London buses may soon be plastered with ads proclaiming “There’s probably no God,” if a British atheist group has its way.
The slogan is the brainchild of the British Humanist Association (BHA), an atheist organization that seeks to promote a world without religion where people are “free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.”
Among the campaign’s supporters is well-known atheist activist Richard Dawkins, who promised to match BHA’s goal of raising $9,000 for the ads, according to BBC.
But the group has now raised $59,000 on its own.
“Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride – automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children,” Dawkins told BBC.
“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion,” he claimed.
BHA will use the funds to purchase four weeks worth of bus-long ad space on the outside of two sets of 30 Bendy buses.
The complete slogan reads: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Because more funds were raised than anticipated, BHA will also run posters inside the buses. The group is also considering to expand the campaign to other British cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh.
"We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air,” said Hanne Stinson, chief executive of BHA.
"If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better.”
In response, a British Christian group warned that people don’t like to be preached to and that it wouldn’t be surprising if the public retaliated.
“I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti,” said Stephen Green of U.K.-based Christian Voice.
But the U.K. Methodist Church, on the other hand, expressed appreciation to Dawkins for fueling a “continued interest in God.”
“This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life,” said the Rev. Jenny Ellis, a Methodist spirituality and discipleship officer.
She added, “Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning.”
It is well known that Christianity is in decline in the United Kingdom and across Europe.
A report by the United Nations, released earlier this year, found that two-thirds of Britons admit they have no religious affiliation. And a BBC poll last year found that four in five people believe Britain is in moral decline.
The Archbishop of York, Dr. David Hope, the second most senior member in the Church of England, declared in a 2004 interview that the United Kingdom can no longer be considered a Christian nation. He noted that Britons are less committed to the church and “secularist” tendencies were increasing.
The bus ads are slated to run in January.
RSS
Sorry prophet, I thought you would undertsand I meant the fossils the rocks contain, apologies.
Agent, many thanks for explaining what I meant.
Time for bed in England.
Steve
"I didn't say it was sufficient."
Ok, then where is the sufficient answers or examples of 'progress' (you've still not defined) that you expect to see and why you expect to see given what we know.
"If genes are sufficient to explain the progress you're looking for, what other objections are there?"
I didn't say it was sufficient. I said it answered my question.
Ok, so we've established that genes allow for the propagation for new novel information and traits via hereditary. So where is the objection to the theory itself? If genes are sufficient to explain the progress you're looking for, what other objections are there?
Sorry, I didn't respond because the question was already answered. Talking about genes and such.
"That's a response? "
Technically, yes. It's just not the response you wanted, just like how the response I gave asking you for like the 5th time for details and specifics on how you infer 'progress' with regards to evolution.
I said
"Maybe you could remedy your lack of understanding of the Bible and God. The Bible is readily available online. And God will draw close to those who call on His name, and He will give them understanding."
Your response was
"Prophet, 'progress' = ? Details, specificity please."
That's a response?
"I didn't figure I'd get a response from my last post. "
I did respond, just not the one you preferred, just like I didn't get the one I would prefer. i have read the bible, what do you think, that I know nothing of your religion?
I didn't figure I'd get a response from my last post.
Prophet, 'progress' = ? Details, specificity please.
Maybe you could remedy your lack of understanding of the Bible and God. The Bible is readily available online. And God will draw close to those who call on His name, and He will give them understanding.
"speaking of confusing. Maybe steve could not be so confusing. He should have said what he meant. "
He did say what he meant, it does require the understanding of the context though. In other words, it would help to familiarize yourself with basic biology. If you don't understand that rocks don't have DNA, RNA, and such, of course I can see how it could be hard to understand.
"I know nothing about genes, so that won't do me any good."
Time to remedy that then, you have the Internet at your finger tips. Be specific what you mean by 'progress' and lets see how we fair in finding examples and then why you object to them.
I know nothing about genes, so that won't do me any good.
Speaking of confusing. Maybe steve could not be so confusing. He should have said what he meant.
Prophet, ""Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress...." He's making evolutionists look back, not to mention himself."
No, he meant, as I said that rocks themselves aren't evolving (as you wrongly thought by thinking the rock would itself evolve.
His claim is the fossils in them through the many geological layers emphatically demonstrate the diversification and evolution of life on earth. This is how they show a a brief progress of endless forms.
If you want examples of 'progress' you can see actively now, I mentioned the evolution of the CCR5 gene. Again, be specific on what you mean by 'progress' so as not to confuse the issue midway through dialog.
orange,
You might want to talk to your constituant then. This is what steve said:
"Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress...."
He's making evolutionists look back, not to mention himself.
Prophet, "Ok. I'm going to spend a couple hours staring at a rock to watch it "evolve'"
I guess this statement is another example in relation to your understanding in what evolution predicts, explains and so on. Rocks don't evolve, nor was steve indicating they would, his statement refers to the fossilized organisms in the rocks and in this manner they demonstrate the diversification and ancestry of life over time.
Rocks don't evolve for the simple reason that they don't reproduce, they don't use DNA, RNA and thus can't undergo the processes involved in biological evolution.
By 'in progress' be specific what you're expectations are and lets see how we do.
"if you had the evidence you say that is needed to confirm what Prophet or I say happended would you then believe?"
If there is some evidence for his or your stories, and its objective, independent, tested, critiqued, analyzed per the scientific method and it's still quite compelling in terms of no other likely or possible explanations could explain the phenomena, then I would have to at the very least concede in believe in said evidence. If its there, cite it, and lets go forward.
steve,
Ok. I'm going to spend a couple hours staring at a rock to watch it "evolve' (can rocks evolve? Maybe we all came from rocks instead of a fish.)
agentorange, if you had the evidence you say that is needed to confirm what Prophet or I say happended would you then believe?
"If I say I don't know whether they exist or not it still doesn't change the fact that they exist."
True, epistemological truth is eternal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
"If I choose to believe you my belief will at best be weak or shallow"
There is a difference from 'belief' and 'knowing', they're not the same in a philosophical sense.
"If I choose to reject your eyewitness account because you cannot prove to me that they exist it doesn't change the fact that they do."
But star from your point of view you're agnostic to the mountains existence, so your skepticism is justifiable. They may exist regardless of you knowing either way, but this doesn't mean in the absence of evidence to your view that you must affirm they do exist.
Now, if evidence is produced to further support the claim of mountains, then it becomes more logical to adopt a position in which you affirm they do exist.
Star, this isn't how logic works. Until, it can be demonstrated via evidence (pictures of them, articles about them, seeing them in person, etc) to YOU personally that indeed they exist, you have no reason to accept them on face value.
star
There is another thing you could do re mountians. You could experiment on continental crust of which the flat lands are composed, you could then come to the conclusion that such topogrphy could exists when plates collide. Then whilst never having seen moutains you could conclude that such structures where well within the bounds of possibility.
BW
Steve
"I live in the flat lands. You live in a moutainous region. If I never saw a mountain and you told me that they existed because you were an eyewitness to it but could not prove it beyond your eyewitness account then I can either say that your are lying that mountains don't exist, or I could say I don't know if they do or not, or I could believe you."
OR, I could just show you endless pictures of mountains, OR I can physically show you by taking you to where they exist so you can verify them with your own eyes. What you're claiming is quite an ordinary claim about mountains, it's not as extraordinary as the evidence for prayers.
prophet
Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress or go and look at the phylogentic tree, there you can see evolution in action, or at least up to the last universal ancestor (which makes hydrothermal vents very intresting places).
Regards
Steve
Prophet, "I want to see evolution in progress. "
Define what you expect to see, 'progress' is vague for this, and based on what evidence why this should be expected and lets see where we go.
If you think any type of 'progress' is sufficient, then I will introduce you to a the CCR5 gene mutation which in human populations prevents HIV from bonding to T Cells and thus making the host immune.
"It's not gonna happen, so I don't believe in it. "
Not gonna happen based on what evidence again? Conclusions are based on evidence and logical reasoning, not a priori assumptions.
agentorange
<<"But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe."
Another decry from fiat, got evidence for this? You a prioi assumption is that 1) god exists, and 2) then it created this universe. Without any meaningful, verifiable, or compelling evidence (like something we can test to validate) for this declaration, why should we accept it?>>
We have the evidence agentorange, you don't. God has already revealed Himself to us and we beleived and received Him as Savior and Lord. As we live our life for Him He manifests Himself to us. Saying that God exist and that He created the Universe is not an a prioi asumption.
I live in the flat lands. You live in a moutainous region. If I never saw a mountain and you told me that they existed because you were an eyewitness to it but could not prove it beyond your eyewitness account then I can either say that your are lying that mountains don't exist, or I could say I don't know if they do or not, or I could believe you.
If I choose to reject your eyewitness account because you cannot prove to me that they exist it doesn't change the fact that they do.
If I say I don't know whether they exist or not it still doesn't change the fact that they exist.
If I choose to believe you my belief will at best be weak or shallow but if I ever experienced one for myself, then my experience makes my belief strong and validates the truth that mountains exist.
It is the same with God. If you don't believe that there is a God or you don't know whether He does or does not exist that doesn't negate the fact that He does. If you believe our testimony that there is then it is at best a weak belief. But if God reveals Himself to you then you will know with certaintly that He does exist.
It is not a prioi assumption for me to say that God exist, that He is a miracle working God, and that He has control over the laws of science because God has revealed Himself to me that He exist and has given me proof that He is a miracle working God and has control over the laws of science in what He has done in my life and in the lives of others that I have prayed for.
I want to see evolution in progress. It's not gonna happen, so I don't believe in it.
Well,
The good thing is that I don't need orange's approval to know the truth and the facts. What happened to my wife and kids mean nothing to him. As I've said before, because it hasn't happened in front of his eyes it doesn't make it truth. Well, the truth is still truth regardless...
star, "Or would you continue to call him a liar or a delusional man who must be smokin something or tripping out on something?"
Oh grow up, I never called him any such thing, nor did I imply he's on drugs. I merely said I doubt his story, and for the fact that he can't provide outside and independent evidence which is objective this is for obvious reasons why you and he would doubt my declarations about me witnessing Santa clause. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"How about his wife, his son, and his daughter give testimony to what happened. Would you believe then?"
Not really, they would just be additional eyewitnesses and since they were involved they have a favorable subjective view of it, it would be preferable to have a 3rd party in doing the evaluation, testing, and such. People who aren't the test subjects (for obvious reasons) doing the confirmation, the evaluation must be 'blind' so intentional bias can removed if not minimized.
"Come on agentorange, Prophet is an eyewitness to the miracle his wife, son, and daughter experienced."
And we know this how? How can we verify it objectively? Like your story all we have is his word and it alone, nothing objective there. Is his decry from fiat any different than me stating I witnessed santa claus in fat red suit flying a sleigh pulled by reindeer and have no evidence to back my claim? No, didn't think so.
Come on agentorange, Prophet is an eyewitness to the miracle his wife, son, and daughter experienced. He has lived with his wife since they were married and with his children ever since they were born. He spends time with them everyday. He knows what they were like before the miracle and what they were like afterwards. He can testify to what happened after prayer was offered to his God for their healing.
Would you believe another eyewitness to the miracle? How about his wife, his son, and his daughter give testimony to what happened. Would you believe then?
Or would you continue to call him a liar or a delusional man who must be smokin something or tripping out on something?
I have no reason to believe that Prophet is lying and neither do you. You may not know whether what he says is true or not but claiming that Prophet needs to have something else verify the reality of his experience is nothing more than a lame justification for rejecting that there is a God who can and does the impossible.
You may not believe what he says is true because you don't believe that miracles happen but that lack of belief doesn't consider whether there is a God or not or whether Prophet is lying or not.
Tell the real truth agentorange about what you really go thru when you read Prophet's testimony or my own instead of hiding behind the need for some acceptable form of proof.
Viking, "Science can make no such judgement"
But it has, does and continues to do so. Take for instance the study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Obviously such evidence is meaningless to the concept of a Deistic God, but again, most theists don't prescribe to this view and I doubt the sign mentioned is referring to this notion of God.
Viking, "how would you describe it"
Philosophical, though from a scientific leaning it largely depends on how one describes God in the first place. Obviously, from a philosophical and scientific critique, a Deistic God would be far harder to refute either directly or indirectly and this is correlated to the nature of how said God is described. But most theists don't prescribe to such a view, no, they prefer the other god which is more easily refutable, or at least less likely to exist given the nature of reality... thus the sign.
As the concept of God is a philosophical question, philosophy after is the the study of determining what is reality, the statement is bluster, they might as well gone all out in saying 'no god(s) exists' as the inverse is directly stated all over the world and still neither are refutable empirically so both are philosophically equal. I think the reason for the addition of 'likely' is related to the fact that such an affirmation of knowing no God exists is equally as dogmatic, unjustifiable as the inverse and partly for its still taboo in some sense.
Prophet, "Because it didn't happen to them, or isn't in a scientific journal, then it's not legitimate. "
Surely if what you say is true, then we should have some objective evidence for them outside of simply your word, yes?
"But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe."
Another decry from fiat, got evidence for this? You a prioi assumption is that 1) god exists, and 2) then it created this universe. Without any meaningful, verifiable, or compelling evidence (like something we can test to validate) for this declaration, why should we accept it?
Prophet, "I know. Fact that disputes your claim aren't good enough. I understand."
Oh please, you haven't assembled anything qualitative, you've not even cited your claims so they aren't substantiated in any manner and should hardly be considered.
Simply sitting in your ivory tower and decrying 'I was witness to a miracle' isn't sufficient in verification at all, this is no different than me simply decrying I personally witnessed Santa Claus flying in a sleigh with reindeer and when asked for sources, citations and objective evidence I can't deliver (just like you now).
Prophet, "We were talking about faith in God and faith in science. So, no it's not going off on a tangent."
In general sure, but in particular the faith you mentioned was in regards to evolution, so please describe the miracle moment in it. The scientific process itself doesn't consist of using faith in explanation, that is what I was referring to.
Viking, "Could you clarify."
Sure, my point was this. The assumptions used in science you mention regarding how our thoughts are real (not virtualized, imagined, or dream state) and that the world is observable and able to be documented and tested against is the very same principle religions themselves rely on. If they, for instance, presume that thoughts aren't real, then they too would have to forfeit any concept of revelation. It's not something only applicable to science.
viking..
"I wonder what Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Luther, etc. would think of those comments"
You are taking this far to seriously you need to lighten up a little, anybody would think they had got under your skin.
As for Luther no doubt he would blame the Jews and want their synagouges burned or the Anabaptists and have them drowned (or is that Zwingli?)
Kind regards
Steve
Star,
Yeah, I understand. Because it didn't happen to them, or isn't in a scientific journal, then it's not legitimate. Well, argue as they may, they can't change the truth (fact) that these things happened. God is above science. He is not confined to the laws of science.
Prophet - I gave testimony of a couple of miracles God did through my prayers for a dog and for a person and agentorange said that it was hearsay, and worthless because it could not be verified through some kind of documentation, like a newspaper article or some other form of verification.
Hi all, What I find most interesting about this article is the way it highlights the intellectual inconsistency of the group sponsoring the ads. As mentioned to Agent there is of course no legitimate foundation on which they can support the statement. Science can make no such judgement and philosophy does not deal in statistical probabilities. I was delightedly amused when I went to the BHA site and read the discussions there of "humanistic spirituality" At the same time the group avows to hold no belief in metaphysics or the supernatural they espouse "spiritual" development. The irony is delicious when they say they are using the slogans to get people to think and that thinking is anathema to religion. I wonder what Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Luther, etc. would think of those comments.
So, because it happened to me, it isn't real?
Agentorange
"star2, tell me, what is so disasfying with the notion of being part of nature and being related to animals? The bible says we come from dirt right, well evolutionary theory says pretty much the same thing in that we have lowly origins."
God's Word says that God gave life to the man He formed from the dust of the ground by breathing into his nostrils the breathe of life.
Gen 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Agent, Hi again here is a real question that goes to the articles content. Would you agree that from a scientific point of view there is no validity to the statement "there is probably no god". I suggest this on the basis that science is inherently unable to provide any valid opinion one way or another on metaphysical questions.
If you do agree that the statement is not scientific in nature how would you describe it (i.e. political, philisophical,???)
I know. Fact that disputes your claim aren't good enough. I understand.
"...You'd know this if you READ the labels, as age, weight, and many other physical factors can impact how the drugs are absorbed..."
Um, yeah. The doctor didnt know ANY of that stuff when he prescribed it to her. Give me a break
"What does any of that have to do with evolutionary theory and its facts? Talk about going off on a tangent."
We were talking about faith in God and faith in science. So, no it's not going off on a tangent.
But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe. Meaning He could put 6 trillion animals on the ark if He wanted to.
agent,
Hi I agree with your first sentence in your response. However I can't understand the second statement. Maybe I don't understand the grammer you were using. Could you clarify.
Prophet,
"So science is a set of visible, or measurable, or noticable evidences. It's built on reason and fact"
Not quite, science is based around many things, one of which being objectivity (so your personal unsourced experience doesn't qualify) and repeatable testing.
"Real fact: The meds did absolutely nothing"
Real fact. Meds do not help everyone in all cases, nor do they help all equally when they do help. You'd know this if you READ the labels, as age, weight, and many other physical factors can impact how the drugs are absorbed, if at all. Not all people can take penicillin for example.
Also consider meds for such issues are relatively new, so it's not realistic to prescribe perfection from day one. They are not a silver bullet in all cases.
"Real fact: God closed her hole.'
And you can cite and back this claim up how? Unless you can source it, it doesn't do either of us any good as it can't be substantiated in any way.
What does any of that have to do with evolutionary theory and its facts? Talk about going off on a tangent.
viking, you and I both know that's not at all what he's implying or referring to here. As if it were even religion itself, or merely thinking itself would according to such assumptions also involve a level of faith and no one presupposes such notions with either.
So science is a set of visible, or measurable, or noticable evidences. It's built on reason and fact.
So is God.
Fact? Science told my wife that she was chronic depressive with suicidal tendencies. Told she needed to be on medication to help alleviate the problem.
Real fact: The meds did absolutely nothing
Real fact: God healed her instantaneously.
Fact? Science told my wife that she would never be able to have kids.
Real fact: God gave us two wonderful kids.
Fact? Science said the my son had ADHD and would be on meds the rest of his life and have academic problems because of it.
Real fact: God healed him. He hasn't been on meds for 3 years now and does very well in school. He's been on the Honor Roll often.
Fact? Science said my daughter was born with ASD (Atrial Septal Disorder...a hole between the chambers of her heart). Open heart surgery was the only hope. Otherwise, she would be susceptable to pneumonia and heart diseases.
Real fact: God closed her hole.
Whatever the facts of science may be, God is bigger than it and can overcome those facts. Because he created them.
Ronwillson4u,
interestingly your verse quote is entirely consistent with theistic evolution.
Prophet, some of the responses kind of glanced over your question "if we evolved from monkeys..." and "if monkeys evolved from... lets say birds..."
If you are discussing something it is a good idea to at least get familiar with the most basic facts about it. Your question is equivalent to an atheist asking "if Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead do they worship zombies" Both questions yours and the one above so grossly misrepresent the views of those questioned that they make the question itself meaningless at best.
Hi agent, I see that prophet did not respond to your challenge to point out where evolution requires faith. So I will give it a go though I am pretty sure this is not what he had in mind.
Belief in evolution requires the same "faith" as is required by all science. A belief in the assumptions that underlie science and therefore can not be proved by it but rather are implicated as rational assumptions from our experience in interacting with the universe. Some of these can be stated as follows.
The universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic.
The universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe.
The universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters.
The universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception.
Orange,
My comment was not in response to your comment to me.
steve,
Jesus never argued with an unbeliever. He spoke the truth, and left it at that.
Prophet, that's your rebuttal to the evidence I gave to your question? I could have easily discharged needless inflammatory comments at you regarding the question, but it's not cordial and I would prefer to have a civil dialog. Cheers.
Funny, attempting to reason with a fundamentalist Christian is equally futile. No matter how cogent the arguments or elegant the logic everything gets derailed by "but the bible says..." and the debate goes round and round.
In that case who are you going to evangelise, those who alrady believe in God already only? I don'tthink you quite mean that do you......
Talking to an atheist about spiritual matters is like talking to a 5 year old about calculus.
star2, tell me, what is so disasfying with the notion of being part of nature and being related to animals? The bible says we come from dirt right, well evolutionary theory says pretty much the same thing in that we have lowly origins.
star2, evidence that speciations can't occur. Ready, set, go.
Note for your getting 'up to speed on the terminology', we humans are mammalian, nipples, placental birth and all, this is a fact. We're part of nature and it's part of us.
You are very wrong agentorangex about how humans came to be. God says in His Word that human were uniquely created and that they were created in the image and likeness of God. Humans did not evolve from an animal. Each animal that God created was also uniquely created.
Genesis 1:25-27
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
"but not whatever came between monkeys and modern humans? "
These
Hominid Fossils , 1 & 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
and these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
"If monkeys evolved from..lets say birds...where are the creatures that came between birds and monkeys?"
Here's the problem, there is no evidence, fossil, genetically, embryology, or otherwise indicating monkeys evolved from birds. The evidence determines what is. Monkeys themselves are mammals, so they would have ancestral roots leading back from the earlier first mammals if you want examples just ask.
prophet,
"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from an ancestral group of apes. Evolution works via speciation, in which a population of a species becomes genetically split, so both the ancestral and descendant groups would exist at least for a short time in the same window of time if not also geographically. In this sense, evolution isn't a 1:1 replacement, it's a group being split genetically (think of a Y), one branch going in one trajectory and the other following its own. Monkeys are still here for the same reason Europeans are still in Europe despite all the people from europe who came to the USA.
P
Putting aside the fact that we did not evolve from monkeys (according to the theory of evolution,) but for the sake of your question, if we had, then why should monkeys still not exist(I can't see any reason why not)? Don't understand where you are coming from? Think you might have mis understood something re check with AIG etc...then get back to me.
Thanks
Steve
Here's the one thing I'm curious about. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys....but not whatever came between monkeys and modern humans? (i.e. cromagnon man or whatever you want to call it) If monkeys evolved from..lets say birds...where are the creatures that came between birds and monkeys?
Prophet,
<<And for those debating with you, I would say its a waste of time to do so. Though I find myself doing the same thing, so I can't complain. LOL.>>
I have to say Mr. Prophet, that is kinda funny. I dont know sometimes why I get on CP, kind of a waste of time in some ways, I'm not going to change anyones mind, but I do it anyways..LOL.
prophet,
"But even evolution requires faith."
If you say so, but at what part? Where is the <insert miracle here> moment in it?
john,
How did God part the Red Sea? How did He stop the river of Jordan for the Israelites to pass over? How did He send the plagues on Egypt? How did He heal the blind man, the men with leprosy, the lame man, the dead girl, the dead boy, bring Lazarus back to life, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, we all know that you don't believe in the Bible, God, Jesus, or anything to do with that. And for those debating with you, I would say its a waste of time to do so. Though I find myself doing the same thing, so I can't complain. LOL.
Star2
<<There were no marine animals on the Ark.>>
So how did ocean dwelling creatures that depend on a certain level of salinity in the oceans survive in a world flooded with fresh water (40 days & nights of rain) if they weren't on the Ark?
Seems like another serious problem to the Ark claim.
star2, but you do understand that by definition, a species, is classified by the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
That said, we have instances on record both in the wild and in labs in which a segment of the population of an existing species becomes genetically isolated and results in a speciation (new species), sometimes in result from only a few key mutations, and henceforth which they can no longer successfully interbreed with their ancestral species group.
" But could a population of homo erectus become a homo georgicus, and could that homo georgicus become a homo heidelbergensis, and could that population of homo heidelbergensis become a population of homo sapiens?"
No agentorange.
"You know that there is a distinct difference between a duck which would be termed a fowl, for example, and a sparrow, which would be termed a bird."
Technically, they are both part of the same clad grouping star, that being birds/aves. If you want to separate as minor groups, so be it, but it doesn't reduce the number which then had to be on the ark, so it's arbitrary.
"You know that a sparrow hops while a duck walks. A sparrow is a small bird in comparison to a duck."
So? A duck is small compared to a condor or a turkey vulture but all are birds.
"fowl would be like a duck, chicken, turkey. bird would.."
yes star, but for simplification here, they were and are all birds (aves). If the bible wants to define them in 2 different arbitrary ways, then have at it, but they are still birds.
star2, thanks for the great definition of 'species', you should note where it hints at 'interbreeding capability', such a phrase should be a red flag.
"No, one living species can not diverge into other species."
But they do, and we know they do. We have many examples in which one species becomes genetically isolated, diverges and becomes a separate species while the ancestral one still remains. And within these 2 populations neither population can interbreed, thus the defining characteristic of being another species group. Explain.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"God created the species where there can interbreed resulting in different varitites but not such that the species becomes an entirely different species."
But Star, different species can't interbreed and produced fertile offspring, didn't you catch that part in the definition?
"AN APE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN NEVER BECOME OVER TIME A HUMAN BEING."
Boy, now that is one gross over simplification. But could a population of homo erectus become a homo georgicus, and could that homo georgicus become a homo heidelbergensis, and could that population of homo heidelbergensis become a population of homo sapiens?
agentorange,give me some time to get a better understanding of the terminology.
agentorange
RE:"bird - in verse 14 means "little bird (that hops)"
So, if a bird is little, then it's a bird, otherwise it's a fowl? um....what!? Horrid definition.
No agentorange, that is your definition. God was making a distinct between birds that walk (fowl) and birds that hop (little birds). You know that there is a distinct difference between a duck which would be termed a fowl, for example, and a sparrow, which would be termed a bird. You know that a sparrow hops while a duck walks. A sparrow is a small bird in comparison to a duck. Your comments are only making you look foolish.
agentorange
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV Bible:
4327 meen (Hebrew word); from an unused root meaning to portion out, a sort, i.e., species:-kind
Dictionary definition of "species"
Pronunciation [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies, adjective
–noun 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic. a. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
b. the set of things within one of these classes.
6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.
–adjective 7. Horticulture. pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety: a species rose; a species gladiolus.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper - Cite This Source
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
species
noun
1. (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. - Cite This Source
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
species (spç'shçz, spç'sçz) Pronunciation Key
A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Species names are usually written lower case and in italics, as rex in Tyrannosaurus rex. See Table at taxonomy.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary - Cite This Source
Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
species [(spee-sheez, spee-seez)]
A group of closely related and interbreeding living things; the smallest standard unit of biological classification. Species can be divided into varieties, races, breeds, or subspecies. Red pines, sugar maples, cats, dogs, chimpanzees, and people are species; Siamese cats and beagles are varieties, not species. (See Linnean classification.)
Re:Ok, so can living species diverge into other species or not?
No, one living species can not diverge into other species.
God created the species where there can interbreed resulting in different varitites but not such that the species becomes an entirely different species.
AN APE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN NEVER BECOME OVER TIME A HUMAN BEING.
*yawn*
"fowl would be like a duck, chicken, turkey
bird would be like a sparrow, parrot, finch, cardinal, bluejay"
What is, the difference again between them? Some are relatively larger than others? Still birds.
"bird covered with feathers or covering with wings"
That would be, all of them.
"bird - in verse 14 means "little bird (that hops)"
So, if a bird is little, then it's a bird, otherwise it's a fowl? um....what!? Horrid definition.
No, they're all birds star. It doesn't make a difference, at least not for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird
agentorange
fowl would be like a duck, chicken, turkey
bird would be like a sparrow, parrot, finch, cardinal, bluejay
Star,
"This is your conclusion on what I think and you are wrong. "
Ok, so can living species diverge into other species or not?
"The Word of God makes it very clear that every kind of wild beast, every kind of dumb beast or large 4 legged animals, every kind of reptile, every kind of fowl, and every kind of bird (that existed at that time obviously) was on the Ark."
Well, apparently the insects were on the ark too right? I mean they would have to be as they are around now after all?
"each kind of animal (its male and female) defined above that existed at the time of the flood is what was on the Ark."
Huh, so much for 'kind' = species huh star? Guess you were wrong initially.
'wild beast', like what, ALL Of them?
"any large quadruped or animal"
That would be...well, about ALL of the large animals then!
"fowl - in verse 14 means"
fowls are birds, same difference. name the same group of animals, doesn't change what they are.
Really now, there IS the problem though as such ambiguous meanings don't adequately define what species were and weren't included. It still seems to indicate all quadruped animals were kept on the ark.
agentorange
I never said that I was infallible. That is your conclusion agentorange.
Yes, I do ask God for understanding of His Word. My accuracy is hinged on many different factors. I fail many times in allowing God to teach me what He wants me to know. I might get partial understanding and jump the gun and make conclusions about it before allowing Him to finish giving me understanding, for example. Or I may misunderstand what He meant by what He said. (Just like you do most of the time to what I write.) I definetely need to wait on God to finish what He started or allow Him to start what He wants to explain to me before I speak. My flesh gets in the way. I need to do what a Christian would call "repent", obey God and get my self- willed way out of the way.
"There were no marine animals on the Ark."
Ok, fair enough, but star, recall his words
"the salinity of sea water would drop too low to support marine life "
The whole bit about the salinity in the water would then effect them wouldn't it? Thus they wouldn't be preserved.
I'm still trying to figure out where all the matter came from that created the universe to begin with.
agentorange
Re:"Now, you also stated that one species cannot become another species (speciation),"
I never said this. All I said was that every form of life that God created in Genesis 1 was uniquely created. There was no macro-evolution at play when He created the different forms of life. What transpired afterwards, I don't know yet. I'll discuss this more later in more of the details you want it discussed in.
" ergo, your position is such that you're implying all currently living and extinct species which have ever lived were independently created and are not at all related. Got it?"
This is your conclusion on what I think and you are wrong.
johnzon
Re:<Each kind known to man was on the boat.>
Wouldn't that then mean there should only be a handful of creatures remaining after the flood as man at that time would only have been aware of a very limited number. So why do we see millions of species today if they were destroyed in the flood as they were not on the Ark? Appears to be yet another problem with the Ark story."
There is no problem with the Ark story. The problem lies in the accuracy of how I expressed what I intended to say.
The Word of God makes it very clear that every kind of wild beast, every kind of dumb beast or large 4 legged animals, every kind of reptile, every kind of fowl, and every kind of bird (that existed at that time obviously) was on the Ark. When I made my statement,<Each kind known to man was on the boat.> my thoughts were focused on what God's Word says about what life was preserved on the Ark.
RE:"Faulty facts often causes one to make faulty conclusions"
If the 'fact' is faulty, then I don't think it is a fact."
I will reword the sentence to reperesent more acturately what I meant: "Faulty thoughts/beliefs often causes one to make faulty conclusions."
I am not perfect in communicating exactly what I mean or what I am thinking all the time. Are you?
johnzon
There were no marine animals on the Ark. God defines what was on the Ark in Genesis 7:13-16.
Genesis 7:13-16
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
According to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV Bible:
beast in verse 14 means "wild beasts"
cattle - in verse 14 means "a dumb beast" or "any large quadruped or animal"
creeping things - in verse 14 means "reptiles" or "any other rapidly moving animal"
fowl - in verse 14 means "bird covered with feathers or covering with wings"
bird - in verse 14 means "little bird (that hops)" like for example a sparrow
kind - in verse 14 means "to portion out" or "sort"
sort - in verse 14 means "a wing"
Thus, each kind of animal (its male and female) defined above that existed at the time of the flood is what was on the Ark.
"It would be best for you to find out first how many God actually caused to board the Ark "
I thought an infallible theologian like yourself would know or comprehend such things, after all you said kind = species and the bible clearly states 2 of each kind for all animals, so it leaves little to the imagination.
"gives the definition of the Hebrew/Greek word, and identifies the English word that was used for the Hebrew/Greek word in the translation."
Ok, so what's the problem then, this shouldn't be something so lost in translation now should it? And more over, if it were and this early in the bible where its lost in translation it doesn't exactly bold well for the authoritative stance you hold it to either.
At any rate star, I sure would like you reasoning on why we can see species becoming other species in the wild and lab.
"I have never suggested what the number of animals, birds, and etc were on the boat. Each kind known to man was on the boat."
But star you must realize what the term 'implicit' means, no? This is precisely WHY I had you deifine 'kind' from the get go so as not to get lost in translation or in semantics. By stating 'kind' = species, you have then implied such a figure of 6 million species, it's not NASA rocket science.
"The total number is unknown to me."
But the bible states clearly that 'kind' = species, does it not? Per YOUR words no less. Does it not also state '2 of EACH kind' to be boarded and thus '2 of each species' would be a translation. Again, this isn't rocket science here, you're simply dodging the issue by placating ignorance in sake of not having to answer.
Star,
"I never said that there were 6 million+ species crammed onto the Ark."
Ok, lets recap shall we?
1) you claimed and defined, as per the KJV, that 'kind' = species. 2) also claimed that, as per the bible, 2 of each kind were on the Ark. With me so far? Good.
Now, you also stated that one species cannot become another species (speciation), ergo, your position is such that you're implying all currently living and extinct species which have ever lived were independently created and are not at all related. Got it?
Of the living species, we have by conservative estimates some 6 million species. (10 million if you take the middle road), thus at a minimum some 6 million species would have had to been on the Ark (2 of each) for nearly a year. Now, explain how they were all on there already.
Star2
<Each kind known to man was on the boat.>
Wouldn't that then mean there should only be a handful of creatures remaining after the flood as man at that time would only have been aware of a very limited number. So why do we see millions of species today if they were destroyed in the flood as they were not on the Ark? Appears to be yet another problem with the Ark story.
"Faulty facts often causes one to make faulty conclusions"
If the 'fact' is faulty, then I don't think it is a fact.
agentorange
""Is what Star is proposing, some 6 million+ species getting crammed onto the Ark, 2 of each no less, sound at all logical considering the magnitude of what we're talking about? Keep in mind this is her definition of 'kind' = species here, as per her exhaustive study of the KJV. "
I never said that there were 6 million+ species crammed onto the Ark. This is your statement agentorange. I have never suggested what the number of animals, birds, and etc were on the boat. Each kind known to man was on the boat. The total number is unknown to me.
You don't know either Mr Agentorange how many animals, birds, and etc were on the Ark. It would be best for you to find out first how many God actually caused to board the Ark before you decided whether it was possible or not. Faulty facts causes one to make faulty conclusions.
The Hebrew and Greek Texts that made up the Textus Receptus is what was used to produce the KJV Bible. The Strong's Exhuastive Concordance of the KJV Bible is a concordance of all the Hebrew words of the Old Testament and all the Greek words of the New Testament. The compilation identifies every verse where the Hebrew/Greek word appears, gives the definition of the Hebrew/Greek word, and identifies the English word that was used for the Hebrew/Greek word in the translation.
Another problem with the flood story:
Unless the Ark contained very large aquariums equipped with the appropriate filters and oxygenators, aquatic life that required sea water would not have survived. If the entire planet were flooded, the salinity of sea water would drop too low to support marine life such as whales, sharks, dolphins, rays, eels,etc. How did Noah have the aquariums and technology to keep sperm whales healthy?
I think I know the answer to the Ark story- MYTH.
"after the flood caused accelerated evolution?"
We would see genetic evidence for this in a narrow genetic diversities and more rapid changes per generation, but we don't find this. Why would such 'Super Evolution' occur post flood for a while, and then all of sudden just stop back to normal evolutionary speeds while leaving no evidence for any super speed at all?
"and then after the flood they evolved into the different breeds so that we have the numerous breeds today stemming from the single pair.'
I doubt it. Most of the novel dog breeds are ones we've only just created in the past few 200 years or so, and this is only from selective breeding. All of these breeds are still of the same species though.
"But even evolution requires faith."
If you say so, but at what part? Where is the <insert miracle here> moment in it?
gerbonic,
"the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing."
But the universe is never implied to come from 'nothing' as per the Big Bang theory, it implies it existed as a singularity (matter/energy), which hadn't expanded yet.
'logical way to explain anything prior to the moment of the big bang."
It's b/c we need more evidence and that coupled with a new science theory, M theory might be it.
"Entropy is increasing and it will eventually lead the universe to total state of disorder"
Or, the Big Crunch.
"The question about what is prior to that starting point is a question that science fails to address."
Yeah, so far, give it some time. Cosmology isn't an old science.
Why? If the math is there and if its supported by evidence we should accept it, just like we do for evidence for atomic matter. It might sound strange, but so is atomic matter, or quantum mechanics, those don't require faith either.
Agentorangex,
Come on now. I thought you were actually serious about having a discussion. You talk about Santa Claus... sounds like spontaneous generation to me or the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing.
Fact 1: Many good physicists will tell you that there is no rational, logical way to explain anything prior to the moment of the big bang. Entropy is increasing and it will eventually lead the universe to total state of disorder meaning there was an original starting point. The question about what is prior to that starting point is a question that science fails to address.
Superstring theory and infinite parallel dimensions is the best explanation our modern science can come up with. If you can really believe that infinite parallel dimensions on a fractal is logical then I you got more faith then me.
orange,
Well, since many Christians subscribe to the idea of Divine Design/Evolution mixture of looking at creation, maybe God just put one pair of every kind of animal (not necessarily a pair of every breed) on board, and then after the flood caused accelerated evolution? Say like a pair of dogs, and then after the flood they evolved into the different breeds so that we have the numerous breeds today stemming from the single pair.
I know it sounds simple. But it's just a thought. But even evolution requires faith.
And what about the Big Bang theory? That the universe exploded from one huge mass of material. Where did that material come from? How did it explode? I've heard the theory that the matter used to create the Big Bang (thus the universe) came from another dimension. Oh. Well, where did the matter from that universe come from? And on and on it goes. And so the idea of a Big Bang requires as much faith as God simply creating it.
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
The Word says it all. Why do you waste your time arguing with unbelievers? The Bible also says to "cast not your pearls before thw swine". Nothing can be said that will change their "educated" minds. As above says"by wisdom the world knew not God" They come on these boards just to get the true believers stirred up. Scoffers and mockers they are. They will believe one day, though you will never convince them of it.Why would anyone who truly believes we evolved from a cestpool believe in God?
gerbonic, "The answer to whether star is being logical rests on the apriori assupmtions brought into the discussion"
Ok. Assumption 1) boat, 450 ft long, 50 ft high. 2) 6 million species, 2 of each 'kind'. Thus, is it logical to assume they could (somehow?) fit into it, with all their food, water, and be maintained by 8 people for nearly a year? No, not even close.
This is about as logically absurd as saying 1+1= 389328932. Such a statement, like that of the calculations of 6 million species on a boat, ignores logic and reasoning and basically requires the reader to check their critical thinking and logic at the door ir not to toss their brains as well. This is the same sort of 'check your logic and critically thinking at the door' required to believe in santa, and only kids fall for it.
"Osiris, Dionysus, and such are clearly and openly myths."
Oddly enough they and many other Mediterranean gods shared so many same details on their nature that one is left to wonder if Jesus is nothing more than a spin off, a cross pollination of other religions prior. Hey, it would go along way to explaining Justin Martyrs comments on the whole thing though.
"Jesus has been proven to be a real person."
Proven, huh?
"If your a apriori assumption allows for something or someone outside of our known nature to interfere with our nature then it is possible to come up with a logical explanation"
In other words, if one assumed Magic and such then Santa REALLY does exist and can really fly and deliver all them presents in a single night.
gerbonic,
Right! Osiris, Dionysus, and such are clearly and openly myths. Jesus has been proven to be a real person. Jesus is the only real person to have claimed, and been claimed, to have been born of a virgin, die on a cross, and rise again.
argentorangex,
In regards to the comparison between Dionysus, Mithras, etc to Jesus. There is enough objective evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus that most objective onlookers would agree that Jesus was a Jewish man who walked the earth approximately 2,000 years ago, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.
There are many websites, and some books, that strain to draw comparisons between Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, etc to Jesus. I would venture to say that most of the comparisons are stretches and those that are not do not threaten the unique status of Jesus.
argentorangex,
"Is what Star is proposing, some 6 million+ species getting crammed onto the Ark, 2 of each no less, sound at all logical considering the magnitude of what we're talking about? Keep in mind this is her definition of 'kind' = species here, as per her exhaustive study of the KJV. "
The answer to whether star is being logical rests on the apriori assupmtions brought into the discussion. If you assume that all things are must be explicable through science, therefore negating the possibility of what I call a miracle, then it is very illogical. If your a apriori assumption allows for something or someone outside of our known nature to interfere with our nature then it is possible to come up with a logical explanation.
beliver, are you telling me/us that Jesus was/is the only proclaimed God to be born of a virgin?
The only god to die and rise 3 days later? There were many other previous gods, or alledged gods, who had many aspects of their depictions which were very close, if not identical, to Jesus' depictions. Again, Apollonius of Tyana sound familiar?
""There probably is no god" is not only not scientific it is essentially a statement of faith. "
I wasn't talking about this, I think you got confused on this. Believer, or someone else had mentioned science involved faith.
Viking, I realize you understand science and its methodology, so I am not sure why you brought this up. The nature of science and its fruits are vindication of how when applied correctly it works, that is in a nutshell why it doesn't require faith in accordance with is processes of research. Science relies instead on empirical facts which can be repeatedly tested.
I find it kind of interesting that they used the word "Probably" and yet they claim to have so much faith in their belifes. The Christian equivalantof this add (one can find it on the sides of barns and spray painted on overpasses in just about every state) just state something like "Jesus is lord." No maybes probablys or just might be's. just is, I find it hard to take these athiests seriously when they dont have that much faith themselves to back their view. I dunno just a thought.
Hi agent you asked for an example of faith in science. I don't think my example is what was intended by the original poster but I'll give it a try. How about the following
1.There is an objective reality which we call nature.
2.Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.
3. We can know nature.
4. All phenomena have natural causes.
I am sure you are familiar with even more assumptions or articles of faith in science.
ultimately of course science can't prove the assumptions of science (thus they are called assumptions).
It is interesting that the whole issue of science comes up in relation to article such as this. Since the groups statement "There probably is no god" is not only not scientific it is essentially a statement of faith. It is clear from the nature of science that it is inherently unequipped as a modality for understanding reality to deal with metaphysical possibilities much less probabilities.
agent, no Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who was born by a virgin, which was only one of the Messianic prophecies He fulfilled that were predicted by prophets in the Old Testament. Being the scholarly person you are I'm surprised your not willing to do the research and discover these truths for yourself.
The Bible is a very historically correct book (taking the "spiritual" aspect out of it). Many of the stories (Jericho, Ai, Sodom and Gomorah, etc, etc) have been found to be true through archaeoligical digs. Luke is considered one of the premier historians from his times. Many of the things he wrote about in both his Gospel and in the book of Acts were once considered myths because the accounts and titles were not found anywhere else other than those writings. But, as usual, through archaelogical expeditions, they have discovered that Luke was correct in every account.
If the Gospels had been a forgery, there were plenty of true followers of Christ who would have pointed it out, and more than enough critics who would have quickly exposed the errancies of those stories. But none exist. Because the historicalness of the Bible is second to none.
"then was raised from the dead"
But what does this matter? 'Rising from the dead' was a common belief of God(s) in that time and region , Mithras and Dionysus, just to name a few... as were many of the other shared depictions of Jesus. What, you think Jesus was the only God to be claimed to be born of a virgin?
Orange,
Well since I would look like a fool to argue science with you, on the same token, you look like a fool arguing the Bible with us.
agent, when God is a real part of your life every area of your life is impacted by His presence so there is no area of your life that is not affected by your faith and there is no area in your life where you cannot see His fingerprints. I am not talking about a christ but the Christ, the one and only Son of God who died on the Cross and then was raised from the dead who presently sits at the right hand of God. The Christ of the Bible.
steveh20, I totally understand and agree with you on the issue of scrutiny of one's beliefs. One of the main things lacking in the life of many Christians is the ability to defend their faith. That is one of the main reasons so many young Christians see their belief systems almost totally destroyed when they go on to secular colleges.
Thanks believer. The only thing I would add is that if you use "believing" scientists as examples then you must expect their other beliefs to come under scrutiny, you can't have ot both ways.
BW
Steve
"much historical support for the person of Christ and His death on the Cross"
The 'christ', I am not that naive, I have read that many 'christs' were out and about walking around in that era and time. Appolonius of Tiana ring a bell?
"God's fingerprints can be found in every area"
From a YEC view, no, not at all.
"Which means that faith does indeed have a part in science."
Ok, where, give us an example.
"God who sent His only Son to die on the cross"
And this is verifiable how, by what evidence? See, the problem is even this proposition requires faith itself to even be believed as it too can't be tested for or demonstrated in any manner that indeed it occurred. So what you have, is faith holding up faith. The book that quotes itself as its own authoritative source?
agent, God's fingerprints can be found in every area of our lives to include science, but until you allow God to be God you'll never see them.
agent, without including the Bible there is much historical support for the person of Christ and His death on the Cross. Just do the research and you will find it, but even if you come to see that it doesn't matter since even Satan and the devils believe in Christ, but until you put your trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone, believing only will not matter.
steveh20, I do not hold those scientists up as theologians but as men who realized God is very active in our universe to include the fields of science. Which means that faith does indeed have a part in science.
agent, well when I learn for a fact that Santa sent his son to die for my sins then I might start believing in the Santa Claus who lives at the North Pole, but until then I'll continue to trust and believe in the one and only true God who sent His only Son to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind to include your's and mine. Plus, I'll also continue to believe in His inerrant Word that we call the Bible. And as I said earlier until you allow God to be God you will never come to see that His Word can be trusted. My prayer is someday you'll let the knowledge some of us have been sharing with you to move from your head to your heart and you'll come to trust Christ as your personal Savior and Lord.
Star
I never had a Strongs but I did have a concordance for the NIV when it was first published, well, that shows my age....I also remember buying the Thompson Chain bible for that translation.
Kind regards
Steve
"Do you even know what the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV is?"
No, what?
"Every reference you have made to it when discussing my comment on kind = species says you don't."
Star, I took YOUR words, since you're the 'infallible theologian' here that 'kind = species'. This is the bedrock premise for your arguement. It's apparent you don't understand that we know species can diverge/evolve (speciation event) from within a population of a species to form another species. Refer to those listed in earlier posts. How you can deny this is beyond any rational sense, it's like denying gravity. Sometimes these 2 species can cross breed (hybridization), most can't though, but when they do the offspring is infertile.
When I ask how all 6+ million got crammed onto it, you should come up with an explanation based on evidence. Still waiting...
"Prophet knows more about the Bible than you do as you know more about science than he does."
So....? Facts are facts, and either a story is logically sound and supported by evidence or its not.
believer, "as I said because of your unwillingness to allow God to be God very few truths of the Bible will seem logical to you"
How is this any different than a person from saying 'because of your unwillingness to allow Santa to be Santa very few truths of the santa story will seem logical to you'
If one pretends that it's logical for a fat man in a red suit to fly globally and deliver presents to all the worlds children in a single night via a flying reindeer and sleigh, then they're already committed to a presumption not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking and fantasy. How is the Noah story any different?
Believer
We place credibilty on the scientific work of Newton etc..because testing has shown it to be correct, well almost, Newton was wrong on some points but thats not his fault. Their beliefs on other matters such as God do not come under this catergory, some scientists down through history have believed some very odd things but we still stand on their scientific discoveries.
On the subject of Newton, he did not believe in the Trinity(he was a deist/unitarian), following your arguement would you not say that others should follow in such a brilliant mans footsteps? If Newton believed that.....
Keep well (read what you wrote about London, glad you had a good time)
Steve
agentorange - Do you even know what the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV is? Every reference you have made to it when discussing my comment on kind = species says you don't.
agentorange
Prophet knows more about the Bible than you do as you know more about science than he does.
You make yourself look foolish when you try to argue about the Bible when you neither know the One (Jesus Christ) who wrote it thru man nor do you have any understanding of it since it is spiritually appraised. The carnal man, which is what you are agentorange, cannot understand the things of the spirit.
agent, as I said because of your unwillingness to allow God to be God very few truths of the Bible will seem logical to you as to any person who will not allow God to be God. As for faith not being a part of science there are a number of scientists who would totally disagree with you, many of whom's work and research we place much credibility on to include Pasteur and Newton.
Cover,
"and go that next step of faith into what they cannot prove or rationalize."
No, faith isn't allowed in science, if we come upon 'X' and don't have the supportive evidence or answers we simply say the honest truth, 'we don't know....yet'.
That is why the biggest gap in the big bang theory is still what was there before the big bang.
Never heard of String Theory have you? Certain theories are only applicable to certain domains of knowledge, thus 'what occurred prior' likely isn't going to be explained by the big bang theory, but rather another science model.
"We can prove the expansion of the universe all we want to the point where it had to start from a single point (which does not conflict with the Bible record),"
Yeah, except for in the bible the Earth is formed prior to the formation of the Sun, that whole bit. =)
but the theorists are resigned only to speculation and guessing and more searching for the answer.
"but our faith is sound comes to the most satisfying conclusion of all:"
How would this be any different than how one would insert faith into beveling in other unprovable things like Santa?
"There is a God, he is all-powerful and all-knowing and He made it all."
How do we not know the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it all, this premise rests on just as much faith as any other god?
Covermedown,
"then we believers will never have the resounding evidence to give you any reason to believe what we or the Bible says."
Amen to that, it all rests entirely not on evidence, but on - faith.
"Trying to convince you with your own logic is futile."
Uhhh, 'my logic'(?) no. It's called logic and evidence, either you have supportive evidence for your claims or you don't, it's really that simple.
"Would you at least concede that your own logic is limited and subject to flaws?"
No. Go ahead, we would all love to hear you explain how human logic is flawed and (somehow?) less useful or less applicable in reasoning that when attempting to use 'faith' as a means to explain things.
"Christians take one step past our human logic, and we believe the Bible record; it is a step of faith"
Ergo, in your world faith trumps logic and evidence, but only in terms of religion as it's so obvious no one lives their whole lives by mere faith alone. You wouldn't for instance, live by the faith that you could jump from a 80 story building would you? No, obviously not, you can conclude based on evidence and logic that such a commitment of error would mean certain death. So you use of faith is compartmentalized to only apply to religion, where logic and evidence need not apply.
"We don't throw logic it completely out for the sake of sheepish obedience to the words in a book,"
Sure you do, in sake of evidence and a logical reasoned conclusion based on evidence the only option left is gullible and utter faith, it's the same lacking logic employed by kids who pretend Santa is real in sake of evidence. Your position reminds me of Vern and Teddy from 'Stand by Me' as they both argue over the reality of Mighty Mouse and Superman. Stupefying.
"We accept that our human condition and rise above it by believing there is something greater that our human abilities can prove of rationalise."
Ahh, but you don't believe in Santa, now do you? And we both know why not, it's b/c it's absurd and has no evidence and isn't logically sound.
"not only is the story of Noah's Ark recorded in the Old Testament it is referred to by Christ and others in the New Testament."
So?
"Because of your limited view of God at best or your view that there is no God there is no possible way you could logically conclude that this story is true."
That's b/c, get this, the whole Noah tale ISN'T logical at all. It's no more logical than the stories of leprechauns and rainbows or santa clause and presents, it's absolutely with out question absurd. And the only way such logically absurd tales can even be remotely believed is if a person already ASSUMED A) God exists, and B) that such things are controlled by Him. This is no different than a kid using horrid logic and pretending that santa can perform all the nonsense associated with his tales. One the kid examines the lacking evidence the story falls apart, b/c there is no there, there.
But the irony is on you here, as this story is supposed to be a tale about demonstrating his existence to man (right?), so the only conclusion is that one is left to assume to believe in the proposition prior to the event (evidence) and to conclude in absence of evidence.
"I don't believe your worldview at this point can accomodate that"
Again, my rejection of this tale is identical to why you reject the mythical tales of other religions and their supernatural events. I have no affinity towards any religion, so I am not predisposed to believe in any from the get go, I make my deductions based on evidence. You, on the other hand, only accept the biblical tales simply for they are of your faith, rather than accepting all religions tales.
Prophet, depends what we're talking about here, 'science' is quite a very broad subject and so I could know more about you in one domain while you could know more than me in another.
Muggle,
There are other numbers in the natural set besides 6 million."
True there are, but this 6 million number is the CONSERVATIVE estimate, in other words the order of magnitude would be higher, more like 8-10 million which makes it even more preposterous.
"kind=species is inaccurate."
Again, this kind = species is entirely up to ones own biblical interpretation, that being stars. But this interpretation is wrong, as I was trying to elude to also. As by stars logic if 'species = kind' therefore she would be implying that all species which have ever lived and died were different kinds, AND at the same time that she would be denying that one population of species can diverge (evolve) into another. This is false, as we have seen this many times both in the wild and in labs. Time to face facts.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"I used to believe that you were an "honest" skeptic. I guess I am gullible sometimes."
I am honest and skeptical to the same degree as you are of other religious supernatural events (Muhammad again), the distinction is it's not my faith so I can examine it and think critically about it, you can't afford to as it would lead to loosing your faith. If you think outside of your box this is what critical thinking entails.
Agentorangex, pro-science, johnzon, et al, I realise the difficultly in coming to even a general understanding of the topics like the origin of the universe and the possibility of the Noah's Ark story.
The ones who don't take the Bible record at its Word apply methods of logic and try to find evidence to support their logic, and discount any record that they cannot find any empirical evidence (that they are willing to trust) to support.
The back and forth discussion is tiring, and I have to admit, once again, that if we Bible believers have to respond to you using the same logic and data that you trust, then we believers will never have the resounding evidence to give you any reason to believe what we or the Bible says.
Trying to convince you with your own logic is futile. And this is the reason why, the logic that your natural minds (and ours too, don’t think we don’t suffer from the same limitations) is limited and incomplete. Scientific methods are equally as limited because they are founded on natural human thinking.
Would you at least concede that your own logic is limited and subject to flaws? I hope so because it is a failing of human nature. We can’t avoid it, but thank God we don’t need to. Christians take one step past our human logic, and we believe the Bible record; it is a step of faith. We don’t throw logic it completely out for the sake of sheepish obedience to the words in a book, we just go the natural next step and believe that there is a truth that is greater than we can understand right now.
We accept that our human condition and rise above it by believing there is something greater that our human abilities can prove of rationalise.
The funny thing is that scientists and natural theorists do exactly the same thing, and go that next step of faith into what they cannot prove or rationalize. That is why the biggest gap in the big bang theory is still what was there before the big bang. We can prove the expansion of the universe all we want to the point where it had to start from a single point (which does not conflict with the Bible record), but the theorists are resigned only to speculation and guessing and more searching for the answer.
Your human logic is fallible, as is ours, but our faith is sound comes to the most satisfying conclusion of all: There is a God, he is all-powerful and all-knowing and He made it all.
Sorry to have wasted your time using your methods and tools to prove something that your methods and tools are too limited to prove.
Hello Muggleborn
Thanks for the reply, I’m very well thanks , hope things are okay for you. As I see it the issue you have raised is that if events in our world have causes then what caused the universe etc…and from that you draw your conclusions.
Here’s what I understand of that issue. According to the mathematicians and physicists, time comes into existence after the big bang occurs ,all descriptions are after the big bang not the event itself as all calculations break down and answers become infinite. Therefore before this event time does not appear to exist, or things are odder than we understand ,so to talk about first causes have no relevance to the situation because there is no before, after etc.. we can only relate to after the event, that being the big bang. Cause and effect do though have relevance in this world where time forms one of the dimensions.
I, whilst wishing to know more about this “before” accept that until the said mathematicians and physicists come up with better theories such as quantum gravity we will be in this state for quite a while.
Just out of interest what I have written does not prove or disprove the existence of God but maybe shows that some arguments are not that good once more relevant information becomes known.
It might be that I have given the whole picture here that somebody else might like to add to what I have written.
Regards
Steve
orange,
Do you think it would make me look like a fool if I argued science with you, when I know a fraction of it compared to you?
AgentOrange,
>> Then what, might we ask, set off/cauased/created God? A greater God? <<
LOL. The Mormons sure thought so.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html
I guess I just can't put anything to rest. I really hope it's the Holy Spirit guiding me, and not just my own stubborness.
agent, not only is the story of Noah's Ark recorded in the Old Testament it is referred to by Christ and others in the New Testament. Because of your limited view of God at best or your view that there is no God there is no possible way you could logically conclude that this story is true. Because there comes a point in this story and many other stories recorded in the Bible where God must intervene for the story to be real and I don't believe your worldview at this point can accomodate that.
AgentOrange,
There are other numbers in the natural set besides 6 million. You've essentially stuck with a false context that you refuse to budge from because you're being intentionally difficult, even though the statement kind=species is inaccurate.
I've read many of your posts and respected you for contributing a lot of very useful information.
I used to believe that you were an "honest" skeptic. I guess I am gullible sometimes.
Have fun living inside your intellectual box.
believer, b/c this is your faith and you have an affinity towards it, naturally you wont question, critique, or thinking critically about it like you would the stories of other religions. When it comes to muhammed flying up to heaven, you reject it. Not b/c it's not supernatural in a sense, b/c it certainly is with its absurdity, but you reject it as you're able to fully critically think about it. Too bad you can't do the same for you own faith. Any time critically thinking is employed it's a <insert miracle moment>, quite convenient logic aint it. There when you want it, and gone when it's your own faith being examined.
"what I mean is I doubt when you look at the story of Noah's Ark that you look at it from a spiritual view"
Apply this logic to yourself in regards to ANY other religions 'miracles', like muhammed flying up to heaven on a winged horse, and then explain why you reject them.
...
Right, you reject them for the very same reason why reject the noah flood story, they are not a story I am compelled to believe in as A) it's entirely absurd and illogical, and B) it's not my faith.
agent, what I mean is I doubt when you look at the story of Noah's Ark that you look at it from a spiritual view where God intervenes to make what appears to be an impossibility a possibility. Noah's Ark is indeed an impossibility if godly intervention is not added in to the equation.
Mugg,
"The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice"
This is a decent one, but really in science a 'theory' is best understood and being analogous to being a model, hence the term 'theoretical model'.
The power of the theory/model is that it's able to tie together many (generally millions) of empirical facts and observations from many independent realms of science (in evolution this would be paleontology, genetics, embryology, geology, biology, etc.) and explain them all in a consistent manner, while being refuted by none.
covermedown,
"experimental data that proves the big bang theory and evolution?"
'Proof' is a term not used in science, only in logic and math. What sort of evidence would you consider sufficient though to deem it (evolution) well supported and credible?
"Let me know if they help at all."
The issue here is these sites are merely the a typical apologetic site, they don't refer to actual issues like fitting 6+ million species, their food, water, and disposing of waste by 8. They brief over the details and attempt to make it sound like they only needed to cram a couple 1000 animals on board, but still this has issues as plant life would also need to be preserved, and the 6 million I was referring to wasn't counting them.
Mug,
"something deterministic (God) would have needed to set it off."
Then what, might we ask, set off/cauased/created God? A greater God?
"Let's consider insects negligable because they don't take up a lot of space"
Problem: Insects do though constitute the largest numbers for species though, they can't be ignored.
Muggle,
"The 6M species you're talking about really needs to be paired down into types or "kinds" as groups of interbreedable species;"
I understand my friend, though this is Stars definition, so I wont attempt to paint all with her view of it, though she says it comes from the KJV. The lowest level of grouping by which organisms can still successfully interbreed would be - species. So, for this 6 million+ is the starting point at least.
believer,
"Noah took on the Ark all the species that God sent to him to go on the Ark with him and his family"
Right, all 6+ million of them, on a boat about 450 long and 50ft high....yup, sounds legit there!
"your view seems to be based on a secular model"
Nope, not at all. My view includes me thinking critically of such claims before accepting them. This is the very same reason you reject/doubt the notion of other religions miracles like Muhammad flying up to heaven on a winged horse. The only difference is this is YOUR story and you have an affinity towards it, so naturally you can't/refuse to think critically about it.
"but with 600 years to play with"
Yeah, b/c you know, people have always lived up to 600+ years, nothing odd there at all.LoooolZ. Again, try to think critically about it....600 year old man, having only 3 kids?
"I invite you to read at least a few pages of it,"
Read it, more than a a few pages and more than a couple times and boy, why do you think I doubt it?
Covermedown,
"I am not sure what proving how Noah was able to cram 6 million species"
Really it's a rhetorical question, as with any person evaluating the obvious magnitude of so many animals and such a sized boat the concept of fitting them all on it sounds beyond absurd <insert miracle here moment>. The question of if Noah could by himself make such a boat should also set off a red flag as after some critical thinking it becomes hard to justify it logically. If you can't comprehend how both are utterly illogical and absurd, then I suggest think more critically about it for a change.
"The Bible record said God asked Noah.."
So what, regardless of the stated length it's apparent 6 million species couldn't fit on a boat, get real. Again, think critically.
"Now, whatever a cubit really is"
It's about 18 inches, look it up.
"fifteen of them has got to be a seriously long distance to cover all the mountains"
15 X 18(inches) = 270 inches, 270 inches = 22.5 feet! So, in your world 22.5 feet is seriously long, huh? Nope, or they simply inferred small hills to be mountains.
"SO back then a cubit was probably a short thing."
It was short, but to infer it being smaller would be EVEN WORSE and more absurd as we'd be talking about even a smaller Ark still. Home Schooled?
You may argue that Noah should have had a problem feeding all these animals"
Over 6 million species and 2 of each for nearly a year, yeah, that would be one heck of a problem.
"The answer to these requires a step of faith to accept"
Translation: Don't think too critically about this absurdity; just take it on mere words alone like the how the child does with the existence of Santa. Horrid logic indeed! You could get kids and adults to really believe in Santa and other nonsense with that sort of horrid logic.
xizwyck,
I think this is the one scits is looking for.
"The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice"
Like "Music Theory" or "Atomic Theory", "Physics Theory", etc?
xizwyck
Well yes, you looked up a definition of a theory, but you do not understand the meaning of a theory in the context of science.
It would appear, that you are not going to post evidence for ID....big surprise- NOT.
steveh20,
Ah, well, never been to the UK. But I just mean that if you can voice support or objection by using the transportation or not.
sscitsongas,
um... that comes directly from Webster. I think you're off.
xizwyck. I'm afraid to say, you still need to do some work on your understanding of what a theory means in science.....
covermedown
"can you share some links that demonstrate this observable and experimental data that proves the big bang theory and evolution?"
big bang theory, supported by:
Einsteins general theory of relativity
Hubble expansion
2.7K micro wave background radiation
keyword these topics and you can learn about them should you actually be interested, of course in order to understand in detail one would need knowledge of physics and mathematics. There is plenty of stuff on the web for the layman to get a sense of what the topics are about.
Now yours and xizwyck turn to show me some scientific evidence for ID. We can have fun with this. You two show me evidence on ID, and I will show you additional evidence for big band and then we can move to evolution.
Science is not all about theories. It's about approaching something in a systematic method to obtain knowledge. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts or observations. No one is able to reproduce the big bang nor evolution, thus it doesn't past mustard on becoming a scientific fact, so it remains a theory - or at best an unsubstantiated theory. Now, it's absurd to suggest that someone believes that theories in of themselves are wrong. Of course we need theories. But theories are not facts by definition.
Sscitsongas, can you share some links that demonstrate this observable and experimental data that proves the big bang theory and evolution?
In my own reading, I have found that the conclusions about the big bang theory and evolution were really the speculations of educated, high-thinking people because they could only find inconclusive data. Something that breaks down the proof into terms for the technologically-appreciative layman is what I am looking for.
Can you help?
AgentOrange, you still around, man? Did you get a chance to look at any of the links I left? Let me know if they help at all.
Steve. Actually, revisit my "Pool" analogy, or Billiards if you prefer :^) and replace any visualization of balls with subatomic particles. That's .... eh .... close enough for now to the concept I was hoping to illustrate.
Hey Steve, how are you?
I guess the point I was trying to make is that God had to create the universe (the first event) and set it into motion, because there HAD TO be a first event.
Take a look back at my previous posts on determinism. I was hoping to generate some discussion on the matter and see if anyone had some decent references on the subject.
From a materialist perspective, one pretty much has to assume that our universe follows a deterministic nature; for determinism see dictionary.com or wikipedia.
The dilemma I see is that a purely deterministic philosophy falls in on itself, when addressing the question of why (and how) everything is here, because if all natural occurrences are the result of driving occurrences, in turn the result of driving occurrences, that happen because they follow the laws of their own nature, backward in time to infinity, then to get it all going, something deterministic (God) would have needed to set it off.
Hope I explained that all right. Let me know.
"There is probably no God"
Probably?? That's a pretty weak foundation to betting your eternity on.
Hi xizwyck
Re your talk of a boycot 2 points
1.The buses in London are not run privately by a company, they are run by transport for London(and yes they also run the tube system).
2. In England we don't really go in for such things to force our views on others we tend to debate, most people will think it fair anyway as the tube and buses already have scriptures adverts on them.
Regards
Steve
We believe the Humanists will be in for a big surprise one day, but their program is a great way to get people thinking and interacting.
The Bible clearly teaches about Heaven and Hell. Jesus came to point people towards one and away from the other. We're so glad He did!
We just wish as many Believers would send us $5 the same way the Humanists have supported their campaign.
David Harrison, President
Bus Stop Bible Studies
xizwyck
"eh... the big bang and evolution are not observable, hence the word "theory"."
eh, well its easy to see you do not have a science back ground nor do you understand what a theory actually means in science. May I suggest you study up a bit on the meaning of scientific theory. Science is all about theories. Without theories you would not be on the internet now, there would be no cell phones, television, radio, MRI's, modern medicine........etc.
Please educate yourself on the meaning of theory.
on the topic at hand... just don't ride the bus... when they start losing money, then they'll change their tune.
eh... the big bang and evolution are not observable, hence the word "theory". That's one of the critical questions against Darwinism. At least there is evidence of a world-wide flood and similar extra-biblical accounts of the flood.
Mug, can you expand on what first event you are talking about, you don't actually specify.
Many thanks
Steve
proph,
"The same thing can be said about the "Big Bang Theory" and evolution."
No, not really,both big bang and evolution are supported by experimental and observational data. What data can you tell us about to indicate any validity to the ark story.
cits,
"covermedown, There is a very simple answer to how many species were on the ark:
ZERO.
The story is just that, a story. It is myth. Its a cute story, nothing more."
The same thing can be said about the "Big Bang Theory" and evolution.
One more thing.
No one ever followed up on anything about my questions about a deterministic existance. What was the first event that cascaded every other event?
Anyone here play pool? When you break the table, does the cue ball fly on its own, or does it take some deliberate action to break?
Since spontenaety can only be a theoretical concept in a Godless universe, because every event needs to be (or have been) driven by something else, the question of who or what broke the table would always remain unanswered.
A first "event" to set things into motion require SOME FORM OF DELIBERATION, implying SOME FORM OF INTELLIGENCE, CAPABLE OF MAKING A DELIBERATE DECISION AND EXECUTING IT, i.e. God the Father, the All Mighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth ... of all that is seen and unseen.
BTW, no. I'm not actually thumping a bible down on my keyboard ;^)
And we can't blame it all on cosmic strings.
AgentOrange, et al ... BTW that last post was actually directed at everybody.
Please forgive me eventually for being so crabby :^(
God bless.
Ya know what? Here's what I Googled:
"how many animals fit on noahs ark" -- don't use the quotes.
Use a little due diligence to find some opposing viewpoints to your own.
... yeah, I'm crabby.
This one looks admittedly cheesy, but here it is anyway.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-noahs-ark-carried-all-animals.htm
The flood ...
Here's another I just found and skimmed over.
http://www.soulcare.org/Bible%20Studies/Genesis/Genesis6v14-7v24-Ark-Animals.html
For the record ... if God can feed 4K men + women and children with 7 loaves of bread and a few fish, I'm sure He could have crammed 600 googleplex animals into a rowboat, if required.
This one touches on things like population, migration and such after the flood.
http://s8int.com/phile/noahsark24.html
AgentOrange,
The 6M species you're talking about really needs to be paired down into types or "kinds" as groups of interbreedable species; i.e. every canine variation capable of cross-breeding = 1 kind, every feline variation capable of cross-breeding = 1kind, etc. Any group of animal capable of cross breeding = 1 kind.
Let's consider insects negligable because they don't take up a lot of space, not to mention most reptiles (not accounting for a few dinosaurs) and amphibians. Most mammals are actually pretty small, and the larger animals did not need to be fully grown at the time of the ark's launch.
Here's one site that goes into that a little, but the numbers describing how many current species are a little vague. I've seen a better reference, and I'll try to dig it up at some later date.
This gets a little closer to answering your question about how many animals needed to be on the ark.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
Sorry I can't provide more. I'm a little tired.
scits, that's one that truly requires faith because it is so totally a God thing, so I can understand your view there.
hey believer, yeah I guess I was a bad boy, what can I say. I gotta tell you though, I just cant see the Ark thing.
agent, Noah took on the Ark all the species that God sent to him to go on the Ark with him and his family. Plus, your view seems to be based on a secular model which chooses to not allow for God to work miracles in these matters. And please keep in mind it is very likely that the animals he took on board were at a very young age so he would have had room for more types of animals.
scits, what's up with that double ss, don't tell me you were a bad boy and had to get a new ID?
covermedown, There is a very simple answer to how many species were on the ark:
ZERO.
The story is just that, a story. It is myth. Its a cute story, nothing more.
It might also concern you that the Bible record states that Noah was alive 600 years at the time of the flood. The Bible isn't clear on how much notice God gave him before the flood to build the ark, but with 600 years to play with, I am certain he had the time, and he had his family as well to help. He had three sons by the time he was 500. That gives him a good few years of assitance to build such a monstrous boat.
If you haven't already, I invite you to read at least a few pages of it, e.g. the book of Genesis (for the creation story and the beginnings of God's relationship with man from a biblical point of view), and maybe a couple gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) to start with, to learn what we have been taught about this man Jesus. Just a suggestion, could be worth your while.
Agentorangex, I am not sure what proving how Noah was able to cram 6 million species into an ark (with 7 other people and food to feed them) will serve you, but would it not be acceptable (even though it may sound a bit facetious) to say that Noah built a really big ark?
The Bible record said God asked Noah to build an ark like this: "... The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits" (Gen 6:15). Now, we can dispute the length of a cubit, but in just the next chapter, the Bible said that the water rose 15 cubits and covered the mountains completely. Now, whatever a cubit really is, fifteen of them has got to be a seriously long distance to cover all the mountains (Genesis 7:20).
Does this not suggest he built a really big ark? Of course, you could respond by saying that that period was so early in history, so it is likely that what was called a mountain back then was actually very short, and over the years, tectonic movement and all, the mountains became the majestic things that they are now. SO back then a cubit was probably a short thing.
But I'd still have to say Noah built a really big boat.
You may argue that Noah should have had a problem feeding all these animals, and you may even ask the question 'How the heck did he get all of those animals to one location so they can go rank and file into this one boat?' The answer to these requires a step of faith to accept. The answer as we say is ... God, the All-powerful spiritual being who created us, has the power to command and control everything that he has created, and has the power to provide food, just like air and water, to Noah, his family and all those animals so they can survive.
The simple questions of life don't get all that complicated to answer when you accept that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created us, keeps us and provides for us, even when we don't deserve it. That's what we Christians call grace.
Does this help clarify your confusion a bit?
star,
"Did you visit the website that I gave you
www.worldwideflood.com"
Yes, I checked it out, they like you had zero answers for how 6 million+ species (2 of each) were crammed onto such a sized boat, housed and fed by 8 people for nearly a year. Care to explain?
gerbonic,
"my request is that you qualify what you consider to be logical."
Is what Star is proposing, some 6 million+ species getting crammed onto the Ark, 2 of each no less, sound at all logical considering the magnitude of what we're talking about? Keep in mind this is her definition of 'kind' = species here, as per her exhaustive study of the KJV.
star,
"You accept evolution by faith as well. Abiogensisists have no clue on how life came to be."
Ok, for like the 400th time star, evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, it doesn't explain the origins of life.
"They cannot describe how the inanimate became animate. "
Wrong, we have many good models explaining how, here is one based on Harvard research, enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
"Abiogeneists nor evolutionists have any evidence/proof that life started out as a single cell organism"
Ugggh, yes they do star and we've known this for nearly a CENTURY now, the very first life forms were microbial and remained that way for billions of years (from 3.85 billion - 620 million). NO complex life show up till the Vendian around 620 million years ago.
"changed over time to become plant life, fish, birds, reptiles, animals, and then people. "
Genetic mutations, genetic drifting, genetic isolation, natural selection acting on and preservation of beneficial traits, remember?
Star,
"However, I know the God who wrote the Word of God. Jesus said in John 17:17 that the Word of God is truth. I accept that by faith."
Mighty horrid logic to assert you 'know' earlier and then follow it up saying you have faith of it. The two terms are, by definition, mutually exclusive or didn't you 'know' that?
Star,
"I do not have the answers to your questions about the number of animals on Noah's Ark, how the food was stored, how the animal and human waste was disposed of, and etc.."
Way to go bullet dodger....Do try star, try to THINK CRTICALLY how in the world one could fit so many species on a sized boat, their food, water, and dispose of their waste for a year. Think about it...
Star,
"Almost all if not all you say here on CP is nothing more than a repeat of what someone else has said."
(Sigh) Star, the reason why I can keep asking the same question(s) to you is that you either dodge them over and over, don't comprehend them at all, or don't bother to answer them directly.
It occurs to me that johnzon and all the other God detractors have not found what is necessary for a satisfying life. For all that science has advanced, providing more convenience, more and more ways to do things quicker, cheaper, easily…even when all things around us are done perfectly quickly, affordably and conveniently, we have not addressed the true needs of the people on this planet. The general state of sorrow and pain of the world attests to that. In a world of technology, man is still without contentment.
We are spirit, accessing this world in the flesh. We are not flesh mobilised by spirit. Our spiritual parts define who we are, and house our personalities. God also is spirit; He is the first. That in itself cannot be proved empirically using our limited scientific methods and systems, because the spirit does not bow to the laws that we observe in the natural world.
Now, if johnzon et at cannot accept that basic precept, that we are spirit first, and not just sentient matter, then any faith logic we put forward to johnzon etc is going to fall on deaf ears.All they have to do is say 'Prove it! (Using our own methods)' and we fail, because scientific and human logic systems just cannot do it.That is like asking me to prove Pythagoras' theorem using pressure gauges.The method is just not adequate to measure what we know and have seen through faith.
I say that faith is the next logical step when logic fails.The evolutionists for example should agree with that.In the same way the evolutionist believes without a single piece of empirical data that the evolutionary process is the truth (thanks star2), we use the same approach to believe what we believe. But this is the catch, once we make the first step and reach out to God in faith we have a God who responds and proves himself to us time and time again.We believe, and he proves it.
In the meantime the evolutionists still search for any semblance of proof, the God avoiders still settle for weak or dead answers to explain the purpose of humanity, the origin of the universe etc, and continue to search without satisfaction for some means of creating life where there is none.We Christians already have the answers, and we use different, sounder, more complete methods to derive our answers.Our methods work when we use them.The logicians and scientists fall short when they use theirs.
Johnzon, you will always be 'correct' when you use fallible human logic, but if you base your belief structure on something that is fallible as our logic, you are dooming yourself to a life that is missing certainty, direction and ultimate satisfaction.
Science still has not given us the solution to truly satisfying lives, but it has certainly kept us busy and distracted from finding that solution.Even psychiatry and psychology make more speculation than they reveal truths that will give us satisfying lives.Do you think you are putting your trust in the right thing?
Pro-science, if you are so convinced you are right then you sould not have a problem with me saying you'll be toast. Maybe you are not so convinced and should check out all those things you think are fairy tales. You'll find out they are true.
Star2, not me personally. But it would have been a shame if it had gotten thrown out, before you got a chance to evaluate what's been on eBay :^)
agentorange
Re: Life is about learning
Ecclesiastes 12:12-14
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
MuggleBorn - Yes, I still have my HP 35 calculator. I got it in the early part of 1971. Yes, it still works; not via the battery pack but thru the power cord.
I thought about selling it. Are you interested?
Star2,
>> didn't get a scientific calculator (HP 35) until my senior yr in college. <<
Oh my gosh. Star, do you still have that, per chance? And in working order?
agentorange
Did you visit the website that I gave you
www.worldwideflood.com
and spend anythime there?
Also, when I went to high school there was no such thing as a computer as a part of our education. We didn't even have calculators. Slide rules were used for our science courses or we calculated everything by hand using trig tables, natural log and base 10 log tables, and etc. In college, still slide rules ruled the day for science and engineering students. I didn't get a scientific calculator (HP 35) until my senior yr in college. I am computer illiterate. You can't know everything. I am no less of a person because my knowledge is ultra limited.
In the end, the only inportant thing is to know Jesus Christ for He is the only One who can give you forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Yes, I worked for NASA but I was not involved with computer engineering. I was in the engineering department and worked in the Remote Maniuputlator System (RMS) group. We wrote computer programs in Fortran to simulate the real world functions of the RMS, its supporting subsytems, and the dynamics of the payloads while secured in the cargo bay, attached to the RMS, and as free flyers.
Argentorangex, regarding you question about the ark how do you define explanation or logical reasoning? Before an explanation can be given you must first qualify what will be accepted as logical or reasonable. Almost all things will regress back to faith in something whether it is the non-existence of those things explicable by the scientific method or whether it be faith in a higher power. Eventually even science fails to explain things, and by that I do not mean that our current science fails explain things, there are just some phenomena that science is incapable of explaining.
So, my request is that you qualify what you consider to be logical.
agentorange
I do not have the answers to your questions about the number of animals on Noah's Ark, how the food was stored, how the animal and human waste was disposed of, and etc..
However, I know the God who wrote the Word of God. Jesus said in John 17:17 that the Word of God is truth. I accept that by faith. God's Word says that God had Noah build an Ark of certain dimensions and that God caused the animals to go on the boat when the time came for them to do so. I accept all this by faith.
God gave us clues in how He created the heavens and the earth in the Word of God. I accept this by faith.
The Word of God does not allow for macro-evolution. God says in His Word that He created each kind of plant life, fish, birds, land animals, and human life after its own kind. Each creation was unique. I accept this by faith.
You accept evolution by faith as well. Abiogensisists have no clue on how life came to be. They cannot describe how the inanimate became animate. Abiogeneists nor evolutionists have any evidence/proof that life started out as a single cell organism. Evolutionists cannot explain the process of how this single cell orgainsm, for which you have no proof or evidence that life started out that way, changed over time to become plant life, fish, birds, reptiles, animals, and then people. Those of your persuation only accept by faith that it was so.
You have no laborartory proof of any of the claims of the abiogensists or evolutionists. Scientists have yet to create life from chemicals that have no life let alone taking that life and showing how it changed to create all the other forms of life. Until you can do that you have nothing more than fanciful ideas about it all and it takes more faith to believe in your ideas than it takes to believe that a supreme being who has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and understanding can create the heavens and the earth and all the forms of life that He created.
Don't require of me what you yourself cannot not do.
agentorange
Most of the thoughs that I have posted on the different articles on CP are my own. They are not a repeat of what I have heard from other people. Most of my stuff is original to me.
However, the same can not be said about you. Almost all if not all you say here on CP is nothing more than a repeat of what someone else has said. I have not seen anything original from you. All you do is repeat what has been spoon fed to you.
star2, left you something on the 'end of evolution' thread. I would really appreciate a straight forward answer, explanation or logical reasoning on how Noah managed to cram the 6 + million species (recall YOU said 'species = kind' so you're stuck with that) onto the Ark and care for them all. Cheers.
argyle86 - I am 60 yrs old.
MuggleBorn - I know how to program in FORTRAN, Basic++, and assembly language for the PDP.
johnzon, He told us through the words of His written Word the Bible and through His Son, Jesus Christ.
argyle86, yes it rules, but it's relative importance and need wouldn't be so great if say we only required 1-2 hours. zzzzz, night folks.
my dad used to be in the military and worked in underground intellegance facilities, yet my older brother has oftent been the one to show him how to do things on a PC.
Speaking of bloodshot eyes, off to bed I go.
Good night all. Johnzon, hope to speak with you again.
I'll keep you all in my prayers.
God bless and good night.
asfor a 3 hour functional sleep, all i can say is i love sleep. Naps rule too. SLEEP FTW!
argyle86, I can see your point in the generation example, but in the end life is in principle about learning, so if she (or anyone for that matter) would prefer her knowledge spoon fed to her as opposed to having the more prefered enriching experience of figuring it out for herself and getting the 'ah ha' momment, well that I won't applaud. Teach a man how to fish, right? =)
argyle86,
star2 actually worked for Nasa at one time. I never asked her, but if she worked on any software, I'd guess it would be on a VAX or HP 10.20 using Fortran, Cobol, or CMS2 ... *shudder*
star2, if you've ever worked with any form of assembly or touched a AN/UYK-43, I feel your pain :)
Dude you dont know what its like to have a 65 year old lady with bloodshot eyes scream at you because you ran out of "dome" lids and that she will have to settle for "flat" lid on her styrofoam coffee cup for one morning...
It wasn't hard however i am 22 and from other articals where i have read stars posts i conclude that star is older(not pointing it out as a means of offence). my generation has had the libirty of growing up with the internet. I wouldnt expect my parents to know how either. I guess what im saying what might be common knowlege to my generation may differ from that another.
MuggleBorn, I wont try, and honestly I don't think I have, abused it. I used a few times more or less to spite the thumbs down and to show that it as a feature doesn't negate a good reasoned argument. SOAP huh, well mgmt, at least the non-technical type, never seem to understand the acronyms let alone the technology, so talking to one in that manner isn't productive it would seem. Still, your analogy was well put, if not spot on. Touche`
argyle86 , speaking of coffee and all, I do wish someday scientists would figure out a way to allow for us to function on say 1-2 hours of sleep, we could a whole lot more productive in our affairs. Just a thought, but what would be the omnipotence in requiring on average some 6-8 hours of sleep per night? If it can be done in any manner, why make it nearly a 1/3 of a day, seems like a wastefull design.
AgentOrange ... that was pretty cool. It should've occurred to me when I'd first done it once from work, then from home.
argyle86, wasn't that hard, took what 5 minutes right?
Star for whatever reason didn't want to look it up, she wanted to have it spoon fed to her.
argyle86 ... Just don't go nuts with it. It would be too much like turning lead into gold. It'll destroy the world thumb standard. Bloggers everywhere will be in emotional chaos.
Seriously though ... don't abuse it :)
I know how. *Giggles*
Star,
"MuggleBorn - our buddy agentorange gave me multiple thumbs down for something and gave himself multiple tumbs up for his response to me in just a few seconds."
Ahhh. wana know why Star? It was b/c on here *someone* felt instead of making a objection based on evidence or reasoning that using a thumb up/down switch would suffice. Talke about cowardice.
"I asked him how he did it. He said it has to do with the cookies and that it was something an IT person would know how to do."
I basically told you how Star, I said cookies, all you then had to do was go to Google or open a computer book and read what they refer to, how they work, and so on, this isn't high level stuff here and one certainly doesn't have to be in IT to comprehend it.
"I would love to use it against him someday."
Hate, fear, greed, revenege....the Dark Side this is.
OHHHHH coffee, i wish there was a way to make coffee addicts nicer to me in the morning.
I work at a convience store in my town and EVERYONE goes there for their fix. Overnight withdrawl makes them CRAZY!
And please dont take my words like equation and principals as literal. Christianity just has given me answers on the topics of those things where science has not...
When the LHC is finally up and running, I've heard that it's going to make the BEST MIND-BLOWING CUP OF COFFEE in the WHOLE UNIVERSE.
Way better than Starbucks.
Johnzon, I like to think of it in weird toy analogies. The limits of science and what's observable is like the difference between Duplos(TM) and Legos(TM). Right now we can see and manipulate the duplos. We have some theories that legos exist, and maybe someday advances in science with projects like the LHC will let us play with them, but we will never have any hope of understanding the full nature of the factory that makes those legos, or the president of the company that designed them :^)
MuggleBorn
I look forward to hearing from you. I'm tired and off to bed.
star2, LOL!
I have a clue ... I'll look that up when I can.
BTW, sorry I haven't contacted you. I have some new stuff, some ... not tremendous, but okay (my folks), some not so good, and some so-so.
Good to hear from you.
Im fine with that, sciencehas not yet given me an equation on how to find purpose in life or a theory that explains existance in itself or the propeties of whats good and whats evil. However religion/christianity has. If science makes you feel as good as my faith in God does for me than good for you, at least we can both feel great in this life, but should you enter into a tough time in your life as we all do I pray that you consider Jesus Christ.
johnzon,
>> Believer <God's eternal, always been and always will be.>
And you know this how???? <<
It's based on historical testimony. Jesus referred to God the Father in ways that support the Torah scriptures. And the Canonical Gospels and some extra-biblical references establish that Jesus existed. The Gospels attest to the miracles He performed and His resurrection AND assention.
Once Jesus' credibility is established, then anything He says about God can also be trusted. There's also historically accountable support of biblical prophecy related to known historical events (Alex the Great is one)... I'll have to dig up the info for that.
believer, unless you would like to take the reigns on any of it ;^)
MuggleBorn - our buddy agentorange gave me multiple thumbs down for something and gave himself multiple tumbs up for his response to me in just a few seconds. I asked him how he did it. He said it has to do with the cookies and that it was something an IT person would know how to do. Email me and let me know if you know what needs to be done to the cookie to make that happen. I would love to use it against him someday.
MuggleBorn, I hear you, I am addicted to caffeine, makes me a little crazy sometimes, actually if I dont get it by 8 AM, I am in trouble.
MuggleBorn, I'm interested in the "low-level". Give me a book on QM or GR, the Bible is not interesting at all to me.
Johnzon, BTW I'm not ripping on you. I've just had way too much caffeine, today.
Read my previous post about determinism, a few posts back. Contemplate it for a while, and keep an open mind.
Johnzon,
>> MuggleBorn, The Bible really says nothing of substance about creation. <<
Like I said ... CEO level :^)
Can you imagine how big the Bible would be if it went into detail about the technical details of the creation of the universe.
My manager's eyes glaze over when I start using phrases like multi-thread object classes, or data abstraction when presenting status on an object-oriented application, illustrated here by this UML doc, and if we interface this supplier-consumer model using Simple Object Adaptor Protocol, and not Common Object Request Broker Architecture, then the IRS specs are not going to match the SRS specs, and that of course will FUBR our SUM.
...understand ;^)
So, uuuuh yeah. The Bible is "high-level".
argyle86 and MuggleBorn, You stick with the religion thing, I prefer the science.
Believer <God's eternal, always been and always will be.>
And you know this how????
argyle86 :^) Amen.
MuggleBorn, The Bible really says nothing of substance about creation.
Muggle, Great minds think alike ;)
About childbirth:
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16
Johnzon,
>> So, why didnt God do a better job of developing the child birthing process,<<
Gen 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
Sin (our rebellion) is responsible for all our pain and suffering. We threw things OUT of balance. We spoiled it for ourselves ... enticed by the devil, but under our own accountability.
Johnzon,
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".
Since God created the universe and the rules that govern it, it's safe to assume that He is not bound by the same laws we are bound to within the scope of a matter-space-time continuum. Meaning that He would have existed before the universe, for lack of a better term, forever.
No one here is attempting to discredit scientific study, but we tend to keep a perspective that theories are only testable within the scope of our environment, resources, and cumulative understanding.
The ultimate truth is by far way too complicated for us to completely understand how everything came about. The Bible explains it to us at CEO level :)
johnzon, God's eternal, always been and always will be.
Prophet, So, why didnt God do a better job of developing the child birthing process, there was a lot of death and suffering during child birth before modern science came along.
johnzon,
The past couple hundred years, people have discovered how God put creation together. How do we keep from flying off the earth? Because God created gravity to keep us here. How do the planets revolve around the sun? Because God created centrifugal (sp?) force to balance out the gravity from the sun.
And the list goes on and on. And as science discovers how God has placed things, and how he created it to run, atheists say that it proves God doesn't exist...
Believer, How/what created God?
johnzon, nothing didn't create everything, God created everything to include all true science which makes this a scientific answer since the creator of all true science created it.
covermedown, I find your post interesting in the way you discredit science. In the last several centuries science has advanced mans understanding of the world around us and brought tremendous advances in medical technology and medications that have improved the lives of millions. 100 years ago, death of the mother and child were common place during child birth. It was common for parents to lose multiple children to diseases that are easily treated today with antibiotics. Millions were crippled with polio before the development of vaccines. Today with modern medicine, death during child birth are no longer common place, bacterial infections are easily treated with antibiotics and polio has been eradicate in most countries. Where did these wonders come from? Science of course. In the mean time, what has religion brought to the advancement of mankind? Very little from what I can see. Christians are pretty much having the same discussions they were having 1000 and 2000 years ago- heaven & hell and the promised paradise after death if you believe in the correct dogma. Religion is in constant catch-up to science in order to remain relevant to the masses. Science doesn't care about religion. Science advances, religion keeps rehashing the same material over and over again.
Interesting questions ten10 for which I'm sure you have answers for. How about I make it easy for you and just have you provide answers for a few of the questions. And please supply references (scientific) to your answers.
1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. How did nothing create everthing?
Pro-Science. I'm lookin at you, man. Most Christians and other faithful contemplate this stuff hard. Atheism does not have a monopoly on enlightened thought.
Gotta go make pizza. Mmmmmm!
Prophet,
>> Pardon my non-geekness (lol) but what do you mean by determinism? <<
No prob my non-geeky Christian brother :^)
It's essentially the theory that everything that happens is the result of something else ... pretty straightforward, except that it's a point of contention as to whether or not we have free will, because our thoughts and actions are simply reactions to our environment, based on years of evolution, electro-chemical (and theoretically quantum or meta-physical?) reactions in our brains, being bored, etc.
I should have said, "What caused the presumably deterministic course of the universe, and any multi-verse|brane-world|bigfatmetabubble|whatever?", but it wouldn't have sounded comically geeky enough :^)
The discussion I was hoping to start, is that if there were no God, and the universe and whatever quantum "loopy" entity were completely deterministic, then what heck started it all?
Sir Isaac Newton (a Christian) postulated that every action has an equal but opposite reaction, akin to the basic principle of determinism ... so philisophically speaking, "what was the first action?"
... and GO!
"What if a God is there after all?"
There is a God. It lives in the minds of cowardly people who are willing to believe any nonsense because they are terrified of reality.
"I know this because I used to take that same position until God showed me something better."
Did Mr. God call you on the telephone or did it show up at your house?
Your childish imagination does not impress me.
Steveh20, pro-science and johnzon, I am pleased that you have been bold enough to comment so atheistically or agnsotically as you have so far.It forces us Christians to dig into our reservoirs of knowledge and understanding to share what we know is God's truth to you.
Unfortunately, our quoting scriptures to you will make no difference if you are adamant that it is nonsense.But we don't need to, our solution is revealed in your answers.
What is the purpose of existence?: You say "To have fun. To leave the world a better place ..." and "Who said there had to be a purpose?".This suggests that either you have not looked or you have given up looking for purpose.It seems that you have taken life at face value only and not sought life's real truths.I know this because I used to take that same position until God showed me something better.
You have the benefit of seeing the proof of creation all around you,you have the gift (do you see it as a gift?) of life,so you have constant evidence of our God in sight.You use the sciences as foundation for your beliefs,but science is incomplete.
E.g, science to date cant identify or reproduce the source of this power that gives every human,animal and plant life and the ability to grow. It cannot yet rationalise where all this matter in our universe came from or even how it is composed at its most fundamental level. Do you know why this is?At the root of it all,scientific reasoning is limited by our human capacity to understand.But after the logic of science has run out, you either have to give up searching,or you have to employ faith.Faith is where our foundation is;after we have reasoned out to the end of our understanding,we accept God by faith.And our starting step of faith really is "Maybe there is a God after all".
God tells us and we believe that our life has a purpose,this comes after our knowledge that there is a God who created us. This is what he said: our purpose is to please Him.How do we do that? By transforming our lives into what He says will please Him, and we trust Him to meet our needs in so doing. Why should we do that? Because without His input into our very existence, let alone the satisfaction of existing, there would be nothing of us. That is something to be forever thankful for and to praise Him for. And why did He do it? Because He loves us all, His greatest creation, even those of us who don't love Him, with a greater love than we give to Him.
For your own sake stop hiding behind the incompleteness of science and your own logic,the answers for life do not lie there. Ask yourself the question "What if a God is there after all?" He is waiting to answer that for you if you look for Him. You have nothing to lose in looking for Him; you will still have life for as long as you have it. But if you find Him, there is so much more He will give you. That's a can't-lose proposition if ever there was one.
muggle,
Pardon my non-geekness (lol) but what do you mean by determinism?
... I'm such a geek ;^)
Hey, this might get off topic, but I was just wondering. What caused determinism?
pro,
"What a disgusting evil sick mind you have."
Atheists are worse...
pro, good to see you back since add so much fire to these discussions, but as cold as chh's post was there is much truth in what he says with regards to the final destiny of people who refuse to come into a personal relationship with God through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone. But needless to say you already know that and hopefully and prayerfully you'll come to acknowledge that by receiving Christ as your Savior someday soon, but in the mean time I'll look forward to your feisty posts.
chh0419 wrote "However, those who do not believe there is a God and then find out when it's too late, well, they are toast, literally and figuratively."
What a disgusting evil sick mind you have.
argyle,
Amen.
steveh20, London is a great city or at least it was in the 80s, I went several times as a result of running for the Air Force and the events we at bases near London, but we took our son when he was about a year and a half and the folks at the hotel and other places treated him royally, no pun intended, and he had a ball chasing pigeons in the park. I'm sure like any city there are bad neighborhoods, but all we encountered were very positive experiences and like you said a person or family can have a good time with out spending much money.
and even if the signs are right, i belive christians still win. So our existance, experiences, memories and lives just end into painless oblivion, we will still be remembered as people who stepped away from our own needs and wants to help others who werent as lucky as us and provided them with food, water, and shelter. When others went through famines, earthquakes, and other terrors of this world, we donated our money, time and energy to help people live again. We wont be remebered as people who said: "it sucks to be them" and walked on by. To be honest, if my faith is in a lie, I will still die happy knowing I made a difference in the lives of others who were in need.
I flagged myself for some typos..
prophet is spot on, christanity will never cease, as long as the human race persists there will be christianity, those who predict its end are simply wrong. Whether it will be the same as today is another matter though.
The key word in their message is "probably". So if I am right and there is a God and I have Jesus as my savior then I am just fine. If I am wrong no problem still. However, those who do not believe there is a God and then find out when it's too late, well, they are toast, literally and figuratively. I'm going to be fine regardless, I have Christ as my savior. Like someone else said, much bigger and more powerful people through the ages have tried to destroy Christianity. It is still here and always will be.
If the signs come to be, every Christian British citizen should lay their hands on it and pray.
propscience,
Over the past 2000 years greater men than you have tried to rid the world of Christianity, and countless more have "predicted" it's demise. Still, it is here, stronger than ever, growing. So I'm wondering who really has their head in fantasy land....
"It is well known that Christianity is in decline in the United Kingdom and across Europe."
Good riddance.
ten a
1.Beginning of what?
2.The sun will expand burning everything
3.Most likely nothing
4.Who said there had to be a purpose?
5.Haven't a clue what you are going on about
6.Because society with order survive, those with out don't.
7.Why should they not have?
8.Does everybody have the same sort of conscienece?
9.As I don't know the conditions before the big bang I can't comment on it, so I can't say there was nothing, apparently you can and do.
10. I'd go for the egg but most likely quite some time before the chicken and it belonged to another sort of creature.
Lets give you 3/10 for effort shall we. Don't see me, I have important things to deal with.
From ten10's list of 10 questions: "What happens after death?"
Any child could answer that question. The animal decomposes and the smell is horrible. Nothing else happens.
Some cowardly gullible people believe the people animals have a soul that flies up to heaven. This is a childish myth that doesn't belong in the 21st century.
I will try to answer the other questions.
What was in the beginning?
If you mean what was there before the Big Bang, my answer would be "I don't know" and "I don't care". Christians like to stick their god-of-the-gaps in there but that childish idea has never solved any scientific problem.
How will life on earth end?
That's easy. Near the end of our sun's life about 5 billion years from now the sun will explode and all life on earth will go extinct.
What is the purpose of existence?
To have fun. To leave the world a better place than it was before you were born. Everyone has a different answer because this is a decision everyone has to make for themselves.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
Creation is a bad word to use because that implies everything was magically created which is a childish medieval idea. What order are you talking about? The universe is trying to kill us.
Why there is morality in every civilization?
Because if people were not civilized they would not be happy.
Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Speak for yourself. I don't believe in fairies. Some people believe in the Magic Fairy because they were never able to recover from their religious brainwashing and because they are too lazy to think.
Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
See my answer to "Why there is morality in every civilization?"
How did nothing create everything?
No scientist ever made that claim. See my answer to "What was in the beginning?"
Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
The egg. Chickens evolved from other animals, and they probably share ancestors with the extinct dinosaurs.
argyle, I fancied a day out in London, so I went. It cost me £10.00 for a cheap day return by train and took me about 50 minutes to get there. I was only gone for about 8 hours so my family did not miss me to much but when I got home we all went out for a chinese....Nice.
Johnzon,
Id love to go see london and know it exists, however, in order for me to do that I need to be willing to "give up" a lot of money to get a plane ticket, and deal with a long wait on an airplane to get there (if it even exisits), "learn" to accept the differences that otheresthere might have from me, and well it would take time out of my life i already have to go and know that the UK is real and not just a fairy tale in a book. Same kinda goes when you want to learn about God and how he exists, you have to learn to "give up" sin, and take time out of your life to learn about who exactly God is. People would miss me if i left to see the UK, and you know people miss who i was before i left to learn about God's plan. It takes a sacrifice of yourself, im not going to lie about that. Perhaps thats what non-belivers are afraid of. But what can you lose from giving up things that lead to death? And what can you gain?
Repent,and endure, and have some faith, and you might be suprised at how real God is....
I happened on this on the website /www.christianworldviewnetwork.com
Questions Atheists Can’t Answer
1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. What happens after death?
4. What is the purpose of existence?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
9. How did nothing create everything?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
There was once a man called Moses, he asked GOD to let him see His (GOD's) face. GOD told this man as great a man as there ever was that he could not see HIS face because he would die, but that he could see GOD's back.It is a very foolish thing to want what what could only kill you.
"But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live."
21 And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock.
22 "So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by.
23 "Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." Exodus 33:20-23
johnzon, no your eternal separation from God in hell will be a matter of you, not God, refusing to enter into a personal relationship with Him through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone. You see it's God's desire that all would be saved by coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The choice of where you will spend eternity is totally up to you and no one else. But the good news for you is that God believes in you regardless of the fact that you don't believe in Him.
hlerwin, well at least its good to see you're no longer pretending to be a Christian since you have absolutely no concern for the spiritual well being of lost people.
'Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess,.....
Because, Rachel, it is so intriguing to observe people who are delusional. Most religions have advocates such as the one who said: "johnzon, tell that to God when you appear before Him at the Judgement Seat, that He can't be since there was no "scientific" evidence proving Him. Plus, you don't need to go see Him He's right there where you are!:)"
It's just too rich to ignore! The things peoplecan come up with!
I have to wonder whether friend Johnzon is maybe playing devil's advocate; otherwise, I'm not sure why, if he is really an unbeliever in the one true Living God, he would be wasting his time reading the Christian Post?
Elusivepete-GOOD ONE!
WOW, if you look into a newborn's eyes, look at a sunset, see the ocean waves come and go, and still believe that there is no God, then my heart goes out to you. What's the saying; "Faith is believing without seeing." Just for the record, I have seen the face of Satan, and he is ONE UGLY S.O.B.
believer, So your opinion is that if I dont believe in god, then god will punish me for that on "judgement day"? I don't think so.
johnzon, tell that to God when you appear before Him at the Judgement Seat, that He can't be since there was no "scientific" evidence proving Him. Plus, you don't need to go see Him He's right there where you are!:)
elusivepete, Ah, but Richard Dawkins does exist. How about this, we can go together to visit him at University of Oxford, chat with him a bit. Then, after that, you can take me to where god hangs out out and we can all chat.
While waiting to catch a flight from Bahrain
to London, I met five ladies from Holland while they
were returning from Sri.Lanka. When I asked them a
question about God, they said in one accord " we don't
need God's help to run our affairs, we can handle it
by ourselves". While flying from London to Muscat, one
young lady (German) was sitting with me and she was going to
spend the summer time in Bangalore, India. When I shared
about Jesus, she said the same thing. I told her "one day you need God", before my disembarking in Muscat. I
saw tears coming in her eyes, and I am not sure, why
she felt emotional!. When everything goes well, most
of the people don't care or seek God, but when adverse
situations takes place, all of them will say " there may
be a God" and some of them will try to seek Him in detail. As the world economy is rocking, many will be
seeking to find Him shortly. One small island called
Britain ruled the world, now she lost her might and glory, but still a majority of them think that
they rule the world; so they don't need God to handle
their affairs.
argyle86, There is a place called Britian, I have been there. If you would like, I can take you there to show you. In return, may I impose on you to take me to see god?
London buses may soon be plastered with ads proclaiming “There’s probably no God,”
Seems to me a perfectly reasonable statement to make considering there is really no scientific data to support the existence of a god OR gods. Thats not to say I am an atheist, because it is after all difficult to prove a negative. So I would have to say, there might be a god OR gods, but there probably isn't. I'm OK with it either way. If in the event god does exist and god even cares what lowly humans think of it, I dont believe god will hold it against anyone for not believing considering we really have no data to support such a conclusion.
They’re probably wrong but…
In as much as our organization exists to teach people of the character of God, we do, of course, disagree with the philosophy that "There probably is no God..."
Never-the-less, so long and they do not demean others as they express their beliefs, atheists have as much right to publicly express themselves as others.
We cling to God's promise that "...he rewards those who EARNESTLY seek him" Hebrews 11:6, and we testify to the fulfillment of that promise.
David
“Helping change lives one bus ride at a time”
David Harrison, President
Bus Stop Bible Studies
There's probly no Britain either.. I've never been outside of the US so i cant put faith that anywhere else REALLY exists, even though there were books that i read in school about other places just because it's in a "BOOK" i cant have any faith that the place or people exist, the idea of belife in something i read in a book and learned about as a child existing is completly obsurd and childish...
"There's probably no God" doesn't sound very definitive, does it?"
GoldenEagle. I was reading another article about this and they chose the word "probably" because the bus companies won't carry anything that offends religious people. While "There is no God" is false I have a problem that they could't print it on a bus. Atheists are right when they say there is a double standard. I can post There is a God and they should be able to say that there isn't. I think the best way to bring people to God is an honest conversation and not allowing the otherside to say what they believe makes our side look like the weaker position. We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we've made bus companies think that Athiests saying "There is no God" will offend us and can't be printed on their buses.
This ad seems fair enough, I was waiting on the tube line for a train the other day and on the wall across from the platform where posters with scriptures on them so if its okay for those to go up its okay for this ad to as well. I'm not sure that either does any good really anyway.
"The slogan is the brainchild ...." that quote is already funny.
Wow. They raised ALLLLL that money for people to have to think about God. Cool. There message is wrong, they are wrong, but at least "they be getting peeps to be thinkin'" about GOD. wooohoooo.
We all know what one means for harm, GOD can use for good. GOD ROCKS!!!!!!
Let's all group together to start our own advertising campaign:
"There's probably no Richard Dawkins."
It's a perfectly reasonable slogan. I've never met him, therefore he probably doesn't exist.
Spurgeon and Wesley would weep to see how greatly faith has declined in the United Kingdom. From all the news articles throughout America, can we be far behind? This is troubling and while we may excuse it as "signs of the times", it should make all believers want to reach out and speak up about God's love towards us through Jesus Christ. Silence is not always "golden".
You're exactly right MuggleBorn.Well said!!
GoldenEagle,
>> "There's probably no God" doesn't sound very definitive, does it? <<
It's better than that, GE. It sounds wishy-washy.
Not to mention that people have already said things like:
"There will probably never be a terrorist attack in the U.S.".
"New Orleans will probably not get hit by that hurricane".
"The realestate market will probably never come back down".
etc.
In all seriousness, it may actually get people thinking more about the opposite of what the ads intent is; that maybe there are aspects of ones life that keeps them from having a relationship with a God who most probably does exist.
The spoiler ... He exists. Pray to Him :^)
The silver lining of this story is that God can use it to light a fire under His Church in England to take a stand not only for God but specifically the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ. I pray it will be used of God to bring a Great Revival in all of Great Britain and in turn bring a Great Spiritual Awakening as well that will not only impact Great Britain but the world!
People get ready!! Next is America, the nation where many call themselves Christians, but have no love for the Word of God and living for Him. Our Christians today are self-willed and pleasure seekers of the 21st Century. Line up behind England, once the greatest Christian nation, they have fallen. With all our seeker friendly churches and works based faith programs, no sound doctrine with godly living, we are in great danger and our country needs to Repent, oops I can't say that word to Christian America, Repent from there sins, oops I said Sin.
Print it all you want, doesn't change the truth of "I Am That I Am"
"There's probably no God" doesn't sound very definitive, does it? Good post, ronwilson4u, and thanks for the link.Very good!!
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
France tried setting aside their belief in God and elevating the "the goddess of reason" during the French Revolution; we all know how that turned out . . .
Stalin and Hitler agreed with Dawkins that religion is no good and we can live based on "reason". Dawkins... the same guy who thinks aliens planted us here on earth (its the only explanation he has faced with the evidence of a creation event only a few billion years ago).. yea, he's a "thinker" alright... Abandonment of true Christian principles has led to more death and destruction and unhappiness that can virtually be counted... millions of aborted babies won't even get the chance to "reason" with dawkins, and millions of people slaughtered by Stalin can never experience these "shared human values"
Do you think that there is any correlation between articles such as this, and Sharia Law getting a strong foothold in this country?