to live a life where just as you are about to place a bet you get struck on the back of your head preventing you to do so? or do you want to live in an imaginable world where just as you are about to place to a bet, if it is a winning wager you are allowed to bet, but if it is a losing bet you are stopped, ala genie type?
If you want to murder someone, do you want to have the freedom to have it or do you want someone to stop you from doing it?
YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.......
"Cmon God, you stopped that baby from getting murdered, just let A-Rod hit a homer here so my total goes over".....
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
I went to church this weekend (my gal is Catholic.....we've discussed it many times...we live with our differences).
The Priest said, "it is right to give him praise." I don't understand. He has the ability to give ever lasting life, but he can't prevent 6 million person from being slaughtered?
Someone says, "free will" and another says, "God has a plan for all of us." Which is it?
So which one is it?
Do you want free will, the ability to do what you want, when you want and how you want? Or do you want to live a life where just as you are about to place a bet you get struck on the back of your head preventing you to do so? or do you want to live in an imaginable world where just as you are about to place to a bet, if it is a winning wager you are allowed to bet, but if it is a losing bet you are stopped, ala genie type?
If you want to murder someone, do you want to have the freedom to have it or do you want someone to stop you from doing it?
YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.......
"Cmon God, you stopped that baby from getting murdered, just let A-Rod hit a homer here so my total goes over".....
Good morning everybody!...the believers, non-believers & irresoluters, how is everyone today on this fine, beautiful Tues mornin'?...I'm fine myself thankyou!
Let me start today with the Lord's prayer. For you non-believers & irresoluters, I don't know what you do, you have no instruction manual, no guide for your lives but we believers have a instruction manual and it's called the Holy Bible and the author is God. But feel free to say the prayer below. Ok let's bow our heads and say the Lord's prayer:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever, Amen.----Matthew 6:9:13
Praise the Lord Almighty!!
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
0
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
Good morning everybody!...the believers, non-believers & irresoluters, how is everyone today on this fine, beautiful Tues mornin'?...I'm fine myself thankyou!
Let me start today with the Lord's prayer. For you non-believers & irresoluters, I don't know what you do, you have no instruction manual, no guide for your lives but we believers have a instruction manual and it's called the Holy Bible and the author is God. But feel free to say the prayer below. Ok let's bow our heads and say the Lord's prayer:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever, Amen.----Matthew 6:9:13
I believe Solomon, as you speak of in your most recent post, seems to be conflating "reason" and "purpose." So I believe I am correct if I replace the word "reason" with the word "purpose" for the purposes of addressing this post.
The sole purpose of my existence is to enjoy life. I can't see how anyone of any faith could dispute that as a legitimate purpose. I live for myself. No that does not mean I don't give a shit about anyone else and will live a totally selfish life. It simply means I'm not living for god, like (I think) you are saying you do.
Even if god does exist, why would I live for him? I'm living for me. If god does exist, he has no impact on my life right now (as Rostos has said many times previous, we have free will, god isn't our personal genie, and he clearly doesn't interfere in the lives of humans (see: Japan, Japan...and Japan lol)). So putting aside the debate over god's existence for a moment, I can't think of any legitimate reason why I should live for god regardless of whether he exists.
Pray the rosary devoutly and it is promised...
"It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means."
Furthermore,
Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death, they shall participate in the merits of the saints in Paradise.
Believe.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
I believe Solomon, as you speak of in your most recent post, seems to be conflating "reason" and "purpose." So I believe I am correct if I replace the word "reason" with the word "purpose" for the purposes of addressing this post.
The sole purpose of my existence is to enjoy life. I can't see how anyone of any faith could dispute that as a legitimate purpose. I live for myself. No that does not mean I don't give a shit about anyone else and will live a totally selfish life. It simply means I'm not living for god, like (I think) you are saying you do.
Even if god does exist, why would I live for him? I'm living for me. If god does exist, he has no impact on my life right now (as Rostos has said many times previous, we have free will, god isn't our personal genie, and he clearly doesn't interfere in the lives of humans (see: Japan, Japan...and Japan lol)). So putting aside the debate over god's existence for a moment, I can't think of any legitimate reason why I should live for god regardless of whether he exists.
Pray the rosary devoutly and it is promised...
"It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means."
Furthermore,
Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death, they shall participate in the merits of the saints in Paradise.
Oh - but my moms friends husband died and came back, and he saw the light! He was dead for 20 mins!
Now explain that smart guy!
What about the multi millionaire (who was one of the shrewdest businesman in the world) who died for 20 mins, saw the light, came back, sold pretty much what he had and quit his job and is i believe a social worker....?
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Oh - but my moms friends husband died and came back, and he saw the light! He was dead for 20 mins!
Now explain that smart guy!
What about the multi millionaire (who was one of the shrewdest businesman in the world) who died for 20 mins, saw the light, came back, sold pretty much what he had and quit his job and is i believe a social worker....?
I'm watching a special on the Science Channel. Apparently, the big bang actually did "come from nothing." The scientists said this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp, but once you do, you can begin to understand the creation of the universe. If they try to explain how something actually can come from nothing, I'll be sure to let everyone know. For now, I have no idea. But this renders the argument "something can't come from nothing" void because apparently, it can.
0
I'm watching a special on the Science Channel. Apparently, the big bang actually did "come from nothing." The scientists said this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp, but once you do, you can begin to understand the creation of the universe. If they try to explain how something actually can come from nothing, I'll be sure to let everyone know. For now, I have no idea. But this renders the argument "something can't come from nothing" void because apparently, it can.
I'm watching a special on the Science Channel. Apparently, the big bang actually did "come from nothing." The scientists said this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp, but once you do, you can begin to understand the creation of the universe. If they try to explain how something actually can come from nothing, I'll be sure to let everyone know. For now, I have no idea. But this renders the argument "something can't come from nothing" void because apparently, it can.
What scientists mean by nothing, is NOT what NOTHING is philosophically.......
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
I'm watching a special on the Science Channel. Apparently, the big bang actually did "come from nothing." The scientists said this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp, but once you do, you can begin to understand the creation of the universe. If they try to explain how something actually can come from nothing, I'll be sure to let everyone know. For now, I have no idea. But this renders the argument "something can't come from nothing" void because apparently, it can.
What scientists mean by nothing, is NOT what NOTHING is philosophically.......
What scientists mean by nothing, is NOT what NOTHING is philosophically.......
Well I finished watching it and they didn't clarify anything beyond "nothing."
But it got me thinking. If god wants us to worship him, why did he wait 14.7 billion years before allowing us to form as beings?
And why would he plan to destroy the universe (because we know for a fact that at some point hundreds of billions of years in the future the universe will essentially be destroyed either by the big crunch or endless expansion)?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
What scientists mean by nothing, is NOT what NOTHING is philosophically.......
Well I finished watching it and they didn't clarify anything beyond "nothing."
But it got me thinking. If god wants us to worship him, why did he wait 14.7 billion years before allowing us to form as beings?
And why would he plan to destroy the universe (because we know for a fact that at some point hundreds of billions of years in the future the universe will essentially be destroyed either by the big crunch or endless expansion)?
I saw your thread about that old man, (your GF's father or whatever), how he is crippled or something like that and how you showed no symathy for his state. Karma is gonna bite you on the ass big time when you are at a similar age.
It is gonna bite u big time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SALTY:
Really
I thought it was.........
Bastards
Insinuating
Bullshit
Like
Everyday
I saw your thread about that old man, (your GF's father or whatever), how he is crippled or something like that and how you showed no symathy for his state. Karma is gonna bite you on the ass big time when you are at a similar age.
KittyKatz, will simplify with a breakdown. 1) Do you feel that human life is worth more than the life of other mammals? 2) What is the origin of modern man (eg; have humans arose from Neandertals or other genus person)? 3) Given that you declare evolution 100% fact- are you declaring the out of Africa hypothesis, the current reigning paradigm to be 100% when science has discovered through the result of a human geonome project, examining genetic diversity that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world wide populations. And that a hypothesis proposed that modern humans originated in the Middle East that does not need to make the assumptions the former does, false? Rostos, SJD and myself would side with the origin of man from the Middle East hypothesis, based on faith from God, but not backed by science at this stage. So, to repeat again, given that you declare evolution 100% fact, are you overruling science that does not have the evidence to declare, and going beyond faith in your belief to declare humans originated in Africa. And remember, the word "likely" in science means probability times risk equals consequence. It is "likely" the probability of your house burning down is a low risk, though, the consequence is to high to not hedge that risk and take out insurance. Please don't use the word "likely" in you response if you are declaring it as fact. Because on the evidence of science, evolution is not a fact, otherwise the creation versus evolution argument would not be in a courtroom at present.
0
KittyKatz, will simplify with a breakdown. 1) Do you feel that human life is worth more than the life of other mammals? 2) What is the origin of modern man (eg; have humans arose from Neandertals or other genus person)? 3) Given that you declare evolution 100% fact- are you declaring the out of Africa hypothesis, the current reigning paradigm to be 100% when science has discovered through the result of a human geonome project, examining genetic diversity that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world wide populations. And that a hypothesis proposed that modern humans originated in the Middle East that does not need to make the assumptions the former does, false? Rostos, SJD and myself would side with the origin of man from the Middle East hypothesis, based on faith from God, but not backed by science at this stage. So, to repeat again, given that you declare evolution 100% fact, are you overruling science that does not have the evidence to declare, and going beyond faith in your belief to declare humans originated in Africa. And remember, the word "likely" in science means probability times risk equals consequence. It is "likely" the probability of your house burning down is a low risk, though, the consequence is to high to not hedge that risk and take out insurance. Please don't use the word "likely" in you response if you are declaring it as fact. Because on the evidence of science, evolution is not a fact, otherwise the creation versus evolution argument would not be in a courtroom at present.
Well I finished watching it and they didn't clarify anything beyond "nothing." I thought they wouldnt
But it got me thinking. If god wants us to worship him, why did he wait 14.7 billion years before allowing us to form as beings? You are suggesting why he wasted time, why did he wait that long?That is only an issue for someone who has limited resources (finite time), i dont think God has limited resources. So it is not really a question a human can answer because the human mind is designed to think of things that are finite, God isnt finite. If you are talking about a human being waiting that long, then yes it is a valid question. Cant apply the same standards of humans to God.
And why would he plan to destroy the universe (because we know for a fact that at some point hundreds of billions of years in the future the universe will essentially be destroyed either by the big crunch or endless expansion)?
I dont know. Maybe it his his plan. I really dont know.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
Well I finished watching it and they didn't clarify anything beyond "nothing." I thought they wouldnt
But it got me thinking. If god wants us to worship him, why did he wait 14.7 billion years before allowing us to form as beings? You are suggesting why he wasted time, why did he wait that long?That is only an issue for someone who has limited resources (finite time), i dont think God has limited resources. So it is not really a question a human can answer because the human mind is designed to think of things that are finite, God isnt finite. If you are talking about a human being waiting that long, then yes it is a valid question. Cant apply the same standards of humans to God.
And why would he plan to destroy the universe (because we know for a fact that at some point hundreds of billions of years in the future the universe will essentially be destroyed either by the big crunch or endless expansion)?
I dont know. Maybe it his his plan. I really dont know.
I saw your thread about that old man, (your GF's father or whatever), how he is crippled or something like that and how you showed no symathy for his state. Karma is gonna bite you on the ass big time when you are at a similar age.
It is gonna bite u big time.
It already has my friend but you know what?There has been nothing too big that I could not handle.
Its called life and reality and shitty things can happen to anybody.
But I like the idea that you guys have that those are just tests from god or some shit
You know where you give god credit for making good things happen but when the worst of the worst happens that's just a test of will....What a joke.
And what are you doing putting a voodoo curse on me rostos you wierdo?????
I bet you as you were typing that last karma statement you were sticking pins into a doll with nuts on its chin.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
I saw your thread about that old man, (your GF's father or whatever), how he is crippled or something like that and how you showed no symathy for his state. Karma is gonna bite you on the ass big time when you are at a similar age.
It is gonna bite u big time.
It already has my friend but you know what?There has been nothing too big that I could not handle.
Its called life and reality and shitty things can happen to anybody.
But I like the idea that you guys have that those are just tests from god or some shit
You know where you give god credit for making good things happen but when the worst of the worst happens that's just a test of will....What a joke.
And what are you doing putting a voodoo curse on me rostos you wierdo?????
I bet you as you were typing that last karma statement you were sticking pins into a doll with nuts on its chin.
KittyKatz, will simplify with a breakdown. 1) Do you feel that human life is worth more than the life of other mammals? 2) What is the origin of modern man (eg; have humans arose from Neandertals or other genus person)? 3) Given that you declare evolution 100% fact- are you declaring the out of Africa hypothesis, the current reigning paradigm to be 100% when science has discovered through the result of a human geonome project, examining genetic diversity that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world wide populations. And that a hypothesis proposed that modern humans originated in the Middle East that does not need to make the assumptions the former does, false? Rostos, SJD and myself would side with the origin of man from the Middle East hypothesis, based on faith from God, but not backed by science at this stage. So, to repeat again, given that you declare evolution 100% fact, are you overruling science that does not have the evidence to declare, and going beyond faith in your belief to declare humans originated in Africa. And remember, the word "likely" in science means probability times risk equals consequence. It is "likely" the probability of your house burning down is a low risk, though, the consequence is to high to not hedge that risk and take out insurance. Please don't use the word "likely" in you response if you are declaring it as fact. Because on the evidence of science, evolution is not a fact, otherwise the creation versus evolution argument would not be in a courtroom at present.
I am far far from an expert in biological sciences / evolutionary theory etc. The only thing i dont understand is if evolution is true, why do we humans wear clothes?
Let me explain
Apes are covered in hair, the hair is a shelter / protection for them against the elements / coldness etc.
If we evolved from apes, why arent we covered in hair the same way as them?
Now, it is based on survival of the fittest, so having your body covered in hair is an advantage to enable you to survive the elements.
If apes transformed to humans, how does the body / cells KNOW to not keep full body hair as a trait because the human will compensate by waering clothes to protect itself from the elements?
Rather, at what stage during the evolutionary phase does the body when transforming from ape to human say, "no need for full body, lets drop this trait beacuse we will cloth ourselves?" How does the cell / or part of the anatomy KNOW to drop the trait of full body hair because it KNOWS the human will cloth itself? Furhtermore, i dont know of any animals that cloth itself at all.
Do you get what i am saying? It is hard to describe.
Bascially, we should have seen the early apes (transitionary) start to wear clothes, but why? Why were the transitionary apes starting to lose hair? Hair should be a number one trait to protect the species against the elements.
It doesnt make sense
0
Quote Originally Posted by aerial:
KittyKatz, will simplify with a breakdown. 1) Do you feel that human life is worth more than the life of other mammals? 2) What is the origin of modern man (eg; have humans arose from Neandertals or other genus person)? 3) Given that you declare evolution 100% fact- are you declaring the out of Africa hypothesis, the current reigning paradigm to be 100% when science has discovered through the result of a human geonome project, examining genetic diversity that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world wide populations. And that a hypothesis proposed that modern humans originated in the Middle East that does not need to make the assumptions the former does, false? Rostos, SJD and myself would side with the origin of man from the Middle East hypothesis, based on faith from God, but not backed by science at this stage. So, to repeat again, given that you declare evolution 100% fact, are you overruling science that does not have the evidence to declare, and going beyond faith in your belief to declare humans originated in Africa. And remember, the word "likely" in science means probability times risk equals consequence. It is "likely" the probability of your house burning down is a low risk, though, the consequence is to high to not hedge that risk and take out insurance. Please don't use the word "likely" in you response if you are declaring it as fact. Because on the evidence of science, evolution is not a fact, otherwise the creation versus evolution argument would not be in a courtroom at present.
I am far far from an expert in biological sciences / evolutionary theory etc. The only thing i dont understand is if evolution is true, why do we humans wear clothes?
Let me explain
Apes are covered in hair, the hair is a shelter / protection for them against the elements / coldness etc.
If we evolved from apes, why arent we covered in hair the same way as them?
Now, it is based on survival of the fittest, so having your body covered in hair is an advantage to enable you to survive the elements.
If apes transformed to humans, how does the body / cells KNOW to not keep full body hair as a trait because the human will compensate by waering clothes to protect itself from the elements?
Rather, at what stage during the evolutionary phase does the body when transforming from ape to human say, "no need for full body, lets drop this trait beacuse we will cloth ourselves?" How does the cell / or part of the anatomy KNOW to drop the trait of full body hair because it KNOWS the human will cloth itself? Furhtermore, i dont know of any animals that cloth itself at all.
Do you get what i am saying? It is hard to describe.
Bascially, we should have seen the early apes (transitionary) start to wear clothes, but why? Why were the transitionary apes starting to lose hair? Hair should be a number one trait to protect the species against the elements.
I am done just figured I would pop in another religion thread that I knew you would be keeping going till the end of time.
You want to talk about a sad low life and I will show you a guy who has a rugby player avatar who babbles endlessly about faith and what it means to him
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Dont bag disabled people you sad low life
rostos
I am done just figured I would pop in another religion thread that I knew you would be keeping going till the end of time.
You want to talk about a sad low life and I will show you a guy who has a rugby player avatar who babbles endlessly about faith and what it means to him
I am far far from an expert in biological sciences / evolutionary theory etc. The only thing i dont understand is if evolution is true, why do we humans wear clothes?
Let me explain
Apes are covered in hair, the hair is a shelter / protection for them against the elements / coldness etc.
If we evolved from apes, why arent we covered in hair the same way as them?
Now, it is based on survival of the fittest, so having your body covered in hair is an advantage to enable you to survive the elements.
If apes transformed to humans, how does the body / cells KNOW to not keep full body hair as a trait because the human will compensate by waering clothes to protect itself from the elements?
Rather, at what stage during the evolutionary phase does the body when transforming from ape to human say, "no need for full body, lets drop this trait beacuse we will cloth ourselves?" How does the cell / or part of the anatomy KNOW to drop the trait of full body hair because it KNOWS the human will cloth itself? Furhtermore, i dont know of any animals that cloth itself at all.
Do you get what i am saying? It is hard to describe.
Bascially, we should have seen the early apes (transitionary) start to wear clothes, but why? Why were the transitionary apes starting to lose hair? Hair should be a number one trait to protect the species against the elements.
It doesnt make sense
SO basically, imagine an ape, covered in hair, a strong survival trait to protect itself from the elements.
As the ape evolves slowly to man, why does the ape start to lose its hair? That should be a trait that stays. What is a transitionary ape doing losing its hair? Furthermore, did the cell say, "lets lose the hair becase the body will cloth itself from external sources"?
Lets say the ape started to lose hair for any reason in the trasitionary phase, does this mean that there would have been species that were 95% ape and 5% human wearing clothes?Or even 99% ape and 1% human wearing clothes?
Has any person seen any animal in the history of humanity wearing any form of clothes they got themselves and put on themselves?
Do people get what i am trying to say.
It simply goes against the survival of the fittest philosophy.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
I am far far from an expert in biological sciences / evolutionary theory etc. The only thing i dont understand is if evolution is true, why do we humans wear clothes?
Let me explain
Apes are covered in hair, the hair is a shelter / protection for them against the elements / coldness etc.
If we evolved from apes, why arent we covered in hair the same way as them?
Now, it is based on survival of the fittest, so having your body covered in hair is an advantage to enable you to survive the elements.
If apes transformed to humans, how does the body / cells KNOW to not keep full body hair as a trait because the human will compensate by waering clothes to protect itself from the elements?
Rather, at what stage during the evolutionary phase does the body when transforming from ape to human say, "no need for full body, lets drop this trait beacuse we will cloth ourselves?" How does the cell / or part of the anatomy KNOW to drop the trait of full body hair because it KNOWS the human will cloth itself? Furhtermore, i dont know of any animals that cloth itself at all.
Do you get what i am saying? It is hard to describe.
Bascially, we should have seen the early apes (transitionary) start to wear clothes, but why? Why were the transitionary apes starting to lose hair? Hair should be a number one trait to protect the species against the elements.
It doesnt make sense
SO basically, imagine an ape, covered in hair, a strong survival trait to protect itself from the elements.
As the ape evolves slowly to man, why does the ape start to lose its hair? That should be a trait that stays. What is a transitionary ape doing losing its hair? Furthermore, did the cell say, "lets lose the hair becase the body will cloth itself from external sources"?
Lets say the ape started to lose hair for any reason in the trasitionary phase, does this mean that there would have been species that were 95% ape and 5% human wearing clothes?Or even 99% ape and 1% human wearing clothes?
Has any person seen any animal in the history of humanity wearing any form of clothes they got themselves and put on themselves?
Do people get what i am trying to say.
It simply goes against the survival of the fittest philosophy.
Sounds like you guys are saying "what goes around comes around." It's a fun saying to use, but everyone knows it's bullshit lol. What goes around does necessarily come around. Bad people are not necessarily punished later in life. Karma is not a bitch (technically karma involves dying and being reincarnated so it's often misused to mean some sort of evening out of things later in life). But yeah, bagging on disabled people isn't cool, but to each his own.
Rostos - I respect the fact that you admit you don't know regarding god and the future of the universe. However, I cannot accept your answer regarding the 14.7 billion years. Even if god operates outside the confines of time and space, it still took 14.7 billion years for life to emerge. Presumably, god could've done it much quicker. Now I understand you don't have the answer to this question and neither do I, but that does not render the question invalid by any means. The fact that god has all the time in the world (and then some) doesn't change the fact that 14.7 billion years passed.
And regarding something coming from the "nothing" as the scientists described it, I literally have no idea what the hell that means or how it makes sense. No clue. Perhaps we'll discover it someday. Perhaps we won't. Either way, that doesn't immediately lead me to the assumption that it was god. It leads me to the most obvious and the only 100% factually true conclusion: we simply don't know.
0
Sounds like you guys are saying "what goes around comes around." It's a fun saying to use, but everyone knows it's bullshit lol. What goes around does necessarily come around. Bad people are not necessarily punished later in life. Karma is not a bitch (technically karma involves dying and being reincarnated so it's often misused to mean some sort of evening out of things later in life). But yeah, bagging on disabled people isn't cool, but to each his own.
Rostos - I respect the fact that you admit you don't know regarding god and the future of the universe. However, I cannot accept your answer regarding the 14.7 billion years. Even if god operates outside the confines of time and space, it still took 14.7 billion years for life to emerge. Presumably, god could've done it much quicker. Now I understand you don't have the answer to this question and neither do I, but that does not render the question invalid by any means. The fact that god has all the time in the world (and then some) doesn't change the fact that 14.7 billion years passed.
And regarding something coming from the "nothing" as the scientists described it, I literally have no idea what the hell that means or how it makes sense. No clue. Perhaps we'll discover it someday. Perhaps we won't. Either way, that doesn't immediately lead me to the assumption that it was god. It leads me to the most obvious and the only 100% factually true conclusion: we simply don't know.
NATURALISTS
Hot Forum Topics
