First  Prev  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/6/13


We have different beliefs and different ideologies, but I've been enjoying your posts. Just wanted to let you know.
6370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/6/13
Nope, and it will stay that way.
5058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/8/13 , edited 8/8/13

EmeraldMercy wrote:

Conquistador0


In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?


If there is a fossil, and it is located between two different sedimentary layers, and you know the dates roughly of the layers, you know that the fossil is older then the sediment layer above it, and younger than the sediment layer below it.


That right there is called circular reasoning. Because how do you know the date of the layers (which most are NOT radioactive) without the fossils to help guide you? So then any date you find which doesn't convenience the timetable is automatically assumed to be off for no other reason but "it doesn't fit the time-table, must be a bad date."

Yet what is the Geological Column that is referenced for these dates? Before we begin looking at the geologic column, it is important to understand the key differences between the starting assumptions of young-earth geologists and old-earth geologists. These two different beliefs are used to interpret the evidence found in the rock record. Understanding these starting points is the key to understanding the different views of geologic time.

Young-earth creationists start with the Bible to derive the age of the earth: approximately 4,000 years passed between Creation and the coming of Christ, which is added to the 2,000 years since the time of Christ. This gives an age of the earth and universe of 6,000 years. They accept that God created in six days, that the once “very good” creation has been marred by sin (Genesis 3), and that a global Flood inundated the earth about 4,300 years ago (God’s judgment on the sin of mankind, Genesis 6–9). They then interpret the evidence in light of these truths revealed in the eyewitness testimony of the Bible. The events of Creation Week (Genesis 1) and the Genesis Flood (Genesis 6–9) are the major shapers of the geologic record from a biblical perspective.

From the uniformitarian perspective, the planet has evolved gradually from a molten ball to a water-covered planet where mountains are continuously eroded and uplifted, and rocks are recycled through the earth’s crust and mantle over billions of years. The use of radiometric dating is used to establish absolute dates for the age of the earth. Uniformitarian geologists accept catastrophes on a local scale, but reject any notion of global events like the Genesis Flood. The Bible is rejected as authoritative, and the earth is calculated to be 4.5 billion years old.

The major problem with uniformitarianism, from a scientific perspective, is that it is an unverifiable assumption—the same claim leveled against creationists and the Bible (except that creationists have a written eyewitness account). There is no absolute way to measure rates at which past events happened. Uniformitarianism is a presupposition applied to geology and the rock record, and also to biology, astronomy, physical chemistry, and many other scientific fields
. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column
You will find an excellently written essay on the Geologic Column written by ICR: http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/

While assumed to be scientific, the only place that it naturally occurs is in the textbook! Even of the 0.4% places on the earth said to contain the Column, large chunks of time via layers are missing without any explanation. In reality, you will find all kinds of assortments or outright missing layers!


EmeraldMercy, I do understand that evidence alone cannot convince. So let me try to put this in perspective about mankind's ability to discover truth: We all like the idea of man getting better and better with time. We see large improvements in technology and thought, and we hope that this will spill over to our spiritual standing, and so be able to pick one of those boxes someday. It is like asking a man, who was born blind, to make you glasses so you can see better. Unless that man knows what it means to see, let alone the dramatic issue of what good seeing is, how can he ever hope to make you viable glasses..or anything resembling it?

If there is one thing you do read here, I have an excellent documentary by a man named Ray Comfort called 'Evolution vs God'. Intellectual food that I know you will enjoy. Its only 38min long.
Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world's top universities:

• Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
• Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
• PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
• Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method--observable evidence from the minds of experts.
You can watch the 38min video here posted by Mr. Comfort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ



EmeraldMercyAnd there IS evidence of the microbes on Mars, but like our discussion, there is a dispute whether the data of the glucose creating methane bubbles on Mars shows life or not, though the control wielded an answer that showed that it was not just any chemical reaction. It was the same testing process we use to test if there are microbes in our drinking water here on Earth.

Look up the Viking Mars Rover experiment, or click on this unbiased link, it has both arguments of whether or not there is life on Mars or not...

As a matter of fact, I did read the columns It was very thought provoking and I learned a little. However, according to The National Center for Biotechnology Information from of the Department of Atmospheric Chemistry in Germany, and many other reliable sources say the Murchison Meteroite is the main culprit when Ultraviolet-radiation is added.:

Certainly if there had been life found on Mars, it would be in the news everywhere as the story of the Century. And it would be. :D

Hope you have a great day,

Conquistador0

1052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/8/13 , edited 8/8/13
I'll just ignore the scientific crap and the religious crap and just say that I like people with beliefs.
Just dont try to push them onto others and dont expect others to understand them.

I myself don't really care if there is God or not. I'm living my life here down on earth and that's what I focus on.
It doesn't even matter if God exists, as long as you're a good person (which all of us should strive to be anyways) you should be fine?

The only two things that irritate me about some spiritual/religious people is when:
1. They claim everything that can't be understood now must be the work of their God.
2. They do not respect other peoples believes, but request respect for their own.

If you believe in a God, don't laugh at people believing in Warewolves. Please, at least be consistent.
Posted 8/8/13
No, I don't need to be, I don't take any interest in it.
11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/13 , edited 8/8/13
Conquistador0



I know see what your ideas of the Earth are... but what I do not understand is why you think that one out of hundreds of dating tests throughout the world do not show that the Earth is millions of years old. If you break it down when we even dated sacred relics, such as the Shroud of Turin, which dates to the medieval ages, but it was assumed that the date was wrong because of some biological life that had taken to the cloth to form a form of a mold, which was dated back to the medieval ages.

Of coarse, in a few tests using the same methods that show certain events happening in the holy land which matches up with the bible cannot then be taken for true or false either if the entire carbon dating test is in fact incorrect.

If we dated some of the artifacts of where Jesus lives, you end up with the same dates that match up with the bible. So why then is that data taken as true, while data showing the dinosaurs is untrue? The test becomes more accurate in a ratio aspect when using the test on objects that have older dates. If the test is indeed flawed, then not only scientists and evolutionists have to find new ways to learn about the world, but so will Christians, and theists, and the rest of the world.

There is one other major flaw with your theory, and that is that the carbon dating test is actually very accurate, especially when over the coarse of a long period of time. Reasoning for this is found in another statement of mine, which I can provide a link for if you insist, but the water bear that can survive in space curled up on a dry piece of moss. After a recorded and OBSERVED period of time (1000 years) the water bear's body was found, and the scientists put water onto it, and the water bear awoke, and started about its normal life routine. At the time before the water bear was awoken, there was a carbon dating test done on it, which was the whole point of the experiment, the water bear was a separate thing they did afterwards... The moss was shown to be roughly 1000 years old, although the multiple tests can be a about a few years off, and the dates are rarely correct, though sometimes only weeks off of the real date. The average of all of these results, throwing out one or two results that are easily off (saying that the date was only a day ago, or far too long ago.) The average comes to nearly a perfect date. You can look up articles of this on Google if you wish.

So, how is your theist theory correct against other theist theories? That is what it comes down to. If you simply take the stories of the bible differently from what you currently do, you will end up with an entirely different picture. This picture can be correct, and leaves plenty of room for us to figure out specific details. As a person, when born, we assume nothing... but observe the world through our very own senses given to us. After a while, we notice we are capable of moving our own arms about, and controlling them very accurately. We notice hunger, pain, heat, and cold. We notice things we did not before.

One thing that might make you rethink your world is this...

Gravity is NOT a property of matter... in fact, it is simply something that newton has only observed, and guessed upon. Now, many scientists jumped aboard the wagon, saying that there are three forces of nature... Gravity, Friction, and Magnetism. Only one of these in particular are actually believed to be true, and it alone is what causes the other two ideas... but that doesn't even come into the equation.

Einstein himself used one of his own ideas, and found evidence for it, which then disproves newton's theory. Of coarse, the IDEA of gravity isn't false, but its actual relativity to the world is far from being correct. The reason things fall towards larger and heavier objects is because space itself is bent. Light photons are known to travel in straight lines, and it is not gravity that bends them, since gravity itself (It was thought so at one point gravity can capture light...) cannot, but rather the curvature of space makes it so that the pathways of light will go straight into black holes, which are simply areas of which so much mass is contained that it rips space time fabric into a way that holds light in a close orbit upon other light, and objects, and other forms of energy, only escaping when energy is by far greater than the mass encased inside. This then can send out blasts of gamma rays, and other energy signatures which can be detected on Earth.

Now, this brings about a new point... why does the light from another star even reach us, if the world was created only 6,000 years ago... that alone shows how there is no possible way that the world can only be 6,000 years old, but shows that the universe must be billions of years old. If the celestial bodies created in Genesis was created back then as your theory goes, then how does the light travel millions of light years of sistance to reach Earth? The celestial bodies would have to have been created billions of years prior to the sun being made, which was the first day God created the light of the world. This places the Bible out of order of sequence... but the final blow is that if the sun is far younger than other stars, and they do follow a rather linear life cycle, how is it that our own star is much, much younger than them? Now, the rest of the steps make sense, but only if you reanalyze the bible. We cannot analyze it based off of other's findings...

This, and this alone ruins any aspect of a 6,000 year old Earth, but still allows room for God to exist. (Though, as you know, many have little to no tolerance for that idea.)

Think of it like this... In Mexico, the conquistadors used God, Glory, and Gold as reasons to kill off the natives... I know, since I am of the same ancestral bloodlines to the Catholic Spanish that colonized Mexico. My relatives became wealthy land district rulers, who then sent the rest of the Terranado family a generation later to New Mexico, where my family now lives. They lived off of the slavery of the indians, and forced them to abandon their ways of life, though of course some willingly converted. The indians went into a revolt, and attacked the capital of New Mexico, Santa Fe, and forced out the Spanish. My great great great... grand father was in that battle, as a man who escorted the citizens of New Mexico out of the city, while a cousin was killed doing the same. After many years, he was known for helping resolve the revolt, without actually fighting... he rescued his own people, and did no harm to the other side. His bravery in the rescues assured him a family title, as well as his own coat of arms, the three eagles, representing many things, one of which is that there is a black eagle... and a yellow eagle... and an eagle cut in half between the yellow and black side. This is still the coat of arms for the new family name of the Terranados, which changed the name to Roibal, or modernly, Roybal. They too had discussions of religion, but never did they come to the conclusion I have. I know I am lost, and I choose to be lost so that I can relate to others, and also discuss with anyone of a middle ground. I do my best not to partake to certain grounds, but I have my own idea of the world as you do to, but I allow my world change. That world has undergone change since we started talking, but has yours?

The Roybal name would have normally forced me into a position where I could not live without being a Roman Catholic. I still am pulled by many individuals and groups by many different ropes all leading in many directions, but I am still standing, I am not being dragged foot over head... instead, I am torn apart, and allowed to journey with each puller of the rope so that I can see their ways. Though it hurts me in many ways to be able to live out a normal life, I am so far willing to be pulled apart, so that later on, I can sneak myself back together, with information about every side of the rope I was pulled. I know of the stories from all sides that I was pulled.

I cannot argue with my Mother's idea of the world usually, since she has a Theory which changes to match what she currently knows... and she interprets the Bible by her eyes, and her mind, without being told it is impossible for the words to have a different meaning from the text, as other analysts have said before. That said, I don't agree with her either... as I have said already. If God is as the Bible says in the old testament, I am assured hell as punishment for my foolishness... but if he is by the New testament, I am assured forgiveness, with a possible purgatory, before heaven. If none of the above... then I will have to find out after my own death.

So that we can be on the same page, can you explain your theories and ideas of the world step by step according to the Bible, from the very beginning of the first occurrence of a major event. This will help me see if you actually were saying something else, and I misunderstood you. LIke you thought I used circular reasoning with a quote from you, and I did if you were using a scientific foot hold... and I wasn't if you were not, then I also need you to give me a reason that doesn't counter its own explaination.

I don't know if I am asking too much, but is it possible to quote the bible, line for line for the first few lines of genesis, and then describe how it reflects real life, like what time things line up at, and what places. Give your interpretation of the Bible in the clearest of ways, so that it may ring out before everyone in a light that will in itself show that it is a solid statement... Similarly, if you also say you would like a similar explanation from my current theories (You can pick my Roman Catholic Christian theory, or any other theory that requires me to presume things like a Buddhist perspective, and so on... as I have already described the one to live by, of being lost.)

In any matter, I am starting to get ready for the final preparations for college.

I do hope you can use this against me as you have, (Of coarse, I don't mean that in a hostile way, just that it helps me to figure out things...) cause although I am not always able to respond to all of your well written information, I do read nearly everything you link... though a few I will stop once I get a general idea of the topic. I am very happy to know that out there, there is a reasoning further than the shallow information I was able to provide for others. (This is my way of saying, you are very intelligent, and I highly respect you, and your ideas because of that. Of coarse, this does not put you above anyone, but only on such a scale.)

I had much interest with this discussion so far, and am sad to declare I will be reading the following posts with less speed since I will be busy from August 13th, and even before then. You have got me to a point where I must re-read the bible to remember that one particular theory I had of the world... very glad you influenced me thus far, since it allows be to find things that may either further your theory, or also hold it before it stretches too far... In either case, take care my friend. It will not be long before I talk with you another time...

Again, thinking of you...

-Emerald Mercy















On a side note, sorry this is rushed... I have started a heavy discussion on Facebook about animal cruelty... and since it is a not too well known topic for many people, there isn;t many like you who will think before saying something rash (Which allows me something to think about on a specific level), or discussing possible actions, which in most accounts would be wrong in several ways... so until next time I catch a post from you, or others on this forum which quote or name me, I will see you...

Farewell friends...

2207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/13
People who really want the truth go out and look for it. Read books. Do their research. Find out both sides of the story. Maybe there's a middle ground. Once they find the truth - whatever it happens to be - they shouldn't rub it in people's faces because that's the surest way of pushing them away from the truth (and it's them NOT having the truth that they are annoyed about, right? so why should they be pushing people away?).

First things first: terminology. Don't say "science" when you mean "scientific method" or "scientific law" or "scientific theory". Science is merely "observation". It's unbiased. It's raw data. The conclusions we make about it are theory or law (Please go look those up), and it really shows your ignorance if you decide to call these theories "science" as if that were the only term in English for describing this stuff. I'm afraid the over usage of the term (even by some scientists) has deceived the populous into believing the word "science" equates to established fact, as if science=data=theory=law, so people go around spouting it like that. *sigh*

That said...

The scientific method is limited to study of the physical. It cannot be used on metaphysics. It can't say whether or not "God" exists. Of course, we must ask the question, "What is God?" Most people THINK they know, but everyone has their own idea. I have my idea of "God" but I can't speak for everyone else. My "God" might exist whereas someone else's might not or vice versa.

Am I arguing in favor of the existence of "God"? No. I'm saying it's not a question of the scientific method. Big difference.

The perceived conflict between scientific progress and religion stems from the fact that some atheists perceive it as an "ancient" idea that prevents one from having an open mind which would allow them to reject God. However, people still use the wheel - a VERY ancient idea - and it's not going away any time soon, nor do I think society would advance much if we discarded the wheel in favor of "progressing to alternatives". Some ideas are still around because they work. And sometimes it's more or less the "upgrading" of our usage or understanding of these concepts that keep them around.

Hence, may be it isn't time to ditch the idea of "God" just because it's antiquated. Maybe it's time to update one's personal view of God to something more rich, thorough, and something that makes sense even with the discoveries in modern times and society.

tl;dr
1) "science" != "scientific method" != "scientific theory" != "scientific law"
2) Don't like God? Change your understanding/concept of Him.
11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/9/13
HoshinoKaabi,

You seem to stand upon firm ground, as does Conquistador0.

Can you possibly share your views of the world... they remind me of many ideas I highly regard in life.

Like you, I also think of views which I do not take from other's views, but use those views as landmarks to find many of my own. If I did not, I could never stay as lost as I must be, since I would have to join and leave one landmark at a time, rather than find the center and stick close to it while being pulled in all directions.

Unlike you... we live in separate circumstances in life, and therefore have different origins.

Like I have with Conquistador0, please discuss with me your ideas, whether you wish to find more truth to your own ideas in life, or other truths. In either case, it does not matter if you hold anything against me, I just wish to learn more about the many different perspectives many people have. It is a shame that Kaos Prophet has dropped out of the conversation... He also had views I needed to inquire about. In any case... I look forward to speaking with you. :)

Until tomorrow... "mata ashita"

Thinking of you...

-Emerald Mercy











9511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / England
Online
Posted 8/9/13
I'd say I'm agnostic, borderline atheist. I find the concept of God and Heaven and the Bible's stories in general farfetched, but I like to believe loved ones that have passed on are in Heaven because it's more comforting than thinking they're rotting under the ground.
Posted 8/9/13
No, I'm spritual tyahahahaha!!!
16695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 8/9/13
No, I'm an atheist myself. I don't really care for religion because the whole idea of it is ridiculous to me, however I respect anyone who has religious views. I don't particularly care for people who try to force their religious views on others, though, when someone gets overzealous about it, it begins to bother me.
TayHum 
8026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/9/13
I am a Muslim and I am religious because I believe in my religion
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/9/13

TayHum wrote:

I am a Muslim and I am religious because I believe in my religion :D


One of the best answers yet. No hint of negativity. No reaction to the negativity of others. Just a pure and honest answer.
Respect
TayHum 
8026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/9/13
Wow I just read some of posts looks like lots of people are having unnecessary arguments, but thank you I wish people would be more respectful of other people's beliefs
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/9/13 , edited 8/9/13

TayHum wrote:

Wow I just read some of posts looks like lots of people are having unnecessary arguments, but thank you I wish people would be more respectful of other people's beliefs


Indeed. I one-hundred percent agree with you and I think it should go both ways. Even as a non-religious person, I grow tired of seeing the intolerance of religious beliefs. Truly, all individuals should practice tolerance and acceptance. Life is too big a mystery to attempt to dictate the truth for another individual. Take care and have a good evening.
First  Prev  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.