All-Purpose Religion Thread

[limpid]

Science doesn't happen in debates. I wouldn't want to debate with him either, what does that prove? Meyer is a good debater, that doesn't make him a scientist, nor does it make what he's arguing for correct. Scientific method is need for that, not rhetoric.

As you completely ignore most of my post, are you conceding my points on order from chaos, infinity as it relates to probability (and monkeys), the fact that Meyer lies when he says he's not a creationist and that you have cut and pasted someone' else's interpretation of what Dawkins actually said in the example that you introduced?

How do the archaeologists react when you imply they are liars because they have identified the artefacts as twice the age of the universe? Or are you cherry picking parts of what they say to reinforce your preconceptions?

My use of "la la la la fingers in the ears" is the conclusion to a portrayal of how I observe some posters to behave in these threads. I was not quoting someone or I would have indicated it with a quote box.

[rjw63]

Let's just have a few clunge shots...much better than religion :-)

[JulieB]

As you completely ignore most of my post, are you conceding my points on order from chaos, infinity as it relates to probability (and monkeys), the fact that Meyer lies when he says he's not a creationist and that you have cut and pasted someone' else's interpretation of what Dawkins actually said in the example that you introduced?

Simon it's hard enough posting anything on the thread tonight because it's so busy. I tried my best.

Why are you saying Meyer IS A Creationist? I can find no evidence to back this up at all. Those quotes are on his Wiki page too.

I can find no evidence that Stephen Meyer shows people round a museum anywhere & I'd be interested to see where you come to that conclusion.

How do the archaeologists react when you imply they are liars because they have identified the artefacts as twice the age of the universe?

I don't understand what that part is supposed to be about. Who said the Universe is only half of 12,000 years old..... 6,000 years old?

Both myself and indeed Meyer clearly stated that in fact neither he nor I beleive that the Earth let alone the Universe is 10,000 or indeed 6,000 years old, so why would you state that as though that is what I would ever say to the archaeologists.

I am asking how they come to the conclusion that Gobekli Tepe is 12,000 years old because you can't date stone... and as there is NO evidence of human habitation or remains at this ancient site how would they carbon date it?

If Gobekli Tepe is 12,000 years old by their dating methods then either the dating methods are incorrect or their is NO similarities to Sumerian based beleifs and this is a much older site. However that doesn't appear to be the case, because the more finds that are being dug up, the more similarities they are finding.

As for me calling them liars that is simply not the case & they have on every occasion responded to my posts with interest. I've also been speaking to the Hancock Museum in Newcastle about their latest exhibition on Egypt with Horus Isis & Osisis & the similarities with Nimrod, Semiramis & Tammuz as I learnt much from the thread on All Roads Lead to Babylon.. They appear more than happy to talk about these things seriously.

[JulieB]

We see order from chaos all over the place. Waves form in water and sand. Clouds form from water vapour. Rain forms from clouds. Snow forms from rain. Liquids form bubbles. Water carves caves. Molecules make trees. Crystals form in chemical solutions. All of those are the creation of something more complex without an external intelligence.

I guess you have some special definitions for order and chaos as you have capitalised them.

Why do waves form... from chaos or from the actions of the Moon on the Earth's gravitational field. The Tides are part of the Eco system of the Earth and a fundamental part of life on the planet.

If the moon wasn't in the exact positon it is then we wouldn't have tides and life may not be able to exist.

Waves have a fundamental use and a purpose... waves crashing up beaches cause erosion, which helps to add material to the sea which can nourish the coastal waters. Waves do also stir up sediments, providing food for various species and they also oxygenate the sea water.

The water cycle of the Earth is a fundamental part of the Earth's Eco system. Water in fact acts like hardly any known liquid in the Universe.. This means the action of the water molecules at the point of freezing means that Ice floats protecting the rivers and ponds under neath. If water didn't have these unique qualities then life on the Earth would be simply unsustainable.

The Bible explained the rain cycle thousands of years ago in simple terms long before science came to the same conclusion about evaporation.

You see chaos... I see the hand of an intelligent designer in nature.

Scientists who now specialise in Bio Mimeckry which is a whole new area of science are now saying that mankind needs to base his man-made designs on those found in nature if we are to live sustainably. If man made design needs a builder a designer why should science be so adamant that nature never had a designer.

Ask Nature.Org

[TheDon]

That is surely an admission of the intervention of an intelligence.

Julie, do you not see the huge logical flaw in the whole "there had to have been an intelligent intervention to allow this to happen" argument?

That being that by the arguments own admission, anything intelligent enough to have intervened had to have had an intelligent intervention to come into existence because it clearly couldn't have just happened.

I just don't understand how people can cling to the whole "it's all too complex to happen through chance" argument, yet ignore the whole elephant in the room that their creator would have then also have to have then been created.

[JulieB]

No-one who understands the mathematical meaning of infinity would try to "get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this". Dawkins wrote a programme to test something similar to this, but with all the infinities replaced with finite parameters. The programme worked as configured. I'm assuming you are regurgitating something you found on the internet due to your two fundamental errors in this paragraph.

No if you read Signature in the Cell or watch the lecture based on the book, then you will see exactly what I am referring to. Dawkins wrote the programme to dispute that arguing an almost infinite zero probability of life or self replicating DNA being able to happen from some form of

organic soup was not necessarily correct.

[regular_john]

You see chaos... I see the hand of an intelligent designer in nature.

Learn some human anatomy, then come back to us and tell us all about our 'intelligent' designer.

[JulieB]

JulieB wrote:

However if I wanted to beleive that there is a fairy living in my front room that is surely my right.

Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you.

Please show me any post anywhere where I could be accused of briainwashing anybody. It's mumbo jumbo grenades according to Bicks so if it's rubbish I spout then presumable no one would listen?

Simply putting an opposite viewpoint and stating actually that's not true... etc etc

If I've been asked a genuine question about my beleifs in the past I've answered it. As I stated there are 10,000+ religions on the Earth. I stick up for my

faith because I beleive it is genuinely the one that sticks the closest to how the first Century Christians taught the beleifs that Jesus taught them then so what? The first century Christians certainly weren't perfect...far from it... look at Judas Iscariot - he betrayed Jesus. Look at Peter - he lied 3 x & denied he'd ever known Jesus to protect himself. My faith certainly isn't perfect at all just the same.

You and many others put forward your beleifs in Atheism on VT and at times just like religion that has been used as a force for evil in the world.

Atheists have an agenda to be anti religious so it's hardly fair to point the finger to anyone who has a faith and say they have an agenda to beleive in a God.

Faith and how religion is practised are to my mind actually two seperate matters.

What's more as I've said before the Bible predicts that man will turn on religion and devastate it because it has on many occasions been used as a force for much evil and has turned mankind against their creator.

[JulieB]

That is surely an admission of the intervention of an intelligence.

Julie, do you not see the huge logical flaw in the whole "there had to have been an intelligent intervention to allow this to happen" argument?

That being that by the arguments own admission, anything intelligent enough to have intervened had to have had an intelligent intervention to come into existence because it clearly couldn't have just happened.

I just don't understand how people can cling to the whole "it's all too complex to happen through chance" argument, yet ignore the whole elephant in the room that their creator would have then also have to have then been created.

My brian hurts when I think about well where did God come from? But then as humans we are used to a beginning and an end.

A circle has no beginning or an end.

In just the same manner if I dismiss there being a Creator, then what existed before the Big Bang... but then again according to the new Multiverse theory I'm not so sure the big bang was the explanation.

Our Creator simply states that he is the Alpha & the Omega... the beginning & the end. His name in Hebrew means "the one who causes to become"...

We are learning new things ALL the time. Up to about 1932 the known Universe consisted of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Who knows what discoveries will be made. Last time I was on an astronomy course I was told that only 4% of the matter in the Universe could be explained. About 96% of it is known as dark matter and up to now we don't understand it.

We now know that the Universe is vast & the words of Moses about there being more stars in the heavens than there are grains of sands on the Earth..... since the Hubble telescope is being proved correct. Yet according to Moses - our creator has a name for each one of those myriads of stars.

However as I said when I step outside and look up at the Universe in all it's glory I see a universal creation of beauty and wonder.... that is supposed to be there by accident?

If I look back at my house you would laugh at me if I said it happened by accident - it had a builder, a maker an architect.

And I'm damn sure my garden wouldn't look good by accident unless I got out there and put some graft in.

As someone who was brought up by Atheist parents THESE were the questions I asked myself...... and my conclusion was - it didn't happen by accident. It happened for a purpose.

[limpid]

As you completely ignore most of my post, are you conceding my points on order from chaos, infinity as it relates to probability (and monkeys), the fact that Meyer lies when he says he's not a creationist and that you have cut and pasted someone' else's interpretation of what Dawkins actually said in the example that you introduced?

Simon it's hard enough posting anything on the thread tonight because it's so busy. I tried my best.

Why are you saying Meyer is not a Creationist? I can find no evidence to back this up at all.

I'm not. Please read what I've written. I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. You said (and I quote) "What he states is that he has no Creationist agenda" and I showed an example of how he does have a creationist agenda, by trying to make it law that creationism is taught in schools as science. This means he lied about having no creationist agenda.

I can find no evidence that Stephen Meyer shows people round a museum anywhere & I'd be interested to see where you come to that conclusion.

The Center for Science and Culture (founded by S C Meyer) have a page on wikipedia you could read. The first paragraph under "Controversies" talks about his interaction with museums. But I confess, I was mixing him up with someone from the Creation Museum.

How do the archaeologists react when you imply they are liars because they have identified the artefacts as twice the age of the universe?

I don't understand what that part is supposed to be about. Who said the Universe is only half of 12,000 years old..... 6,000 years old?

I'm sorry if I'm a year or two out, do you think it's 6016 years old rather than 6000?

Both myself and indeed Meyer clearly stated that in fact neither he nor I beleive that the Earth let alone the Universe is 10,000 or indeed 6,000 years old, so why would you state that as though that is what I would ever say to the archaeologists.

Don't tease, how old do you think earth is? Your opinion please, not Meyer's.

I am asking how they come to the conclusion that Gobekli Tepe is 12,000 years old because you can't date stone... and as there is NO evidence of human habitation or remains at this ancient site how would they carbon date it?

I thought you were one who dismissed carbon dating out of hand. I must have mis-remembered. Carbon dating is not the only method archaeologists use, but I'm sure you'll discover this as part of your search for knowledge.

If Gobekli Tepe is 12,000 years old by their dating methods then either the dating methods are incorrect or their is NO similarities to Sumerian based beleifs and this is a much older site. However that doesn't appear to be the case, because the more finds that are being dug up, the more similarities they are finding.

So there are "there is NO evidence of human habitation or remains" and yet there are "finds that are being dug up". That's quite a leap between paragraphs. Regardless, archaeologists study the past of human life and culture. If you are correct that it's just stones, they wouldn't be there.

There is no problem with this being a much older site unless you are trying to make history fit into an unchangeable time frame defined in a stone age book.

As for me calling them liars that is simply not the case & they have on every occasion responded to my posts with interest. I've also been speaking to the Hancock Museum in Newcastle about their latest exhibition on Egypt with Horus Isis & Osisis & the similarities with Nimrod, Semiramis & Tammuz as I learnt much from the thread on All Roads Lead to Babylon.. They appear more than happy to talk about these things seriously.

You question them for specific answers while doubting their ability to date things accurately. If you don't trust their ability to date things accurately, why do you trust anything else they've said?

I guess you didn't see my points about order from chaos. which was your opening gambit. You seem to have responded to all my points concerning the human players, but not the headline you introduced as a simple fact and I dismissed. This is disappointing, because I thought this may have actually been your own opinion rather than that of someone else. I guess it wasn't or you'd have been able to back up such a strong assertion.

[JulieB]

Don't tease, how old do you think earth is? Your opinion please, not Meyer's.

I have no idea. Genesis 1 V 1 In the beginning God created the heavens & the Earth..

That could have taken billions of years.

As I've said before where Creationist's fall down with the 6 day theory is that the Hebrew word translated as Day doesn't mean a 24 hour period

It means a period of time ... that's all.

Therefore the different periods of creation subsequently could EACH have taken eons of time

The only thing that the Bible dates is since humans were created which is about 6,000 years. Which is where you and I would differ.

I don't know how old Meyer thinks the Earth is. He states he does not beleive it's only 10,000 years old at all therefore he's not a Creationist.

From what I've read the court case you alluded to merely used an essay he wrote about Intelligent Design for the Wall St Journal.

I cannot see where he proposed teaching the young Earth theory to kids in school.

[TheDon]

My brian hurts when I think about well where did God come from? But then as humans we are used to a beginning and an end.

Don't you think that that's the very reason why you have to believe it to be the work of a creator? Because you're used to everything having to have a beginning?

Surely all you've done is moved the problem of where did it all come from one step further away than it needs to be? And your reasoning for doing so is surely just the classic human projection of what we know onto what we don't. People constantly ascribe meaning to things that have none, it's how our brains work.

How do you know you're not just doing that with God?

If you see someone polish a stone does that mean that all polished stones were man made? Or is it not possible that something that looks like it was man made, is actually the result of a completely natural process?

[JulieB]

My brian hurts when I think about well where did God come from? But then as humans we are used to a beginning and an end.

Don't you think that that's the very reason why you have to believe it to be the work of a creator? Because you're used to everything having to have a beginning?

Surely all you've done is moved the problem of where did it all come from one step further away than it needs to be? And your reasoning for doing so is surely just the classic human projection of what we know onto what we don't. People constantly ascribe meaning to things that have none, it's how our brains work.

How do you know you're not just doing that with God?

If you see someone polish a stone does that mean that all polished stones were man made? Or is it not possible that something that looks like it was man made, is actually the result of a completely natural process?

But what are natural processes? Where did they come from? Where did the laws that govern those natural processes come from?

There are so many factors that are hard to explain by accident

The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth’s sky because the sun’s diameter is about 400 times greater – but the sun is also about 400 times farther away.

If they weren't this equal size & distance.....then we wouldn't enjoy the wonders of seeing Solar eclipses and in fact nor would life on Earth be possible.

The Earth is just the right size and distance from the Sun & the Moon for life to exist... and that is one of the things that the video I watched on Multiverses stated. However I can't remember the guys name.

[regular_john]

Julie, if the universe was created by God, who is apparently omniscient, why would it have taken any time at all? Why could he, being all powerful and all, not just have created it in the blink of an eye?

[JulieB]

Julie, if the universe was created by God, who is apparently omniscient, why would it have taken any time at all? Why could he, being all powerful and all, not just have created it in the blink of an eye?

You see this is great because we're actually debating interesting stuff.

So I'll save this one & the rest of Simon's points till tomorrow if that's OK Jonathan. I'm tired.

[limpid]

However if I wanted to beleive that there is a fairy living in my front room that is surely my right.

Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you.

Please show me any post anywhere where I could be accused of briainwashing anybody. It's mumbo jumbo grenades according to Bicks so if it's rubbish I spout then presumable no one would listen?

I didn't please don't look for words that aren't there. This isn't the stone age book. Note the use of the word "if" it indicates a supposition or condition. Unless the supposition is met the rest of the sentence becomes moot.

You and many others put forward your beleifs in Atheism on VT and at times just like religion that has been used as a force for evil in the world.

Do you have any examples of people killed in the name of no god? Why are you writing atheism with a capital letter? Are you assigning a special meaning to a word which simply means "without god" or "no god"?

Atheists have an agenda to be anti religious so it's hardly fair to point the finger to anyone who has a faith and say they have an agenda to beleive in a God.

That is a massive generalisation. Most atheists don't really care if people have a faith. You are mixing the vocal minority with the whole, like when people post on VT as if they represent all villa fans. You might be thinking of antitheists or anti-religionists.

Faith and how religion is practised are to my mind actually two seperate matters.

What's more as I've said before the Bible predicts that man will turn on religion and devastate it because it has on many occasions been used as a force for much evil and has turned mankind against their creator.

An instrument to control the populace "predicts" that someday its position will be usurped, much as it usurped its predecessors and rivals. I predict that one day something will take the place of VT. I don't think that makes me insightful, but it's the same claim the bible makes.

[Xann]

[limpid]

Don't tease, how old do you think earth is? Your opinion please, not Meyer's.

I have no idea. Genesis 1 V 1 In the beginning God created the heavens & the Earth..

That could have taken billions of years.

Really? So the Hebrew didn't use the word "yôm" which can only be translated as what we now recognise as a 24 hour period? It doesn't use any of the Hebrew words which could mean longer periods of time and "yôm" is used consistently throughout the bibile to mean a night and a day.

As I've said before where Creationist's fall down with the 6 day theory is that the Hebrew word translated as Day doesn't mean a 24 hour period

It means a period of time ... that's all.

That is simply untrue.

I don't know how old Meyer thinks the Earth is. He states he does not beleive it's only 10,000 years old at all therefore he's not a Creationist.

From what I've read the court case you alluded to merely used an essay he wrote about Intelligent Design for the Wall St Journal.

I cannot see where he proposed teaching the young Earth theory to kids in school.

I didn't allude to a court case, I read the fact on his wikipedia page. I'm sure one of his followers would have fixed it if it were in error.

[limpid]

But what are natural processes? Where did they come from? Where did the laws that govern those natural processes come from?

There are so many factors that are hard to explain by accident

You should read "The Blind Watchmaker" (which you misquoted earlier) it does a really good job of explaining this.

The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth’s sky because the sun’s diameter is about 400 times greater – but the sun is also about 400 times farther away.

Yes, co-incidence is great isn't it? The moon used to be a lot closer to the Earth though.

If they weren't this equal size & distance.....then we wouldn't enjoy the wonders of seeing Solar eclipses and in fact nor would life on Earth be possible.

That is not a fact.

The Earth is just the right size and distance from the Sun & the Moon for life to exist... and that is one of the things that the video I watched on Multiverses stated. However I can't remember the guys name.

This is not correct. Current theories suggest that life as we know it requires liquid water to be available in the presence of the other atoms required for organic chemistry. This does not require a certain distance from the sun. It is likely there is liquid water under the surface of Europa, which is well outside the "Goldilocks" zone. The moon is completely irrelevant.

[norton65ca]

Julie, if you look at a link I posted about five pages back to OzVillan. it links to an essay on the origins of the Genesis myth and where it originated. It is stolen, shamelessly straight from Babylonian/Assyrian mythology. There is nothing original about the Jewish religion, they borrowed it all from other neighborhood religions.

If you have a look at the thread from Above Top Secret about All Roads Lead to Babylon... actually shows that essay isn't true. It appears that Sumerian beleifs can be traced all the way back to Nimrod & his family.

Funnily enough the Hancock Museum have been debtaing this very subject on Facebook.

Many archeologists are saying that the roots of civilisation can now be traced back to Ancient Anatolia not the fertile crescent. This is the area under the Black Sea which runs from the borders of Armenia, through Turkey to Iraq & Syria.

If you are at all interested I watched a very good video on You Tube last year of a lecture given by Paul James Griffiths who has spent the last 22 years researching the origins of mankind's ancestory using a historical perspective. He too traces it back to it's roots around Gobekli Tepe area

"shows that that essay isn't true"??? Is that all you've got??? I linked an extensive loooong essay written by someone with deep knowledge of the subject and all you can say is your thread on the "above top secret" UFO/Conspiracy theory website proves it isn't true? words fail me. I'd be willing to bet you didn't read a single paragraph of what I linked.

Why on earth would you reference Nimrod and his family when the bible you read isn't a reliable reference to anything historical whatsoever? If I wish to understand history, the last place I would look is in the bible, written almost two thousand years later than it was made out to be, a faked record of a non existent history of a two bit tribe who stole, borrowed and copied everything in their collective mythology from those around them. Why would one reference a book of mythological characters when trying to understand history?

Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, and no one in the third millenia BC wrote anything in what we know as the bible, it was all written around the time of the Babylonian exile. The Pentateuch could never have been written in the time it claims to be, because there are cities and towns mentioned in it which didn't exist for another thousand years or more.

If you haven't the decency to read the link I sent, don't comment on it.

UFO websites! bwahahahahahahaha