God is quite busy
- Started
- Last post
- 301 Responses
- ukit0
In my mind, what is logical or illogical to humans is irrelevant...why would the universe have to be ordered in a way that makes sense to us?
It is perfectly understandable for humans to want a human-like intelligence in control of everything, the same way they wanted the Earth to be the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean it's the most likely explanation.
- ukit0
Also, it's true that both require "faith" in the sense that we are not able to completely verify them. But one is following the evidence where it takes us, and the other is just listening to what people have said for thousands of years.
- There is much more to it then just "what people have said for thousands of years"designbot
- The historical and archeological evidence for the Bible alone are quite compelling. The problem in regards to the spiritual..is howdesignbot
- exactly would you prove if some supernatural event took place? Especially in the past.designbot
- gramme0
For whatever it's worth, I believe that God is super-logical. He's above our full comprehension since our minds are finite. There are certain things he has revealed about himself though. Some of them are mysterious, but some things are quite accessible. He DOES actually wish to have relationship with us, after all.
- I agree. God appears to be very logical...we see it in all creation...and I think it's a small glimpse of his character.designbot
- I guess what I am saying is the problem you have with the randomness of evolution...isn't relevant in my view, because whatever ultimate explanation there is will probably be very difficult for us humans to graspukit
- whatever ultimate explanation there is will probably be very difficult for us humans to graspukit
- Jimbo820
I'm jumping in late here, but where does Christianity or any religion stand on dinosaurs?
- imo, climate and conditional changes after the flood eventually killed off the dinosaurs.designbot
- Which flood was that?Jimbo82
- There have been some amazing discoveries of dinosaurs with their flesh completely in tact...which lends credit to the belief that they are not nearly as old as science claims.designbot
- to the belief that they are not nearly as old as science claims.designbot
- ahh sorry....Noah and flood described in the old testament.designbot
- The one that caused fossils to appear on mountaintops, thousands of feet above any sea level.gramme
- ummm seriously? wow.spifflink
- *aquatic fossils, I mean—fish and other oceanic, non-freshwater life forms.gramme
- so are you guys 'young earth' proponents?spifflink
- But the bible says that Noah took two of each animal. So why did he leave the dinosaurs?Jimbo82
- he took the dinosaurs as well. Obviously he could not fit adult dinosaurs, so we can assume he took small baby dinosaurs.designbot
- Hahahhaa - here is the critical thinking I was looking for.metal_leg_will
- [ insert generic theistic crap-out answer given when attempting to answer in logical vacuum ]mikotondria3
- one of each kind in pairs of each sex.designbot
- so your issue isn't with the Ark, but that he couldn't fit dinosaurs on it? what's wrong with that answer? too simple for you eh?designbot
- ukit0
That's the trouble with most religious types...instead of being open to following the evidence where it takes them, they keep trying to patch over the holes in a two thousand year old myth. We should all be open to admitting we might be wrong.
- designbot0
ukit, what do you mean about "patch over holes"?
- And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall********
- And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall
- gramme0
I for one am not yet convinced of either old or young earth. I see reason for believing either. I think the argument is a bit pointless, because if God can create the world at all, he could've done it in 6 minutes, 6 days, or 6 trillion years.
The YEC stance is not actually illogical, because for the earth to function there would already need to be layers of bedrock, sediment, etc., which to the OEC or evolutionist eye would need millions or even billions of years to develop. So, at this point it's all really still speculation that lacks complete scientific explanation, since scientific theory requires observable processes.
- Jimbo820
Hang on hang on, Gramme, what is your stance on dinosaurs? Designbot says they were taken on to the ark. Were they? Why were they never mentioned in the bible? I'm not attacking, just want to know your view on it.
The simplified way I see it (on a friday afternoon!) is that we should be accepting of the fact that we will never know. There's nothing wrong with believing in something else, but when do you decide that the evidence outweighs your belief and it can't be true? Doesn't mean there's nothing greater out there, it's just not what you thought or will ever know.
- I don't know if they were on the ark. It does say that there were two of each kind, but I don't see how there was room in the ark for all species...gramme
- ark for all species... especially given that there were many, many more species then than now.gramme
- I have a hunch that either way, ice ages had more to do with the demise of dinosaurs than the flood.gramme
- designbot0
here is one of the more recent discoveries I eluded to. A dinosaur with skin and possibly muscle and internal organs still in tact.
This really does fly in the face science and the idea of dinosaurs dying off millions of years ago.
Like gramme said though, this really is a secondary issue anyway. The young earth is what Christians read from the account in Genesis and other books of the Bible. The Bible never says this explicitly.
- differential mineralisation in anoxic environments. Imagine fossilising a shoe in a vacuum.mikotondria3
- so you think this is some 250 millions years old?designbot
- Why wouldn't I, if all the other evidence pointed towards that idea ?mikotondria3
- and you claim we are being irrational? There is NO WAY this is that old, and you know it :)designbot
- from the same source:
http://news.national…spifflink
- mikotondria30
Please just study even a year of geology and your perfectly valid concerns that all 'might not be as we're told' which get bandid about on church pamphlets will be put to rest.
Religion has NO place in trying to refute scientific theories, particularly something as unabsctract as earth-science. Extend that to all science, actually. In every case where religion and science have clashed on a scientific principle, science has triumphed. Every time. Please feel free to believe what you wish about those aspects of existence for which there CAN BE no proof. It is only there that you may conceivably be free to be left to your collective imaginings. With regard to the rest of life, please, please shut up about it - it sounds childish and tedious to the point that it inspires hatred and loathing from the rest of us. *Funny how you incorporate this martyrdom into your scheme - I see what you did there, lol.- good to see you admit you have hatred towards people who have different views.designbot
- DrBombay0
The earth isn't 6,000 years old. What are now the Iranians have been writing history for that long.
- Nobody said it's 6,000 yrs. old. If it is relatively young, it's more like 7–10,000 yrs. old.gramme
- so the earth is younger the domestication of canines?spifflink
- *than thespifflink
- "domestication of canines..." is that anything more than speculation? Don't tell me it's based on carbon dating.gramme
- Carbon dating is extremely unreliable.gramme
- lowimpakt0
the earth isn't 6000 years old, 6 million years old or 6 trillion years old.
i am the solipsist and you are all my thoughts.
- lowimpakt0
the earth is actually 11,500 years old
- lowimpakt0
i mean 20, 0000
wait, no, it's 3.14159265 seconds old
- spifflink0
http://news.nationalgeographic.c…
story from the pic above. a 67 million year old dinosaur somehow flies in the face of existing science.
- designbot0
Of course it's going to claim some insane number like "67 million years" what were you expecting the title of the article to say...."Dinosaur with flesh found.....our dating is all wrong"
It is obvious that this cannot be that old. There are plenty of more recent discoveries like this that I'll post here. Gotta go to lunch.
- yes. national fucking geographic are liars! its a vast scientific conspiracy!spifflink
- haha so you think everything they say is 100% true eh? cause you know, science has never been wrong in the past.designbot
- forgive the sarcasm but come on...you are clinging to the same kind of blind faith in science that you claim Christians have.designbot
- Christians have.designbot
- ...in our beliefs.designbot
- no, i am not trying to fit a foregone conclusion onto the facts. i am going with the most well understood theories.spifflink
- if the dating processes were somehow wrong, i think a publication like that would be the first to admit itspifflink
- are these the same processes you are relying on for evidence of the flood?spifflink
- Affluenza0
I love the way religious people hate science, so funny. They'd be the first to rejoice at scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus or God.
- i know, let's embrace faulty archeological evidence for the flood, but those same processes practiced correctly are wrong!spifflink
- Christians were leaders in science for a long time. We don't hate science.designbot
- uh.. Galileo ?mikotondria3
- I think you are thinking of Islamspifflink
- Love how Christianity tries to ride on the coat tails of the success of the western world.Mimio
- mikotondria30
How is it 'obvious that is cannot be that old' ?
When a body is fossilised sediment and mineralised fluids differentially occupy the physiology according to how the tissue breaks down, so in some extremely rare cases very fine details of very soft tissues are preserved - I have a very good friend who is a leading expert on this very topic.. Sometimes, we are learning, given the right conditions (temp, salinity, oxygen, pH etc), remnants of the soft tissue itself and even dna can be found.
Quite how it is 'obvious' that the above is wrong confounds me.
Please 'enlighten' me with your brilliance, now that you have 'found god'. Sigh.
- mikotondria30
200, bitches.
