Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? (3 Viewers)

[Denny Crane]

PapaG

e = mc^2 is the answer to most of your questions.

crowTrobot

Man sailed the seas for millennia when the best science said the earth was flat and the heavens crystal spheres and the sun revolved around the earth. Pointing at technology working as proof science is right isn't a winning argument.

 

[crowTrobot]

the fact that scientists STILL can't recreate a single-celled organism (the most basic building block of life) should tell you something...

why would you expect science to be able to have recreated abiogenesis by now when it presumably would have taken millions or billions of years and potentially trillions or quadrillions of steps to occur naturally? that makes no sense. even if it in fact happened naturally it's likely we will never be able to recreate it.

we've only known about cells for 300 years. we've only been studying evolution for 150. the fact that we've learned what we have at this point is quite remarkable.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Argghhh I type too fast sometimes...

it's evidence-based scientific fact that the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago

Besides (flawed) carbon dating what evidence is there of this?

and life evolved gradually in a different order than specified in genesis

And again since macro evolution has never been observed or proven in any way you can't really say it's a fact that we "evolved" from apes.

there was no global flood in biblical times

Says who exactly?

modern human races evolved tens of thousands of years before the time of the tower of babel story

according to the evolutionists the human race has been around in our current form for the past 200,000 years, yet only learned how to read and write and leave behind evidence in the past 5,000 years. Interesting.

(there's a reason the pope had to endorse the first 7 chapters of genesis as 'allegory')

why should we care what the pope says?

also millions of hebrews were never in egypt, never spent 40 years in the sinai, never colonized canaan etc.

There's no way you can prove this.

 

[MadeFromDust]

why would you expect science to be able to have recreated abiogenesis by now when it presumably would have taken millions or billions of years and potentially trillions or quadrillions of steps to occur naturally? that makes no sense. even if it in fact happened naturally it's likely we will never be able to recreate it.

we've only known about cells for 300 years. we've only been studying evolution for 150. the fact that we've learned what we have at this point is quite remarkable.

Because there's no evidence that abiogenesis happened or is even possible. Adding a lot of the years to the equation says nothing about whether complex lifeforms can spontaneously arise from a puddle of goo and branch off into innumerable different species and forms of life. It's funny how dead, brainless matter can apparently do a better job at creating than these brilliant scientists. kind of ironic when you think about it.

Where did the first tree seed originate from? Where did the raw materials for the big bang come from, were they created or did they create themselves?

 

[crowTrobot]

crowTrobot

Man sailed the seas for millennia when the best science said the earth was flat and the heavens crystal spheres and the sun revolved around the earth. Pointing at technology working as proof science is right isn't a winning argument.

i don't see your point. what am i saying science is right about? i was pointing out science does not form true consensus based on political agendas. it wouldn't work at all if it did. individual scientists may be politically motivated and the media may focus on them, but that's a different issue that has nothing to do with how consensus forms.

 

[MadeFromDust]

if you're the type who believes stories in genesis are literally true then i don't think you would listen. no even slightly informed objective person would consider them anything more than allegorical.

the exodus story is slightly more interesting because it lends itself more to looking at archeological findings than just deciding to turn your brain on.

Oh I'll listen, I have before and am willingly to now. Give me something fresh and new please, that's all I ask...

 

[PapaG]

what are you referring to specifically? it's evidence-based scientific fact that the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and life evolved gradually in a different order than specified in genesis, there was no global flood in biblical times, modern human races evolved tens of thousands of years before the time of the tower of babel story (there's a reason the pope had to endorse the first 7 chapters of genesis as 'allegory'). also millions of hebrews were never in egypt, never spent 40 years in the sinai, never colonized canaan etc.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I don't believe the biblical versions, either, and I'll still point out that there are huge holes in evolutionary theory, to the point that the origin of life is so glaring in proof, that it make macro-evolution almost unbelievable to me as well.

 

[PapaG]

PapaG

e = mc^2 is the answer to most of your questions.

http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16075434

New and actual scientific discoveries are blowing holes in e=mc^2. As I said, I suggest some of you read up on things a bit.

Dr David Whitehouse, a space scientist and author, said that if the experiment is proved to be true then it would be a revelation on a par with Einstein's own theories.


What Is Albert Einstein's Theory?
:: The speed of light is described by the scientists at CERN as "nature's cosmic speed limit".

:: Albert Einstein's 1905 Theory of Special Relativity says that the speed of light is a constant - and that nothing in the universe can travel faster.

:: But if the CERN experiment was correct then scientists measured the neutrinos as travelling 60 billionths of a second quicker than light would have travelled the same distance


"It is an earthquake, a revolution in physics," he said.

"As soon as you are arrogant enough to think you understand the universe, the universe comes along and shows you are not right."

Dr Whitehouse said the findings technically meant that time travel might be possible.

"Everything is now open - because time, speed and the speed of light are all linked."

A lot of you could learn from the part I bolded.

 

[Eastoff]

why would you expect science to be able to have recreated abiogenesis by now when it presumably would have taken millions or billions of years and potentially trillions or quadrillions of steps to occur naturally? that makes no sense. even if it in fact happened naturally it's likely we will never be able to recreate it.

we've only known about cells for 300 years. we've only been studying evolution for 150. the fact that we've learned what we have at this point is quite remarkable.

I disagree my friend. ;] http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27406/

 

[PapaG]

I disagree my friend. ;] http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27406/

Um, that's a computer model showing how it could happen.

 

[Eastoff]

http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16075434

New and actual scientific discoveries are blowing holes in e=mc^2. As I said, I suggest some of you read up on things a bit.



A lot of you could learn from the part I bolded.

You of all people claiming science must be repeated should be ashamed to use an experiment that has not been recreated at any other location as an example.

 

[Eastoff]

Um, that's a computer model showing how it could happen.

That's nice, I'm just saying that the computing power in time could give a very good description. P.S. pair production from photons creating matter has been repeatedly shown for about 30 or 40 years.

 

[crowTrobot]

Argghhh I type too fast sometimes...

Besides (flawed) carbon dating what evidence is there of this?

And again since macro evolution has never been observed or proven in any way you can't really say it's a fact that we "evolved" from apes.


Says who exactly?

according to the evolutionists the human race has been around in our current form for the past 200,000 years, yet only learned how to read and write and leave behind evidence in the past 5,000 years. Interesting. why should we care what the pope says?

There's no way you can prove this.

ok. no personal disrespect intended but I don't consider YEC's worth arguing with. you should realize that what you believe is disputed by virtually every one of the millions of scientist working in relevant fields today (not including only a tiny handful of ex scientists who write books, lecture, and maintain creationists websites for profit). if you aren't able to grasp the implications of that nothing else i say or any other information i direct you towards is going to matter.

 

[PapaG]

You of all people claiming science must be repeated should be ashamed to use an experiment that has not been recreated at any other location as an example.

Me of all people? Please explain. I've always been a huge proponent of the scientific method. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? What I posted hasn't been replicated, but is it so hard to believe that there are particles that are faster than light?

Seems pretty close-minded to not consider that possibility.

 

[MadeFromDust]

ok. no personal disrespect intended but I don't consider YEC's worth arguing with. you should realize that what you believe is disputed by virtually every one of the millions of scientist working in relevant fields today (not including only a tiny handful of ex scientists who write books, lecture, and maintain creationists websites for profit). if you aren't able to grasp the implications of that nothing else i say or any other information i direct you towards is going to matter.

Translation: I have no answer for your questions.

People love to call my beliefs fantasies and fables all the time, well I think these beliefs are fantasies. I don't care what's popular or not, men have been wrong billions of times before and are wrong again. I'll put my faith in God. And if I turn out to be wrong, oh well. If you do, well that's a different story...

 

[crowTrobot]

I disagree my friend. ;] http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27406/

that's not going to help us recreate abiogenesis

 

[PapaG]

That's nice, I'm just saying that the computing power in time could give a very good description. P.S. pair production from photons creating matter has been repeatedly shown for about 30 or 40 years.

It could, but then, that doesn't answer what crowTrobot posted, does it?

 

[Eastoff]

according to the evolutionists the human race has been around in our current form for the past 200,000 years, yet only learned how to read and write and leave behind evidence in the past 5,000 years. Interesting. why should we care what the pope says?

I'm sorry but this is wrong. There are cultures older than 5000 years. Just because they didn't make up a written language that we still can see, doesn't mean they didn't exist before 6000 years ago.

 

[Eastoff]

Me of all people? Please explain. I've always been a huge proponent of the scientific method. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? What I posted hasn't been replicated, but is it so hard to believe that there are particles that are faster than light?

Seems pretty close-minded to not consider that possibility.

Right, so no particles faster than the speed of light means it's all okay with E=MC^2

 

[Eastoff]

Translation: I have no answer for your questions.

People love to call my beliefs fantasies and fables all the time, well I think these beliefs are fantasies. I don't care what's popular or not, men have been wrong billions of times before and are wrong again. I'll put my faith in God. And if I turn out to be wrong, oh well. If you do, well that's a different story...

I'm just curious, why did jesus not come along for 4000 years?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Man sailed the seas for millennia when the best science said the earth was flat and the heavens crystal spheres and the sun revolved around the earth. Pointing at technology working as proof science is right isn't a winning argument.

To be fair, Denny, it was the uneducated masses that thought so (and I fully put "religious vocationists" in that category). Greek scientists/mathematicians knew the earth was a sphere (and the circumference) a few centuries before Christ.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'm sorry but this is wrong. There are cultures older than 5000 years. Just because they didn't make up a written language that we still can see, doesn't mean they didn't exist before 6000 years ago.

Again, all archaeological evidence points to what I said to be true. Human history dates back to roughly 3200 B.C. Secular humanists claim to pride themselves on facts and evidence but so far I haven't seen any. The one's I have, have been proven fraudulent yeas ago (I.e Piltdown man)

 

[Eastoff]

that's not going to help us recreate abiogenesis

Well with things like these involved with the previous computing power. I would think it could help run through possibilities of situations.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'm just curious, why did jesus not come along for 4000 years?

Jesus existed in Spirit before the creation of the universe. Prophesies in the Old testament tell of a coming Messiah (see Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 9:6 etc.). This was God's plan to reconcile humanity to Himself all the way back since the Genesis creation story.

 

[Eastoff]

Again, all archaeological evidence points to what I said to be true. Human history dates back to roughly 3200 B.C. Secular humanists claim to pride themselves on facts and evidence but so far I haven't seen any. The one's I have, have been proven fraudulent yeas ago (I.e Piltdown man)

really? carbon dating must be wrong huh?

 

[PapaG]

Right, so no particles faster than the speed of light means it's all okay with E=MC^2

I'm still not sure what Denny's point was with posting that. How the universe is expanding versus how it was created are two separate issues. You're all over the place and are confusing things.

 

[crowTrobot]

Translation: I have no answer for your questions.

you're asking about things that are common knowledge. you're free to research this stuff if you want to. start by googling age of the earth.

I don't care what's popular or not, men have been wrong billions of times before and are wrong again.

men have been wrong. nothing that has reached the level of scientific consensus that evolution or the age of the earth or no global flood in biblical times have has ever been proven wrong.

I'll put my faith in God. And if I turn out to be wrong, oh well. If you do, well that's a different story...

pascal's wager is just stupid, and we're not strictly arguing about the truth of christianity here - just the historicity of genesis and exodus, since you said nothing in the bible has ever been disproven.

 

[Eastoff]

I'm still not sure what Denny's point was with posting that. How the universe is expanding versus how it was created are two separate issues. You're all over the place and are confusing things.

e=mc^2 is related to matter being created.

 

[Eastoff]

men have been wrong. nothing that has reached the level of scientific consensus that evolution or the age of the earth or no global flood in biblical times have has ever been proven wrong.

There were an awful lot of flat earth believers. =\

 

[barfo]

So, then, there's the crux of the matter. Why is it that you believe the probability of God's existence to be so remote?

I haven't seen any evidence that there is a God, nor does it seem a particularly plausible idea based on anything I have seen evidence of.

Do you feel the same about all concepts of deity, or just about the notion of a singular omnipotent creator?

Generally, yes, although I would say that the possibility there is a god goes up if you generalize it to any of the gods that various religions have proposed, and it goes up considerably more if you include deities that have not been proposed.

barfo