The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is just my opinion on some stuff. Which side do you favor - scientific or religious route? Foreword: This, which I am about to type isn’t science-fiction nonsense. Much of what is written is based on scientifically proven fact, and the rest is my opinion. Using a combination of the two, a reasonably non-contradictory explanation can hopefully be created. Right.
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> if you want proof of evolution, look no further than your own
> appendix. A redundant organ, which would have been utilised by our
> ancient ancestors to digest grass (it's true, humans *had* 2
> stomachs!). Obviously, we haven't had to use this organ for probably a
> few tens of thousands of years, and so, the organ is small, useless,
> and expendable.
>
> In a few more tens of thousands of years, this organ will likely not
> exist.
>
> Not concrete proof sure, but why else would it be there? What would
> "God"'s purpose have been in creating it? etc etc.
Iv'e no idea IB and without wanting to get into a lovely circular argument with you it's just a theory about the 2 stomach malarky put forward by guess who - the evolutionist's.....I have no idea why it is there but I do know that it has been there for a long time, it has even been observed in 5000 year old mummies found in china that contained all of their internal organs intact, in the same proportions as today.
> if you want proof of evolution, look no further than your own
> appendix. A redundant organ, which would have been utilised by our
> ancient ancestors to digest grass (it's true, humans *had* 2
> stomachs!). Obviously, we haven't had to use this organ for probably a
> few tens of thousands of years, and so, the organ is small, useless,
> and expendable.
>
> In a few more tens of thousands of years, this organ will likely not
> exist.
>
> Not concrete proof sure, but why else would it be there? What would
> "God"'s purpose have been in creating it? etc etc.
Iv'e no idea IB and without wanting to get into a lovely circular argument with you it's just a theory about the 2 stomach malarky put forward by guess who - the evolutionist's.....I have no idea why it is there but I do know that it has been there for a long time, it has even been observed in 5000 year old mummies found in china that contained all of their internal organs intact, in the same proportions as today.
nh wrote:
> Keep strong Ant - sorry I wasn't around the last couple of days to
> join in with this one - looks like it was fun !!
To a reasonable extent, yes. :D
I think the reason it's harder for us to explain, or even try to persuade, is that it's not really based on facts. It's personal experiences that we go through that really make the difference.
But knowing facts is cool too. Went to a service once where our Pastor had been looking up facts on the Internet and he showed us pics of Jesus' tomb and places like that, and you know the story of the two towns/cities? Sodom (sp?) and somewhere else, I can't remember, but I know God basically burnt them down because of the evil there.
He showed us some photos of these massive sulphur balls they found where the two cities were located.
Nice. {:)
> Keep strong Ant - sorry I wasn't around the last couple of days to
> join in with this one - looks like it was fun !!
To a reasonable extent, yes. :D
I think the reason it's harder for us to explain, or even try to persuade, is that it's not really based on facts. It's personal experiences that we go through that really make the difference.
But knowing facts is cool too. Went to a service once where our Pastor had been looking up facts on the Internet and he showed us pics of Jesus' tomb and places like that, and you know the story of the two towns/cities? Sodom (sp?) and somewhere else, I can't remember, but I know God basically burnt them down because of the evil there.
He showed us some photos of these massive sulphur balls they found where the two cities were located.
Nice. {:)
nh wrote:
> Iv'e no idea IB and without wanting to get into a lovely circular
> argument with you it's just a theory about the 2 stomach malarky put
> forward by guess who - the evolutionist's.....I have no idea why it is
> there but I do know that it has been there for a long time, it has
> even been observed in 5000 year old mummies found in china that
> contained all of their internal organs intact, in the same proportions
> as today.
I have no intention of getting in a religious/scientific debate. But there is much to consider. Why would we have redundant organs? It's like upgrading a version of windows by installing it on top of the version you have - you end up with a lot of redundant files. If we were created by an all powerful presence, it would have been a clean install, rather than one upgrade after another. Why? Because all powerful beings don't have to be conservative.
And I did say tens of thousands of years ago, 5000 years isn't much time for evolution to take place in a species that lives as long as we do, even though 5000 years ago we didn't live that long.
Instead, consider rats, who evolve very quickly indeed to adapt to their environment by becoming immune to one poison after another. Clever little critters, but that is the special gain of a short life span combined with a high capacity for breeding. Both of which we lack.
Personally, I don't take anything as given. I'll never believe in much the bible says, as it offers no proof, only answers. Science is much the same on certain issues, and much of what is science theory I throw out the door (especially when it comes to black holes and worm holes and rubbish like that). I believe in what I have proof of, and anything else, I'll just use the best feasible theory available until proof is found.
Both sides are flawed, and assuming answers from either of them is just wrong.
> Iv'e no idea IB and without wanting to get into a lovely circular
> argument with you it's just a theory about the 2 stomach malarky put
> forward by guess who - the evolutionist's.....I have no idea why it is
> there but I do know that it has been there for a long time, it has
> even been observed in 5000 year old mummies found in china that
> contained all of their internal organs intact, in the same proportions
> as today.
I have no intention of getting in a religious/scientific debate. But there is much to consider. Why would we have redundant organs? It's like upgrading a version of windows by installing it on top of the version you have - you end up with a lot of redundant files. If we were created by an all powerful presence, it would have been a clean install, rather than one upgrade after another. Why? Because all powerful beings don't have to be conservative.
And I did say tens of thousands of years ago, 5000 years isn't much time for evolution to take place in a species that lives as long as we do, even though 5000 years ago we didn't live that long.
Instead, consider rats, who evolve very quickly indeed to adapt to their environment by becoming immune to one poison after another. Clever little critters, but that is the special gain of a short life span combined with a high capacity for breeding. Both of which we lack.
Personally, I don't take anything as given. I'll never believe in much the bible says, as it offers no proof, only answers. Science is much the same on certain issues, and much of what is science theory I throw out the door (especially when it comes to black holes and worm holes and rubbish like that). I believe in what I have proof of, and anything else, I'll just use the best feasible theory available until proof is found.
Both sides are flawed, and assuming answers from either of them is just wrong.
I know what you're saying there Ant.
I find it interesting to find out about the hard evidence that backs up the written word. Some of the things that have been discovered are amazing, Like you said the burnt remains of Sodom have been clearly identified. There are stones in the desert that have writings on them which have been identified as having been carved by the israelites during the exodus.
Other things that help are being able to use parts of the bible to show people that certain prophesies that were written thousands of years ago have been fulfilled. The most important and clearest one to show people being the date that Israel was returned to the Israelites which can be proved to be totally accurate.
These and numerous other things alone do not prove the existence of God but they do prove the accuracy of the bible and it helps when having "debates" with people to be able to actually substantiate biblical events.
I find it interesting to find out about the hard evidence that backs up the written word. Some of the things that have been discovered are amazing, Like you said the burnt remains of Sodom have been clearly identified. There are stones in the desert that have writings on them which have been identified as having been carved by the israelites during the exodus.
Other things that help are being able to use parts of the bible to show people that certain prophesies that were written thousands of years ago have been fulfilled. The most important and clearest one to show people being the date that Israel was returned to the Israelites which can be proved to be totally accurate.
These and numerous other things alone do not prove the existence of God but they do prove the accuracy of the bible and it helps when having "debates" with people to be able to actually substantiate biblical events.
Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't take anything as given. I'll never believe in much
> the bible says, as it offers no proof, only answers. Science is much
> the same on certain issues, and much of what is science theory I throw
> out the door (especially when it comes to black holes and worm holes
> and rubbish like that). I believe in what I have proof of, and
> anything else, I'll just use the best feasible theory available until
> proof is found.
That's fine IB and I respect your point of view, I am not the kind od person who will try and force my views and beliefs on anyone.
I know what I know and I believe what I believe.
I know that, setting aside the religious aspects of the bible, it is a valuble historic reference and an enormous amount of the information in there about places, dates and times can now be proven by scientific and archaelogical means, this to me helps to prove the accuracy of everything that is in there and with the interest I have in archaeology it gives me a means to have some interesting discussions with people.
As I said to Cookie Monster, In all the things I have read and seen, I have still not come across any evidence that disproves a single thing in the bible, all I have found are things that prove it is correct.
>
> Personally, I don't take anything as given. I'll never believe in much
> the bible says, as it offers no proof, only answers. Science is much
> the same on certain issues, and much of what is science theory I throw
> out the door (especially when it comes to black holes and worm holes
> and rubbish like that). I believe in what I have proof of, and
> anything else, I'll just use the best feasible theory available until
> proof is found.
That's fine IB and I respect your point of view, I am not the kind od person who will try and force my views and beliefs on anyone.
I know what I know and I believe what I believe.
I know that, setting aside the religious aspects of the bible, it is a valuble historic reference and an enormous amount of the information in there about places, dates and times can now be proven by scientific and archaelogical means, this to me helps to prove the accuracy of everything that is in there and with the interest I have in archaeology it gives me a means to have some interesting discussions with people.
As I said to Cookie Monster, In all the things I have read and seen, I have still not come across any evidence that disproves a single thing in the bible, all I have found are things that prove it is correct.
I'll agree that certain things in the bible have been proved correct, but I've yet to see any proof of people walking on water and such.
from a historical and archaelogical perspective, it will always be an important document. Just because there is no proof to the contrary, doesn't mean that something is correct, and vice versa - the problem that makes biblical/scientific arguments so hopelessly circular.
I do lean towards science in my beliefs though, mainly because science is always looking for more answers, and finding as many questions. the day will eventually come where science has all the answers. whether those answer are similar or not to those proposed in the bible remain to be seen.
IB
from a historical and archaelogical perspective, it will always be an important document. Just because there is no proof to the contrary, doesn't mean that something is correct, and vice versa - the problem that makes biblical/scientific arguments so hopelessly circular.
I do lean towards science in my beliefs though, mainly because science is always looking for more answers, and finding as many questions. the day will eventually come where science has all the answers. whether those answer are similar or not to those proposed in the bible remain to be seen.
IB
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I'll agree that certain things in the bible have been proved correct,
> but I've yet to see any proof of people walking on water and such.
That's the thing about Miracle's - you have to be there...
>
> from a historical and archaelogical perspective, it will always be an
> important document.
Indeed, and the fact that so much of it is backed up by so many other old documents such as the dead sea scrolls and other important writings just increases it's importance.
>Just because there is no proof to the contrary, doesn't mean that >something is correct, and vice versa - the problem
> that makes biblical/scientific arguments so hopelessly circular.
Yep - I agree with you, this is why these arguments can just get "silly" so easily. Hence why my debate with Cookie Monster went on for so long earlier.
> I'll agree that certain things in the bible have been proved correct,
> but I've yet to see any proof of people walking on water and such.
That's the thing about Miracle's - you have to be there...
>
> from a historical and archaelogical perspective, it will always be an
> important document.
Indeed, and the fact that so much of it is backed up by so many other old documents such as the dead sea scrolls and other important writings just increases it's importance.
>Just because there is no proof to the contrary, doesn't mean that >something is correct, and vice versa - the problem
> that makes biblical/scientific arguments so hopelessly circular.
Yep - I agree with you, this is why these arguments can just get "silly" so easily. Hence why my debate with Cookie Monster went on for so long earlier.
Firstly, when I refer to "the church" I'm talking about the Roman Catholic church, as it's one of only a handful of religions that has a centralised HQ from which it's teachings are decided on....
EVOLUTION:
Science HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. What is not clear is the specific way in which evolution works. Do out genes control the kind of personalities people have (meaning people like Hitler will always come about), or are there more environmental issues like education (phenotype vs. genotype for those in the know...)
The church HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. What the church's stance is, is this...
Genesis (ie the first book of the bible) is NOT how the Universe was created (in 6 days!). It is the way in which people, with little understanding of the laws of physics, tried to explain something of the magnitude of the creation of the planet. What genesis actually tells us is 2 things:
1) The way the people who wrote the bibble saw the world
2) The generalised way the Universe was created. It was not done in 6 days (anyone who honestly thinks that the church still thinks that should really get their head out of the sand.). Rather, the Universe was created in 6 AGES that God predetermined. Man did not suddenly appear out of no where- man began to exist when God gave him an immortal soul.
Now, seeing as science has yet to disprove the human soul, religion says nothing that disagrees with science on the point of evolution. The way it goes is that God created life, which then evolved, and he gave animals souls. At a later time he gave the evolved humans an immortal soul, and that's what makes them human. (And please don't argue with that. It's the official Roman Catholic stance on the subject, although it doesn't even need evolution to be correct it still works with it.)
BIG BANG/CREATION
Science is pretty much sure of the big bang happening. Hubble's laws prove that, and have been observed by the doppler effect.
The church does not disagree with the big bang, or any other creation theory. What the church says is that God designed the Universe. So, for example, under the big bang theory, it is God who designed the Universe and then created time and space in the big bang, which led to life being created.
It does not disagree with science in any way.
THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Now, I'm sure someone must have mentioned the fact that, even after Columbus found America, the church continued to publish the FACT that the Earth was flat for many decades. So, obviously religion is wrong because it disagreed with science....
NOT AT ALL! Saying that Earth was flat was a purely political point that the Pope of the time made to avoid embarrasment to the church. EVERY great religion has, at some time, been abused for politcal reasons. Osama uses it to justify a Jihad, Protestant and Catholics use it as a topic to fight over and scientologists commit suicide over it... ok, so ignore the last one.
But the fact is that the church (again Im on about the Roman Catholic church) is liberal about science these days. It's teachings agree with any scientific principal, although that isn't the point of religion anyway. The point is to teach morals (which came from God), and show us a good way to lead our lives.
Now! All that said, personally I believe that God was the invention of early humans to understand things beyond their comprehension. As our knowledge of science has increased, the need for God as a method to explain things has decreased. "God is dead, and we have killed him" (Nietschze). However, I don't think religion is unuseful- it teavjes morals and give more reason to life than "survival of the species".
Mind you, I could be wrong... wasn't there someone who said:
"Nietschze is dead, and God has killed him"
Sonic
EVOLUTION:
Science HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. What is not clear is the specific way in which evolution works. Do out genes control the kind of personalities people have (meaning people like Hitler will always come about), or are there more environmental issues like education (phenotype vs. genotype for those in the know...)
The church HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. What the church's stance is, is this...
Genesis (ie the first book of the bible) is NOT how the Universe was created (in 6 days!). It is the way in which people, with little understanding of the laws of physics, tried to explain something of the magnitude of the creation of the planet. What genesis actually tells us is 2 things:
1) The way the people who wrote the bibble saw the world
2) The generalised way the Universe was created. It was not done in 6 days (anyone who honestly thinks that the church still thinks that should really get their head out of the sand.). Rather, the Universe was created in 6 AGES that God predetermined. Man did not suddenly appear out of no where- man began to exist when God gave him an immortal soul.
Now, seeing as science has yet to disprove the human soul, religion says nothing that disagrees with science on the point of evolution. The way it goes is that God created life, which then evolved, and he gave animals souls. At a later time he gave the evolved humans an immortal soul, and that's what makes them human. (And please don't argue with that. It's the official Roman Catholic stance on the subject, although it doesn't even need evolution to be correct it still works with it.)
BIG BANG/CREATION
Science is pretty much sure of the big bang happening. Hubble's laws prove that, and have been observed by the doppler effect.
The church does not disagree with the big bang, or any other creation theory. What the church says is that God designed the Universe. So, for example, under the big bang theory, it is God who designed the Universe and then created time and space in the big bang, which led to life being created.
It does not disagree with science in any way.
THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Now, I'm sure someone must have mentioned the fact that, even after Columbus found America, the church continued to publish the FACT that the Earth was flat for many decades. So, obviously religion is wrong because it disagreed with science....
NOT AT ALL! Saying that Earth was flat was a purely political point that the Pope of the time made to avoid embarrasment to the church. EVERY great religion has, at some time, been abused for politcal reasons. Osama uses it to justify a Jihad, Protestant and Catholics use it as a topic to fight over and scientologists commit suicide over it... ok, so ignore the last one.
But the fact is that the church (again Im on about the Roman Catholic church) is liberal about science these days. It's teachings agree with any scientific principal, although that isn't the point of religion anyway. The point is to teach morals (which came from God), and show us a good way to lead our lives.
Now! All that said, personally I believe that God was the invention of early humans to understand things beyond their comprehension. As our knowledge of science has increased, the need for God as a method to explain things has decreased. "God is dead, and we have killed him" (Nietschze). However, I don't think religion is unuseful- it teavjes morals and give more reason to life than "survival of the species".
Mind you, I could be wrong... wasn't there someone who said:
"Nietschze is dead, and God has killed him"
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> EVOLUTION:
>
> The church HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. ???????
I know you are a notable but get your head out of your backside Sonic. What a ridiculous statement to make. The church DOES NOT accept evolution as fact.
Science accepts evolution as an acceptable THEORY, there is no factual evidence to support it - show me some where I can see some facts and I will be glad to read and come back to you.
Darwin was basically used as a political pawn by Huxley and he himself expressed doubts on numerous occasions about the validity of his theories. When Huxley and his cronies ganged up on Bishop Wilberforce it became a situation of one against too many and Wilberforce was not strong enough by himself to stand up for the Church. The evolutionists then won the debate and the press of the time reported everything as fact.
What the church's
> stance is, is this...
>
> Genesis etc....
This bit I agree with in principle....Basically God created the Earth etc and made the Earth ready for human habitation. Wether it took six days, 6 weeks, 6 years or 6 million years is not really relevant as we will never know.
>
> It does not disagree with science in any way.
The church disagrees with sceince in many ways !!
>
> THE EARTH IS FLAT!
>
> Now, I'm sure someone must have mentioned the fact that, even after
> Columbus found America, the church continued to publish the FACT that
> the Earth was flat for many decades. So, obviously religion is wrong
> because it disagreed with science....
>
Whatever "The Church" says - the Bible says that the earth is round and that is the important point.
Isiah which was written approx 2600 years ago V21-22 - "Have ye not know ? Have ye not Understood from the foundations of the earth ? It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants therof are as grasshoppers"
The Hebrew word which is translated here as CIRCLE is the word "KHUG" which also can be translated as SPHERE.
That will do for now ... :)
> EVOLUTION:
>
> The church HAS fully accepted evolution as a fact. ???????
I know you are a notable but get your head out of your backside Sonic. What a ridiculous statement to make. The church DOES NOT accept evolution as fact.
Science accepts evolution as an acceptable THEORY, there is no factual evidence to support it - show me some where I can see some facts and I will be glad to read and come back to you.
Darwin was basically used as a political pawn by Huxley and he himself expressed doubts on numerous occasions about the validity of his theories. When Huxley and his cronies ganged up on Bishop Wilberforce it became a situation of one against too many and Wilberforce was not strong enough by himself to stand up for the Church. The evolutionists then won the debate and the press of the time reported everything as fact.
What the church's
> stance is, is this...
>
> Genesis etc....
This bit I agree with in principle....Basically God created the Earth etc and made the Earth ready for human habitation. Wether it took six days, 6 weeks, 6 years or 6 million years is not really relevant as we will never know.
>
> It does not disagree with science in any way.
The church disagrees with sceince in many ways !!
>
> THE EARTH IS FLAT!
>
> Now, I'm sure someone must have mentioned the fact that, even after
> Columbus found America, the church continued to publish the FACT that
> the Earth was flat for many decades. So, obviously religion is wrong
> because it disagreed with science....
>
Whatever "The Church" says - the Bible says that the earth is round and that is the important point.
Isiah which was written approx 2600 years ago V21-22 - "Have ye not know ? Have ye not Understood from the foundations of the earth ? It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants therof are as grasshoppers"
The Hebrew word which is translated here as CIRCLE is the word "KHUG" which also can be translated as SPHERE.
That will do for now ... :)
Page: