User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 3:44:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Excellent articles, [b]Ydnar![/b]
Thanks for bringing that website to my attention. Eric The(Wizened)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 3:47:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Could we get a [red]LAKE OF FIRE SWIM TEAM[/red]
forum? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 3:51:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Well, the Poll about the existance of God prompted this thread. I have posted this link on another board and it received much mixed debate- so- let the games begin! [url]www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/designevidenceupdate1998.html [/url] [8D] Don't get me wrong, I believe in God. But what does that article prove? If the nature of the universe couldn't support our life, then maybe another form would have evolved. The universe didn't form the way it is to support us, we evolved the way we did because of it. Besides, needing scientific proof of God just shows a lack of faith, faith doesn't need proof...that's what makes it faith instead of actual knowledge. None of us here knows for actual fact that God exists, we can't, so we must have faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 3:58:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Post from Sumo2000 -
Besides, needing scientific proof of God just shows a lack of faith, faith doesn't need proof...that's what makes it faith instead of actual knowledge. None of us here knows for actual fact that God exists, we can't, so we must have faith. I don't 'spect that anyone's gonna jump ship and go over to the other side simply because they read an article that offers a scientific basis for finding intentional order in the cosmos. If archeologists dug up a skeleton in Judea and called it the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, you wouldn't believe in that either! But it is nice to contemplate the articles that were found at Ydnar's site, is it not? Eric The(NotToWorry,WeCanHandleAllThingsThroughChristWhoStengthensUs)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 4:04:49 PM EDT
[#5]
But it is nice to contemplate the articles that were found at Ydnar's site, is it not? Eric The(NotToWorry,WeCanHandleAllThingsThroughChristWhoStengthensUs)Hun[>]:)] I guess so, I just don't see that the fact that our universe is capable of supporting life (and supporting itself) as proof of God. If the many of the things listed in the article didn't take place, we would'nt know it anyway as nothing would exist. Either it works or it doesn't, maybe the big bang happened lots of times but didn't work until this time, we could be the accident! Kinda like the monkeys with typewriters writing Shakespeare. Just worth thinking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 4:14:35 PM EDT
[#6]
I am not debating wether or not there is a god. But do not beleive what the bible has to say, even though I did not read it cover to cover.
I have two main problems from what I have read. 1) Where did Adam and Eve's sons get their wifes if Adam and Eve were the only two on earth? 2) When Noah built the ark and Noah and his family and friends were the only ones on board, and then after the great flood receided, where did the blacks and orientals come from? Like I said I am not disputing some great being, but just not sure what to beleive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 4:16:17 PM EDT
[#7]
It is my belief that the material presented shows the Highly unlikely nature of the possibility that creation is an accident or "just happened". The facts show an incredibly detailed and infintely tuned balance of forces and counterforces. The scientific approach is used to demonstrate that natural laws and physics are valid tools to assess the potential and perhaps obvious conclusion that a supernatural force with unimaginable capabilities was involved in the creation of all things.
Many of those responsible for this work were not at the time of their thesis Religious, or even believers in God. They became convinced after many years of study and effort that there must be some supernatural force that is responsible for the whole of things and the unbelieveable beauty, magnificence, and intricacy of the world, galaxy, and Universe around us. I am Ivy league educated, and am now an Engineer. I do not lean naturally to the inexplicable, yet am confronted by the awesome and inconceiveable detail of that which surounds me, and simply denying it was likely done with purpose, by forces beyond my comprehension, is not possible. I do not lean toward Religion, as I find it to be corrupted by the men who control it. But I do indeed Believe in God, and his Word, as we can observe in the Bible. I hope only to offer you too, the truth as I have found it, for your own consideration. [8D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 7:25:16 PM EDT
[#8]
I like the section where the author discusses what happened in the first instants after the Big Bang and then states that:
Once again, the Biblical doctrine of creation is deduced. Doesn't his version of the Bible describe creation taking place over a six day period? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 7:32:15 PM EDT
[#9]
you can look at this two ways. you can see this as beyond coincidence that all the values in the physical world are just where they need to be for life to exist. that there's no way chance had any role in this. hence, the only explanation left is a divine creator.
or you can look at it as a trial-and-error kind of scenario where multiple values existed for the phenomenon and only those that resulted in stable systems survived. hence we only see the stable systems (and possibly incorrectly assume that these were the only ones to have existed). here's one that i have a particular problem with, because it isn't nearly as logical as some of the others. i'll admit that i'm no astrophysicist, so if i'm wrong in my assumptions, i'd like someone to explain why. 11. velocity of light if larger: stars would be too luminous if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough if the velocity of light is simply it's speed and the luminosity of light determined by the amount of photons (energy), i fail to see how the speed of those photons changes the energy, since the photon quantity remains the same. unless differing speeds result in differing photon quantities. but how is that? here's another one i have a problem with, again for intuitive reasons. 12. age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed first off, this assumes that there's only one "right part of the galaxy" and necessarily that there's only one "right" galaxy. given that there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe, all of different ages, i venture to say that the probability of having other solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the "right part of the galaxy" (what the heck does that mean anyway?) is actually very high. our galaxy is hardly unique in this respect. it means nothing more than now is the right time in [i]this[/i] part of the galaxy to be trying to live. not that this is the only part of the galaxy/universe where life is possible. 27. ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter coudl someone tell what exactly exotic matter is, and how it differs from ordinary matter? 31. big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies will not form; universe expands too rapidly if larger: galaxies will be too dense; black holes will dominate; universe collapses too quickly does anybody else find it odd that the existence of God hinges on the presence of ripples from an event that couldn't have happened because it isn't described that way in the Bible? these points totally ignores the possibility (and probability) that these conditions will exist elsewhere in the universe and time. it is completely illogical to assume that these conditions will occur in only one point in space and time, given the immensity and changing nature of the universe. to call it evidence of the existence of God is being generous. disclaimer: i am not saying one does not exist, mind you. just that these points are not evidence that one does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 7:32:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Yes, but what is a day to God???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 7:43:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Yes, but what is a day to God??? to play the devil's advocate here, if a day didn't mean a day (24 hours, one complete rotation of the earth about its axis), then God would have not told the truth. and since by His nature and definition, He cannot lie, a day must mean 24 hours, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 7:46:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Yes, but what is a day to God??? to play the devil's advocate here, if a day didn't mean a day (24 hours, one complete rotation of the earth about its axis), then God would have not told the truth. and since by His nature and definition, He cannot lie, a day must mean 24 hours, no? Except man wrote down the story of creation, and man translated the story of creation...many, many times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 8:05:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Except man wrote down the story of creation, and man translated the story of creation...many, many times. I believe the "Old Testament" was passed down verbally before it was committed to writing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 8:28:52 PM EDT
[#14]
You know, there's probably a universe made up of anti-matter (atoms consisting of anti-protons surrounded by clouds of positrons), in which the speed of light is exactly 200,000 miles per second, and the anti-silicon-based intelligent life-forms there are pondering just how things managed to be perfect so that they could exist.
"There must be a God", they think! (Exotic matter is anti-matter, ARLady) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 8:57:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: 1) Where did Adam and Eve's sons get their wifes if Adam and Eve were the only two on earth? 2) When Noah built the ark and Noah and his family and friends were the only ones on board, and then after the great flood receided, where did the blacks and orientals come from? Like I said I am not disputing some great being, but just not sure what to beleive. And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[;)] Actually, I don't know either where the wives came from, except to note that the Bible doesn't say that God stopped making people after Adam & Eve. Who knows? As far as Noah and the races, who says Noah was white? Evidence points to his son Ham as being dark skinned. Here is one reference for you, from Holman's Bible Handbook: [b]HAM (Hahm) Personal name meaning, “hot.” Second of Noah’s three sons (Genesis 5:32). Following the Flood, he discovered Noah, his father, naked and drunken and reported it to Shem and Japheth (Genesis 9:20-29). When Noah learned of the incident, he pronounced a curse on Canaan the son of Ham. Ham became the original ancestor of the Cushites, the Egyptians, and the Canaanites (Genesis 10:6).[/b] Ham was the father of the Egyptians, among others, and they are pretty dark, eh? As far as the whole "what is a day to God" deal, I would point out that when Adam was created, he was formed as a fully adult man, not as a baby. God put him to work right away,even though he had just been created. Then Eve. God created her, Adam took one look and said, "This is good." Kind of a Biblical "Oh, Baby!" Unless Adam was the world's first pedophile, Eve too was fully adult, even though only hours "old". Same goes for the light from the stars and their apparentage. They were dreated that way to immediately provide light in the night sky. The bottom line, though, is what does it REALLY matter? There are plenty of things that go on around me every day and I truly understand very few of them, but I get up and get out and live my life anyway. I may not know all the details on just how I type into this box and it posts a message to you, but the lack of knowing the intricate details of how a computer works doesn't stop me from using it, or knowing that you will be able to read what I am writing. It works and I am satisfied with that. Enough of what the Bible says HAS been proven to be scientifically, historically and archeologically correct that I can safely bet the rest is true, too. The prepondernce of evidence says that the Bible is indeed telling the truth, and new discoveries only add greater proof, not take away from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2002 9:59:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
As far as Noah and the races, who says Noah was white? Evidence points to his son Ham as being dark skinned. Here is one reference for you, from Holman's Bible Handbook:
And then there is the issue (no pun intended) of Noah's son's wives. Any one of which could have been dark skinned |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 3:57:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quite true.
Just another example of how we filter truth through our own experiences, often letting our own point of view prevent us from seeing things objectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 4:00:33 AM EDT
[#18]
The article still does not prove the existence of a supreme being. It just suggests some method for odds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 4:16:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The article still does not prove the existence of a supreme being. It just suggests some method for odds. Again, quite true. But we ALL play the odds, don't we? Every decision we make is based on the odds. If I don't show up for work today, the odds are someone will ask "Why?" If I don't show up for a week, the odds are I'll get fired. So I go to work every day, cause the odds of keeping my job are in my favor. Lots of guys are either convicted of crimes or set free based not on absolute, irrefutable proof, but on the "preponderance of the evidence" or "reasonable doubt". Those pesky odds again. Smart people usually check the odds, then play the likely winner. Not much different here. You can look at all the evidence and say the odds are infavor of a being greater than us having had a hand in all we see, or you can deny that so much of what we experience is beyond mere human explanation. One option makes you a thinking, reasoning man, the other classes you among the ostriches, head in sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 4:53:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Looking for proof there is a creator? Here is scientific proof (to me) of God:
My saltwater aquarium needs CONSTANT attention. The salt content has to remain constant. Ditto on Ph and buffering. Got to keep nitrates and nitrites at zero. Have to change activated carbon regularly as well as clean the filters. This takes lots of time and WORK. In the ocean and seas, it all takes care of itself... or does it??? :) Lawdog |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 5:03:38 AM EDT
[#21]
So, in summary:
1) Life is improbable. 2) Life exists. 3) Therefore, the universe was created to support life. I can take that a step farther: 1) My existence is improbable. 2) I exist. 3) Therefore, the universe was created to support me. Eureka! I've discovered the meaning of life! Everything that's ever happened has been directed towards the creation of [b]my[/b] unique and divinely ordained existence! Perhaps the rest of you were created for the sole purpose of being able to read this message and congratulate me for my brilliance. Lucky you! If it weren't for me, the creator would never have bothered to design a cosmos that would allow you to exist for the purpose of praising me. I think I'll step outside now to watch the universe revolve around me... [:D] [whacko] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 5:04:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Looking for proof there is a creator? Here is scientific proof (to me) of God: My saltwater aquarium needs CONSTANT attention. The salt content has to remain constant. Ditto on Ph and buffering. Got to keep nitrates and nitrites at zero. Have to change activated carbon regularly as well as clean the filters. This takes lots of time and WORK. In the ocean and seas, it all takes care of itself... or does it??? :) Lawdog Didn'tcha know?? Thats just "natural selection" doin' its thing. In reality, evolutionists and creationists BOTH beleive in God. Evolutioniests just call Him "natural selection" so they don't have to obey His commands. (my apologies to the Theistic svolutionists out there for the over generalization, but when you call yourself an "evolutionist," you are lying down with dogs, and you are rising up with their fleas.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 5:07:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I can take that a step farther: 1) My existence is improbable. 2) I exist. 3) Therefore, the universe was created to support me. Uhhh, NO. try this - 1) Life is improbable 2) I am alive 3) God created teh universe for His own glory, and I exist to glorify Him. Hey, you got 2 of three points right. if you were in major leasgue baseball witha "batting average" like that, you'd be a multi-billionaire.[:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 6:13:37 AM EDT
[#24]
1) Life is improbable 2) I am alive 3) God created teh universe for His own glory, and I exist to glorify Him. Garandman, I think we're both batting 1.000 when it comes to creating faulty syllogisms. [:)] Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 6:19:00 AM EDT
[#25]
here we go again. you guys never tire of this, do you?
[:K] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 6:22:31 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? There's more around thatn just us humans. There's angels, and Satan himself. God is neither lonely, nor insecure. He created the world to glorify Himself BECASUE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. If God is all He claims to be, He MUST be praised. Its only right. When I "create" a piece of furniture, why do I excel to do my very best??? So that the piece of furniture can demonstrate my persoanlity charachteristic to strive for excellence. Its how I communicate myself. I am created in God's image ( a poor copy, and sin damaged, no doubt, but its a Scriptural concept none the less) Same with God. Only He is INFINITELY more deserving of communicating His own charachter than I am. He did so thru the universe he created. And His person was worthy of being communicated and glorfied. It was the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 7:04:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I am not debating wether or not there is a god. But do not beleive what the bible has to say, even though I did not read it cover to cover. I have two main problems from what I have read. 1) Where did Adam and Eve's sons get their wifes if Adam and Eve were the only two on earth? 2) When Noah built the ark and Noah and his family and friends were the only ones on board, and then after the great flood receided, where did the blacks and orientals come from? Like I said I am not disputing some great being, but just not sure what to beleive. I hadn't considered your 2 points, as I was stuck on where the people from "the Land Of Nod" came from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 8:58:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: here we go again. you guys never tire of this, do you? [:K] Nope. [:K] [:K] [:K] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 9:20:03 AM EDT
[#29]
There's more around thatn just us humans. There's angels, and Satan himself. OK, I have to ask: what's the point of having angels? Creating angels [b]and[/b] humans seems a little redundant. If God is all He claims to be, He MUST be praised. But isn't he quite capable of praising himself? When I "create" a piece of furniture, why do I excel to do my very best??? So that the piece of furniture can demonstrate my persoanlity charachteristic to strive for excellence. Its how I communicate myself. I don't know if that's a good analogy. When you make a piece of furniture, presumably you make it to serve some practical function (a chair for sitting, a bed for sleeping, a dresser to store AR15.com shirts, etc.) and the opportunity for artistic expression is just a bonus. In the case of God and the universe, there are two problems: 1) God wouldn't have [b]needed[/b] the universe. 2) A finite universe couldn't possibly express the infinite power/grace/perfection of God -- and even if it could, only God himself could appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 12:43:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Looking for proof there is a creator? Here is scientific proof (to me) of God: My saltwater aquarium needs CONSTANT attention. The salt content has to remain constant. Ditto on Ph and buffering. Got to keep nitrates and nitrites at zero. Have to change activated carbon regularly as well as clean the filters. This takes lots of time and WORK. In the ocean and seas, it all takes care of itself... or does it??? :) Lawdog Didn'tcha know?? Thats just "natural selection" doin' its thing. yes, actually, it does all take care of itself. remove just one aspect of the natural system and you'll see a complete meltdown of the system. the reason lawdog can't keep his aquarium running without constant supervision is because he's trying to duplicate a natural ecosystem in a completely unnatural setting. for obvious reasons he lacks all of the processes that occur in the natural setting in his unnatural setting, and therefore cannot duplicate the results of the natural setting in his unnatural setting. it has nothing to do with "natural selection." [:D] In reality, evolutionists and creationists BOTH beleive in God. Evolutioniests just call Him "natural selection" so they don't have to obey His commands. and i have never heard more arrogant and assuming words come from you head than those right there, and i've thought you've been pretty arrogant and assuming in the past. in the first place, you really don't know what evolutists believe in their hearts so i think you're a bit out of line for blanketing them in such a way (not to mention that not a few of our members have vehemently denied their belief in a God while concurrently stating their belief in the possibility/plausibility of evolution). in the second place, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that actually contradicts the existence of God. in the third place, i have yet to hear anyone who believes in evolution say it was because they wanted to remove God from their lives and this was a convenient way to do it. you should know quite well that people do not need an excuse to remove God from their lives. they just do it. (my apologies to the Theistic svolutionists out there for the over generalization, but when you call yourself an "evolutionist," you are lying down with dogs, and you are rising up with their fleas.) would you care to define just what exactly an "evolutionist" is? and how about "Theistic evolutionist" while you're at it? are you saying that belief in the possibility/plausibilty of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the phenomenon of changes in species automatically makes one an evolutionist? by that same logic then, does one who believes in a supreme being automatically become a Christian? why is it so hard for you to believe that one can believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, virgin birth, resurrection, etc, etc, etc and still believe that evolution is a valid explanation for the phenomenon of species change throughout time? the two are NOT mutually exclusive. no one is contradicting the words of God when they attempt to explain natural phenomenon. and that's all the theory of evolution is attempting to do: explain a phenomenon seen throughout nature, namely the complete mutability of species throughout time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 12:43:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: The article still does not prove the existence of a supreme being. It just suggests some method for odds. Again, quite true. But we ALL play the odds, don't we? Every decision we make is based on the odds. If I don't show up for work today, the odds are someone will ask "Why?" If I don't show up for a week, the odds are I'll get fired. So I go to work every day, cause the odds of keeping my job are in my favor. Lots of guys are either convicted of crimes or set free based not on absolute, irrefutable proof, but on the "preponderance of the evidence" or "reasonable doubt". Those pesky odds again. Smart people usually check the odds, then play the likely winner. Not much different here. You can look at all the evidence and say the odds are infavor of a being greater than us having had a hand in all we see, or you can deny that so much of what we experience is beyond mere human explanation. One option makes you a thinking, reasoning man, the other classes you among the ostriches, head in sand. Truly smart people hedge their bets... like the Rothschilds loaning money to BOTH warring kingdoms for arms. This is why I am a consummate fence rider... I am an agnostic. I have the cajones to stand up before my peers and say, "I don't know, nor have I ever been exposed to any factual evidence that would make me chage my belief." Believe it or not, that takes a tremendous amount of courage. Why? In my experience, neither side can STAND the thought of you actually sitting on the fence and each proceeds to try to recruit you down with pseudo-science, anecdotal happenstance, and near-fable literary masterpieces of a truly unknown origin. If I could just convince my fellow man not to put so much relevance into their own perspective and those horrible things called emotions, we would all probably end up getting along forevermore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 12:52:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: and i have never heard more arrogant and assuming words come from you head than those right there, and i've thought you've been pretty arrogant and assuming in the past Well, i have a reputation to maintain, ya know. [}:D] would you care to define just what exactly an "evolutionist" is? and how about "Theistic evolutionist" while you're at it? It would be my pleasure. evoltionist - one who believes in evolution SANS god. theistic evolutionist - one whop beleives in evolution AND God. does one who believes in a supreme being automatically become a Christian? No. why is it so hard for you to believe that one can believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, virgin birth, resurrection, etc, etc, etc and still believe that evolution is a valid explanation for the phenomenon of species change throughout time? the two are NOT mutually exclusive. yes, they ARE mutually exclusive, if you hold the Word of God as the supreme authority of your faith and practice. New Testament theology renders evolution an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. They CANNOT co-exist. More on that later. Patience, patience....its a GREAT new Years resolution. [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 2:57:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: why is it so hard for you to believe that one can believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, virgin birth, resurrection, etc, etc, etc and still believe that evolution is a valid explanation for the phenomenon of species change throughout time? the two are NOT mutually exclusive. yes, they ARE mutually exclusive, if you hold the Word of God as the supreme authority of your faith and practice. i'm assuming you'll have some sort of evidence to back this up, cuz i'm no stranger to the Bible either and i haven't come across anything that points the finger at evolution. fwiw, the Bible is NOT an historical document. or if one considers it to be such, one is relying on a very poor one at that. neither is it a scientific text. which i guess is why i find it extremely ironic (incredible?) that one can be so adamant that the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible, when the two are talking about totally different things (science and redemption). New Testament theology renders evolution an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. They CANNOT co-exist. More on that later. Patience, patience....its a GREAT new Years resolution. [}:D] heehee. i guess i'll have to wait and see this evidence you provide as i do not see the basics of evolution theory (and not the made-up crap about it that people use to discredit it). i do find it odd that the New Testament has anything to say about evolution, given that it wasn't around until the mid 19th century, well after the NT was written. so i'll assume that you're extrapolating (or would that be interpolating, never can get them straight) certain things from the NT text and applying them directly to the theory of evolution instead of supplying NT text that specifically addresses the theory of evolution. can't i have just a hint? please????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 3:58:52 PM EDT
[#34]
OK....
To the eternal debate raging between ARlady and Garandman...... Garandman- does the possibility exist that ARLady is referring to evolution occuring in an existing species as opposed to the origin of life? ARLady- is it possible that garandman is referring to Christians as believers that have asked Jesus into their hearts and asked for and recieved redemption and are now living in Grace? You two are enjoyable to watch most of the time but maybe put a sock in it, OK? I guess I am still full of 'the reason for the season' and holiday cheer. FWIW-Keep it up garandman....you've got allies-in-Christ here. But remember a little fire and brimstone goes a long ways. BTW-ARlady, I may be needing a ride to the convention so I don't want to tick you off. Just think about the immense complexity of these natural systems, they almost beg to have a supreme being as a creator. Just a little bit of a stretch for accidental. In closing....why is it so hard for most people to grasp the concept of an authority figure? Think about it, LEO's are not liked until you are being assaulted. The Federal government is held in disdain until another country screws w/ us and needs their asses kicked. Parents are even despised by the very teen-aged children that they brought into this world until the car needs to be borrowed or money is needed. How many of us are guilty of being religious only when faced w/ extreme danger to ourselves or loved-ones, no atheists in foxholes. As a paramedic in my hometown, I saw people that were very vocal professed agnostics fall to their knees and beg God for their lives and limbs. Atheists were the first to the chapel in the hospital when family was at deaths door. I would hope and pray that everyone gets the opportunity to hear the Word of God with an open ear and heart to be able to make the right decision. Now that that is all done let's get back to pointing fingers at someone else and laughing at the differences weird people have, mainly Democrats and Liberals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 4:34:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: fwiw, the Bible is NOT an historical document. or if one considers it to be such, one is relying on a very poor one at that. Hey ARlady, I usually don't find much to comment on in your posts, but here you gotta stop and think for a minute. Several books of the Bible, such as Chronicles I & II, Kings I &II, Leviticus and much of the Old Testment are purely historical in nature. In fact these bools have been proven by modern historians and archeaologists to be amazingly accurate regarding times, places, people and events. The New Testament gospel of Luke is also of a very detailed historical nature, and again, modern scientists have corroborated much of the information as factual. You say you are familiar with the Bible, yet seem to forget that the various books that make up the Bible were not written in a vaccuum. There were (and are) many contemporaries of the Biblical writers who document the very same events, in more or less detail, depending on the writer and their perspective. Leaving out the "spiritual" aspects of the Bible, the collection of books that make up the Old and New Testaments can stand on their own as valid and accurate historical documents. It has often been said that jesus was not a "real" man, but a composite figure, larger than life. Others have said, for example, that there was no such person named Pontius Pilate in Judea. In response, let me post a short passage from Josephus' work The Antiquies of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3: [b]3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, Ant-18-9 those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;Ant-18-10 as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[/b] Flavuis Josephus was a secular Jewish historian and is considered the foremost authority on Jewish life, times and culture. His works are standard reference material for secular scholars studying these times. The account above correctly identifies Jesus and Pilate as individuals in the same actions and setting as the New Testament describes. The passages before and after the excerpt above also make very interseting reading for those who would care to understand what was going on in those times. Not very spiritual, as Josephus doesn't write as a "religious" historian. He gives many details the Biblical writers left out because they were not pertinent to the message, yet nothing he documents contradicts anything in Scipture. There are litterally thousands of other similar mutually supporting documents that go hand in hand with what is recorded in the Bible. Take a closer look, you might find it interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 5:37:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Looking for proof there is a creator? Here is scientific proof (to me) of God: My saltwater aquarium needs CONSTANT attention. The salt content has to remain constant. Ditto on Ph and buffering. Got to keep nitrates and nitrites at zero. Have to change activated carbon regularly as well as clean the filters. This takes lots of time and WORK. In the ocean and seas, it all takes care of itself... or does it??? :) Lawdog Didn'tcha know?? Thats just "natural selection" doin' its thing. In reality, evolutionists and creationists BOTH beleive in God. Evolutioniests just call Him "natural selection" so they don't have to obey His commands. (my apologies to the Theistic svolutionists out there for the over generalization, but when you call yourself an "evolutionist," you are lying down with dogs, and you are rising up with their fleas.) I believe a microcosm is always more delicate than a macrocosm, and therefore needs to be "tended." Look at the volume of water:fish ration in an aquarium and in the ocean. Look at the types of fish in an aquarium and compare them to what's in the ocean. The ocean has plankton, which are fed upon by small fish, which themselves become food for small predators, etc. Food in the ocean is self-renewing, but it's not in an aquarium. Look at the biopshere experiments that never seem to work because the closed environment doesn't encompass enough space to allow true self-sufficiency. You can't take 250 gallons of salt water, put 1/2 dozen fish in it, and then say that because you have to monitor the conditions and adjust them as necessary, the same thing must be true for the thousands of cubic miles of oceans in which billions of fish live on our planet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 6:47:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Hey ARlady, I usually don't find much to comment on in your posts, but here you gotta stop and think for a minute. Several books of the Bible, such as Chronicles I & II, Kings I &II, Leviticus and much of the Old Testment are purely historical in nature. In fact these bools have been proven by modern historians and archeaologists to be amazingly accurate regarding times, places, people and events. The New Testament gospel of Luke is also of a very detailed historical nature, and again, modern scientists have corroborated much of the information as factual. You say you are familiar with the Bible, yet seem to forget that the various books that make up the Bible were not written in a vaccuum. There were (and are) many contemporaries of the Biblical writers who document the very same events, in more or less detail, depending on the writer and their perspective. Leaving out the "spiritual" aspects of the Bible, the collection of books that make up the Old and New Testaments can stand on their own as valid and accurate historical documents. tell me. if you went to a bookstore or a library and wanted to find the Bible, which section would you find it in? science? no. history? no. perhaps religion. chances are pretty good. my point being that it is not considered an historical text. yes, it has history in it. and yes, that history might be accurate. the Bible is an historical document like the Diary of Anne Frank is: it's limited to a particular place in a particular time and there really isn't a big concern with objectivity or completeness. it's historical significance as a text is limited to a snapshot in time. Take a closer look, you might find it interesting. take a closer look at what? the Bible? or the historical references you are making? i think it's a little bit arrogant of you to assume what i know and do not know of the Bible, given that you haven't the foggiest idea of my background. i'm well aware of the status of the Bible and its own history. the Bible is an excellent guidebook and manual for Christianity. but as far as history and science goes, well, it ain't so great. but then, i truly doubt that history and factual science were on the minds of the men who wrote it so it doesn't surprise me that it isn't. keep in mind that i am in no way denigrating the words or the purpose of the Bible. but to take it as a complete historical and scientific text is foolish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 7:17:14 PM EDT
[#38]
maybe the big bang happened lots of times but didn't work until this time, we could be the accident! Kinda like the monkeys with typewriters writing Shakespeare. Just worth thinking about. As I have said we can't be an accident. Think of it as "odds",in Vegas ever thing has it's "odds" one way or the other. There is a way to find the "odds" on anything,even if there is or is not a God. There is a scientific means of finding odds that is well proven. When these means are applied to the question of a God or out side influence on the universe you come up with a impossible deficite for the accident idea......................even if monkeys can type[:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 7:23:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Garandman- does the possibility exist that ARLady is referring to evolution occuring in an existing species as opposed to the origin of life? in fact, this is one of the biggest points of contention that i have with this kind of argument: more often than not Christians who do not understand the theory of evolution believe that it also attempts to explain the origin of life. it does nothing of the sort. hence, my belief (which is held in reserve until i get those verses from you, garandman) that the theory of evolution is not mutually exclusive to the words/intent of the Bible. just a note though: i'm not limiting my argument to current species. if evolution is possible/plausible now, then it was way back then too. so it works for all species throughout all of history. ARLady- is it possible that garandman is referring to Christians as believers that have asked Jesus into their hearts and asked for and recieved redemption and are now living in Grace? with all due respect, i fail to see what this has to do with the possibility/plausibility of the theory of evolution and its contradiction or lack thereof with the Bible. You two are enjoyable to watch most of the time but maybe put a sock in it, OK? I guess I am still full of 'the reason for the season' and holiday cheer. glad to hear that. i hope that cheer lasts the entire year. but tell me, can you just as easily put a sock in it when someone speaks an untruth about Christianity? not to mention that there isn't anything in our debate (at least at this point, i hope, i'm trying to keep things civil and friendly)which detracts from the holiday cheer...unless you choose to be affected by it in that way. we're debating something. end of story. and since we can't very well hash this out in person over a beer or a soda, it gets strung out like you've seen. (you going to the BRC, garandman? perhaps a round or two there, heh? [:D]) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 7:24:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? Mere humans? The son of God did not die for "mere humans" that would be rather silly. BTW:God was not lonely befor us,there are a buch of folks with him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 7:35:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? Mere humans? The son of God did not die for "mere humans" that would be rather silly. BTW:God was not lonely befor us,there are a buch of folks with him. i'm probably asking this only for the sake of argument, but your answer to the quote begs the question of why God did create the universe? i can't even pretend to hazard a guess on that. but it would be interesting to see what others had to say about the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2002 8:13:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? Mere humans? The son of God did not die for "mere humans" that would be rather silly. BTW:God was not lonely befor us,there are a buch of folks with him. Finally, someone put it in a way I can understand it; God & the boys wanted to spruce up the place, and they were all out of aquariums down at the wally world-solar system..........still not it? Damn! Back on the fence I go! OdT |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:05:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? Mere humans? The son of God did not die for "mere humans" that would be rather silly. BTW:God was not lonely befor us,there are a buch of folks with him. i'm probably asking this only for the sake of argument, but your answer to the quote begs the question of why God did create the universe? i can't even pretend to hazard a guess on that. but it would be interesting to see what others had to say about the subject. It's that you don't want to just gess at it,you see God said way he made the universe. He did it for his glory,he just wanted too. BTW: It's so funny to me the some of you guys like to play games and try to push your selves off as some great smart guys. You do know that nobody really thinks you want to know the truth when you come here an ask these silly things. If you really did want to know why God did something or why we nutty people think he did it than read the Bible,the hole thing. But I know you guys just want to start fights and even if you did read the Bible you would only stop every time you think you found something you could use to make some silly point. The sad truth is that not one you want to learn the facts so you can then makeup your minds. Most of the fine folks here just want to make the other look WORNG! This is very poor in place of really being right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:06:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why would an infinitely glorious God create the universe, let alone you or I, for his own glory? Isn't it rather silly to imagine a lonely and insecure God who wants the praise of mere humans? Mere humans? The son of God did not die for "mere humans" that would be rather silly. BTW:God was not lonely befor us,there are a buch of folks with him. i'm probably asking this only for the sake of argument, but your answer to the quote begs the question of why God did create the universe? i can't even pretend to hazard a guess on that. but it would be interesting to see what others had to say about the subject. It's good that you don't want to just gess at it,you see God said why he made the universe. He did it for his glory,he just wanted too. BTW: It's so funny to me the some of you guys like to play games and try to push your selves off as some great smart guys. You do know that nobody really thinks you want to know the truth when you come here an ask these silly things. If you really did want to know why God did something or why we nutty people think he did it than read the Bible,the hole thing. But I know you guys just want to start fights and even if you did read the Bible you would only stop every time you think you found something you could use to make some silly point. The sad truth is that not one you want to learn the facts so you can then makeup your minds. Most of the fine folks here just want to make the other look WORNG! This is very poor in place of really being right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:27:38 PM EDT
[#45]
There is a scientific means of finding odds that is well proven. Please, tell us more! Here's how I figure the odds: (Number of universes with intelligent life) / (Number of universes observed) = (Odds of any given universe having intelligent life) In our case, that's 1/1 = 100% |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:33:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Personally this is against my better judgemnet but what the hey. In all honesty. Most of you have your mind made up. If I could raise some one from the dead you still wouldn't belive. So to argue over a point at which no side is willing to give in on is pointless. After all those of us who are religious don't you think it is rather hard to convince anyone when you are arguing with them. What's your proof non can be given by you. You will convert no one! So again the arguing helps nothing and no one.
R4M If you can proove to me that their isn't a God then I still wouldn't belive you, cause your evidence is flawed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:42:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: It's that you don't want to just gess at it,you see God said way he made the universe. He did it for his glory,he just wanted too. and just how in the world would you know what i think, oh great one? newsflash: you haven't the foggiest. i suggest you quit pretending you do as it might just come back to bite you in the arse. BTW: It's so funny to me the some of you guys like to play games and try to push your selves off as some great smart guys. You do know that nobody really thinks you want to know the truth when you come here an ask these silly things. and the same couldn't be said of both sides? really, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, i don't know what is. If you really did want to know why God did something or why we nutty people think he did it than read the Bible,the hole thing. But I know you guys just want to start fights and even if you did read the Bible you would only stop every time you think you found something you could use to make some silly point. The sad truth is that not one you want to learn the facts so you can then makeup your minds. Most of the fine folks here just want to make the other look WORNG! This is very poor in place of really being right. yeah, and you are the epitome of reaching out and learning the facts, aren't you? [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 1:45:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: If you can proove to me that their isn't a God then I still wouldn't belive you, cause your evidence is flawed. what was that you were saying about already having minds made up and refusing to listen to the otherside? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 3:24:23 PM EDT
[#49]
2) When Noah built the ark and Noah and his family and friends were the only ones on board, and then after the great flood receided, where did the blacks and orientals come from? All this talk of god and the universe made me think this very thing. I am very insignificant. Just the day I was thinking this "Here I am, small not even a pinprick in the universe, nestled of in the far corner of existence and I am thinking to myself "Can I really tell the difference between a good mp3 and cd audio?""! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2002 3:33:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Well The deal is...
If there is no GOD, Then there are no GOd_Given Rights Which if I am not mistaken, would include your right to keep and bear arms. God institutes rights, if the Governement gave rights, then the government has the rights to take them away!!! So You might as well believe in GOd, Creation, and Jesus. That way you can have rights, Feel Special, and Have your sins Paid For! _Chuck |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
