Oh oh that's it for big bossman, Bro' Keith has him in his sights for questioning the existence of the head dude.

Interesting how religious people act as if it is up to them to keep the existence of the head dude alive. 

Interesting documentary. Some of the timeline vary from what I previously thought but the general scientific arguments are in harmony with my own understanding. I thought man came about much earlier though. This piece showed an earth that existed for a very long time before the existence of human.

ksazma posted:

 This piece showed an earth that existed for a very long time before the existence of human.

But not before the Gecom dude, Patterson ...right?

cain posted:

ksazma posted:

 This piece showed an earth that existed for a very long time before the existence of human.

But not before the Gecom dude, Patterson ...right?

That GECOM dude older than God. 

I remember reading somewhere that the human existence is some 600 million years old but even so, there was a lot of time when we, the lords of the earth was not in charge of it. This documentary also showed that the earth has experienced many instances of heating and cooling which bring into question how much attention we should give to global warming. We do see the mighty Dinosaur being destroyed by changes in the earth's atmosphere and we are no match for the mighty dinosaur. 

Its science verses religion 

Amral posted:

Its science verses religion 

Science is more provable. Religions mainly exist in the minds and their faithful. That said, the imagery was quite impressive.

I still wonder though why was the earth created so different from the other planets

Amral posted:

I still wonder though why was the earth created so different from the other planets

Is it because of the moon's gravitational pull and the sun's proximity? If the moon disappears today, the earth would be in a wobbly orbit and life would be different on earth. We are lucky!

The founder of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a First Cause for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course but which argument doesn’t? Every argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound; however that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another logic appears. Who is more valid? Mine? Yours? For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One solution is to consider that by design. Another solution would be to consider that pure luck as Skeldon_Man mention. Which one sounds more logical? Skeldon_Man seem to be claiming that the universe may exist just because...but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!

The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

Science as we know is defined as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Science is what we use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. Our faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. We should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the "priests of science" who put human knowledge above God.

Religion is man made. God is no different than Zumbie, we never see ,but we are scared.

 In a modern society, less and less people believe in god and organise religion, people are more educated.

I hope no one tries to say the Smurfs isn't real.

cain posted:

I hope no one tries to say the Smurfs isn't real.

It's  all in your head.

Keith posted:

How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching?

In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

When did the search stop? Are you the only person they told?

The church takes exponentially more than it has or ever will give. Your comparison is nonsense. The church is an organization that takes and returns a little, ensuring the little it returns is well advertised. Science is not an organization that takes under threat. What is it supposed to give?

Keith posted:

The founder of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a First Cause for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course but which argument doesn’t? Every argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound; however that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another logic appears. Who is more valid? Mine? Yours? For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One solution is to consider that by design. Another solution would be to consider that pure luck as Skeldon_Man mention. Which one sounds more logical? Skeldon_Man seem to be claiming that the universe may exist just because...but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!

The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

You might think this is hypocrisy. Skeldon_Man was not and is not being brainwashed and told what to think. You need to think objectively. The bible is not the final say in our lives. It was written by rich men to exploit the poor and unfortunate. If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit. How can life exist on earth? Please think outside the box.

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

The founder of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a First Cause for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course but which argument doesn’t? Every argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound; however that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another logic appears. Who is more valid? Mine? Yours? For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One solution is to consider that by design. Another solution would be to consider that pure luck as Skeldon_Man mention. Which one sounds more logical? Skeldon_Man seem to be claiming that the universe may exist just because...but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!

The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

You might think this is hypocrisy. Skeldon_Man was not and is not being brainwashed and told what to think. You need to think objectively. The bible is not the final say in our lives. It was written by rich men to exploit the poor and unfortunate. If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit. How can life exist on earth? Please think outside the box.

Who are the "rich men" you are referring too the bible was written by? Where is your evidence to support your statement?

As you have stated, "If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit". How was this set in placed? Someone knows what they were doing wouldn't you say...that someone being God, the creator of everything.

Psalm 8
O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.

² Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

³ When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

⁴ What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

The founder of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a First Cause for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course but which argument doesn’t? Every argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound; however that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another logic appears. Who is more valid? Mine? Yours? For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One solution is to consider that by design. Another solution would be to consider that pure luck as Skeldon_Man mention. Which one sounds more logical? Skeldon_Man seem to be claiming that the universe may exist just because...but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!

The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

You might think this is hypocrisy. Skeldon_Man was not and is not being brainwashed and told what to think. You need to think objectively. The bible is not the final say in our lives. It was written by rich men to exploit the poor and unfortunate. If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit. How can life exist on earth? Please think outside the box.

Who are the "rich men" you are referring too the bible was written by? Where is your evidence to support your statement?

As you have stated, "If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit". How was this set in placed? Someone knows what they were doing wouldn't you say...that someone being God, the creator of everything.

Psalm 8
O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.

² Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

³ When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

⁴ What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Someone knows what they were doing wouldn't you say...that someone being God, the creator of everything.

Just like they claimed that Moses parted the Red Sea and Sodom and Gomorrah? Two natural phenomena.
Someone being God should not be referenced as "THEY". How about HE or SHE?

Did you find who were the rich men that wrote the bible?

Keith posted:

Did you find who were the rich men that wrote the bible?

Yeah! The bloodsuckers who hid their sins behind God. You know people like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart. 

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

Did you find who were the rich men that wrote the bible?

Yeah! The bloodsuckers who hid their sins behind God. You know people like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart. 

Well that explains your ignorance of the Bible by claiming folks such as Swaggart and Baker to be authors of the Bible.

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

Did you find who were the rich men that wrote the bible?

Yeah! The bloodsuckers who hid their sins behind God. You know people like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart. 

Well that explains your ignorance of the Bible by claiming folks such as Swaggart and Baker to be authors of the Bible.

I read his post as "people like them" in other words con men who think highly of themselves, but I'm sure it was God who penned it right?

cain posted:

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

Did you find who were the rich men that wrote the bible?

Yeah! The bloodsuckers who hid their sins behind God. You know peoplelike Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart. 

Well that explains your ignorance of the Bible by claiming folks such as Swaggart and Baker to be authors of the Bible.

I read his post as "people like them" in other words con men who think highly of themselves, but I'm sure it was God who penned it right?

Low comprehension skills is a sign of extreme and dangerous biblical education. I need to get god's phone number. Since Steve Jobs died and went up there, I am sure the technology has improved and he introduced the folks "up" there to wireless communication.

antabanta posted:

Keith posted:

How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching?

In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.

When did the search stop? Are you the only person they told?

The church takes exponentially more than it has or ever will give. Your comparison is nonsense. The church is an organization that takes and returns a little, ensuring the little it returns is well advertised. Science is not an organization that takes under threat. What is it supposed to give?

I think my idrine Keith ignoring me again. Sigh.

I just thought of sharing this on Political 

Questions

How old is the earth according to the bible?

What does the bible says about the dinosaur and other extinct animals?

Did the bible ever mention where Adam and Eve went after death, did they go to heaven?

Why does every image or Jesus portray him as a white man?

Science is proving many things.

@Amral posted:

Questions

How old is the earth according to the bible?

What does the bible says about the dinosaur and other extinct animals?

Did the bible ever mention where Adam and Eve went after death, did they go to heaven?

Why does every image or Jesus portray him as a white man?

Science is proving many things.

Because he is from that era when it was only black and white. Keith would know since he found him in a mud water trench.

Jesus was a Jew. His religion was Judaism. He was a Rabbi, a teacher of Judaism.  His color would have been more Olive than black or white. He spent 12 years in India studying under various Hindu Monks. He later died in Kashmir.

@Amral posted:

Questions

How old is the earth according to the bible?

According to the Bible, the age of the Earth is not explicitly mentioned. However, some people have attempted to calculate the age of the Earth based on genealogies and chronologies provided in the Bible.

Ussher's chronology places the creation of the Earth at the nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BC, according to the Gregorian calendar. It's important to note that these calculations are not universally accepted, and many religious scholars and believers interpret the Bible differently. Additionally, scientific evidence from fields like geology, paleontology, and astronomy overwhelmingly supports an Earth that is much older than the timeline proposed by Ussher and similar calculations.

What does the bible says about the dinosaur and other extinct animals?

The Bible does not specifically mention dinosaurs or other extinct animals in a direct and explicit manner. The Bible primarily focuses on the relationship between God and humanity, providing moral and spiritual guidance rather than serving as a comprehensive scientific or historical document.

However, some people interpret certain passages in the Bible, such as descriptions of large and powerful creatures, as potential references to dinosaurs. For example, the Book of Job in the Old Testament describes a creature called Behemoth, which some suggest might be a dinosaur. Nevertheless, interpretations of these passages can vary, and not all scholars or religious individuals agree on such identifications.

It's important to approach the Bible with an understanding of its literary and cultural context. The primary purpose of the Bible is spiritual and moral guidance, and it may not necessarily address scientific topics in a detailed or systematic manner.

Did the bible ever mention where Adam and Eve went after death, did they go to heaven?

The Bible does not provide explicit details about the afterlife of Adam and Eve. The Old Testament, which includes the story of Adam and Eve, generally has limited information about the afterlife.

Why does every image or Jesus portray him as a white man?

The portrayal of Jesus as a white man in many Western depictions is largely a result of historical and cultural factors. During the Renaissance period in Europe (14th to 17th centuries), artists often depicted religious figures in a way that was relatable to their own cultural context. Many of the influential artists of that time were based in Europe, and they tended to portray biblical figures, including Jesus, in a manner that reflected the prevailing cultural norms.

Moreover, European colonialism and the spread of Christianity to various parts of the world also contributed to the image of a white Jesus.

It's important to note that historical evidence suggests that Jesus, as a historical figure, would likely have had Middle Eastern features, given the geographic and cultural context of his time. However, artistic representations have often been influenced by the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of the artists and the societies in which they lived.

Science is proving many things.

@Mitwah posted:

Jesus was a Jew. His religion was Judaism. He was a Rabbi, a teacher of Judaism.  His color would have been more Olive than black or white. He spent 12 years in India studying under various Hindu Monks. He later died in Kashmir.

He was a hippie I know the chap, he an me use fi hang out in Kitty area, is long time now I doan see him. He use fi dont like when we made gyalic poke when Christmas time hit.

Oh yeh, one time he even supposedly changed water into wine, but I know he had a liking for sorrel drink so Iman got my doubts on that one.

In India he hung out with Ravi and learned to play "Stairway to heaven" on Sitar.

@cain posted:

He was a hippie I know the chap, he an me use fi hang out in Kitty area, is long time now I doan see him. He use fi dont like when we made gyalic poke when Christmas time hit.

Oh yeh, one time he even supposedly changed water into wine, but I know he had a liking for sorrel drink so Iman got my doubts on that one.

In India he hung out with Ravi and learned to play "Stairway to heaven" on Sitar.

I thought Stairway to Heaven was reference to Gaumont.