Grandpa Harley Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 It'll be interesting to see but I'm used to being a miserable bastard... if it's making you feel bad, take a bit of a break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat22 Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 Here's a question I have for you though. If the galaxy is not that old, but only 6000 years. How could that light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away reach our planet within just 6000 years? To answer that requires that you must at least be slightly open to the possibility of God. Since your mind is closed to that, I wouldn't get past the opening sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Here's a question I have for you though. If the galaxy is not that old, but only 6000 years. How could that light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away reach our planet within just 6000 years? To answer that requires that you must at least be slightly open to the possibility of God. Since your mind is closed to that, I wouldn't get past the opening sentence. Goddidit is kind of a cop out answer. I'm actually very open to the possibility of god's existence, just as most people on this site are, we just need evidence before we believe it. appealing to one badly supported idea to shore up another badly supported idea is silly. It would be like if I told you bigfoot is real, and when you asked for proof I told you that you would have to believe in alien abductions to understand my proof. It would make me sound like a nut case wouldn't' it? So what does that make you sound like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 When asked any question regarding observed phenomena, or more specifically, how any particular observed phenomena works, or has come into being, you as a christian answer "God". Naturally, our response will be: "God? Okay... God how?" THAT'S the million dollar question, and if you can't answer THAT, well then duh , of course you wont make it past the first sentence. If, in fact, you can't comprehend the need to ask "God How?", or how it is that "God." is insufficient as an answer, then perhaps it's time to leave? Or at the very least, stop offering any opinions or "explanations until that changes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Here's a question I have for you though. If the galaxy is not that old, but only 6000 years. How could that light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away reach our planet within just 6000 years? To answer that requires that you must at least be slightly open to the possibility of God. Since your mind is closed to that, I wouldn't get past the opening sentence. You mean by magic, or black box or rubber bands? The option would be if God created the light in flight. Am I correct? If that is how you think, have you also thought about why God would create the light in flight when the only reason to that would be to throw off astronomers of the real size of the universe. Think about it. If God created the light from the Andromeda galaxy towards us, already in flight, then the Andromeda Galaxy doesn't exist. Because the galaxy is so far away that the light needs billions of years to travel to get to us, and since you probably think these are the last days, there wouldn't be any need for God to ever create any Galaxy, and probably not any of most of the stars in the Milkyway either. If you're think about the possible explanation that light was traveling faster before than now, then we have problems with triangulation and distance to some known events. It only results in an even larger universe. The other possibility is that God created the Universe yesterday and gave you and me and all of us a fake memory of past events. What other options did you have in mind? What about Intelligent Design? Can it really be considered a science when your comment is "you wouldn't understand the explanation unless you believe in the God I believe in"? -- Besides, if you believed in Big Bang, then it all would make sense to you. So repent and believe in the BB and you'll be saved! Nah, on a serious note, do understand that the BB is just a model and currently the best model that fits the data, but it is possible - because that is the nature of science - that one day soon or maybe later, a new model will be thought up that fits the data even better. Then BB will be thrown on the trash pile as a theory of the past. That however, does not validate your belief or religion or your belief in a Creation story that some unknown author made up thousands of years ago. It is very possible that the Genesis story was inherited from the Sumerians, and do you really want to hold on to a belief that was made up by a non-Christian/non-Jewish people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat22 Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 It seems that our own positions are getting in the way of a meaningful discussion. You have reached the conclusion that your scientists have a set of checks and balances which can be trusted. I have reached the conclusion that archaeologists and early church leaders have a trustworthy set of checks and balances which verify the accuracy of the bible and our ability to trust what is written within. Neither one of us have the extensive knowledge that these archaeologists/scientists possess. We just trust in the system they have set. I no more have trust in the scientific checks and balances than you trust in the archaeological checks and balances. We both believe the other is just trying to prove their presupposed bias. I will concede this point. I understand, more completely now, that God cannot be proven on science alone. The Creator cannot be broken down, categorized and explained by His created. Nonetheless, with all the scientific checks and balances, at some point you still must, by faith, accept that some things have simply just "always been" in order to believe that things exist as they do now. To all of you that responded with respect (and without foul language and petty insults), thank you With that being said: Here is a great topic closer that all of us can laugh at (skip to 23 minutes into the show). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 You want to act as if we are all on equal footing here, the problem is that I can go into great detail on exactly where the "system of checks and balances" of the church leaders who put the bible together, failed miserably. They often went as far as to kill any people who held opposing view points, even other Christians, such as Marcion, who was poisoned by the proto-orthodox faction. While you cannot give one ounce of evidence science's position on the age of the universe is faulty....not to mention that I doubt the existence of the christian god for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with science. You also conveniently forget that all of us here have already tried your presuppositions on for size, it is not as if we accepted our current world view without considering yours extensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Hey Kat. I'm probably one of the most patient and gracious people on this site you could hope to have try to give latitude to you. But to be honest, you go beyond even my ability to be understanding. You are probably one of the most self-blinded, closed-minded, delusional individuals I have met here; not first price, but a close second. I love your new signature line. I think it betrays your ignorance beyond anything any of us could say. You have nothing to say of any value to anyone here. Good luck to you in your folly you call faith. It’s not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 The fact that Kat respects anyone from "the way of the master" is a clear measure of his/her intellect. Even most Christian's I know realize how absolutely retarded they are. In fact I probably shouldn't use the word retarded as it gives mentally handicapped people a bad name. I'd place way of the master a level lower than the 700 club...and you have to be REALLY stupid to warrant that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Here's a question I have for you though. If the galaxy is not that old, but only 6000 years. How could that light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away reach our planet within just 6000 years? To answer that requires that you must at least be slightly open to the possibility of God. Since your mind is closed to that, I wouldn't get past the opening sentence. OK, Dumplin' let me try to put this in terms you're tiny Christian programmed brain can handle. Han's question should read something like "If the universe is 6000 years old, then why does God make it appear to be 13.7 billion years?" Ref yr sig as a side bar... Big red comic sans letters don't make gibberish right, it just shows that neither you nor Friel understand evolutionary biology... I think I shall call you Schlitze, in honour of another Tod(d) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Monkeys breed with monkeys and you get monkeys, OK! You don't get a new species!!" - Todd Friel Wow, sweetie, as a woman who really is not big into science...even I know that your statement is wrong, you do not even have a layman's basic understanding of evolution, because if you did, you would KNOW that the theory of evolution does not say that we come from MONKEY'S. Geesh, please, please read something outside of your dumbed-down, watered-down, apologetic/christian version of the subject matter at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 ...I will concede this point. I understand, more completely now, that God cannot be proven on science alone. The Creator cannot be broken down, categorized and explained by His created. Exactly. Nonetheless, with all the scientific checks and balances, at some point you still must, by faith, accept that some things have simply just "always been" in order to believe that things exist as they do now. Yup. There will always be some level of trust to our own senses and ability to discern what we believe or think is right. And that's the core difference between our opinions. I trust myself to know that science is a better method to understand nature and to approximate the models to explain the world, than a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of anonymous writers that at face value obviously got plenty of things wrong. I rather trust the one that say "we're not 100% sure, but this is what seems to be the explanation" rather than the person who say "believe me when I tell you how things work, I got this knowledge from my imaginary friend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 "If the universe is 6000 years old, then why does God make it appear to be 13.7 billion years?" Yup. That's a better way of stating it. Kat, if God exists, then why can't we ask why and why does God make it seem like he doesn't exist and his Holy Book being wrong? Why doesn't he make nature confirm his Holy Book rather than have nature deny and contradict his Holy Book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Monkeys breed with monkeys and you get monkeys, OK! You don't get a new species!!" - Todd Friel Wow, sweetie, as a woman who really is not big into science...even I know that your statement is wrong, you do not even have a layman's basic understanding of evolution, because if you did, you would KNOW that the theory of evolution does not say that we come from MONKEY'S. Geesh, please, please read something outside of your dumbed-down, watered-down, apologetic/christian version of the subject matter at hand. Besides, ring species is the proof of "new species". It proves that "species" is not a closed, simple, straight-forward definition that Christians wants to make it to be. You can tell that black-and-white, categorical thinking, is how they see the world. The word "species" isn't a perfect classification system of living beings, but it's the closest we can get. But by the definition of "species" we have, ring species are the same species and they're not the same species. So what is a species? A word, humans made up, to make an estimate of how the world works... nothing else. Christians somehow believe God created the word Species and gave it the meaning "Kinds" and that it is an exact science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I have reached the conclusion that archaeologists and early church leaders have a trustworthy set of checks and balances which verify the accuracy of the bible and our ability to trust what is written within. Pious Fraud... They didn't know what was real or fake 1800 years ago when the Gospels first appeared, they didn't know what was real or fake 1600 years ago when they put all the books together into the Bible, they didn't know what was real or fake 500 years ago when they translated it all into English, they didn't know what was real or fake at any point since then... How in the name of Xaru can anyone claim there's a trustworthy set of checks and balances when they STILL don't know what's real or fake in the Bible?? I no more have trust in the scientific checks and balances than you trust in the archaeological checks and balances.Who says we don't trust the system Archaeologists have? That's not the issue at all... what is the issue is the lack of trust in the checks and balances the early church fathers had. In other words, when one of the early church fathers is renowned for his dismay at the extent of fraud regarding the Gospels, (in that they couldn't even guess at which were real) it's pretty obvious that the system of checks and balances the early church fathers had wasn't even in existence! I'm sick of the insincerity. I'm sick of the dishonesty. I'm sick of the lack of integrity. I'm sick of that lack of desire for knowledge in people. I'm sick of the lack of interest in the face of evidence. I echo this... I've been here for years, dealing with Christians who insist that they want knowledge, who insist they're honest, who insist they're sincere... and who show very quickly that they are no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I echo this... I've been here for years, dealing with Christians who insist that they want knowledge, who insist they're honest, who insist they're sincere... and who show very quickly that they are no such thing. Antler and CT in for the kill. Game. Set. Match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 "If the universe is 6000 years old, then why does God make it appear to be 13.7 billion years?" Yup. That's a better way of stating it. Kat, if God exists, then why can't we ask why and why does God make it seem like he doesn't exist and his Holy Book being wrong? Why doesn't he make nature confirm his Holy Book rather than have nature deny and contradict his Holy Book? My late father maintaind I'd have made a fine Jesuit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts