# Question



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2014)

I was thinking while sitting in a deer stand couple days ago, and the evolution debate crossed my mind. Some say we evolved from apes. But what is the standardized response to who created the apes? I say standardized because all these things have surely been asked long before me. And then it crossed my mind about the big bang theory.... who created that which banged?     Or is it just accepted that it "just was", no creator? Thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2014)

Actually I was sitting, waiting for it to get daylight. Looking up, I was admiring the stars,  being overwhelmed with the thought of infinity. Wondering  what others think of this "wonder". Thinking that some see God in this and some don't. And those questions in the OP came to mind.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 3, 2014)

I think the standard response is that everything always was.

Looking at the stars from a deer stand has always been a strange thing for me.......not sure why, but it's the satelites that really make me feel small.  I guess it's because they are so close, universally speaking, but they look so far away.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 3, 2014)

There is no standard response.  The most common response is "I don't know and neither do you, and just because I don't yet know the answer does not require me to believe in magic for the sole purpose of providing an answer."

One answer is that there was no beginning.  All basic elements have always existed in one form or another.  The Big Bang/Big Crunch is an on-going cycle.  What evolves from one Big Bang may be very different from what evolved from the infinite number of prior Big Bangs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 3, 2014)

The way, I understand, the Big Bang works is that the energy content of the entire universe, including that which we call space and time, was compressed into a singularity of unimaginable density, temperature and violence. 

Since it existed in a state of singularity, and one of the defining characteristics of a singularity is an event horizon (a point, more like an altitude, below which no information, light, matter, etc., can escape the singularity) then there is no way to communicate that which occurs below the event horizon to anyone outside of it. 

The shorthand version of that is, we don't know and are unlikely to ever to know. It's for that very reason, in this one discussion, that I hold myself as agnostic rather than atheist simply because it is unknowable what happened before the Big Bang and how that singularity of energy came to exist. 

I love thinking about this stuff, and reading/watching TV shows about it, and I know that shows on here. My wife, on the other hand, hates when I start this stuff up as we're going to bed. It relaxes me where it makes her think and try to understand the nature of the Big Bang. 

One of her favorite questions is: "If space was a result of the Big Bang, and space itself is expanding, then what is it expanding into?" 

I personally view it like an inflating balloon, except in this case the inside of the balloon is our universe, and the outside of the universe is the possibly infinite "empty space" (since our human definition of space has both energy and matter content) that housed the singularity that gave rise to it all. 

I have a theory, and would love to discuss it with an astrophysicist, that our assumptions about Hubble's observations are actually flawed. The current model of the universe is based on the idea that our universe is expanding, and that anything that is 2x distance from us is expanding at 2x speed. My theory revolves around the idea that this measurement is also 2x older than our base measurement, so if you look towards the more current measurements (those close to 1x time distance from us) the rate of expansion is actually slowing down as the universe ages, and that, at some point in the very distant future, could lead into the contraction needed to reset the universe in a state of singularity by which a new Big Bang would then occur. 

That's a lot more than you asked for, and not entirely on topic, so I apologize, but I just wanted to throw out my own musings on the contemplation of our triviality in both size and importance to the universe at large.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was thinking while sitting in a deer stand couple days ago, and the evolution debate crossed my mind. Some say we evolved from apes. But what is the standardized response to who created the apes? I say standardized because all these things have surely been asked long before me. And then it crossed my mind about the big bang theory.... who created that which banged?     Or is it just accepted that it "just was", no creator? Thanks



No offense(I know this is not your personal thought) but anyone that thinks we evolved from apes is way off the mark to begin with. Apes, humans, chimpanzees came from a common ancestor that no longer exists. I do not think any one species was created. I think early life was much much much more simple Ten Billion years ago than our simplest versions of life is now. Like our heavy metals and many other things that are on/in this planet most things came from bits and pieces of other matter than was in outer space. The building blocks of life may have been accumulated. 
This is a good series and the first one here explains a lot of how Earth, then life was more likely than not to have been created.
http://www.history.com/shows/big-history/videos/big-history-the-big-history-of-everything-rev


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The way, I understand, the Big Bang works is that the energy content of the entire universe, including that which we call space and time, was compressed into a singularity of unimaginable density, temperature and violence.
> 
> Since it existed in a state of singularity, and one of the defining characteristics of a singularity is an event horizon (a point, more like an altitude, below which no information, light, matter, etc., can escape the singularity) then there is no way to communicate that which occurs below the event horizon to anyone outside of it.
> 
> ...


LOL, I can tell you enjoy thinking about it. I have never even heard of an astrophysicist? I look foward to more input from your knowledge. LOL, You might have to dumb it down for me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No offense(I know this is not your personal thought) but anyone that thinks we evolved from apes is way off the mark to begin with. *Apes, humans, chimpanzees came from a common ancestor that no longer exists. *I do not think any one species was created. I think early life was much much much more simple Ten Billion years ago than our simplest versions of life is now. Like our heavy metals and many other things that are on/in this planet most things came from bits and pieces of other matter than was in outer space. The building blocks of life may have been accumulated.
> This is a good series and the first one here explains a lot of how Earth, then life was more likely than not to have been created.
> http://www.history.com/shows/big-history/videos/big-history-the-big-history-of-everything-rev


Interesting, I assumed that the argument was that we came from apes. Never knew that the argument was a common ancestor. But then I should not be surprised at my own ignorance, I have never studied these things


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 3, 2014)

That's a very common misconception, but your question can still remain.. And it likely always will. If you believe that God, this heavenly being of some kind, made everything we know, you still run in to the exact same question. Who created this God? I don't care to hear the same rebuttals to that, because they are not better than me or anyone else saying that anything physical has always existed.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 3, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I can tell you enjoy thinking about it. I have never even heard of an astrophysicist? I look foward to more input from your knowledge. LOL, You might have to dumb it down for me.



There's a ton of good authors who cover the topic. Let me know if you'd like a quick list.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 3, 2014)

I, personally, accept that we just don't know. However, I do like that folks are still trying. They are coming up with some pretty cool stuff in the process. Large Hadron Collider for example. 
We now know, matter can come from 'nothing'.  
We do know animals evolve. 

And to top it all off, throughout history, man has used "insert God here" to explain the unexplainable and calm/control the masses. Science has helped to ease the fears of many of those claims. 

I am glad folks really care where the universe came from. Me...not so much. 

Most everyone accepts E= mc(squared) That equation basically states that mass and energy can be changed into each other.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> Most everyone accepts E= mc(squared) That equation basically states that mass and energy can be changed into each other.



There's a 12 year old boy with Autism who has already graduated college who is challenging Eistein's theory of relativity. It seems like he and his parents are trying NOT to let his theory out to the public until he's published.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 3, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> There's a 12 year old boy with Autism who has already graduated college who is challenging Eistein's theory of relativity.



If you are smarter than anyone else in the world, how does anyone prove him wrong? 

Good luck to him. In the mean time, all we have is Einstein...and the Hadron Collider.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> If you are smarter than anyone else in the world, how does anyone prove him wrong?
> 
> Good luck to him. In the mean time, all we have is Einstein.



I was just throwing it out there. If you are smarter than everyone else and make connections to form a theory that no one else ever has, other less smart people can point out flaws in the math I would assume.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 3, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I was just throwing it out there. If you are smarter than everyone else and make connections to form a theory that no one else ever has, other less smart people can point out flaws in the math I would assume.



Yep, it's the core tenet of science. Every theory, postulated and accepted, has to pass through the crucible of being tested under the premise of being false. It's why certainty is such a huge word to a true scientist.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 3, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I was just throwing it out there. If you are smarter than everyone else and make connections to form a theory that no one else ever has, other less smart people can point out flaws in the math I would assume.



Gotcha.

For some reason, I still feel bad for the kid. 
Best of luck to him though. That would be something.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 3, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep, it's the core tenet of science. Every theory, postulated and accepted, has to pass through the crucible of being tested under the premise of being false. It's why certainty is such a huge word to a true scientist.



I read a little bit about what the kid had done and his though process... not specific to his theory, but in general. I feel like he dug way deeper than Einstein's theory and mathematically proved an assumption wrong. Theories are built on assumptions. Change an assumption and the theory will likely change.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 3, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I read a little bit about what the kid had done and his though process... not specific to his theory, but in general. I feel like he dug way deeper than Einstein's theory and mathematically proved an assumption wrong. Theories are built on assumptions. Change an assumption and the theory will likely change.



Very true. I hope the kid does bring a better understanding of relativity, and thus the universe. The possibilities of us understanding it all, and then bending some of it to our needs, excites me. 

Imagine if we could contain a fusion reaction, just for example. We could travel the stars, power the planet, and all it would take is hydrogen, literally the most abundant thing in existence.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2014)

Here is a quick read about the link I posted above.

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


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:
			
		

> I think the standard response is that everything always was.






HawgJawl said:


> There is no standard response......One answer is that there was no beginning.





You just proved my point.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 3, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One of her favorite questions is: "If space was a result of the Big Bang, and space itself is expanding, then what is it expanding into?"
> 
> I personally view it like an inflating balloon, except in this case the inside of the balloon is our universe, and the outside of the universe is the possibly infinite "empty space" (since our human definition of space has both energy and matter content) that housed the singularity that gave rise to it all.



Why is it empty?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 3, 2014)

...and down the rabbit hole we go


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Here is a quick read about the link I posted above.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History


LOL, Bullet, I  had to rest a minute from this link. Had my head swirling. Words I never seen before, "Modernity", so I looked up the word and it was defined mostly with words I did not know. Mercy, I have gotten in way over my head


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, Bullet, I  had to rest a minute from this link. Had my head swirling. Words I never seen before, "Modernity", so I looked up the word and it was defined mostly with words I did not know. Mercy, I have gotten in way over my head



I'll give you something else to think about based off of your reply:
How many people get in over their head and decide it is easier to stop in their comfort zone rather than continue on?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, Bullet, I  had to rest a minute from this link. Had my head swirling. Words I never seen before, "Modernity", so I looked up the word and it was defined mostly with words I did not know. Mercy, I have gotten in way over my head



And....you can always use the first link I provided and get the visuals to go with the words.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Why is it empty?



I think it is empty because it doesn't exist. The idea is that space wraps around on Itself. Using the expanding balloon analogy from earlier - if you are traveling along the balloon you will come back around. Nothing is outside. It is difficult for people to imagine this because everything we know has another side. It is hard to get your mind to go along with the idea that as the universe expands there is nothing outside of that expansion.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 3, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I can tell you enjoy thinking about it. I have never even heard of an astrophysicist? I look foward to more input from your knowledge. LOL, You might have to dumb it down for me.



Google Neil Degrasse Tyson.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> It is hard to get your mind to go along with the idea that as the universe expands there is nothing outside of that expansion.



When a balloon expands, it occupies space it did not previously occupy.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When a balloon expands, it occupies space it did not previously occupy.



http://phys.org/news/2013-11-universe.html


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When a balloon expands, it occupies space it did not previously occupy.



http://mobile.geek.com/science/9060-geek-answers-what-8217-s-outside-the-universe


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-universe.html






> The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn't expanding into anything, it's just expanding.



Calling it a nonsense question tips the article towards bias and away from science.

And then.....how do they know the universe is not expanding into anything?  That is impossible to know, because the space we define as the universe may just be the "Whos down in whoville" and it's riding on the trunk of a giant galactic elephant.  

It cannot be "known."

Then it continues to define the universe as everything.....ok.  Then everything expands and collapses?  Then it MUST be finite as it cannot collapse if it is infinite (the definition would prevent such).  If it is finite, then it must have an edge (as the definition of finite would demand such).

Did you notice how at the end of the article you are referred to the author's friend: Zogg the Alien?

The second article you refer to is actually better, as they reject the term universe and instead refer to "reality," which is a better place to start, as it is impossible to know what is outside our current reality.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Calling it a nonsense question tips the article towards bias and away from science.
> 
> And then.....how do they know the universe is not expanding into anything?  That is impossible to know, because the space we define as the universe may just be the "Whos down in whoville" and it's riding on the trunk of a giant galactic elephant.
> 
> ...



Yet people keep thinking they have found the answer to that in the darndest places.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Yet people keep thinking they have found the answer to that in the darndest places.



If we were to have a discussion of the universe in a spiritual context, I would start with "I believe......"  As any thoughts I have on the subject are based on a few short sentences in the Bible.  Anything beyond "God dun it" is speculation on my part.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 5, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No offense(I know this is not your personal thought) but anyone that thinks we evolved from apes is way off the mark to begin with. Apes, humans, chimpanzees came from a common ancestor that no longer exists. I do not think any one species was created. I think early life was much much much more simple Ten Billion years ago than our simplest versions of life is now. Like our heavy metals and many other things that are on/in this planet most things came from bits and pieces of other matter than was in outer space. The building blocks of life may have been accumulated.
> This is a good series and the first one here explains a lot of how Earth, then life was more likely than not to have been created.
> http://www.history.com/shows/big-history/videos/big-history-the-big-history-of-everything-rev



That is awesome! I have no more questions. It has totally been explained.

You probably should have stuck with "I don't know", or "God did it".

For the record, I am not going to play my cards on information from the interweb. Keep on keeping on!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That is awesome! I have no more questions. It has totally been explained.
> 
> You probably should have stuck with "I don't know", or "God did it".
> 
> For the record, I am not going to play my cards on information from the interweb. Keep on keeping on!



Yet you do not state which version you do play your cards on.

But I hear you, no sense taking the latest available information based off of the most advanced models and state of the art equipment....it is much better to go with bits and pieces of ancient writings gathered in parts 2000-5000 years ago and choose which parts you want to believe and follow. Your card game sounds a lot like Go Fish.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Why is it empty?



Because it exists outside of the sphere of the universe, and can, therefore, have no energy, or matter, content. The way I envision it is like that balloon expanding but, instead of expanding into anything we can imagine, it expands into a perfect vacuum that extends in all directions infinitely (infinite relative to our perspective). 

Then again, that's more of a how is it empty, rather than a why, which I can't even begin to answer so I focus on the how and leave the why to either resolve itself as a result or be left unanswered. The why has no bearing on my life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 6, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because it exists outside of the sphere of the universe, and can, therefore, have no energy, or matter, content.



Speculation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Speculation.



Best fit model.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Speculation.



Of course it is speculation. Nobody said it was fact. The articles I posted did not say "this is the way it is and that is a guaranteed fact". It is people making statements based on information they have accumulated. If you disagree, that is fine. None of you have given better, more informed hypothesis as to what is out there beyond what we can see. 

The good news to all of this is that if proof comes along of something different that makes more sense, most of us (for lack of better words at the moment) "on my side" of the argument would admit we were wrong and move on with our lives. Most of us are not caged in to any of this stuff. It is just a bunch of guys taking their best stab at the unknown with the information we have at hand.

And the even better news is that no war has ever been waged based on our steadfast belief in an expanding universe. No continent has ever been raided and peoples killed with the idea that "if you don't believe in a Big Bang we will kill you".


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 6, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That is awesome! I have no more questions. It has totally been explained.
> 
> You probably should have stuck with "I don't know", or "God did it".
> 
> For the record, I am not going to play my cards on information from the interweb. Keep on keeping on!



That really is awesome... You basically say that his argument is dumb.. Then you pick up your ball and go home. Where is your contrary EVIDENCE?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Speculation.



That is awesome... You basically say his argument is dumb.. Then you pick up your ball and go home. Where is your contrary EVIDENCE?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That is awesome! I have no more questions. It has totally been explained.
> 
> You probably should have stuck with "I don't know", or "God did it".
> 
> For the record, I am not going to play my cards on information from the interweb. Keep on keeping on!



http://news.yahoo.com/tiny-ancestor-lions-tigers-bears-discovered-oh-190228830.html


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 6, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> That is awesome... You basically say his argument is dumb.. Then you pick up your ball and go home.



 




Terminal Idiot said:


> Where is your contrary EVIDENCE?



What sort of evidence you lookin' for.  Before I start providing what I base my beliefs on, how 'bout a set of parameters that would work for you?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 7, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> That is awesome... You basically say his argument is dumb.. Then you pick up your ball and go home. Where is your contrary EVIDENCE?



It's not my argument. It's the current model of the universe within the astrophysics community and I'm regurgitating it because I subscribe to it because it's the best fit model we have.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not my argument. It's the current model of the universe within the astrophysics community and I'm regurgitating it because I subscribe to it because it's the best fit model we have.



Wasn't talkin' to you.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 7, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What sort of evidence you lookin' for.  Before I start providing what I base my beliefs on, how 'bout a set of parameters that would work for you?



What sort of evidence? Any sort of evidence. What's your side of the story? Is the universe expanding? Is it infinite? Why do you need parameters? Just tell me what you think, but more importantly - why you think it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yet you do not state which version you do play your cards on.
> 
> But I hear you, no sense taking the latest available information based off of the most advanced models and state of the art equipment....it is much better to go with bits and pieces of ancient writings gathered in parts 2000-5000 years ago and choose which parts you want to believe and follow. Your card game sounds a lot like Go Fish.



That is correct. I did not state the "version". You assume (correctly) about the ancient texts part.

Technology is not all it is cracked up to be. Some of it is good and true, some of it is bad and false. Just like everything else (ancient texts INCLUDED).

I don't believe there is an app that will skin a deer for you. Sometimes the "old" knowledge" cannot be replaced by the "new knowledge".


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> That really is awesome... You basically say that his argument is dumb.. Then you pick up your ball and go home. Where is your contrary EVIDENCE?



I used a little sarcasm, but I did not say it was "dumb". It is HIS belief, and I recognize that he is entitled to it whether I agree or not.

Evidence in the case of this discussion does not exist. It is all a matter of opinion. You will have as hard a time convincing me of your evidence, as I would convincing you of mine, and so, I choose to forego that round about exercise.

I don't know what you mean by the comment in red.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/tiny-ancestor-lions-tigers-bears-discovered-oh-190228830.html



That kind of proves my point BH.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That kind of proves my point BH.



Each discovery like that is one step farther away from your point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That is correct. I did not state the "version". You assume (correctly) about the ancient texts part.


Headlines of science backing up ancient texts are a little scarce lately.




ted_BSR said:


> Technology is not all it is cracked up to be. Some of it is good and true, some of it is bad and false. Just like everything else (ancient texts INCLUDED).


Incredible how the "some" that is good and true is never anything that goes against the ancient texts huh....?



ted_BSR said:


> I don't believe there is an app that will skin a deer for you. Sometimes the "old" knowledge" cannot be replaced by the "new knowledge".


 No APP, but give me a golf ball, pickup truck w hitch and a strong rope and you will be surprised at modern advancements......
Then again I don't of anyone that is claiming an APP will skin a deer so I am not sure of the APP reference.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No APP, but give me a golf ball, pickup truck w hitch and a strong rope and you will be surprised at modern advancements......




I've seen that done on youtube, but never tried it.  I just hang 'em and skin 'em the old fashioned way.  Just about Got my son trained to where he can do it without me.....so, no reason for "advancement" here


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I've seen that done on youtube, but never tried it.  I just hang 'em and skin 'em the old fashioned way.  Just about Got my son trained to where he can do it without me.....so, no reason for "advancement" here



No reason for advancements probably sum it up well. I'll await your reply by carrier pigeon while Ted catches his next Halibut from the wooden dug-out he made and got to his fishing destination by horse and buggy.

But wait a second you did advance....you got your son to skin em for you.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No reason for advancements probably sum it up well. I'll await your reply by carrier pigeon while Ted catches his next Halibut from the wooden dug-out he made and got to his fishing destination by horse and buggy.
> 
> But wait a second you did advance....you got your son to skin em for you.



Steel knives are pretty nice too. Rocks will get the job done but...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Steel knives are pretty nice too. Rocks will get the job done but...



It's all about comfort zone. Nothing wrong with that but with the advancements that society has seen in the last 100 years alone...it is hard to deny that the most current information about Universe, Galaxies, Planets, Earth, the formation of Earth, life on Earth does not exactly back up how it is said to be in the popular ancient texts.

Some are happy with a 13" black and white TV with 12 channels coming in on rabbit ears but I don't want to hear a 42" Hi-def flat screen with 200+ channels being beamed down from a satellite cannot replace that B&W tv.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Wasn't talkin' to you.



I understand that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Why do you need parameters?



So I don't waste my time presenting my evidence that you won't accept.  



Terminal Idiot said:


> Just tell me what you think, but more importantly - why you think it.



For one, you haven't been on this forum very long.  I ain't the type to "bascially call an argument dumb," nor am I the type to "pick up my ball and go home."   You were WAY off with that.  Ask any of the folks on this forum, even those on your "team." 

You made the comment and I will give you a response once you tell me what parematers you will accept as "contrary evidence."  If you can't define that, then I won't waste my time having this discussion with somebody who will make such comments anyway.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No reason for advancements probably sum it up well. I'll await your reply by carrier pigeon while Ted catches his next Halibut from the wooden dug-out he made and got to his fishing destination by horse and buggy.
> 
> But wait a second you did advance....you got your son to skin em for you.



I think you took the comment way more serious than I meant it 

I'm all about scientific advancements, and I think they represent a lot of good as far as knowledge and quality of life are concerned.

I just like skinning deer the old fashioned way.  I like butchering 'em myself too.....even though advancements have led to many deer processors opening up.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I think you took the comment way more serious than I meant it
> 
> I'm all about scientific advancements, and I think they represent a lot of good as far as knowledge and quality of life are concerned.
> 
> I just like skinning deer the old fashioned way.  I like butchering 'em myself too.....even though advancements have led to many deer processors opening up.



I took it exactly how you meant it. I skin my deer the old fashioned way also, but I do not deny that there are faster/easier/less messy/more efficient ways of doing it.(neither did you...I know...) I also do not deny that in some areas...especially the areas we discuss in here often...that modern scientific advancements have not only made leaps and bounds over what ancient texts have told us but the latest information and theories have totally debunked what ancient texts were positive about thousands of years ago. It is rare, in fact non existent to my recollection, that modern scientific advancements have backed up any of the ancient texts. I am not saying modern science has not found real places, real people, real events....I am saying the things that are supposed to have made these people/places/events God-like or miracle worthy are no where to be found.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

First, we are on the same page as far as science being good is concerned.  We just look at it different.  I see it as "how God dun it" where you see it as "see, God didn't do it."



bullethead said:


> ....I am saying the things that are supposed to have made these people/places/events God-like or miracle worthy are no where to be found.



If they were miraculous, then they couldn't be explained scientifically, otherwise, they wouldn't be considered "miraculous."

This is also why I veiw life, in any form, as a miracle.  We can guess and speculate all day long as to how something animated itself, but it doesn't happen in nature that we are currently aware of.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If they were miraculous, then they couldn't be explained scientifically, otherwise, they wouldn't be considered "miraculous."


My point, although I am not very good at making it, is that if everything was created by God, there could be no explanation other than God did it. 



> This is also why I veiw life, in any form, as a miracle.  We can guess and speculate all day long as to how something animated itself, but it doesn't happen in nature that we are currently aware of.



Do plants count or only animated life forms?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Do plants count or only animated life forms?




I guess they should......even though they are not animated.  Is there any evidence we evolved from plants?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> My point, although I am not very good at making it, is that if everything was created by God, there could be no explanation other than God did it.



Unless the explanation is "how God dun it."


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Unless the explanation is "how God dun it."



Exactly. 

One has to wonder why an all knowing supreme/perfect being that made a mistake, make a guy build an ark, put 2 of every animal on it and then flood the world. 
Why didn't he just 'think' everyone dead/gone and then just 'think' all the animals back again?   

Why would he need a rib to make a woman?(Originally it was going to be a much better spouse but, was going to cost an arm and a leg  ) 
Is God bound by the "can't make something from nothing" rule that is spouted occasionally?

Why create a universe? Why not just an earth? Done! 
Why create at all? Was he/she/it bored?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> First, we are on the same page as far as science being good is concerned.  We just look at it different.  I see it as "how God dun it" where you see it as "see, God didn't do it."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/nature-of-miracles-13905/

http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/miracles.html


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/nature-of-miracles-13905/
> 
> http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/miracles.html



So, God could have created 'nothing but miracles' but, chose not to. Hmmmmm

Imagine an earth, light all the time, no moon, no sun, no stars, just us. We don't have to eat, we just live until we are 'good' enough to get into heaven else, we are stuck on earth.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Exactly.
> 
> One has to wonder why an all knowing supreme/perfect being that made a mistake, make a guy build an ark, put 2 of every animal on it and then flood the world.
> Why didn't he just 'think' everyone dead/gone and then just 'think' all the animals back again?
> ...



It was the best the most complex minds of the times could come up with in an effort to explain it all in ways that the people of those times could relate to. There was always some sort of questions to how it all began and every culture has a way of explaining it in ways that relate to the rest of the culture.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Exactly.
> 
> One has to wonder why an all knowing supreme/perfect being that made a mistake, make a guy build an ark, put 2 of every animal on it and then flood the world.
> Why didn't he just 'think' everyone dead/gone and then just 'think' all the animals back again?
> ...



Good questions, all of them, for sure.  None of them elliminates God from the equation.

(funny stuff on the arm and leg  )


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> So, God could have created 'nothing but miracles' but, chose not to. Hmmmmm
> 
> Imagine an earth, light all the time, no moon, no sun, no stars, just us. We don't have to eat, we just live until we are 'good' enough to get into heaven else, we are stuck on earth.



As the one article states:
"I think most miracles are in the pen of the story teller."


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It was the best the most complex minds of the times could come up with in an effort to explain it all in ways that the people of those times could relate to. There was always some sort of questions to how it all began and every culture has a way of explaining it in ways that relate to the rest of the culture.



My explanation to my kids was, "floods happen today for various natural reasons, it is just that our world is a little bigger now".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Good questions, all of them, for sure.  None of them elliminates God from the equation.
> 
> (funny stuff on the arm and leg  )



When you create and believe in a being that is everything there is little wonder why he can not be eliminated from the equations, but that same being is easily eliminated from the people who do not subscribe to that line of thinking.

Not able to eliminate "god" only works with two like minded individuals.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Good questions, all of them, for sure.  None of them elliminates God from the equation.
> 
> (funny stuff on the arm and leg  )



You are correct.(for you) Perhaps just the bible.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When you create and believe in a being that is everything there is little wonder why he can not be eliminated from the equations, but that same being is easily eliminated from the people who do not subscribe to that line of thinking.Not able to eliminate "god" only works with two like minded individuals.



Is he elliminated, or reasoned away?

The point is, logical problems will exist regardless of one's worldview.....you got 'em too.  Presenting those logical problems as evidence to the contrary does not work.

You and Griz can ask these questions all day long, discuss the problem of evil, then have Ambush over for a beer and laugh at talking donkeys and be in 100% agreement with each other, and it won't ahve anything to do with whether or not God exists.

People do not dictate the terms of reality.  We only search for answers about it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Is he elliminated, or reasoned away?
> 
> The point is, logical problems will exist regardless of one's worldview.....you got 'em too.  Presenting those logical problems as evidence to the contrary does not work.
> 
> ...



One God or a thousand.....do you eliminate the others or reason them out?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> One God or a thousand.....do you eliminate the others or reason them out?



Did you ever see The Highlander?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Did you ever see The Highlander?



God wields an awesome katana? I might become religious after all...


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God wields an awesome katana? I might become religious after all...





I just figured I'd reference a movie with a line that everybody knows rather than repeating the line.

Let's assume there are 1000's of God's.  They would each have to be equal and in sync in order to all qualify.....then it would be a "God by committe" sort of event.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I just figured I'd reference a movie with a line that everybody knows rather than repeating the line.
> 
> Let's assume there are 1000's of God's.  They would each have to be equal and in sync in order to all qualify.....then it would be a "God by committe" sort of event.



Or maybe he's just the god of his chosen people, since there seem to be a few of those on the planet relative to the practiced religions...


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or maybe he's just the god of his chosen people, since there seem to be a few of those on the planet relative to the practiced religions...




In greek mythology, which god was God?  I think in that scenario, the term is relevant to "super powers" more than "creator."

"God," to me, indicates the "supreme being."  Which, by definition, cannot have peers.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> People do not dictate the terms of reality.  We only search for answers about it.



Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
(Unknown)


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Did you ever see The Highlander?



Yes and I have seen the movie 300 and 10,000 Dalmatians...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I just figured I'd reference a movie with a line that everybody knows rather than repeating the line.
> 
> Let's assume there are 1000's of God's.  They would each have to be equal and in sync in order to all qualify.....then it would be a "God by committe" sort of event.



Now someone is interjecting their own rules....
Remember with God(s) anything is possible and by the power of miracles none of your qualifications needs to apply.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
> (Unknown)



Very good quote.

I would like to point out that a person of faith can keep his faith, and ask all the questions he likes.  Questions do not elliminate faith.  I would guess many of the faithful on this forum have asked the same questions you do at one point or another.....they just reached a different conclusion than you did.

Then, we all get on here and debate why we reached that conclusion.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yes and I have seen the movie 300 and 10,000 Dalmatians...



I never saw 10,000 Dalmations.......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> In greek mythology, which god was God?  I think in that scenario, the term is relevant to "super powers" more than "creator."
> 
> "God," to me, indicates the "supreme being."  Which, by definition, cannot have peers.



Are God(s) subject to definition?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Now someone is interjecting their own rules....
> Remember with God(s) anything is possible and by the power of miracles none of your qualifications needs to apply.



See post 79.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Are God(s) subject to definition?



No, but in order to make sure we are talking about the same thing, it must be defined.

Heck man, you could be saying God and talking about the rock in your yard.  We gotta get on the same page somehow.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> See post 79.



I'll see your #79 and raise you an #85


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> In greek mythology, which god was God?  I think in that scenario, the term is relevant to "super powers" more than "creator."
> 
> "God," to me, indicates the "supreme being."  Which, buy definition, cannot have peers.



From your perspective, maybe. 

I believe the hierarchy was God, Zeus, and then lesser gods, but that's just my attempt to recollect the information with no further research so I could be wrong. 

You're asking a guy who doesn't know if there is a God or not to rationalize multiple instances of the same thing he has trouble with over one. 

That being said, I think they all derive from the same place; which is an aversion to things we don't know and are out of our control. If we could at least sacrifice a goat at an altar to try to stop the volcano from exploding, as an example, that makes us feel like we have a role in what happens around us and removes some of the fear. It also reduces fear to personify the things that happen around us, regardless of us, so that we can say that it works in mysterious ways, another way of saying I don't know, or that sometimes we don't get what we pray for, to rationalize that prayer isn't always effective. 

Without trying to be blunt or inflammatory, they're all delusions created by a mind that can't deal with what they can't comprehend, so they imagine something that they can relate to that is in control of it. They personify it, they give it names, and rules for behavior which then assign punishments for bad behavior, and a mystery to it to fill in the gaps when their conditions don't match reality. Still, I leave open the possibility for a god to exist, simply because the coincidences of our existence are pretty awesome, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it cares about what I do with my life, or his communication of the consequences would be clear. A book with no further corroboration is bad research. If God really cared about what we did there would be no need for the mystery of the faith, and the mystery of the afterlife, since he would also do whatever he could to reveal it to us, while simultaneously leaving us with the free will to decide. Even then he could reach into each of our lives, in ways that he knows we would respond to since he supposedly knew us before we were born, and make us believe and repent. 

It's all the same arguments and subjects that have been hashed, re-hashed, and then regurgitated time and time again.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I'll see your #79 and raise you an #85



I'll see #85, and raise you #87.......(not sure if that is correct poker terms).....

Dang it!  Just saw #89, now I have to read that before I consider my wager as well......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No, but in order to make sure we are talking about the same thing, it must be defined.
> 
> Heck man, you could be saying God and talking about the rock in your yard.  We gotta get on the same page somehow.



When dealing in the literal make believe no two definitions of the same God are alike let alone the God you believe in and the God I don't believe in.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Oh, and keep in mind that God has no less than 3 incarnations in the story of Christianity...on the subject of multiple Gods.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

Post #89 = Royal Flush


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When dealing in the literal make believe no two definitions of the same God are alike let alone the God you believe in and the God I don't believe in.



Before I get to StriperRR's response, could you please clarify what God would be if you believed in him......on a conceptual level at least (I don't care if you see a large breasted troll in the sky, but what defines that troll as "god?").


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Oh, and keep in mind that God has no less than 3 incarnations in the story of Christianity...on the subject of multiple Gods.



  I was very, very close to pointing out that nuance previously, and determined to steer clear of it to keep from muddying the waters......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Before I get to StriperRR's response, could you please clarify what God would be if you believed in him......on a conceptual level at least (I don't care if you see a large breasted troll in the sky, but what defines that troll as "god?").



As I stated before I have not taken the time to make up "my" version of something that I need to use to rationalize the thoughts that go through my mind, nor have I found the need to jump on the bandwagon of any existing versions of mankind's Gods.
If something gave all that has ever existed a start I certainly do not know what it is, what it looks like, where it lives, how it thinks, what it says etc etc etc etc ad nauseum. If I were to make up such a "being" wouldn't it be convenient if it looked just like me...errrrr I look just like it???


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're asking a guy who doesn't know if there is a God or not to rationalize multiple instances of the same thing he has trouble with over one.



No, just the same thing I am asking Bullethead.....what would "god" be?  The concept is constant.  Whether you believe in the concept is a different matter all together.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That being said, I think they all derive from the same place; which is an aversion to things we don't know and are out of our control. If we could at least sacrifice a goat at an altar to try to stop the volcano from exploding, as an example, that makes us feel like we have a role in what happens around us and removes some of the fear. It also reduces fear to personify the things that happen around us, regardless of us, so that we can say that it works in mysterious ways, another way of saying I don't know, or that sometimes we don't get what we pray for, to rationalize that prayer isn't always effective.
> 
> Without trying to be blunt or inflammatory, they're all delusions created by a mind that can't deal with what they can't comprehend, so they imagine something that they can relate to that is in control of it. They personify it, they give it names, and rules for behavior which then assign punishments for bad behavior, and a mystery to it to fill in the gaps when their conditions don't match reality.



I can find no other reason or logic to existence without an original cause.....that is my basis for belief (Christianity is all about faith, not logic, I have been very consistent in that claim on this forum).  

Whether that is a delusion, or a well-considered worldview is left to the individual assigning value to the belief.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Still, I leave open the possibility for a god to exist, simply because the coincidences of our existence are pretty awesome, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it cares about what I do with my life, or his communication of the consequences would be clear. A book with no further corroboration is bad research. If God really cared about what we did there would be no need for the mystery of the faith, and the mystery of the afterlife, since he would also do whatever he could to reveal it to us, while simultaneously leaving us with the free will to decide. Even then he could reach into each of our lives, in ways that he knows we would respond to since he supposedly knew us before we were born, and make us believe and repent.



That's your preference.  I think many would agree.  But we are back to trying to affect reality with our opinions.  One has no impact on the other.

I wish there was no illness, suffering, death, sadness, liberalism, etc.......but that does not impact my belief in God because my faith is not based on my preferences of what God "ought be," rather, I believe that he "is."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I was very, very close to pointing out that nuance previously, and determined to steer clear of it to keep from muddying the waters......



And that's the entirety of my point. The waters are beyond muddy, and the contradictions are bountiful.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If something gave all that has ever existed a start



^^^^You just defined it.



bullethead said:


> [I certainly do not know what it is, what it looks like, where it lives, how it thinks, what it says etc etc etc etc ad nauseum. If I were to make up such a "being" wouldn't it be convenient if it looked just like me...errrrr I look just like it???



^^^^That's just details of what it looks or acts like.  The part in red is what I was getting at.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And that's the entirety of my point. The waters are beyond muddy, and the contradictions are bountiful.



When I was in middle school, I asked my preacher (an old timey Baptist preacher at that) "If Jesus was God, how and why did he forsake himself on the cross?"

AA's are not the only one's with questions.  We all have 'em.  We just do not all reach the same conclusions.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No, just the same thing I am asking Bullethead.....what would "god" be?  The concept is constant.  Whether you believe in the concept is a different matter all together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We agree on a lot. First off, I have no assumptions about God. That's why I'm agnostic rather than atheist, or a believer. Either of the other two positions requires assumptions be made and I'd really rather not do that, least of all upon a deity. 

Why should there be a reason we exist? Why would it matter if we were just the result of random chemical reactions on a planet created by happenstance? To me it doesn't. I'm perfectly happy being the result of luck and odds played out on a cosmological scale. I derive meaning from my own life, what I call the ripple effect of life, not from all life. If none of us existed there wouldn't be anybody to care about it. The need to assign reason to it is a result of the anthropic principle. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle for those who are curious. 

It goes back to what I was saying earlier, if you remove some of the language that could be foreseen as inflammatory. I wasn't trying to imply that atheists or agnostics are mentally superior to the faithful for their ability to not believe, rather that religion springs from a much less evolved, ancient, mind, IMO. Its just a hard concept to root out, since it does bring so much comfort to so many, and as such hasn't withered away. If you were to look at religion dispassionately, like agnostics and most atheists do, you'll see that it amounts to little more than a warm woobie, or a blankie, and a good story book; albeit highly ritualized. I say most atheists simply because some of them are just as zealous in their opposition to religion as many believers are in support of it. 

Look at it from another perspective, do you respect a person who can admit when they don't know what they're talking about or doing, or one that piles on heaps of bovine exhaust in an effort to convince those around them of their false knowledge, and knowledge that could never truly be "known", like that which occurs past the event horizon of a singularity, for example? 

I agree with you that any assumption about God is trying to affect reality with our opinions, whether it applies to his intents, abilities, or even his existence. I was merely posting that from the position of your assumption of his existence. I don't know if he does exist or not, so I typically don't speak in terms like that, unless I'm specifically addressing someone like yourself. 

If there is a god, then I would imagine that they want me to be just the way I am, lest they wouldn't have created the conditions that led to my evolution as such. So I guess you could say that I'm an agnostic pragmatist, in that any further worry would be tantamount to penguins postulating on particle physics. 

I just love that statement about penguins. It was on an episode of House where Cameron was giving her opinions on God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When I was in middle school, I asked my preacher (an old timey Baptist preacher at that) "If Jesus was God, how and why did he forsake himself on the cross?"
> 
> AA's are not the only one's with questions.  We all have 'em.  We just do not all reach the same conclusions.



I have a lot less problem with a faithful person who can acknowledge their inability to understand the logical circles it presents than I do with someone who professes that any of it is "true" or "factual". 

That's why I like hearing from you in here, JB, because you do approach your faith in a much more real sense than most others seem to. 

Even then, that was only one example, and I'm sure you have more, which I would be very curious in trying to understand how you can be in possession of said questions without questioning the whole thing? The only possibility, and this is me postulating, that I can come up with is that you don't weight your questions as heavily as you do the stories you've been told and have read. So you can have a ton of questions, but if you have 10 tons of Bible then the Bible wins.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I have a lot less problem with a faithful person who can acknowledge their inability to understand the logical circles it presents than I do with someone who professes that any of it is "true" or "factual".
> 
> That's why I like hearing from you in here, JB, because you do approach your faith in a much more real sense than most others seem to.
> 
> Even then, that was only one example, and I'm sure you have more, which I would be very curious in trying to understand how you can be in possession of said questions without questioning the whole thing? The only possibility, and this is me postulating, that I can come up with is that you don't weight your questions as heavily as you do the stories you've been told and have read. So you can have a ton of questions, but if you have 10 tons of Bible then the Bible wins.



Thanks for your comments.  

I have questioned the whole thing.  I did an awful lot of soul searching about my belief in God (seperate that from Christianity for a moment).  Ultimately, my conclusion is based on what I believe makes the most sense.  I believe there must be an original cause.

Even if I determined that the Bible was completely false, and every other religion was a bunch of supersticious non-sense, I would still be a deist. 

Christianity is taken on faith.  Once I finally wrapped my head around that, I was comfortable both asking the questions, and understanding it may take some time to get the answer.  You can be a Christian and ask the questions at the same time.  There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ^^^^You just defined it.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^That's just details of what it looks or acts like.  The part in red is what I was getting at.



That is about as far as I can take it without interjecting my fantasy about the details. Basically something could have been the cause of all creation but if there is such a thing and what would it be certainly is up for grabs. I do not believe any religion that I have looked into has got the God market cornered.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> So I don't waste my time presenting my evidence that you won't accept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't really care if you respond or not. To say I have to set parameters before you are willing to respond is silly. It would seem that just about every response you would give in this section of the forum would not be accepted by the people you are debating or conversing with. So why the silence on this subject? (I really don't mean for this paragraph to be nasty - even though it could be read that way)

I am sincerely interested in the topic being discussed. It is my opinion, based on what I have read, seen and heard, that the universe is expanding. There are oodles of places to learn about this... Morgan Freeman's "through the wormhole", "Stephen Hawking's Universe", Dr. Michio Kaku, etc., etc., etc. The evidence that they provide makes sense to me (as much as it can make sense to my tiny little brain) and I go with it. So the question is, do you believe that? Or something else....what else, and why? Are there other scientists that say it is not expanding? What is that argument? Is something contrary to my belief mentioned in the bible? If so, what does it say?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Each discovery like that is one step farther away from your point.



BH - that Yahoo blog is full of speculation, and admits that on its own. The "discovery" doesn't make any sort of point at all except, "...We're lacking a big chunk of information."

My point is that we don't know. Thus, the article proves my point.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Headlines of science backing up ancient texts are a little scarce lately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, there is a lot of science that supports the ancient texts. A quick Google search will lead you to a lot of websites that you probably won't like.

I don't believe all of the ancient texts. There is a lot of false and bad mixed in with the true and good.

Perhaps the APP reference was not a good one. Let me try another to illustrate that science is not always correct.
In the 1920s when Radium was first discovered, it was widely considered an incredible health supplement. It was even fed to children laced in candy. It was only after the watch dial painters began to die miserable slow deaths from radiation poisoning that science reconsidered its findings about how healthy radium was for people.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 8, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't really care if you respond or not. To say I have to set parameters before you are willing to respond is silly. It would seem that just about every response you would give in this section of the forum would not be accepted by the people you are debating or conversing with. So why the silence on this subject? (I really don't mean for this paragraph to be nasty - even though it could be read that way)
> 
> I am sincerely interested in the topic being discussed. It is my opinion, based on what I have read, seen and heard, that the universe is expanding. There are oodles of places to learn about this... Morgan Freeman's "through the wormhole", "Stephen Hawking's Universe", Dr. Michio Kaku, etc., etc., etc. The evidence that they provide makes sense to me (as much as it can make sense to my tiny little brain) and I go with it. So the question is, do you believe that? Or something else....what else, and why? Are there other scientists that say it is not expanding? What is that argument? Is something contrary to my belief mentioned in the bible? If so, what does it say?



I think you have confused the terms "evidence" and "opinion".

I could say that the bible is evidence of the existence of God, and you might say that is my opinion, and you would be correct.

When one of those extremely intelligent humans talk about wormholes and says that it is evidence of the universe expanding, I say that is their opinion. I don't think about it too much more because I don't really care if the universe is expanding or not, and I am pretty sure that there is nothing I can do about it either way.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Actually, there is a lot of science that supports the ancient texts. A quick Google search will lead you to a lot of websites that you probably won't like.
> 
> I don't believe all of the ancient texts. There is a lot of false and bad mixed in with the true and good.
> 
> ...



And Mark 16:18 is actually bad for your health too....who knew?

I'd like to hear more about the bad mixed in with the true and good.....


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And Mark 16:18 is actually bad for your health too....who knew
> 
> I'd like to hear more about the bad mixed in with the true and good.....



This link speaks to both: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/02/difficult-bible-passages-mark-1617-18/


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:
			
		

> but I don't really care if you respond or not.



Then why ask the question?



Terminal Idiot said:


> So why the silence on this subject?



I am not silent on the subject.  Like I said, you are new to this forum.  Most the regular posters on here have had this same conversation with me 20 x's over the last 3+ years.  I have no problem having it with you as well.

The issue with parameters is simple.....is there any chance you will accept the evidence (yes/no), if yes, move forward, if no, we debate something else 




Terminal Idiot said:


> So the question is, do you believe that? Or something else....what else, and why?



There is a phenomena called "red shift" which pretty much settles the issue of whether or not the universe is expanding.....it is.  The question is not so much of whether it is expanding, but rather, what is it expaning into, if anything.

This assertion that it expands into nothing is meaningless because that cannot be known, it is.........speculation.

And now we have gone full circle.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

You cannot agree to accept evidence BEFORE the evidence is presented.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> This link speaks to both: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/02/difficult-bible-passages-mark-1617-18/



MORE additions to the Bible that do not belong!!!!! Oh My Goodness. I appreciate the honesty though. If I was a believer I would try to get my hands on the earliest version of the Bible that I could.
From your link
[/quote]So what are we to make of all this? More particularly, how are we to understand this passage? Several things can be stated. Perhaps most importantly, these verses are not even in the best New Testament manuscripts. We have in fact two questionable endings to Mark. One is a longer one (vv. 9-20) and one is quite short. Neither seems to be part of Mark’s original gospel.

Most good Bible translations will mention this fact, whether or not they actually run with these final dubious verses. The technical details are not something to be fully entered into here, but a few quick thoughts. The content of the longer ending seems to be a collection of bits and pieces from the resurrection narratives of Matthew and Luke.

Given that most scholars believe that Mark was written before these two other Synoptic gospels, then it does seem to be a later addition. And the various extant manuscripts have a number of differing arrangements of these suspect verses. Most good critical commentaries discuss the various bits of textual evidence and concur that the Gospel as we now have it ends at 16:8, and most therefore do not comment on the extra verses.

Thus most of modern textual scholarship is settled on this much: there is almost no scholarly debate about the textual reliability of either the shorter or longer endings. Genuine debate however does still exist over whether or not we should understand v. 8 to have been Mark’s intended final verse.

So it looks like this passage may not be part of the inspired original text.[/quote]


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You cannot agree to accept evidence BEFORE the evidence is presented.



Which is why I asked for parameters, not acceptance.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I have questioned the whole thing.  I did an awful lot of soul searching about my belief in God (seperate that from Christianity for a moment).  Ultimately, my conclusion is based on what I believe makes the most sense.  I believe there must be an original cause.
> 
> ...



Again, further similarity. I think faith is foundational to religion, and one has to first accept the possibility of a God, then come to believe in a God, before they can then take the leap into a religion. You can be faithful without religion, but you can't be religious without first being faithful, at least while trying to be honest about it. That's also taking the strictest sense of the word religious, rather than the broader one that purely involves repetition of rites and ceremonies. 

It took me a long time to get where I am. I went from Protestant to Catholic, from there to faithful but not religious, and from there to skeptical but non-committal about the whole thing. 

The more I look at it the less likely there seems to me to be any kind of personality in control anymore. I would say that I'm more of a deist, still agnostically right now, and in the strictest sense of the term. 

Meaning that I could see that there might have been something that touched the BB to get it to set off, but I think that it also set the initial conditions and allowed the simulation to play out. I have nothing that can't be explained away by statistical chances or by conditions created that came to fruition. Like miraculous healings; maybe those people just had a biological fluke take hold, or maybe it was their prayer, mind over matter if you will and not a deity reaching into their lives per se, that pushed their bodies just that little bit further into healing itself. 

It's kind of interesting, since there was a study done on the gravitational constant of the universe whereby structures were created in a supercomputer and allowed to play out through fast forward. Maybe we're just the same thing played out for a God running a supercomputer simulation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Then why ask the question?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree. I think we're misinterpreting the data regarding Hubble's observations. 

We're looking at it backwards, in my theory. 

In short, as you get closer to more current observations, which are those that are closer to us, then you get towards an expansion rate of one. If you plot the acceleration rate on a curve, relative to the age of the measurement, then you see that we're not accelerating as time goes by, but rather decelerating. 

I think we're still expanding, right now, but if you plot that curve into the future then it's not at all unreasonable to get to a point where the universe is re-contracting.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again, further similarity. I think faith is foundational to religion, and one has to first accept the possibility of a God, then come to believe in a God, before they can then take the leap into a religion. You can be faithful without religion, but you can't be religious without first being faithful, at least while trying to be honest about it. That's also taking the strictest sense of the word religious, rather than the broader one that purely involves repetition of rites and ceremonies.



I think a lot of the reason people lose faith is because they accept religion first, and never stop and consider what it is they are actually believing.  Then, when the inevitable questioning phase arrives, they are left wondering "what good is religion if there isn't even a God?"



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The more I look at it the less likely there seems to me to be any kind of personality in control anymore. I would say that I'm more of a deist, still agnostically right now, and in the strictest sense of the term.



Ok.  I had thought you were completely agnostic and not deist.  Either way, I understand the position well.....it's just not mine.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like miraculous healings; maybe those people just had a biological fluke take hold, or maybe it was their prayer, mind over matter if you will and not a deity reaching into their lives per se, that pushed their bodies just that little bit further into healing itself.



I have difficulty with miracles.  I know that sounds strange coming from a Christian, but my default position is almost always cynicism.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's kind of interesting, since there was a study done on the gravitational constant of the universe whereby structures were created in a supercomputer and allowed to play out through fast forward. Maybe we're just the same thing played out for a God running a supercomputer simulation.



A person with a Calvinist perspective would see it similar, except that God wrote the software, and knows how it plays.  While it sounds strange, it is an incredibly consistent worldview.....and about the only way around the "problem of evil" for deists.  I don't adhere to that belief, but I see tha value in it, and think about it all the time.....it's interesting.  One positive to such a belief is a peace with everything around you, because everything is as it was designed to be.

But, understanding it, and "accepting" it as the way things are is two different things.  I am a lot slower in developing opinions than I used to be.  There are some issues that I don't think I will ever resolve logically, or philosophically, that I still enjoy thinking about.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I disagree. I think we're misinterpreting the data regarding Hubble's observations.
> 
> We're looking at it backwards, in my theory.
> 
> ...



Are you saying that we are witnessing the acceleration, but the reality is that the acceleration is reversed by now?  Impacted by the distance and speed of light?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Are you saying that we are witnessing the acceleration, but the reality is that the acceleration is reversed by now?  Impacted by the distance and speed of light?



I'm saying we're witnessing deceleration. 

If I take a measurement of a car 4 seconds ago {or light years ago since they're interchangeable units of time} and it was moving at 60mph, then another at 3 seconds ago and it was 50mph, then another at 2 seconds at 40mph, then another at 1 second ago at 30 mph is it more likely that speed is decreasing over time, or accelerating. 

What I'm saying is that, the further you get away from us, the older the measurements are, and the less likely they are to still be accurate. So if you look at it with the perspective of time difference between measurements, not just distance, then you get a slope of deceleration, not acceleration. Technically deceleration is negative values of acceleration, for physics buffs, but for expedience we'll call it deceleration. 

I've reached out to a few astrophysicists since the notion occurred to me, hinting that I have a question about our interpretations of Hubble's data [not wanting them to be able to steal my theory and take credit for it after all] but have yet to hear back from anyone. 

By the by, my above keyboard 0 key is not working, although the 10 digit 0 is just fine, that's why I'm using brackets instead of parenthesis.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I think a lot of the reason people lose faith is because they accept religion first, and never stop and consider what it is they are actually believing.  Then, when the inevitable questioning phase arrives, they are left wondering "what good is religion if there isn't even a God?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 

For me I still classify myself more agnostically than deistically purely because a deist believes that a God exists. I don't know that. I only subscribe to the deist notion that the God, if there is one, doesn't interact with the simulation. If evidence were to ever be presented, that was inarguable, for the existence of a God I would move from agnosticism to deism, because we can know a lot of things exist without knowing anything else about them. 

It would be something like flipping over a rock and seeing "Made by God" on the underside, for simplicity. I would then know that there is a God, but couldn't presume anything more about him from that, so I would be deist, rather than skeptical.


----------



## erog (Jan 9, 2014)

I'm going to jump in here with a proposition. Think about everything that you think you know. Then think about how every fact you were ever told without discovering it yourself was given to you by another human who decided that's the fact. Then think about what facts actually are, another invention by human beings.

The big bang theory is yet another one of these concoctions created by more of your fellow man. If we're to believe that all matter was always there and forever existing then who's to say the matter didn't just cooagulate into the planets and stars we can see? Why do we assume the predictions of our milky way universe are correct? Who's to say the sun isn't actually revolving around some unknown mass of energy and we're the moons of the sun?

When you get into the depth of questions like this maybe you should try and think about how you actually know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For instance. How many atoms are in your keyboard? What did every person on the planet eat for lunch yesterday? Was there a brown labradoodle on 5th avenue today?

We only know what other people have told us are facts. This is why people believe so strongly in the E = MC squared theory. I believe the autistic kid will most likely be able to debunk the theory, and then his debunk will be debunked in the future. For those that know nothing about autism I can assure you this kid's interest in the subject will keep him focused for hours upon hours every day as long as he is allowed to do so. I, however, have already lost focus 3 times while writing this post . I digress. 

Listen to Weird Al Yankovic's song "Everything You Know is Wrong." That's essentially the point which I'm trying to make here, except without a catchy beat and humor. Do you not think that if we knew more about even our own anatomy we would be able to unlock the other 90%+ brainpower that we don't even use? See the movie limitless for an example of how awesome this would be.

My focus has strayed far enough from my original statement. Food time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> I'm going to jump in here with a proposition. Think about everything that you think you know. Then think about how every fact you were ever told without discovering it yourself was given to you by another human who decided that's the fact. Then think about what facts actually are, another invention by human beings.
> 
> The big bang theory is yet another one of these concoctions created by more of your fellow man. If we're to believe that all matter was always there and forever existing then who's to say the matter didn't just cooagulate into the planets and stars we can see? Why do we assume the predictions of our milky way universe are correct? Who's to say the sun isn't actually revolving around some unknown mass of energy and we're the moons of the sun?
> 
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding something. 

Science operates on one major principle. It looks for the best fit model to explain the current situation and to be able to make predictions for the future. 

It encourages questions, in true form which is wholly unlike those climate change whack jobs, and adapts to include the new data and changes the models accordingly. Once something is above question, by having been proven time and time again, then it becomes law. 

Basically, we hold E=MC2 to be true until, either controverting evidence is presented to necessitate a whole new equation, or it is found to be lacking, which is where it sounds like that kid is going. Either way, it's an exciting time. The last time this equation was visited we got the Nuclear age out of it, and apart from the weapons and our own infancy with the technology, could do great things for our energy problems. Maybe the next iteration will give us clean nuclear energy.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> The big bang theory is yet another one of these concoctions created by more of your fellow man.



Yep just like religious texts, religion, Gods, etc. Except some rules are applied to scientific 'concoctions'.


----------



## erog (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think you're misunderstanding something.
> 
> Science operates on one major principle. It looks for the best fit model to explain the current situation and to be able to make predictions for the future.
> 
> ...



I'm not misunderstanding, but offering a different perspective. For example, what if gravity wasn't gravity at all. What if, instead, it was a different type of magnetic force that interacted with more objects? Or what if magnetism was a different part of gravity?

Don't get me wrong and think that I believe the above or anything different. I'm just throwing stuff out that if I think out of the box comes as an example. Much of science is obviously fact and proven to be true without any dispute. However, to me when the question of the origination of the planet or species comes up people may as well debate stuff like this. Seeing as how we'll probably never have a way to prove what really happened in the past towards our creation it makes just as much sense .

Also, all laws are man made and don't actually mean anything . Doesn't matter if it's scientific or legal. If we didn't write it down it doesn't exist as a law.



660griz said:


> Yep just like religious texts, religion, Gods, etc. Except some rules are applied to scientific 'concoctions'.



I was going to type this, but I lost my train of thought during my post


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> I'm not misunderstanding, but offering a different perspective. For example, what if gravity wasn't gravity at all. What if, instead, it was a different type of magnetic force that interacted with more objects? Or what if magnetism was a different part of gravity?
> 
> Don't get me wrong and think that I believe the above or anything different. I'm just throwing stuff out that if I think out of the box comes as an example. Much of science is obviously fact and proven to be true without any dispute. However, to me when the question of the origination of the planet or species comes up people may as well debate stuff like this. Seeing as how we'll probably never have a way to prove what really happened in the past towards our creation it makes just as much sense .
> 
> ...



And all of that might be. It's just the best fit model we have. If gravity were magnetic then gravity would be influenced my magnetism, and Mars wouldn't be devoid of magnetism, since it still obviously has gravity. 

I get what you're saying, but that seems unnecessarily nihilistic to me.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> Also, all laws are man made and don't actually mean anything . Doesn't matter if it's scientific or legal. If we didn't write it down it doesn't exist as a law.



I have to disagree there. Laws of nature exist, written or not.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> I have to disagree there. Laws of nature exist, written or not.



There is a reason why they are the laws of nature and not man or god.


----------



## erog (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And all of that might be. It's just the best fit model we have. If gravity were magnetic then gravity would be influenced my magnetism, and Mars wouldn't be devoid of magnetism, since it still obviously has gravity.
> 
> I get what you're saying, but that seems unnecessarily nihilistic to me.



I said a different kind of magnetism, as in comparing the fact that they are both attractions. And that's what I was saying came off of the top of my head. It literally required less thought than it would to define nihilism .

Mars is devoid of magnetism? I've not done a whole lot of research on Mars, but isn't it a rust covered planet? So wouldn't that mean there's a chance to have magnetic material under the surface?



660griz said:


> I have to disagree there. Laws of nature exist, written or not.





bullethead said:


> There is a reason why they are the laws of nature and not man or god.



The problem with the laws of nature is that the more we discover as man the more we add or disprove of the laws of nature.

For example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html

It was a law of nature before this that water couldn't burn. Of course he's disassembling the chemical H20, but if he stopped the radio wave then I'm sure it would again turn into water.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

The reason Mars, though in the habitable zone and evidenced of water, has no atmosphere to speak of and thus no liquid water, is a result of the stripping effect of solar winds/storms and no magnetic field generated by the core of the planet. That's not to say that a needle still wouldn't deflect a little in some areas, but the mack daddy magnetism is generated by a molten segment of core rotating around a solid core. Mars doesn't have that, the core is much smaller relative to its overall size than that of the earth so it cooled down a lot faster. We know that it DID have one due to Olympus Mons being an ancient volcano. You can't have volcanoes without magma and you don't get magma without a hot, molten core. 

Here's what will really bake your noodle, though, the gas planets do have them. There's something called metallic hydrogen theorized to be at their cores which produces a similar effect.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

http://bigthink.com/100-biggest-ideas/why-are-the-laws-of-physics-what-they-are


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://bigthink.com/100-biggest-ideas/why-are-the-laws-of-physics-what-they-are



Awesome. Some of our greatest discoveries have come about because of changing perspective like this.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Awesome. Some of our greatest discoveries have come about because of changing perspective like this.



Guys like that cause the brain to really go into overdrive. I just hope he gets his parkinson's in check


----------



## erog (Jan 9, 2014)

Thanks for the Mars background. I've never really looked too deeply into outer space. It just doesn't seem as promising as something like the bottom of the ocean.

I enjoy a good visit to big think as well once in awhile. I'll check that out when I have a little more time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Guys like that cause the brain to really go into overdrive. I just hope he gets his parkinson's in check



Parkinson's affects the body, from what I know, not the mind. If Hawking can have ALS, then I'm sure this guy can do great things even with Parkinson's. Look at MJFox.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> Thanks for the Mars background. I've never really looked too deeply into outer space. It just doesn't seem as promising as something like the bottom of the ocean.
> 
> I enjoy a good visit to big think as well once in awhile. I'll check that out when I have a little more time.



How is the ocean more promising than the stars? There's a higher certainty in witnessing life, sure, but the ocean on earth is less than a grain of sand on a beach in comparison with the scale of the ocean of the stars. 

I hope that last part made sense. I got kinda Sagan-ish and didn't mean to.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Parkinson's affects the body, from what I know, not the mind. If Hawking can have ALS, then I'm sure this guy can do great things even with Parkinson's. Look at MJFox.



LOL, I am guessing you did not watch the video in the link??

I was making an admittedly bad joke because of the way he uses his hand to accentuate his speech....

I have a great, but very warped sense of humor.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> LOL, I am guessing you did not watch the video in the link??
> 
> I was making an admittedly bad joke because of the way he uses his hand to accentuate his speech....
> 
> I have a great, but very warped sense of humor.



No, I didn't you busted me. I read the article. I try to not watch videos at work because if I can't listen to them then what's the point? 

There was a woman here the other day watching a video on Facebook from the Ellen show at 900dB echoing down the hall. Thankfully it wasn't a controversial topic, but she got the big guy's attention pretty quickly. 

I may not always do the smartest things, but that's just plain dumb


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, I didn't you busted me. I read the article. I try to not watch videos at work because if I can't listen to them then what's the point?
> 
> There was a woman here the other day watching a video on Facebook from the Ellen show at 900dB echoing down the hall. Thankfully it wasn't a controversial topic, but she got the big guy's attention pretty quickly.
> 
> I may not always do the smartest things, but that's just plain dumb



No problem! I can see why you wouldn't watch at work.
If you get a chance later watch the vid. As serious as this guy was after a minute or two in I had a hard time focusing on anything but his left hand then the bad taste joke wheels started turning....


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There is a reason why they are the laws of nature and not man or god.



Unless nature's laws are God's laws......and are there for a reason, as in "this is how this will work."


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Unless nature's laws are God's laws......and are there for a reason, as in "this is how this will work."



I cannot differentiate that from Unless nature's laws are Mighty Mouse's laws......and are there for a reason, as in "this is how this will work.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> MORE additions to the Bible that do not belong!!!!!



Is that concept not plausible? Why is it so distasteful to you?

The Jews stop believing at the end of the Old Testament, the Christians at the end of the New Testament (some of them handle snakes!). The Muslims have the Koran (extension to the New Testament), the Catholic bible contains extra books, as does the Mormon version of the bible. The King James version was altered for political reasons, and so on....

These instances are not opinions, they are facts. With all this dilution and misinterpretation, the truth is out there somewhere.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Is that concept not plausible? Why is it so distasteful to you?
> 
> The Jews stop believing at the end of the Old Testament, the Christians at the end of the New Testament (some of them handle snakes!). The Muslims have the Koran (extension to the New Testament), the Catholic bible contains extra books, as does the Mormon version of the bible. The King James version was altered for political reasons, and so on....
> 
> These instances are not opinions, they are facts. With all this dilution and misinterpretation, the truth is out there somewhere.



I don't know why someone would use anything other than original unaltered text as their main source. Since the 4th century there are a lot of additions and omissions.
One day I am going to have to find out what is in or not in the current versions of the Bible compared to what the earliest copies contained.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I cannot differentiate that from Unless nature's laws are Mighty Mouse's laws......and are there for a reason, as in "this is how this will work.



The point remains.  Even if it is Mighty Mouse at the wheel.....


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I don't know why someone would use anything other than original unaltered text as their main source. Since the 4th century there are a lot of additions and omissions.
> One day I am going to have to find out what is in or not in the current versions of the Bible compared to what the earliest copies contained.



I don't have access to the scrolls, and I don't speak or understand the languages they were originally written in.

Many of the words don't translate directly to modern English.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I cannot differentiate that from Unless nature's laws are Mighty Mouse's laws......and are there for a reason, as in "this is how this will work.



# 44 from: http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101science.cfm

"Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God's Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as "Mother" and naturalism is enshrined."

Mother Mighty mouse.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> # 44 from: http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101science.cfm
> 
> "Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God's Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as "Mother" and naturalism is enshrined."
> 
> Mother Mighty mouse.



Much better response than mine.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The point remains.  Even if it is Mighty Mouse at the wheel.....



JB, any point can be thought as valid when the literal make believe is introduced.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't have access to the scrolls, and I don't speak or understand the languages they were originally written in.
> 
> Many of the words don't translate directly to modern English.



Many of the words will not ever translate exactly into other languages....that does not make entire sentences/verses  appear and disappear.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Many of the words will not ever translate exactly into other languages....that does not make entire sentences/verses  appear and disappear.



Nope. Men do that.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> # 44 from: http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101science.cfm
> 
> "Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God's Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as "Mother" and naturalism is enshrined."
> 
> Mother Mighty mouse.



2001 years ago people were already worshiping creation for a long long long time.....Romans wasn't predicting the future, it was trying to tarnish the past.
Nature Mouse


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Nope. Men do that.



That's right.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> JB, any point can be thought as valid when the literal make believe is introduced.



Not the point.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> There is a reason why they are the laws of nature and not man or god.



IF ________ created nature, who's laws are they?  Fill in the blank with whatever you like, and they answer will be the same.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not the point.
> 
> 
> 
> IF ________ created nature, who's laws are they?  Fill in the blank with whatever you like, and they answer will be the same.



When you deal in "if's any answer fits.
So I will go with Nature in the blank space.


I like this!
If Nature created man and IF man created God and IF the Hype of man fooled other men into believing in God......... IF covers it all IF makes everything is possible!


Wait who created IF?

IF I am confused does it matter?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> IF I am confused does it matter?



The "if" is on both sides of this debate.  Yours and mine.  Not sure why you lock in on that as if the only people saying "if" are believers.  You can claim the intellectually honest high road by saying you only believe in that which can see, smell, touch, etc., but you are still left with "if there is no God......" or "If there is a God......" or "If everything is infinite...."  and on and on. 

Regardless of all that, the point still remains.......nature's laws belong to whatever created nature, even if it is nature, mighty mouse, or God.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 10, 2014)

erog said:


> It was a law of nature before this that water couldn't burn.



And it still is.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 10, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> "Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God's Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as "Mother" and naturalism is enshrined."



Perhaps, even then, they knew merely praying for resources didn't work. When all the trees are gone, praying for firewood won't help.


----------



## erog (Jan 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How is the ocean more promising than the stars? There's a higher certainty in witnessing life, sure, but the ocean on earth is less than a grain of sand on a beach in comparison with the scale of the ocean of the stars.
> 
> I hope that last part made sense. I got kinda Sagan-ish and didn't mean to.



I think what I meant was more promising in the short term. I don't see why we should be exploring outside of our own planet before we know what exists on at least most of our planet. People still get lost in the Bermuda Triangle...why would we be ready for space exploration?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 10, 2014)

erog said:


> I think what I meant was more promising in the short term. I don't see why we should be exploring outside of our own planet before we know what exists on at least most of our planet. People still get lost in the Bermuda Triangle...why would we be ready for space exploration?



Why can't we do both? So long as you don't have the same directionally challenged people who attempt to navigate the triangle running the project I don't see a problem.

Furthermore, I think that exploration should be risky. People have died exploring the oceans, or even the land.


----------



## erog (Jan 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why can't we do both? So long as you don't have the same directionally challenged people who attempt to navigate the triangle running the project I don't see a problem.
> 
> Furthermore, I think that exploration should be risky. People have died exploring the oceans, or even the land.



I'm not saying we can't do both. I guess I just know that I don't really care what's beyond our planet. I would just rather know more about our own home personally. We could find something in our seas that is like a secret trapdoor in the basement of your house .


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 10, 2014)

660griz said:


> Perhaps, even then, they knew merely praying for resources didn't work. When all the trees are gone, praying for firewood won't help.



What! The trees are disappearing!! Oh my goodness! Someone needs to save the trees!!!!

Wait, they are a renewable resource. We have been cutting them down for a really long time, and more of them keep growing! It is almost like a divine plan!!!!


----------



## 660griz (Jan 12, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> What! The trees are disappearing!! Oh my goodness! Someone needs to save the trees!!!!
> 
> Wait, they are a renewable resource. We have been cutting them down for a really long time, and more of them keep growing! It is almost like a divine plan!!!!



Time and effort must go into the renewal effort. Not sure how much the ancients new about conservation and tree growing. 
I was using that as an example. I never said anything about trees dissappearing. Just that if you use them all, praying won't help. 
However, you really need to do a little more history reading. If it weren't for he discovery of other methods of heating and building, we would have used up the renewable resource. Primary export from the 'New World'...lumber.
"In an attempt to preserve its(British Isles) dwindling resource, parliament passed the Act for the Preservation of Woods in 1543, limiting further felling of timber to 440 yards from landed property. However, by the seventeenth century even the tracts that had been reserved for the Crown had been depleted. As a result, the price of firewood doubled between 1540 and 1570, leaving the poorest literally freezing to death."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 13, 2014)

erog said:


> I'm not saying we can't do both. I guess I just know that I don't really care what's beyond our planet. I would just rather know more about our own home personally. We could find something in our seas that is like a secret trapdoor in the basement of your house .



You've been watching too much Pacific Rim.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 13, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> What! The trees are disappearing!! Oh my goodness! Someone needs to save the trees!!!!
> 
> Wait, they are a renewable resource. We have been cutting them down for a really long time, and more of them keep growing! It is almost like a divine plan!!!!


Yeah that's it we cut them down but they keep growing.
We'll just ignore that we are the ones replanting them. In areas where we don't replant them well......... apparently the divine plan has a few holes in it.


----------

