Too bad. God doesn't believe in atheists.

The only difference between the guys who wrote the Bible and the guys who we call 'scientists' is that the scientists can handle critique.

And they have really huge and expensive machines.

For the most part, I agree. I think that a large percentage of Christian fundamentalists are an ugly breed who can't handle critisism. I say that as a Christian. Many though tend to spout some super ugly tripe and disregard a large part of God's word. I think Christ's greatest block today are many Christians. We are supposed to speak the truth in love (Ephesians) and yet so many spew hate. I can't apologize for them as I am not one. I personally believe that if Christ's ministry was today, He would hang with runaway kids with mohawks and many of the other misfits ignored by the church these days.

I also believe you're correct, BigPapa. I think there is little difference between scientists and believers. Both camps require faith.

Science called. It wants its penicillin and plasmas back from the creationists.

This is not an attack on those of Faith, but I just have a few questions.... which have been asked many times before, and I'm curious to hear your answers:

1) Who created God?

2) If everything that exists needs to be "created"... then God cannot exist without a Creator. If God does not need to be created, then why does anything require Creation?

3) If the Bible is Fact, which Bible version do you read? There are clearly differences between different versions of the text. Which one is the Truth?

4) If the Bible is Fact, does that mean that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

5) Because the Bible is sooo old, and so many people believe in it, does this make it true? How long does some idea need to linger on, and some story get passed down before it becomes true? According to this concept of what makes it true, when will the theories of L.Ron Hubbard (Scientology) become fact? Or how about Karma? Reincarnation? Darwin? Because the Bible is older than the Scientific Method, does that mean it is more true?

6) Do you agree that at the time when the Bible was written, most people did not live as long as they do now? Do you agree that we have much better methods of sharing knowledge, storing knowledge, and preserving knowledge now than when the Bible was written? Can you read every word of your Doctor's prescription? Before the printing press, how many errors do you think handwriting inteligibility alone caused in the Bible's text?

7) Do you agree that when the Bible was written, mankind's understanding of biology, medicine, etc was much less than we now know?

8) If you agree to number 7, don't you think that its possible that when the Bible was written, events could easily be misunderstood, because there wasn't enough knowledge?

For example, consider the Ark of the Covenant. Supposedly, this "box" emitted bolts of lightning, representing God's fury, to protect its bounty? If I could go back in time to 500 BC, or even 1000 AD, and used some basic (by today's standard) knowledge to create an electric light bulb, wouldn't I be consider a God, Devil, Angel, etc?
The necessary elements to do this were available on the Earth at that time, No?

Do you still think that lighting is God showing his anger at us? Or is it electricity? You use electicity in your job everyday. Have you harnessed God's fury?

Really, I'm just curious.

All of us must contemplate God's existance, because it is a choice made available to us in society. When I was young, I used to fight with my Dad, and argue that God/Bible etc was legit. I WANTED to believe in it, because it gave me hope, etc.. (and that's great) However, as I got older, it just became apparent to me that I could find common sense explanations to every "miracle" in the Bible, and there were so many glaring inconsistencies that the Bible became a book like any other book created by man, and God became less and less likely (at least according the Bible's interpretation).

Well actually the final science came in several years ago, that kind of nailed this whole thing down. Now remember this is the latest Science.


No human being on this planet can be anymore that 50th cousin from anyone else.


Further all women have 1 common ancestral Gene which is called the eve gene meaning there was 1 common original singular woman some time back, and she was black. Men don’t have this gene.


Mans genome is designed in such a away that we have a kind or error correcting software built in that prevents us from evolving from our present form, other than height, weight skin color and other superficial cosmetics from a scientific stand point we have always been this way.


Now this is where it gets grim, we as a species are dying because of a lack of diversity. In a few thousand years we will be gone and that’s that.


That said, considering the aforementioned facts we are very different from all other creatures on this planet, all of which have the ability to exploit spontaneous adaptation an interesting characteristic noted by scientists who discovered that Darwin was wrong about his finches, when the little birdies over the course of just two generations completely morphed them selves into a new form so as to survive extreme weather changes in their habitat which wiped out their food source.


Man unlike other natural creatures does not fit any earthly norm, for all practical purposes we fit the category of engineered organism, built for some forgotten purpose. An odd note to this, everyone’s natural body clock is exactly the same as 1 Planet Mars day.


Now this odd collection of facts is just the tip of the iceberg. But if you really want your socks to stand up by themselves go to this link and look at what they found 5000 feet above sea level and then ponder what you believe in.

[Link: wyattmuseum.com]

What saddens me the most about how this thread has morphed is that what led me to begin it was the excitement and joy at having encountered this documentary. Yet with the exception of one single corruspondant who had seen it and was as facinated with it as I was no one on either side has made the least little bit of an effort to find the documentary and either watch it or read the companion book and direct their commentaries to what the author argued and how that fit into thier cosmic vision. No one has opened their minds to the brilliance of this work and instead we have a rather trite debate on the religion of science vs the ture religion. When has the unexamened mind become a good thing? When has it become so common not merely not to read the writings of the "other side" but to dismiss them as evil and unworthy? Why has a film or a book about the common ancestry of all humanity caused a debate on the existance of god and his ( it is his, correct? ) supremacy of the Dominion of Man? [edit: spelling ]. How can you be in a profession based upon applied science and have no respect for the work of scientists? Can we not take joy in the intellectual feat and the detective story? Are we all really so close minded, our minds so ossified that anything that does not conform to some orthodox view of the world cannot be tollerated or taken in?
It was joy that led me to begin this thread, the hope that I could pass that information on to someone else and that perhaps they would have a similiar response. Yet most everyone is talking to themselves or like thinking people just like them. When did it become acceptable to be closed minded? When I'm at Fenway, I don't have to be a Redsox fan to enjoy the atmostphere. Might it not be a good idea to read the work and then comment on it? I also enoyed reading Stephen Greenblatt's " Will of the World," a non fiction work about the cultural influences that may have worked upon the mind of William Shakespeare. Hopefully, someone who did not know of this work may find some of the joys in reading that I have found without anyone else thinking that I have waved a red flag. There are times when particiaption on these boards ceases to be fun and becomes a very sad experience. [edit: added last 2 thoughts]
Alan

|

My god...it's a giant clitoris!!! I now know I've been secretly worshipping the right deity after all! Where is this wonderful place. I must take a mecca there.

I

I think you mean hajj, or pilgrimage. Mecca is a noun, not a verb.

Alan, as the first person to respond to your opening post, and probably the one who subverted your intentions, I apologize. I am sorry that you feel that this thread has gone down a "sad" road. I am of the opinion that this is something that we can discuss within the confines of this little "community". We tend towards a bright audience and participants. It's cool to discuss matters of weight but, I should have better understood your sentiment within the first post and respected it. Mea culpa for the hijack.

I have, per your urging, set my Tivo to "find" the program.

Well so is Sh%t but I take one (hopefully) every day.

BTW, Anthony I do like your above post at the top of the page. Great message.

clitoris... can that be said here at remote central? i'm going on the pilgramage for the giant clit.

ed

I was surprised that the initial reaction was to suggest that science and religion do not or cannot coexist. Genetic evidence that we come from a common (male ) ancestor neither speaks for or against biblical Truth but it is certainly consistant with Old Testament assertions.

Yet if we are to argue the nature of science and religion might we engage first with this man's argument as a first step to see if it runs counter to the assumptions heretofore argued? It's not the hijack per se but the fact that few have related their hijacked thoughts to this man's work. If I am going to argue about the veracity of Luthor's complaints oughtn't I to have read them first? If you believe the bible to be God's word revealed ought you not to read it in its original form, unfiltered by translators? I am glad you are looking for it. I do not know when it will be aired again. It is well worth the time viewing, I think.

Alan

Refer to my last post on the subject

So I don't Exist? Does that mean that I don't have to pay taxes amy more? :-}