Atheist Passions Forum







STEP 1) Click Into Any Category - STEP 2) Click NEW TOPIC - STEP 3) Post! It's that simple!
Members with accounts over 24 hours old are encouraged to click into the Introduction Area category to say hello!
Have fun!





If only science could prove them wrong...if only.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Atheist Passions Forum index -> Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feedback




feedback

Joined:
January 5, 2005
Posts: 916

PostPosted:     Post subject: If only science could prove them wrong...if only.
Reply with quote
Theologists seem to think that the planet is only 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and early man lived together at the same time. It is a shame that there is no way for science to prove them wrong. If only there was a way. Wink Rolling Eyes

If you've ever found yourself in an argument with someone who actually believed some of the things above, please share the experience. Were they actually eating paste, or sniffing glue, while having the argument with you?

Back to top

thera




thera

Joined:
March 28, 2008
Posts: 3

PostPosted:     Post subject:
Reply with quote
`Well, carbon dating proves that everything is more than 6000 years old. I am a scientist. That is usually what I say. Then, I say that they can have their theological beliefs, but I plan to stick with the evidence. If they persue it further, I usually change the subject. Nothing is gained otherwise. It takes all types of people to make this world work.

The halmark of tolerance is tolerance. I love diversity and I find it interesting that other people have different beliefs. I find it annoying and fustraiting as well. Their personal beliefs have no effect on my life nor change the facts at hand. Science eventually prevails and as long as there are those of us pushing for logic, reason, and evidence through society, we will be fine. There is no use telling someone who exists that far into the past that they are wrong. The only thing it does is cause further animosity when we really truly should be trying to come together as a society.

Back to top


murky
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject: Re: Thera,s reply.

YEAH! You articulated my exact thoughts about tolerance. I enjoy a private laugh with my family about religious folk, but, if you even as much as question some people's beliefs they wig out and never seem to like you again.
And I really don't like to be interrogated about being an Atheist in public places either, when the shoe is on my foot. So, as silly as their beliefs are, I just stay away from the subject altogether. My sister is also an Atheist. She likes to say, "It's a question of faith and I have none." This silences most of them without insulting them because they get to say that they have something that she doesn't have. They think that means that they are winning and she's losing. They don't realize that she just slipped a zinger by them because she thinks having faith is silly, so they walk off feeling smug.

Back to top


krimsa
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

What really drives me insane is the persistent remarks made by believers such as "We did not evolve from monkeys." No we didnt. In fact thats not what scientists or paleontologists or the Theory of Evolution espouses at all. Do these fundamentalist people attend traditional high schools with a normal science curriculum? I dont understand. Rolling Eyes



Back to top


thylight
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

`science cannot prove religion wrong, because religion refuses to obide by the laws of science haha, therefore I say we just disregard religion that disregards science, and pretty much all religion that tries to use science to further its own cause gets badly "owned".

Back to top

challenger360




challenger360

Joined:
August 11, 2010
Posts: 4

PostPosted:     Post subject:
Reply with quote
`weeeeeell..

here is a starting point--

To say there is nothing out there.. is that not assuming you know everything about the entire universe and how it works to say that?

Isn't it far better logic to at least say.. 'It is at least slightly possible' that there is a God?

Now.. as for believing in 6,000 years for the age of the earth.. well.. there are evidences around the world that support this. For example.. fossilised trees lieing vertically through layers of rock supposed to be very very old.. it is obvious they plainly are not old-- you don't get fossilised trees going through layers of millions of years. The same thing goes for fossilised fish.. all together - in states of spasm and contortion... this looks like sudden burial, no?

Also.. you get fossilised fish in rocks.. going across the rock.. across layers.. supposed to be very very old.. like millions of years of time.. obviously the rock can't be that old!

Now.. I admit that creationists have the problem of a lack of evidence of actually proving young ages.. since alot of their data comes from poking holes in evolutionary long ages rather than actually finding young earth dating really conclusively..

BUT.. the long ages for evolution also are missing a whole lot of evidence.. with a lack of intermediary fossils.. sudden appearance of whole life forms.. the law of decay not working in favour of macro-evolution of species.. etc etc..

So yes I am a fundamentalist, conservative, independent baptist christian who believes the bible completely.. with a young earth 6 to 10 thousand years old.. but my faith is not blind..

There are some solid evidences using real science.. the kind of science that is just about plain truth. The bible is not a scientific book.. no.. but it is historical.. and it's references to nature need not be myth.





Back to top

flaviusaetius




flaviusaetius

Joined:
August 15, 2010
Posts: 4

PostPosted:     Post subject:
Reply with quote
challenger360 wrote:
`weeeeeell..

here is a starting point--

To say there is nothing out there.. is that not assuming you know everything about the entire universe and how it works to say that?

Isn't it far better logic to at least say.. 'It is at least slightly possible' that there is a God?


Yes it is, and some of our greatest minds like Einstein and Stephen Hawkins agree.

Science cannot and will never be able to disprove the existance of a creator, as long as there are gaps in our knowlege those gaps are going to be filled by religion because that's what we do, we want to know why we're here and if we can't figure it out logically, or if we don't like the logical answer we'll make something up.

We know that all the particles that make up the universe was once compressed into tiny space (perhaps held together by a superforce that broke down into the forces we know today) and it suddently expanded faster than light apparently defying all known laws of physics, now we know that space can expand faster than light so no laws where broken, but that's all we know.

Where do the particles come from? Why did it exploded? Science has some theories to explain it, and some swear by them even though there's no solid evidence, so they believe it by faith and it is not much different than your believes in god.

Now, saying that I believe in the possibility of a creator doesn't mean that I believe in god or religion. If there is or was a creator we're insignificant to him/it/whatever, just like the bacteria on your toilet is insignificant to you.


challenger360 wrote:

Now.. as for believing in 6,000 years for the age of the earth.. well.. there are evidences around the world that support this. For example.. fossilised trees lieing vertically through layers of rock supposed to be very very old.. it is obvious they plainly are not old-- you don't get fossilised trees going through layers of millions of years. The same thing goes for fossilised fish.. all together - in states of spasm and contortion... this looks like sudden burial, no?

Also.. you get fossilised fish in rocks.. going across the rock.. across layers.. supposed to be very very old.. like millions of years of time.. obviously the rock can't be that old!


Now.. I admit that creationists have the problem of a lack of evidence of actually proving young ages.. since alot of their data comes from poking holes in evolutionary long ages rather than actually finding young earth dating really conclusively..

BUT.. the long ages for evolution also are missing a whole lot of evidence.. with a lack of intermediary fossils.. sudden appearance of whole life forms.. the law of decay not working in favour of macro-evolution of species.. etc etc..


You're just being ignorant here, that's the kind senseless stuff that creationist spread around with no scientific base whatsoever.

challenger360 wrote:

So yes I am a fundamentalist, conservative, independent baptist christian who believes the bible completely.. with a young earth 6 to 10 thousand years old.. but my faith is not blind..


If it's not blind I don't know what it is, definitely not backed by science.

Human civilization is older than that, even if you choose to ignore all the scientific evidence like carbon dating there is archeological evidence of older civilizations. If you try to compress them into 10K years you'll end up with civilazations with different levels of technological advance occupying the same land (or really close) at the same time without coming into contact with each other which is just not possible.

How about the fossil evidence, we have fossils of many species over millions of years, if you compress them into 10K years many species of different complexity competing for the same resources, if you believe in evolution then those species wouldn't have been able to evolve with so much competition, if you believe that god made all species in one day then most of them would have disappeared shortly after.

Did you know that most of the stories in the book of genesis, including the creation story, the garden of eden, and the great flood, are slightly revised versions of much older Samarian texts? They've just been adapted for the new religion. For example, the Samarians worshiped the snake as a god of knowledge, on Genesis they turned it around by making it a god of deception and crushing it. The book of Genesis is attributed to Moses by theologians but according to the bible it didn't surface until the time of the judges, before then nobody had heard about it until a priest conveniently found it sitting on the temple. How could it have gotten there without anyone knowing about it? and how could it sit there for so many years without being noticed?

How do you date the Earth from the bible? The only way I know of is through the genealogy trees in Genesis and Matthew, you can use Matthew's to trace the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam, it also gives the ages at which most of them died so you can use it to estimate the age of the planet, there are two main problems with that: 1) it states that the first people lived hundreds of years which is not biologically possible, 2) the versions on Genesis and Matthew do not exactly coincide.

challenger360 wrote:

There are some solid evidences using real science.. the kind of science that is just about plain truth. The bible is not a scientific book.. no.. but it is historical.. and it's references to nature need not be myth.


Have you ever read the bible as a historical book (unlike christians that pick a few verses and make a convenient explanation). You need to not only read what's on the book but research the source of the books as well as other conteporary literature and try to put your mind in the context of those times, if you do that you may change your mind.

I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools, on my teens I began to noticed that the Catholic church was full of it and their teachings where not based on the bible teaching, it is more of a politic organization and it's laws and teachings (a mixture of Christianity, Judaism, and Roman Polyteism) are conveniently created to preserve it.

I still believed in god so I turned to Non-denominational Christianity which tries to live by the teachings of the bible, but I found many holes and contradictions, several times when I argued about it I was given senseless explanations, when I expressed that it makes no sense I was often told that I need to look at the whole bible to understand it, period. So eventually I did read the whole bible sequentially from Genesis to Revelation, and at the same time I began to look at the bible as a historical book rather than the word of god, that was the end of my faith.

I was always thought that god was consistent but once I read the bible as a historical book I began to see how god has conveniently evolved through the ages.

He was a merciless god of war that chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt into the promise land. Through magic Moses persuaded the Pharaoh to let them go but he quickly changes his mind and goes after them, does that makes sense? Mostlikely Moses told the Israelites that Pharoah let them go to persuade them to leave.

It tells you that as they marched out of Egypt god lead them as a pilar of smoke during the day and fire at night but we know that was how the Egyptians mobilized massive armies, the leaders carry giant torches so that the soldiers that are miles behind can follow them, the torch is lit during the night and put out during the day. Then when the Egyptians came after them the lord (the fire pilar) which was in the front of them went behind them and stood between them and Pharaoh's army so they could not march towards them, most likely what Moses did was put out the torch at the front and light one at their tail, to the Egyptians that would look like they got lost and where marching back to Egypt so they stop persuing and lay in wait while Moses kept marching in the dark.

Then it tells you that god divided the Red Sea so they could cross and closed it while Pharoah's army was crossing, but we know that during that time of the year there's a place where you can cross the Red Sea on foot and Moses knew that because he was a sheperd on that area for years, the Egyptians where carrying 600 chariots so they got stock in the mud and where unable to cross.

Once the crossed the sea they where in the desert and began to grow rebelious against Moses who promised them heaven but took them to hell. They took to mount Sinai near a settlement around a copper mine in the mount (which explains the glow in the mount), during that time Moses that we was going to meet Yawe andwent to the glowing settlement and came back with the 600 commandments in tablets (and a wife which he took from the settlement) and told the Israelites god gave them to him, which helped appease the rebellion. Moses knew they weren't fit to continue their march so he told them that because their disbelieve and sinfulness they will have to settle there for 40 years. During that time they multiplied and organized themselves as a people with a worthy army and began their march to Canaan.

They negotiated passage through every city in their way until one of them didn't allowed them to pass, so they took the city and killed everyone, including women and children, and they did the same to every city in the way to Jordan.

Then we're told that after everything Moses had done god was angry at him because he lost it and hit a stone with a stick and he punished him by not letting enter the promised land which makes no sense. My theory is that either Moses was old and weary and decided to stay behind with his family, or morelikely (since he wasn't head of again) he didn't wanted them to march accross the Jordan and was assasinated.

Then we're told that Joshua sent spies to Jericho where they met Rahab the whore which had a room on the outer wall, they were almost caught but she helped escape, they tell her that they're going to take the city and she must hang a cloth on her window so they know to spare her, then they simply marched around the city, singing and dancing until it's highly fortified walls fell and Rahab was spared.

But if the wall is going to fall, what good is the cloth on the window going to do?? It would be burried along with her under the wall. Mostlikely they cloth was a sign for Joshua to spot the window and the marching around the city was a diversion, while they were marching around Rahab threw a rope out the window for Joshua's soldiers to climb up, they overpower the guards between the walls, opened the gates and sounded the trompet, the Israelites rushed in, killed everyone sparing Rahab, and burned the city to the ground.

Yawe continued to be a merciless and unforgiving god of war until the time of the prophets. By then Israel wasn't the formidable war machine it used to be, it was a time of constant occupation and exile, so the profets start preaching that this is happening because god is displeased, but if they repent they can be forgiven so the merciless god becomes a forgiving, more spiritual god, it is during this time that the notion of life after death first appears on the bible (except for Samuel talking to the dead).

Then comes the new testament with 4 versions of the life of Jesus out of the 4 Matthew was the only one that actually met Jesus, the other 3 where written long after his dead by people who never met him so it is safe to assume that it is the more accurate. If you read them all you'll see that it is the more realistic account of his life, it is less filled with miracles and supernatural stuff, for example on Matthew the fig tree does not wither right away but that it had withered by the next day which is easy to do, it also says that Jesus turned water into wine but it tells us that the wine wasn't wine, it looked like wine but it tasted really sweet and it didn't get you drunk, so he probably just cooked up some sort of juice. Remember that since child Jesus spent considerable time at the temple which back then was like a library for all kinds of knowledge, not just religious so he had the knowledge to pull these sort of tricks.

Matthew does talks about the resurrection, my personal believe is that either his body was stolen, or more likely there was a conspiracy to spare Jesus. Since Jesus was crucified on Friday they could not leave his body on the cross overnight as it was sometimes done because the next day was sabbath and it was against Jewish law to do that. In such cases the romans normally broke the legs of the condemned to kill them off because most people can survive cruxifiction but in the case of Jesus this was not done because according to the bible he was already dead (normally it would be done anyway to make sure he was dead). So we know that the executioner simply assumed he was dead because he was laying still on the cross (no other way to tell while he's on the cross) and they let Mary take him down, we know that he was quickly wrapped on the scene, then taken to a nearby tomb and rolled the stone shut. So it is very possible that he was alive (perhaps there was somebody on the tomb to nurse him back to health), thenext day or during that night somebody could have come rolled the stone and got him out, obviously he would have to be dressed to walk around town without being noticed so it makes sense that he left the wrap cloth on the tomb. That would also allow him to meet with his apostles on Galilee.

The we got Paul, an epileptic who got off on killing members of the christian cult until he got an epileptic attack and went blind for a few days, he interpreted that as a punishment from god and prayed and promised to change if he could get his sight back, when he got his sight back he went on to found christianity and todays christianity is mostly based on his teachings (from his letters to church leaders) which are quite different from those of Jesus.



Back to top

challenger360




challenger360

Joined:
August 11, 2010
Posts: 4

PostPosted:     Post subject:
Reply with quote
`Thanks for the response flavius

It's good to get a well reasoned out response like yours..

I did want to pick up on something though.. with Jesus' resurrection.

You have tried to explain it by saying Jesus was still alive....

WELL

Here we go...

References from Evidence That Demands A Verdict.. by Josh McDowell..

'Let it be said that we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world'- Wilbur Smith

'I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of NO ONE FACT in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose againfrom the dead.'- Thomas Arnold, Oxford University

So.. here you have a couple of scholars who believe it to be completely true.. how so?

church historian of the 3rd century- Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote- 'the sufferers veins were laid bare, and .. the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure'

Josh Mcdowell writes- 1---even the preparation for the journey must have been a source for acute agony-- ref Matt 27:31-- the mocking, stripping of garments- on flesh already cut up from the flogging by the Roman guards.

2-- The phrase 'they bring him unto the place Golgotha-- Mark 15:22-- would indicate that Christ was unable to walk himself under his own power to the place of execution.

John Mattingly says..

'It cannot be overemphasized that the sufferings on the cross were extremely intense and severe...... '

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote 'even the mere word cross , must remain far not only from lips of the citizens of Rome, but also form their thoughts, their eyes, their ears.'

Michael Green- 'After a sleepless night, in which He was given NO FOOD, endured the mockery of TWO trials, and had His back LACERATED with the cruel Roman cat-o'-nine tails, He was led out to execution by crucifixion. This was an excruciatingly painful DEATH, in which every nerve in the body cried aloud in anguish.'

William D. Edwards-

Article from the Journal of the American Medical Association-

'Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead BEFORE the would to His side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured His death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with MODERN MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.'

E.H. Day-

'the account in St Matthews Gospel of the guarding of the tomb is clear evidence that the Jews, for their part, believed that Jesus was dead.'

'none of those who were occupied with the taking down of the body, and its laying in the grave, had any suspicion that life remained'

Samuel Chandler-- of when Jesus was wrapped in spices--

'The remarkable circumstance of wrapping up the dead body in spices, by Joseph and Nicodemus according to the manner of the Jews in burying is full proof that Jesus was dead, and known to be dead. Had there indeed been ANY life left in him when taken down from the cross.. the punishing nature of the MYRRH and ALOES, their strong smell, their bitterness, their being wrapped round his body in linens with a roller and OVER HIS HEAD and face with a napkin.. as was the custom of the Jews to bury... must have ENTIRELY EXTINGUISHED them.'

So Jesus was DEAD


As for the disciples seeing a vision or hallucinating-

Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide-

'This scared, frightened band of the apostles, which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision of hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation

Of the post resurrection appearances--

John Warwick Montgomery-

'In 56 AD Paul wrote that OVER 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive. (1 Co 15:6). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus.'

These quotes are only a few among many.. of people who have studied the resurrection and found compelling evidence for Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

This is NOT blind faith.

As for the comment that the evidences I gave is just creationist propoganda or whatever..

WAIT! If there are real trees captured by photos going thru layers of rock.. then obviously that area is not very old! Just plain facts steering you in the face.

If there are real fossilised fish in states of contortion-- that is obviously quick burial!

If there are fossilised fish sitting in rocks which are supposed to have thousands or millions of years per layer.. and the fish are lying ACROSS layers.. then that rock is NOT THAT OLD.

Anyhoo

there you go


Back to top

challenger360




challenger360

Joined:
August 11, 2010
Posts: 4

PostPosted:     Post subject:
Reply with quote
`man flavius.. you haven't read the right sources.

Try asking sound biblical scholars of the bible.. not the likes of the Jesus Seminar.. they have no idea.

Jesus.. could not have lived through the accounts given in the gospels. And the same evidence that he died is equally strong he rose from the grave.

The gospels were written way too close to the events they report to be legend. And even if you don't think the gospels were written close enough.. you have Paul's writings of Jesus' appearances .. one of the earliest pieces of manuscript evidence in the entire NT.. with some scholars dating this creed to be within 2-20 yrs of Jesus' life death and resurrection! That is NOTHING.



Back to top


dnaunion
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

thera wrote:
`Well, carbon dating proves that everything is more than 6000 years old. I am a scientist. That is usually what I say.


Carbon dating is limited to dating dead organic matter that is at most about 80,000 years old.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years.

Therefore, carbon dating covers only the last about 0.00178% of the earth's history. It cannot even touch the first 99.99822% of the earth's existence.

Radiometric dating - which can use a wide range of radioisotopes, and not just carbon-14 - can touch the entire history of earth.

Back to top


dnaunion
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

challenger360 wrote:
BUT.. the long ages for evolution also are missing a whole lot of evidence..


Nope. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That is a solid scientific fact.

Life has existed on earth for billions of years: that too is a solid scientific fact. Microfossils that are probably of once-living organisms have been dated to 3.5 billion years ago.

challenger360 wrote:

with a lack of intermediary fossils.. sudden appearance of whole life forms..


We have fossil intermediates between major groups such as fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, and land mammals and cetaceans.

The claims of the sudden appearance of whole life forms is an outdated idea.

We also have “living intermediates†of other key transitions, such as from unicellular to multicellular life, and have solid support for the origin of eukaryotes from prokaryotes (more specifically, for the origin of the eukaryotic organelle – the mitochondrion – and also, in photosynthetic eukaryotes, the chloroplast).

challenger360 wrote:

the law of decay not working in favour of macro-evolution of species..


There’s no such thing as “the law of decayâ€Â. There is something called the second law of thermodynamics (SLoT): is that what you mean?

No one who understands the SLoT sees macroevolution as being a violation of it.

challenger360 wrote:

So yes I am a fundamentalist, conservative, independent baptist christian who believes the bible completely.. with a young earth 6 to 10 thousand years old..


So you believe that, just about 6000 years ago, a man was made from dirt, and a woman from one of his ribs, and they were fooled by a talking snake, into eating cursed fruit, from a magical tree, than magic superbeing poofed into existence.

So you believe that a donkey talked, a flame in a bush talked, a fire-breathing monster existed, zombies marched on a major city, God holds lightning in His hand and throws it to the earth, a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, God was powerless against chariots made of iron, and male divine beings married human females and had giants as offspring.

challenger360 wrote:

but my faith is not blind..


It is based on ignorance of, and distortions of, science; and a lack of any valid, objective, positive evidence supporting your God’s existence.




Back to top


dnaunion
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

challenger360 wrote:
I did want to pick up on something though.. with Jesus' resurrection.


You have no good evidence that Jesus ever even existed.

There is not one surviving document - whether written by a Christian, Jew, Pagan, or anyone else - that mentions Jesus that was written during the years that Jesus supposedly lived. Not one.

And where is Mary's gospel? She was visited by God's angel, Gabriel, who told her she would be magically impregnated by God, and while still a virgin gave birth, to the Son of the God, Co-Creator of the Universe. And she didn't find any of that worthy of jotting down?????? Please.




Back to top

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Atheist Passions Forum index -> Science All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


© phpBB Limited







  • Home | Your Account | Search

    | Contact | Advertise on this Site

    | Journalists, Bloggers & Press Inquiries

    | Online Dating Directory Webmasters

    | Affiliate Program

    | Passions Network : Free Dating, Chat & Social Networking

    | Terms | Privacy Policy

    © 2004 - 2021