|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God vs. Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Valerie Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Jesus didn't just die, he took on the whole worlds sins, and that was more painful than anyone has suffered. He did it not knowing if anyone would be saved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Valerie Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
What about the Palonium Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
So, god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Valerie Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Nice obfuscation! The problem is that you do not seem to understand the concepts of justice and of cause and effect. The violation of the law meant that a debt was owed. The son of the living God chose to suffer our punishment not so that He could forgive us, He had done that even before we sinned. He paid the debt that was owed because He is perfectly just as well as perfectly loving. He is not some cruel arbitrary dictator as a human would be. Before you can understand the sacrifice you must first understand the concepts of perfect love and perfect justice. Without that basis, none of it will make any sense to you at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Pretty hard for me to do an "off-topic alert" - I don't really know what the topic theme really is. See message 1, maybe you can figure it out.
Valerie, in message 152, writes: What about the Palonium(sic) Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly! I'm pretty sure that is pretty remote to whatever this topic is. Go to polonium halos if you wish to pursue that item further. Please, NO responses to this moderation message. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
bullshit Christian propagandist quoted in the O.P. writes: The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?" "No sir. I've never seen Him." "Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?" "No, sir, I have not." "Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?" "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't." "Yet you still believe in him?" "Yes." "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?" Well, swinging back to the topic, the O.P. author thinks that the silly piece of religious propaganda he has quoted is "cool". In the extract above, for example, we have a fictional science professor who implies that you have to be able to observe phenomena directly with the five senses in order for them to exist. So, we have a scientist who doesn't accept the existence of sub-atomic particles, the earth's core, planets identified by the wobble of their stars, and many other things known or thought by scientists to exist that we cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell. On top of that, this "scientist" implies that science tells as that things that it cannot identify at this point in time, like Gods, do not exist, which it certainly does not. So, here we have an example of an apparently deliberate attempt by Christians to try and deceive people as to what science is, and how scientists attempt to understand the universe. Ironically, the piece of rubbish in the O.P. could be regarded as evidence of a false religion trying desperately to justify itself. Why would a true religion need to attempt to deceive naive minds in such a way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Ironically, the piece of rubbish in the O.P. could be regarded as evidence of a false religion trying desperately to justify itself. Why would a true religion need to attempt to deceive naive minds in such a way? Because they know that naive minds can be deceived by simplistic, pretty little stories that can be swallowed whole without much thought. Kinda like sitcoms or pop songs or news sound bites or self-help books. Yeah, you can relate to them a little bit, possibly, and you can ponder the message for a few minutes and then have a "deep revelation" without really digging all that deep and then congratulate yourself on your own depth without looking into anything that might contradict this revelation. And when confronted by contradictory evidence you can be smug in the fact that you have something over someone else. No one can take away your "revelation." Personal experience is powerful. It doesn't matter if contradictory evidence is staring you in the face, you know what you saw or felt or experienced (especially if someone else spells it out for you in a way you couldn't express...like preachers, self-help authors, talk-show hosts, etc). And that is what people like those who passed along the OP in an email think. I dunno..it kinda reminds me of delusional stalkers. Pretending that every wayward glance holds significance, holding conversations in their heads about their intentions and pretending that the other person is talking back to them and even fantasizing elaborate scenarios and being offended when the stalkee doesn't remember what "they promised." All the while the stalkee is throwing out all kinds of evidence that they want nothing to do with you. The negative evidence is just "playing hard to get" or "s/he didn't get my flowers" or "s/he didn't mean it when she said 'get bent creep.'" But the stalker twists everything around and omits the negative evidence to make themselves look good. Funny thing is that many people won't get the hint unless they get hit over the head (literally or philosophically). The evidence is right there for you to see but you are so blinded by emotion that you can't. You want to believe in something that is not there so much that you will not recognize the police officers outside the door as having any authority. You have an invisible authority that no one else can see unless they believe your delusions. Whether it be your invisible god or your invisible "permission" (based on delusional conversations...sometimes based on a book or a movie or a music video, etc) to invade someone else's life. Yes, I am comparing some creationists to some stalkers. The criteria is the same. Confidence in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence. The delusion is the same. Even when it's thrown in their face they refuse to recognize it. Their "feelings" top everything else. It's creepy. And it is all too pervasive. That is why chain emails like this work. People believe what they want to believe unless they actually do some work and look it up. If it is presented to them in a palatable manner and they agree with it, they won't bother. It's (the OP) just another cute, yet slightly thought provoking email from their co-worker or cousin or whoever. No need to really think about it. Or expect real, rational debate. Because if fishie really wanted to debate he would have posted his own argument and not a chain email designed to trap people in OT discussions. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Jesus didn't just die, he took on the whole worlds sins, and that was more painful than anyone has suffered. He did it not knowing if anyone would be saved. You know what, I'm going to stop using this signature. Apparently certain individuals, like you, can't resist making completely off-topic remarks regarding my signature, rather than posting regarding the actual thread topic. If you'd like to discuss whether Jesus' sacrifice of an entire weekend was really much of a sacrifice, by all means, feel free to start your own thread rather than taking up valuable posts in one where it's off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
So god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?
PS This isn't a cranky question. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
What about the Palonium Halos that Dr. Robert Gentry found in the granites. No one has ever been able to refute those! That showed that the granites had to form instantly! PRATT! When the sites Gentry obtained his samples of basement granite were visited by other geologists, they found that he had obtained them from igneous intrusions into metamorphic rock. In other words, instead of being original rock instantly called into being at the beginning of the earth's existence, it was rock that had intruded itself via underground lava flow into rock that had pre-existed for so long that it had been transformed from its original form (that is what metamorphic rock is). When Wakefield investigated Gentry's sites, Gentry was at first cooperative, but as soon as Wakefield started discovering the truth, Gentry became very uncooperative. BTW, in the 1981 Arkansas "balanced-treatment" trial the teacher who had been put in charge of creating the "creation science" curriculum testified that the only reference she could find supporting "creation science" was a Reader's Digest article on Gentry's claim (she already had to reject the Institute for Creation Research's materials because they were too blatantly religious). Upon examination, Gentry's claims have also proven to be false.
No one has ever been able to refute those! Completely and utterly false. Whoever told you that was lying to you. Gentry's claims have been refuted since the 1980's and have had to be refuted another thousand times because creationists refuse to face the truth and continue to spread the exact same lies about his claim. That's what the acronym PRATT tells you: "refuted a thousand times." Practically the entire body of "scientific evidence" offered up by creationists are nothing but PRATTs. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. Edited by dwise1, : added top qs box {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Earendil Junior Member (Idle past 5866 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
Really? I don't think science has said this. Science cannot address this question, it is a metaphysical question and science must presume methodological naturalism. The rest of the email is rubbish aswell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
If you click on the reply button that looks like
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taz writes: So god sacrificed himself to himself in order for himself to forgive our sins?PS This isn't a cranky question. Applying to topic, that notion is neither Biblical, logical and perhaps in some respects not scientific. Jehovah god is not Jehovah's earth born son Jesus whom Jehovah sent to earth via the multipresent spirit of Jehovah and Jesus, nor is earth born Jesus Jehovah god the father. Presently each entity has a different location, Jehovah god sitting on the throne of Heaven and the son Jesus on the right hand of the father, Jehovah. Jesus is awaiting time (which according to Matthew 24:36 only the father; not the son knows ASV) to descend to earth at his prophesied 2nd advent to the throne of David on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Sorry for the very late response. There was a shooter at my school and effectively shot 5 people dead. So, I have been elsewhere for the past week.
quote:Well, the point of precells is that they are primitive form of cells. quote:Yes. quote:Absolutely. quote:Noone has been able to make this observation yet. quote:Absolutely. quote:Define "adapt". quote:Yes. quote:Yes. Further experiments since the Urey-Miller showed that the organic molecules formed from the original experiment would sometimes assemble themselves accordingly to resemble the cell. Given enough energy, they pump ions in and out of their systems as a primitive form of metabolism. Noone has seen them "reproduce" yet, so that's why they are called precells. They lack this very important characteristic of life. The more important point is that just this much has been said to be impossible to achieve. Keep in mind that people have only had the opportunity to work with these chemicals in the laboratory for the last few decades while the Earth had a much much longer time than that. Your "nay" saying is premature.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024