Hey Clough do you want me to answer this or should I let an expert like you take over for a while?? Since I have a test tomorrow and need to study...
|
Hey Clough do you want me to answer this or should I let an expert like you take over for a while?? Since I have a test tomorrow and need to study...
He's gone to bed, I suggest you go and study mate, we can carry on any time :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by avenger9000
I am sorry you are offended by MY being offended that you are using this forum in an attempt to impose your personal beliefs onto me. Jesus may be YOUR God, but he isn't mine. To assume that everyone here will be open to your "wonderful" sharing of YOUR God, is quite frankly, self centered and short sighted. We have many members here who are born of different faiths and beliefs. I am insulted and disgusted by your original post. I would never assume or attempt to do what you have done here.
However, I will leave you to your theological discussions. I know Capuchin well enough to know that he is being sincere in his requests for answers.
Personally, I have been through too many of these conversations in my life to know that you will not accomplish your goal in definitively answering his questions, no matter how many years you try. The questions being asked and answered here, are the same questions and answers that have been discussed and debated for 2000 years. The simple answer to it all is, there are no definitive answers. You can quote chapter and verse until you are blue in the face. It comes down to FAITH. Faith in your God, your religion, and all that you have been taught. The reward for that faith, the reward for acceptance, without doubting or questioning the events described in the Bible, will earn you your rightful place in heaven. Hallelujah.
Here are a few more to add to Capuchin's list... maybe you can explain these too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Virgin?Mary
Noah's Ark? Gathering Two of every animal from around the whole world and loading them on a boat that he made himself?
Eve? Being made from Adams rib bone?
I'm not making fun... I really want to know HOW this can be explained.
Thank you
Great questions and there are so many more. What I rely on the most, is faith. Blessed are those who believe without having to see ( I worded it differently).Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaeTrue
In my heart, I trust and believe and have faith. Some of the answers that we seek, we may never receive the answers while we are here on earth. Perhaps that is because
Our "human" minds could never fully understand the actual answers.
To me, (keep in mind I am Catholic and went to Catholic School). If it is beautiful and touches my heart and makes sense to me on a "spiritual" level, I don't question, I believe.
For instance, I believe God loves me :) and loves all of you. I believe He is kind, merciful, loving and forgiving.
Actually, I save all the head banging questions, for how can I become a better person. How can I be kinder and more loving. Seems as I am getting older, I am losing some of that ability to love easily... if that makes sense.
Sorry if I am taking this in a different direction. For me, when it comes to God, and the many questions, I just rely on my faith. I don't need to be shown or have proof, I just can feel it to be true in my heart.
I know these are not answers to any of your questions, but maybe there is an answer in there somewhere :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaeTrue
As far as I remember, when I visited Sunday school(roman catholic curch), the priest told me that this is not acknowleged by the church as a holy truth. But rather as a "story".
I am not 100% sure...
I think you may be put value to Jesus's sacrifice as the death of Jesus. Witch is the sacrifice; however what makes it a great sacrifice is the effect. That is opening the gates to heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Yes,
That God the Father, gave of His only son, to suffer and die for our sins. The suffering
And death of Jesus the man, is the sacrifice. The suffering that Jesus did endure is more than I think I can even try and imagine.
On the point of Jesus' sacrifice... He did in fact die in his humanly form. He was resurrected for a very short period to show that He was who He said He was. He didn't stay alive like a magic trick. How many people have claimed to be a god or a son of a god or whatever, been persecuted, killed, and NEVER resurrected? The answer is A LOT! What about them? We don't hear about them because all they did was die. They didn't come back. They were just human... not a divine spirit. Jesus was. He is risen and has taken his place in Heaven.
At least that is the way I see it.
As for truths, Holy Truths, errors, etc of the Bible... these are all chosen by the "church" according to their "religion" and quite frankly is a bunch of crap (this really calls for a stronger adjective but I shall refrain). This is a bunch of political bull that should not be boughten into. The Bible should be taken for what it is... nothing more... nothing less.
So are you saying that the Bible is a bunch of lies?? Because I disagree with that
Well, I feel the need to chime in here with a few thoughts.
I believe the bible to be true in every respect.
I believe that evolution is another religion. At least the part that the universe as we know it came from nothing.
I do believe in microevolution which is the variation within a species but not in evolution as it is understood in general conversation.
I make claim that evolution is a religion so I shall begin by making some similarities..
Creation
In the beginning was God and God created the universe
Break down the word "uni" ONE
"verse" SPOKEN SENTENCE
Genesis 1:3 "And God said...
The biblical account of history explains all the events in the creation.
This is considered religion. That is OK.
Evolution
In the beginning there was nothing, no energy, no matter, nothing
The origin of the singularity spoken of in this religion is unknown.
Why it is here is unknown.
Where it is located is unknown.
When nothing exploded, it created a seriously complex system of order.
All other explosions that have been recorded are shown to have created disorder.
This is considered science. That is not OK.
I think that beief in either one of these requires serious faith.
I think they both qualify as religions.
I'm saying that there's no reason that I can see to regard the bible as truth.
Rudi there are some glaring holes in your understanding of what we are talking about:
1. Evolution does not posit anything about the beginning of the universe, and can only be applied to living species.
2. The theory of the big bang gives us scientific data that can be explained and recorded today.
3. The "verse" part of universe comes from the latin "vertere" which means to turn. Literally it means "turned into one", but should be interpreted as "entire, all". Nothing to do with speaking. Unless you ignore the roots of the word as you decided to do.
My bad if I am taking this astray but I thought the tide slowly shifted towards evolution.
Only to living species, yes. We, did not come from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Aren't evolution and the big bang linked together? Ultimately, I thought it was believed that everything was evolved from there.
I feel there are several types of evolution, only one of which I believe. The adaptations to a species such as the superbugs you referred to does happen, it has been observed and I do not dispute that. -but they started as "bugs" and they are still "bugs".
This does not suggest to me that there is any reason to believe that the superbug which is resistant to penicillin or something will one day become human or that at one point I was once a superbug myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Please share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Fair enough, I was thinking more in dictionary terms than in word origin terms.
1. Hubble's Law Expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudi_in
Galaxies and stars in all directions are moving away from us, as we would expect from big bang theory.
2. Cosmic Microwave background.
The night sky gives off radiation of a black body at about 2.726K, remnant energy from the Big Bang.
3. Large scale structure of the cosmos.
The formation of entities, clusters etc line up with our models of how they should from the big bang as an initial condition.
4. Abundance of light elements.
In the first 3 minutes of the big bang, there was enough energy for nuclear fusion to form light elements (H-1, He-4). That is why we see such an abundance of these elements in the universe. Using the initial conditions from big bang theory, we find that the universe should be ~75% H-1, ~25% He-4, trace Li, Be and H-2. This is consistent with what we see today (taking into account stellar nucleosynthesis, etc.).
Now I have reasoned the above very shortly, but there is tons of evidence and calculation and years of research for each of them, the vast majority fitting with the big bang theory as we have it today.
The theory of evolution only explains how we have evolved from the first tiny bacteria or plankton or whatever to how we are today. We still don't know how the very first creature was created, but there are well backed theories and practical experiment is coming closer slowly. The Earth was a very different beast when life first formed :) (if it did form on earth).Quote:
Aren't evolution and the big bang linked together?
The big bang has NOTHING to do with the formation of life. Only to the extent that it created a universe where life was possible.
That part can be easily reasoned away: religion deals with faith in something unseen that cannot be proven, evolution is a product of science whereas someone like yourself could do reseach today and uncover the same results as the millions of other scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudi_in
Feel free to visit your local library and peruse the sections 573 and 575 under Dewey Decimal system. Please note: these books will not contain parables nor will thousands of people interpret the same line differently due to the archaic language... as opposed to the Bible.
No, Im not saying it is a bunch of lies whatsoever. What I believe the Bible is needs a whole 'nother thread just to see the tip of the icebergQuote:
Originally Posted by avenger9000
That's a pretty bold statement. Even the leaders of whatever religion you abide to will disagree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudi_in
I will concede that Hubble's Law provides evidence to support that the universe is expanding but it does not provide evidence that expansion is due to a big bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
While there may be some recorded energies out there, it is an assumption that this energy originates as a result of the big bang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Weren't the entities and clusters already there before our models? It would seem then that our models were created based on the pre-existing conditions not predictions of the future.
An abundance of something doesn't prove another.Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
There is nothing scientific about the initial conditions of the big bang theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
The initial conditions of the big bang indicate that there was nothing; no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no nothing and then a singularity, a supposed infinitely dense and infinitely small, spinning mass with an astronomical amount of energy that included all of the matter in the universe as we know it all in the size of a period appears out of nowhere and begins expanding.
Can we agree that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed but are conserved and move towards a state of increased entropy?
Law of conservation of energy
1st Law of thermodynamics
2nd Law of thermodynamics
The second law also indicates that entropy in a closed system can never decrease.
By the law of conservation of energy then the universe represents a closed system, right?
How is it then that there was nothing and then something and then energy to cause the movement? If we started with nothing, where did the matter come from? Where did the energy come from? How is it that these things can become more orderly and complex?
True some leaders probably would.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
There can be no compromise.
It is either all true or all false but not some of each.
To indicate that any part of the bible is false would be to say that God has not given the truth.
I do believe that there can be incorrect interpretations (why some leaders would disagree)
But the bible itself speaks only the truth.
As imperfect people, we are bound to misinterpret.
Many scientists have made many misinterpretations in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
It was once taught that the world was flat and that heavy objects fell faster than light objects too.
I believe that there are many misinterpretations being made in the theory of evolution too.
I very much dount that any scientist you talk to will agree that the understanding of the big bang was that out of nothing came something. Before the big bang we cannot know what there was, because the beginning of the big bang was a gravitational singularity. There could be a few way that this formed:
1. A prior universe collapsing under gravitational acceleration until reaching the singularity that formed "our" universe.
2. Something outside our universe, providing the energy, for example brane theory.
Please understand that the big bang theory is not a "model that fits the pre-existing conditions". It is formed by taking the evidence we have today, and extrapolating back in time. The first formulation of the big bang theory were formed from the observation of hubbles law.
If the universe is expanding, then what happens if we reverse the time? Do we get a singularity?
Then, we work out what else we could see if this model were true.
If the big bang theory is true, then there must be a time where the universe was in thermal contact shortly after the singularity. This must mean that wherever we look into the universe, we should see the same temperature.
Now, it took many years for technology to develop to the point where we could do an accurate survey of the sky. And when it did, we saw things that correlated remarkably well with our model which was formed from a completely different observation.
The models aren't just about making something up that fits what we see today, like Creationism is. It's actually about forming a theory, making predictions from those and then observing those predictions to see if the theory holds up.
This is what makes the big bang such a powerful model.
Has anyone witnessed the big bang?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It remains unseen and unproven.
I would think it takes just as much faith to believe that we all ultimately developed from a big bang as from God.
Also please understand that I do not debate evolution in the sense of adaptations within a kind.
As I understand it, modern evolution theory includes 6 types of evolution...
1. Cosmic evolution - big bang
2. Chemical evolution - formation of the elements
3. Stellar evolution - star formation
4. Organic evolution - life from not life
5. Macro-evolution - change of one animal to another
6. Micro-evolution - variations within a kind
I am OK with number 6 just not 1 through 5.
Numbers 1 through 5 remain unseen and unproven.
I just have to say, you guys are just amazingly brilliant and handling this discussion in a way that all discussions like this, should be handled. Well done.
Again, you both are so gifted and bright.
Please forgive the interruption :).
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Is it fair to say then that there was no life at some point after the big bang and before the first form of life?Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
This would imply that life came from the non-living.
This would violate the concepts that make up the law of biogenesis wouldn't it?
So your view is that there was nothing at all and suddenly, out of thin air, every single species of animal including two humans suddenly appeared all at once?
Not all at once,
It happened over a period of 6 days.
It was God who created it though.
Hi Need –
I know you weren't asking me, but just sharing my viewpoint. In a way….yes.
NK, to me, there will be things that you can not see, feel or touch, but yet you believe. Spirituality is one of them.
There are things in your everyday life that fall into this category. For example, your loved ones. Love is an emotion. You can't see it feel it nor does it really have to be proven, but yet you believe, trust and have faith that you are loved. Having faith in God and all that goes along with that, is pretty much the same thing.
And Noah built an ark by himself and collected two of every species on earth? Including microscopic species?
My love for the people that fit in that category does not include me to follow a book written over 2000 years ago. Other than that I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
The law of biogenesis applies very well at present and no evidence has been found to go against it. But that all it is. A law that applies here and now. It's very useful in medicine and other disciplines.
There is nothing about the law of biogenesis that says it has applied for all time, and that life was always impossible to originate from nothing, on another planet or on Earth from very different conditions that were present in the early Earth. It's not a universal law like that.
God told Noah how to make the ark.
The only animals that needed to be on the boat were the air breathing land animals.
There were actually 8 humans on the boat.
Noah and his wife, his three sons and their three wives.
Would we also say this of the many other laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology that we have come to know?Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Everything in the universe is bound by some law.
It takes a specific chemistry for life.
The laws of chemistry were made just right by God so that it could work out that way.
He created the laws of physics just right so that the laws of chemistry could turn out the way they did.
Laws of planetary motion as Kepler describes them worked out the way they did for a reason.
Most laws of physics and others are mathematical in nature.
There are physical constants which are fundamental in nature.
The laws of logic were just right so that all the others would work out the right way.
Where do these laws come from?
From God.
We were made in his image and therefore have a small understanding of logic.
Laws don't just change. They will apply to the future just as they have in the past. This is basic to science. If it were not, then all of our experiments would mean nothing for the future.
All these laws depend on each other. If the laws change the system fails.
Every law has different ranges in which it will work.
Newton's laws only work for speeds much less than the speed of light.
The ideal gas law only works for a certain type of gas.
The law of biogenesis only works under the conditions that we have observed it to work.
They are only unbreakable within their own ranges.
Do you not believe that animals such as monkeys have some amount of logical understanding?
Statistics can easily take the role of God here.
Of course each law has its own unique parameters. Each of the laws out there have their effects.
We wouldn't use Newtons second law to explain the behavior of an ideal gas.
However, Newton's law and the Ideal gas law have always been there despite their unique parameters. We only became aware of them at different times.
The law of biogenesis has always been there too, the parameters being the inclusion of all life. We wouldn't use this law to explain gravitational force between objects either.
We cannot imply that the law just started at a time different than the others. They all began together at the creation.
Laws of nature don't just start and stop on their own.
Of course they haven't. Firstly, the ideal gas law has never been here because there is no such thing as an ideal gas. To argue that such a law has been hard-wired into the universe is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudi_in
In a similar way Newton's laws of motion have never been here, because some other higher law that we do not understand has created the motion. The motion of subliminal matter is described well by them, but the entire universe does not abide by this law. General relativity has managed to describe moving objects far better than Newton's laws. Newton's laws are not hard-wired in to the universe like you are suggesting. It is a human construct. Just like the Ideal Gas law is.
Similarly the law of biogenesis is a human construct. It is a law based on evidence gathered in the last few hundred years. It describes the situation that we have evidence of at the moment. If we recreate early Earth conditions, then maybe we can start to get an idea of how abiogenesis would come about. Is does not rule out the possibility of abiogenesis under different conditions, different times, or different places.
I also think you misunderstood me when I effectively said that "biogenesis has stopped". I obviously meant on Earth. There is nothing to suggest that life is not evolving from non-life on some other rock somewhere else where the conditions are right.
I am not trying to compare unlike with unlike, like you are suggesting I am.
The fact that it is called Newton's Law is just because it is named after Isaac Newton.
When it was realized that an object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless an outside force acts on it we eventually put a name to it: Newton's First Law of Motion
In this sense it is human construct but Newton did not invent this behavior and put it into place.
This aspect of motion was there long before Newton.
If this condition was not always there...
Who originally made it that way then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
What piece of matter does not follow the First Law?
Are you really arguing that the law of biogenesis was always there in all places and all conditions because it's been observable, on Earth, in the last 200 years?
I believe that life can only come from life.
I do not believe that any form of life could have arose from non-living materials on its own.
Because you believe that there is something more to life than just chemistry?
I have to sleep now, goodnight :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
Life coming from life has been observable for more than 200 years.
Are you arguing that abiogenesis exists when there has been no observations of it at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
A double-edged sword. I do believe that there is more to life than chemistry, in a philosophical, moral, and spiritual sense of course.
I do believe in atoms of course which make up every cell in our bodies.
But what makes up our thoughts that lead to our decisions? Our consciousness? Knowledge?
Yeah, I think there is more.
Sweet dreams, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by capuchin
It has been a good debate. It is good to be challenged from time to time.
I have learned much.
I'm joining the discussion a little late but I wanted to make two points:
1) According to many believers (different denominations have disagreements over this) Jesus had two natures: Man and God. According to Jewish traditions, an animal was sacrificed as a way to "wash away" sins and transgressions. When the animal's life is given, the sinner can start anew, freed from his sins. So, God sent his own Son (who is essentially Himself) to be sacrificed- the ultimate scapegoat and sacrifice for humanity's sins. Many express the sacrifice this way: Humanity's debt was so big that the only payment enough to wipe the slate clean was God's life Itself. Christ, the Son of Man suffered, died, and was buried. I believe His suffering was just as painful and the temptations he faced just as real as if they were suffered or faced by us. He was Man but also God so He resurrected.
2) I define myself a scientist, with complete faith in the sciences and respect for the laws that govern what we can sense. But, I also strongly believe that science and God are two COMPLETELY different things. One cannot be used to define the other!
Science was created by man to explain and understand what he sensed with his 5 senses; to explain his past, present, and future. My humble opinion is that it is arrogant and erroneous to believe that something created by man can contain and explain (or refute) God.
I also do not believe that the Bible is a scientific book and I do not take everything, in it, literally. Men wrote the words, and granted the words are according to the inspiration given by God, but man can only write what his mind can grasp. If the only way a man can express or explain Creation was by breaking it down to days does not mean that this is a scientific fact. He can only use the vocabulary and range of thought available to him at the time.
By the way, I have no idea where I read this but is it true that Native Americans could not physically see Columbus's ships approaching because their minds never conceived or imagined such huge water vessels? And that it was the Shaman who noticed the difference in the tides and first "saw" the ships and described it so that the people started seeing them? Has anyone read or heard this? I cannot remember whether I read it or saw it in a documentary and cannot check on it now.
But, if it is true that our eyes cannot "see" what our minds cannot grasp, can you just imagine the implications!. and the importance of imagination!
Well said!! Lol Couldn't have said it better myself...
Ok I just realised something coming back from conference that I probably should have raised this a long time ago... But consider the following...
The claim of Jesus that He is God has the following possibilities or whatever word I should have used here:
1. That it is true
2. That it is false
Now breaking it down a bit further, if the claim is false, then there are two further possiblities:
1. That Jesus knew that it is false
2. That Jesus didn't know it was false
Ok if Jesus knew it was false, then he's a liar. But imagine this, if all He was was a liar, then how can it be that he chose to die on the cross?? All he needed to have said was " Hey you people, I am a liar, what I have claimed arent true, please do not kill me." But the fact he chose to go ahead with it rules out the liar argument.
Looking at the 2nd possibility, that Jesus didn't know that the claim is false. This means that he is a lunatic, but a thorough examination of all He has taught, said and claimed, it all seems to be consistent and actually makes quite a lot of sense!! Therefore, I strongly believe that this argument can also be ruled out. Thereby, by eliminating all the possibilities that are wrong, we can safely rule out that the claim is false (this is just my opinion). Thus, according to Sherlock Holmes, by eliminating all the wrong possibilities, what we are left with must be true, irrespective of how seemingly ridiculous it maybe on the surface.
Disclaimer:
This post is in no way intended to force you to believe that Christianity is true, and it is of the opinion of the author of the post. Reading this post is not and shall never replace looking further into the Bible, asking questions at church, talking to a qualified pastor etc.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:21 PM. |