Then how about you provide evidence of what you claim? The Earth's climate has been cyclic for at least the last billion years or so. A flood cannot possibly change the climate of the Earth. The flood described in the bible was not global - it was just a normal flood.

Here, look, 420,000 years of ice core data from Alaska
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Notice anything? IT IS CYCLIC. Likewise, there have been 4 major ice ages that we know of. The harshest ice age occured 850 to 630 million years ago. The most recent glacial period peaked 18,000 years ago, well before noah's mythical flood (somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 BC) that covered the Earth.



And how does that change what I've said?

Obviously, planted there by satan to tempt us not to believe!

Nope. Religion is belief in the supernatural and reasoning based on that belief, just as science is belief in our own observations of the natural world and reasoning based on that belief.


Again, you completely misunderstand. Religion is an attempt to understand the truth about the parts of our universe which aren't purely physical, just as science is an attempt to understand the truth about the parts of our universe which are purely physical. The truth is the truth, regardless of how it is discovered. Two conflicting statements can not both be the truth, and if your religious beliefs and your scientific beliefs conflict with each other you have a serious misunderstanding of one or both and need to take a good long look at your reasons for believing in each.


Again, wrong. Science tends not to make observations regarding the supernatural universe. Nonetheless, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics leaves plenty of room for God to interact with his creation. From an observers stand point, is there really an functional difference between a purely statistical universe, or one that's controlled or at least occasionally manipulated by a supernatural entity? NO.


Why the frak would God try to hide his own existence? He wants you to have a relationship with Him, and to do that you have to believe in Him. Again I ask you, why the frak what would he try and conceal the very thing that allowed you to come to that belief?


Actually, this is the one part of that entire post that you got right....Nonetheless I have multiple firsthand accounts, from people I trust to be intelligent and critical thinkers, of occurances that would be very hard to explain without supernatural involvement, and once that leap is made, I find a good many reasons to follow the teachings of Christianity, and I've yet to find a convincing reason (or reasons) why I shouldn't.

Faith for its own sake is meaningless, and it must be tempered by reason and evidence or it is no longer a way to seek the truth.


So it was not stolen or copied so much as preserved. Obviously something happened to change his (and his family's) beliefs about God to monotheism, but its a fair bet that a decent portion of Genesis prior to the story of Abraham was mythology inherited directly from Mesopotamian culture.


I remember when you used to have constructive things to say.

Wow, this has certainly turned into a big affair!
I have to say, I basically agree with Kerm on all counts, in that I want to encourage friendly intellectual sparring, and that I... disapprove, to say the least, of ANYONE who acts intolerantly, no matter what their beliefs are.

Now, eeems, in regard to the age of the earth:
If the creation story were literally true, wouldn't every planet or star in the universe be approximately the same age (give or take a few days)?
If that were the case, how do you explain the fact that we can detect stars hundreds of millions (or even billions -- see this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181358.htm) of light years away? If the universe were only a few thousand years old, the light from such distant objects would not yet have reached us.

Obviously I don't believe what I'm about to say, but I can see two arguments against that. One, people could claim that those stars aren't as far as we say (which we can refute with the Parallax effect) or two, people could claim that light actually has a much faster speed, which is also refutable through simple experiments that even a layperson can perform.

Right, so both of those things are refutable. My point was that unless you want to deny the laws of physics, the universe must have certain attributes, including a (large) minimum age.

No, religion is an attempt to explain that which is not known with pure guesses and/or as a means of gaining power. All one has to do is look at religion through the ages to figure that out. Pretty much all of the ancient religions dealt with trying to explain the unknown, which when science stepped in and pointed out that such ideas where lunacy (such as some guy holding the earth up on his shoulders), religion would move to take a random guess at explaining something else. Religion is also used as a means to take power from people and get money out of them. Most successful con job in the history of man.

The only difference between then and now is that it will take us another thousand years or so to figure out. Future people will look back and think "look at those idiots and their religious idols. I can't believe they though that the <blah blah> theory was god!"

Religion and truth don't belong in the same sentence, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I'm wondering something... why haven't humans macro-evolved yet?

On another note, let's make an analogy! Aren't analogies great? (This is inspired by Flatland. If you haven't read that book, pick it up.)

Say you create a two-dimensional plane and a world with two-dimensional people. You can be standing right next to the plane and they won't even know. You can see the "insides" of these people and even touch them. You can talk and the voice will seem to come from nowhere. You can even stick your arm through the plane and, in a way, physically enter their world as something close to an ellipse.

I believe that God lives in more than three dimensions (this should be fairly obvious, since He created our three dimensions of space), and it is very likely He is in more than one dimension of time as well. In fact, from what I know about Him, I wouldn't be surprised if He had infinite dimensions. (Well, he has infinite of so many other things. ) This analogy, for one thing, shows how He can easily cure diseases since He has access to every part of us, as well as many other things.

End dimensional rant.

An interesting theory, to be sure, but peep this. What if there are multitudes of beings in that higher dimension, and this god you speak of is simply one of them; based on your theory it sounds like you'd agree much of this being's power comes from the physicality of higher dimensionality rather than some kind of inherent divinity. Thus what's so special about the particular guy who happens to be messing with our little slice of reality?

He says that He is the only God. That's enough for me.

Actually, a lot of ideas about God, particularly His being eternal, omniscient, and even his name for himself "I Am", make a lot more sense if you believe he exists outside the flow of time. There very well could be other beings that in exister in that higher dimension, the Bible certainly speaks of other spiritual powers that are at work in the world. But raw power (Goa'uld) or even higher dimensionality (Ori), do not make a being worthy of worship, its what they do with that power.


@Kllrnohj: If that's really what you believe, then stop trolling around this topic, it doesn't concern you. But I find it almost hilarious that you claim religion and truth have nothing to do with each other, when some of the most brilliant scientists in history chose to be scientists because of their belief in Natural Revelation. Clearly you're just skimming this topic looking for statements you can rant against though, so I'll list them some of them again for your benefit. Galileo, Newton, Francis Collins, Donald Knuth, Robert Boyle, Max Planck.

Who says we haven't?



For one, we are aware of more than 3 dimensions (not directly observing, but we have theories of up to 11 dimensions). Also, such interference would create physical evidence, of which we have none of a god.

However, here is a counter that is equally likely (perhaps more so). What if we exist in a computer simulation, thus "god" is simply the simulator? Look at the game The Sims, for example. People love to simulate other people and situations. Scientists rely heavily on computer simulations. As computers get more powerful, the simulations more complex. It is not only highly likely, but perhaps inevitable, that we will end up simulating a universe ourselves (who, in turn, will simulate their own universe - a simulation within a simulation)



Except your counter to my statement is a logical fallacy. Their motivations and their work are different. What they believed in is irrelevant. Newton's work on Calculus, for example, has nothing to do with religion (and vice versa). So please either counter my argument, or stop trolling Then again, religion's only real "contribution" to science was the dark ages - gg religion

I find it hilarious that you think that people tripping balls and getting stoned out of their mind who wrote a book 7,000 years ago somehow managed to definitively know something that we don't - even though everything else that they stated about the world turned out to be incredibly wrong.

since you're too lazy to read the topic, I'll quote myself again



This is functionally equivalent to accepting the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possible permutation of reality is playing itself out somewhere in the multiverses. If you believe your life is a "just a simulation" why are you even bothering to argue this? Nothing you do with your life can possibly ever have meaning, and I find it hard to believe that you find this discussion enjoyable. Go play your new 360 or something, so you can get your dopamine high and at least find something enjoyable in your robotic life.


Do you realize that the only reason we even use the word mass in physics is because physics was originally studied by the religious trying to discover truths about the nature of Jesus's body? That the father of genetics did his work as a monk? That Galileo wanted to see the stars because the heaven's declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands?

I'm not too lazy to read the topic, I've read every post. Which is why I DIDN'T QUOTE YOU. Perhaps you should read who I am responding to so you don't look like such a douche.



Um, what? I never said what I believe in, so please stop making assumptions.



You do realize you have YET TO COUNTER WHAT I SAID? Congrats, you can repeat yourself - but its still a logical fallacy as I already pointed out. The beliefs and motivations of the person is completely irrelevant in regards to the resulting works.

It doesn't really matter who you're responding too if the point you're making has already been rebutted earlier in the topic.




You've made it pretty clear that you believe in a purely physical universe, with no supernatural occurences of any sort, certainly nothing that would be considered spiritual. If that's the universe you believe in--its certainly the one you've been arguing the existence of--then I repeat, nothing you do will ever matter. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter if the engine behind the universe is chance and probability, a complex simulation in the computers of some transcendent culture, or simply the result of the multiverse playing out every possible permutation of our reality. You're still a purely physical being who's only carrying out some predetermined interaction of subatomic particles. If that's what you believe, then I ask you again, why are you even bothering to argue this when you know it has no purpose in the grand scheme of things? And if it's not what you believe, then why have you been arguing so vigorously to convince others of that belief?


I'm confused here. You seem to be saying that religion is responsible for contributing to belief in witches and book burnings, but it has nothing to do with the discussion and/or is in no way responsible when it causes people to investigate the natural world and advance scientific knowledge?

but the flood was global, how else could it have lasted for 40 days and 40 nights?? also when the earth flooded the layer of water around the earth was drained and became the arctic poles thus with the protective layer gone there was an imbalance in the climate and the world began to cycle
the ice core samples graph, how do they get the years?? how do we know that they didn't measure the time span wrong??
because of this we can't be sure of the "ice ages", you also realize that Muslims were break offs from the family, i cant remember exactly but i think it was one of the brothers of his sons or something. and of course he was Chaldean, were else could he have come from?? a fig tree??

by the way you guys have been pretty busy without me

about that part where you said that you agree with science not ever proving there is a God, why then do a lot of the geneticists out there that start off as strong atheists believe in creation by something after working in their field??

i believe that he lives outside of any dimension, because he is after all the creator of it all, so why should he exist inside it??

when God said let there be light in Genesis, i wonder what happened that made it exist, maybe he made it at a place where it just suddenly was at a state of being everywhere it should if it had existed for a long time, or maybe God hadn't made time yet, or the 7 days was just a representation and God took thousands of years to create light, of course it would have taken no time for him

Eeems, I've pointed this out already but I guess I'll give it another try. The edit button! Its located at the top right of all YOUR posts. Use it instead of double or triple posting (God forbid you from going beyond three like you have already done).