Beautiful creation of humans

[heavymetal]

Don't expect the religious to agree with you if they don't even agree among themselves. The self, or God, exists beyond space and time ("another universe")

Excellent , the self of humans does not exist in the universe......

Truth is living and, therefore, changing.

Excellent - the final proof of the theory of relativity : even the truth is relative...... Einstein would be proud of you !!!!!!!!!

The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease.

WOW , thinking for yourself is actually bad for religion !!!!!!!

 

[heavymetal]

God, exists beyond space and time ("another universe")

Well, at least you agree with Jay_7 : god does not exist in the universe.....

 

[jay_7]

Well it took 300 million years for the first stars and galaxies to form since the beginning of the universe. That's slightly longer than 6 days.

Scientest dont even have enough proof too support this, they have comprimised with their theory and made everything go with it. They say dinosaurs lvied millions of eyas ago too support this, when their bones date back to only thousands of years.

You really are exposing yourself as an idiot now. You sounded much smarter when you simply said that it was all about faith. So now you are saying God put dinosaurs on Earth so that they could become lumberjacks? Then wiped them out with a massive flood (which I'm sure science would find evidence of if that was the case) so that the Earth could bask the superior civilized nature of humans?

Well at least ive looked at both sides and chosen for myself, andstead of what some scientest tells you.

You believe in a God, fair enough... But you are idiotic to say all of these idiotic things then actually say it is true. Not only that it is true, but true of a supernatural being outside of this universe which there is not a crumb of evidence for. Then ignorantly claim it as proof that your religion is the correct one out of a possible infinate religions. No wonder our planet is in the shit today with people like you around

Get over yourself.

Jay

Then who created the Universe? Nothing cant come from nowhere.

Even if your god created the universe, he would have had to create it from something, according to your logic.

Not at all. The bible says Gods outside time, which would be out of this universe.. clearly indicating that if God is outside time theres no need for a beginning.

Since there is no beginning, the bible is wrong in claiming there is a beginning.
Since there is no beginning, then god did not create the universe in the beginning, and the bible is wrong again.

Read above.

That's slightly longer than 6 days.

Yeah, well they havent fully translated the Bible yet you know, they are still discovering new meanings for words, etc. As c7ityi said, they may have not been literally days. The only thing that makes me say they may, is that dinosaurs bones are actually dated to around a few thousand years ago. Not millions.

Where does the bible say anything about dinosaurs, I want quotes from the bible, not some website written by a fundie.

The was no meaning for dinosaur back then, they called it Behemoth, heres some of their discriptions of it:

Job 40:15-24:


Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

(http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html)

when are you hard heads going to realize.
god has no proof, and can never be proven.

Hard heads? I would say open mind, ive thought of many possibilitys. It cant be proven that this universe came from nowhere either.

Well, at least you agree with Jay_7 : god does not exist in the universe.....

Which ive said over and over the bible says.

 

[KennyJC]

They say dinosaurs lvied millions of eyas ago too support this, when their bones date back to only thousands of years.

Can you show a dinosaur fossil that dates back a mere few thousand years? I can't wait for this one...

 

[jay_7]

Can you show a dinosaur fossil that dates back a mere few thousand years? I can't wait for this one...

Wehn scientest carbon dated the fossils, some dated back to thousands of years ago. But they still go along with their theory that they lived millions fo years ago.

Heres some info on it, read it: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

If you choose not to believe it, fine, but im going to do more research on carbon dating

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That article seems to be unaware of some carbon dating basics. Such as the calibration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Have the proper background tests been done?

The article in of your link mentioned the dating of dinosaur bones. If we visit the carbon dating site:
http://www.c14dating.com/bone.html

It states that succesful carbon dating has been done in bone. They are not referring to fossilized bones as is the case in dinosaurs. I would like to see some references if Carbon dating can be done in fossilized bones.


The maximum age of C dating is around 60.000 years. Anything older and the dating becomes unreliable.

Let's apply some logic now:
The carbon dating test said the dinosaur bone was 16.000 years old.
The carbon dating is unreliable on samples older than 60.000 years.
The carbon dating is unreliable without proper calibration.

If the dinosaur bones are 16k years old because the test is reliable then bones found also to be 16k years old of other animals should be of identical age. This means that dinosaurs roamed the earth with man and most of all other modern mammals as we seen them today (16k years is nothing on evolutionary timescale). This means bones of dinosaurs and modern mammals should be located in the same layer when digging them up. And they should be in a similar fossilized state.

They are not.

conclusions:
1. the whole carbon dating technique is unreliable(A). Either modern mammals aren't 16k years old including man (B), or dinosaurs aren't 16k years old(C), or neither of them are 16k years old(D). Take your pick.

(A) Carbon dating is calibrated with other methods. It has proven to be fairly reliable within the dating limits.
(B) the history of modern mammals can be measured by other means than carbon dating such as counting of tree rings. Unless anyone is claiming that trees don't have seasonal growths that can be reliably counted we now have a problem. It seems a lot of our modern mammals (including man) were around 16k years ago.

(C) previous statement indicates that if some of the modern mammals were around 16k years ago then dinosaurs weren't. Since they are found in deeper layers etc it must be concluded that they are older.

(D)A and B excluded C

Since we don't find dinosaur bones the oldest layers that can be carbon dated we must assume that they are older.

Samples older (and much older) than 60k year CANNOT be dated accurately.

Therefore the dinosaur bones weren't 16k years old.

How old were they? Well, we have other techniques for older samples.

 

[Satyr]

God is man’s aspiration.
A human ideal, projected in time into ‘transcendence’.

Man worships himself in his desired future.
Then he invents morals and commandments to ensure that his ideal will be realized.

Ideals, of course, are how man overcomes his insecurities.

 

[jay_7]

That article seems to be unaware of some carbon dating basics. Such as the calibration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Have the proper background tests been done?

The article in of your link mentioned the dating of dinosaur bones. If we visit the carbon dating site:
http://www.c14dating.com/bone.html

It states that succesful carbon dating has been done in bone. They are not referring to fossilized bones as is the case in dinosaurs. I would like to see some references if Carbon dating can be done in fossilized bones.


The maximum age of C dating is around 60.000 years. Anything older and the dating becomes unreliable.

Let's apply some logic now:
The carbon dating test said the dinosaur bone was 16.000 years old.
The carbon dating is unreliable on samples older than 60.000 years.
The carbon dating is unreliable without proper calibration.

If the dinosaur bones are 16k years old because the test is reliable then bones found also to be 16k years old of other animals should be of identical age. This means that dinosaurs roamed the earth with man and most of all other modern mammals as we seen them today (16k years is nothing on evolutionary timescale). This means bones of dinosaurs and modern mammals should be located in the same layer when digging them up. And they should be in a similar fossilized state.

They are not.

conclusions:
1. the whole carbon dating technique is unreliable(A). Either modern mammals aren't 16k years old including man (B), or dinosaurs aren't 16k years old(C), or neither of them are 16k years old(D). Take your pick.

(A) Carbon dating is calibrated with other methods. It has proven to be fairly reliable within the dating limits.
(B) the history of modern mammals can be measured by other means than carbon dating such as counting of tree rings. Unless anyone is claiming that trees don't have seasonal growths that can be reliably counted we now have a problem. It seems a lot of our modern mammals (including man) were around 16k years ago.

(C) previous statement indicates that if some of the modern mammals were around 16k years ago then dinosaurs weren't. Since they are found in deeper layers etc it must be concluded that they are older.

(D)A and B excluded C

Since we don't find dinosaur bones the oldest layers that can be carbon dated we must assume that they are older.

Samples older (and much older) than 60k year CANNOT be dated accurately.

Therefore the dinosaur bones weren't 16k years old.

How old were they? Well, we have other techniques for older samples.

Im already aware of that, but these fossils show no evidence of evolution and nobody can explain the sudden extinction, so scientest have came up with many ideas, comet? ice age? what else? Just to let their theory of evolution continue. Its funny how us humans just seem to be so lucky, first of all, our universe develops by chance when the odds are it is highly unlikely. Then, we just get a sudden extinction of dinosaurs to clear path for humans? I find it funny how we managed to dodge dinosaurs. It certainly seems to me something of intelligence is behind this. Now, unlike scientest guessing on how dinosaurs became extinct, we have a Bible that tells us. Along with descriptions of dinosaurs from people who lived thousands of years ago. Funny how scientest do alot of guess work to get around the Bible, hey? Also, after 10,000 years, DNA in an organism would of been gone, but supposedly 80 million year-old dinosaur bones had fragements of DNA. On top of that, their are some thought to be dinosaurs living today, the lochnest monster for example? Or the New Zealand monster? The Bible even says that 2 of every animal were saved from the flood. These two could be examples of those who lived all the way until today.

 

[KennyJC]

Im already aware of that, but these fossils show no evidence of evolution and nobody can explain the sudden extinction, so scientest have came up with many ideas, comet? ice age? what else?

As far as I am aware, when the oil companies were searching for oil, they came accross a huge crater in the Gulf of Mexio which using the 40Ar/39Ar method was judged to be around 65 million years old. That is very strong circumstantial evidence that this is what caused the mass extinction which also killed off dinosaurs.

Just to let their theory of evolution continue. Its funny how us humans just seem to be so lucky, first of all, our universe develops by chance when the odds are it is highly unlikely. Then, we just get a sudden extinction of dinosaurs to clear path for humans? I find it funny how we managed to dodge dinosaurs. It certainly seems to me something of intelligence is behind this.

Well if you want to think we got lucky, or that it was planned, that is up to you. I don't personally see the extinction that took out dinosaurs as 'lucky' since they were around for nearly hundreds of millions of years. That is a very good innings. We of course have an advantage now, because if anything effects our environment in such a way it cant sustain certain life, then we have technology to try and help us. But what could the noble dinosaur do?

Now, unlike scientest guessing on how dinosaurs became extinct, we have a Bible that tells us.

The Bible is just a series of stories. People who haven't been brain washed can make that judgement. It is no more the word of God than what I am typing now. Many christians realize they shouldn't take the bible literally and think things like the Earth is 6,000 years old and Earth was created in 6 days etc.

Along with descriptions of dinosaurs from people who lived thousands of years ago. Funny how scientest do alot of guess work to get around the Bible, hey?

How is it guess work to get 'around' the bible? Science isn't trying to come into conflict religion on purpose. With a little bit of common sense religion and science can live in harmony as many scientists are actually deeply religious, and have the same wonder for life and the universe as those people who wrote the bible. It just so happens that 2,000 years on, we can now explain things such as why the Sun moves along the sky, what we are made of and in fact, how old the Earth is.

On top of that, their are some thought to be dinosaurs living today, the lochnest monster for example? Or the New Zealand monster? The Bible even says that 2 of every animal were saved from the flood. These two could be examples of those who lived all the way until today.

OK, now you're taking this too far. I live in Scotland, and I can tell you that most people here know the loch ness is BS given all the hoaxes, but it's good for tourism... Perhaps from fundie christian yanks

 

[c7ityi_]

The Bible is just a series of stories. People who haven't been brain washed can make that judgement.

I wasn't brainwashed, yet I see the truth in the Bible. But you're partly right because at first, when I was younger, I thought that God and religions were mostly just fairytales. That was when my awareness of this world awakened and I understood the world in a rational way.

However, I only saw the outer world, but not inner world, I couldn't understand myself, the mental, or spiritual, things. So later, when I developed more self knowledge, I began to understand religions and God and saw that before I was just ignorant of the spiritual reality.

It is no more the word of God than what I am typing now.

God, the self, expresses itself through everything, even through you. How much one can express God depends on the body. Moses, who wrote many things in the Bible was one with God, that's why he said: I am what I am. He had no personality, he expressed only his true being: God, life, the existence.

Most humans always want to think they are right about everything, in order to keep their persons alive, and that is why they argue. They want to think they are perfect already, but they are expressing their imperfect personality instead of the self.

Many christians realize they shouldn't take the bible literally and think things like the Earth is 6,000 years old and Earth was created in 6 days etc.

The Bible doesn't mean that the earth is 6000 years old, it is people who have misinterpreted it because of their lack of understanding about the mental world.

The flood 5000 years ago marked the beginning of a new world, a new generation of humans. Long before that time, there lived different people on earth, but I would say that the new beginning started when the flood came. The Bible has explained it correctly.

It just so happens that 2,000 years on, we can now explain things such as why the Sun moves along the sky, what we are made of and in fact, how old the Earth is.

Even today, humans always thinks they know everything better. The ancients who lived thousands of years ago knew everything. They knew all the laws of the world and they knew their own mystery, the mystery of the sphinx. Nothing was unknown to them.

Scientists today believe they know why the earth moves around the sun, but in reality, they don't know, since they don't know the source of energy of motion.

 

[jay_7]

About the literlly 6 days in the Bible, dont consider me brainwashed, as ive believed in the Big bang for years, it was only the other day i considered he bible to be literal, but then found evidence that some words are mis-interperated and mean something else, other then how they appear in english language.

So i guess for those who have already read over this alot such as the guy above me, then they know alot more then i do or some atheist do

 

[KennyJC]

Jay7: I honestly understand significant parts of your feelings towards life. Wether you are a person of science, or religion, or both, I feel it is most important (in this day and age) to have a mixture of both. Religion is destined to die, in the same way gay marriage is destined to succeed.

For example: I have found religion to be very constraint towards the times, and I think the bible is a question of God that is dated 2.000 years ago, rather than factual historical evidence.

 

[jay_7]

Yeah exactly, and the way i choose to look at things is in a religous way, even though i also believe in scienece and that both can go togethor, i basically see eactly what your seeing, but look at it in a different way.

 

[Katazia]

jay 7 -

i choose to look at things is in a religous way, even though i also believe in scienece and that both can go togethor

How so? Religion is based on faith (zero evidence) and science is based specifically on evidence only. They are opposites. You cannot meaningfully and simultaneously believe in both.

Kat

 

[jay_7]

No i believe science and religion can work togethor in certian ways. Anyway im not going into this.

Also just say a God did exist which i think one does, then still people would be saying the exact same things, so whenever you say Gods created by man etc it doesnt mean its right.

 

[FallingSkyward]

Energy can transform into matter and matter into energy, but actually the sum of matter and energy is always constant , meaning there might be no beginning or end of creation .....

If there is no beginning or end , then there is nobody to create the beginning ....

Which means god does not exist !!!!!!!

But don't you see... you cannot place energy within the definition of forever, or else you would be eternal. But you're not(or are you holding out?)--at least in the physical state--you're restriced to time(you are born, grow, die..for your clarification)--all you know are cause and effect relationships produced by energy. If energy was eternal, not restricted to time, its constant sum matter would also not be restriced by time. Life, creation, would be eternal. We are not eternal-> Energy is also restriced within the limitations of time.

 

[Katazia]

jay_7 -

so whenever you say Gods created by man etc it doesnt mean its right.

Then can you give any examples of gods that were not created by man?

Kat

 

[jay_7]

jay_7 -

Then can you give any examples of gods that were not created by man?

Kat

I believe the Christian God wasnt, and the other Gods were, reason being some are simalar to christianity but change things.

 

[Katazia]

jay 7 -

reason being some are simalar to christianity but change things.

?????

I believe the Christian God wasnt, and the other Gods were,

What is the difference between them other than a descriptive difference in their characteristcs? What single fact can you isolate that reveals the xtian god something other than simply an idea? What is the difference between God and Zeus apart from different conceptual descriptions?

Kat

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I want the robots to be worshipping us one day. That would kick ass.