Originally posted by Ikankering:
Can you prove merlion does not exit. It is so basic in logic that it is impossible to prove non-existence. The burden of proof is with the party which claims it existence. It is actually very simple - just produce it it it is actually there.
Jews occupy the Palestine happens on after the WWII.
You said 'As long as the promise to the Jews is kept, that's the reason to believe that the promise to Christians will also be honoured'
This is certainly a very 'modern' justification for believing in Christianity. Pardon me if you don't mind. If that is really the way to justify Christianity, how did Christians prior to WWII be sured that the promise of eternal life will be ultimately honoured then?<.p>
You damned cock! Read the histroy of the Jews before you spill garbage here.
Originally posted by Ikankering:
I am not sure anybody cares to renounce Christianity becuase it is a no issue. Just quit going to church to listen to fairy tales will do.
But I know at least of one who actively campaign against Christianity. He is Steven Weinberg who shared the prize in physics for his contribution to the Electro-Weak Interaction (I believe)
In one of his public speeches he was quoted saying
With or without it(religion), you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.
I'm sure this Weinberg knows that a simple loaf of bread has a maker. It's call a baker. To deny that the first human being, which is much more complex than bread, has no maker is beyond any man who has the ability to think.
"In his 1997 essay, “Before the Big Bang,” Weinberg describes a meeting he and other physicists had with Al Gore, in which the scientists tried to sell the Vice President on the value of funding the Super Collider. Just as Gore left the meeting, he turned back in the room to ask if the scientists “could tell him what happened before the Big Bang.” They had no satisfactory answer. (Al Gore, incidentally, is not the first politician to take an interest in scientific questions about origins. The defense in the Scopes case introduced a letter written by President Woodrow Wilson to one of its scientific experts, W. C. Curtis. In his letter to Curtis, Wilson wrote, "It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised. Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution.")"
He didn't know what happened before the big bang.
I'm glad that Weinberg is also known to support Israel. He knows where his ancestors came from.
Originally posted by Ikankering:
I think Kepler was a clergy and for his generation, to declare disbelieve in God is to pronounce ones own dead sentence (See how evil the church was). I am sure everybody is ware that Galileo was forced to recant his theory on motion. And to claim Newton is a Christian is just as informative as saying he is English.
You have plans to reclassify them as atheists?
Originally posted by googoomuck:You damned cock! Read the histroy of the Jews before you spill garbage here.
I do not wish to comment the above vulgarities.
Human being are not books in the library where one can, though not always, classified them into categories. Copernicus (I mistaken it to be Kepler in my previous post) and Galileo were people of their times. What they did was to show that the conventional understanding of the physical base on the authority of the scripture was wrong. Copernicus published his work posthumously for the obvious reason. Not so lucky was Galileo who was put under house arrest for the rest of his life (Vatican apologized to this only in the 1990s).
No doubt science does not understand the origin of the Big Bang. But this does not justify the conclusion that beyond Big Bang is a god in human image (since we were made in god’s image) and Prof Weinberg certainly did not imply that ).
His attitude towards religion is made clear in the talk given in April 1999 at the Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., where he ended that the speech with the following quote: ”One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment”
Nobody claim to know to know everything except the poor YHWH who has no choice but to swallow whatever words put into his mouth by the so called prophets, church elders and pastors, and other peddlers of the snake oil.
Originally posted by Ikankering:I do not wish to comment the above vulgarities.
Human being are not books in the library where one can, though not always, classified them into categories. Copernicus (I mistaken it to be Kepler in my previous post) and Galileo were people of their times. What they did was to show that the conventional understanding of the physical base on the authority of the scripture was wrong. Copernicus published his work posthumously for the obvious reason. Not so lucky was Galileo who was put under house arrest for the rest of his life (Vatican apologized to this only in the 1990s).
No doubt science does not understand the origin of the Big Bang. But this does not justify the conclusion that beyond Big Bang is a god in human image (since we were made in god’s image) and Prof Weinberg certainly did not imply that ).
His attitude towards religion is made clear in the talk given in April 1999 at the Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., where he ended that the speech with the following quote: ”One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment”
Nobody claim to know to know everything except the poor YHWH who has no choice but to swallow whatever words put into his mouth by the so called prophets, church elders and pastors, and other peddlers of the snake oil.
Your theory may be wrong too. Nothing can be absolute in Religion or supernatural but there is a possibility of getting close to it, which your theory is not even close enough to convince people.
Originally posted by despondent:disclaimer: like wad chin eng said...wads evidence to us christians may not be evidence to atheists...u liability is on us to provide evidence...its NOT to provide evidence GD ENUFF for atheists...
That is the main cause on why there are so many atheists in this world today.
No... if god exists... i will spank his ass if i meet him.
Originally posted by january:No... if god exists... i will spank his ass if i meet him.
No, you can only blame yourself. Who decides what is good or bad, isn't it you ?
Originally posted by Ikankering:I do not wish to comment the above vulgarities.
Human being are not books in the library where one can, though not always, classified them into categories. Copernicus (I mistaken it to be Kepler in my previous post) and Galileo were people of their times. What they did was to show that the conventional understanding of the physical base on the authority of the scripture was wrong. Copernicus published his work posthumously for the obvious reason. Not so lucky was Galileo who was put under house arrest for the rest of his life (Vatican apologized to this only in the 1990s).
No doubt science does not understand the origin of the Big Bang. But this does not justify the conclusion that beyond Big Bang is a god in human image (since we were made in god’s image) and Prof Weinberg certainly did not imply that ).
His attitude towards religion is made clear in the talk given in April 1999 at the Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., where he ended that the speech with the following quote: ”One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment”
Nobody claim to know to know everything except the poor YHWH who has no choice but to swallow whatever words put into his mouth by the so called prophets, church elders and pastors, and other peddlers of the snake oil.
“[It is my] loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason.”
Did Corpenicus not said this?
Research by Christian scientists is not confine to creationism only. They look at research as a means to unlock the secrets of creation.
Are you not surprised that these brilliant scientists remained truthful to their maker for the rest of their lives?
Originally posted by ƒlame:Your theory may be wrong too. Nothing can be absolute in Religion or supernatural but there is a possibility of getting close to it, which your theory is not even close enough to convince people.
First a correction. I have not said "My Theory". I do not have any theory to my credit!!
Nobody, no scientist, will claim that science is inmutable. Scientific enquiry is an incremental process, with new theory building and improving on the existing ones and so on. But science will never know that what they have got is the ultimate theory of the physical world because of the limitations of our technology in making perfectly precise measurements. Still science has come a long way since the day of Gelileo, and it can only gett more and more precise in its description of the physical world.
Originally posted by googoomuck:You damned cock! Read the histroy of the Jews before you spill garbage here.
Googoomuck
There is no need for foul language.
Treat your opponents the manner you want then to treat you.
Your staunchness in your faith may be leading you to be hostile to other people, handle it with care.
laffin
Originally posted by googoomuck:“[It is my] loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason.”
Did Corpenicus not said this?
Research by Christian scientists is not confine to creationism only. They look at research as a means to unlock the secrets of creation.
Are you not surprised that these brilliant scientists remained truthful to their maker for the rest of their lives?
It is praiseworthy to note that scientists of religious or non religious background are uncovering more unknowns in science.
It is known that progress of science since the last century has surpassed the stories of the bible and have made the bible invalid. Previous members of science were also made invalid. Science is advancing all the time. Why dwell on one passe scientist all the time ? Learn their teaching / un-learn their teaching and move on.
Therefore followers of christianity are better off in maintaining faith to their virtual supernatural being and putting the ancient scribbling one side.
laffin
Originally posted by laffin123:It is praiseworthy to note that scientists of religious or non religious background are uncovering more unknowns in science.
It is known that progress of science since the last century has surpassed the stories of the bible and have made the bible invalid. Previous members of science were also made invalid. Science is advancing all the time. Why dwell on one passe scientist all the time ? Learn their teaching / un-learn their teaching and move on.
Therefore followers of christianity are better off in maintaining faith to their virtual supernatural being and putting the ancient scribbling one side.
laffin
How can science make the bible invalid? The bible is not intended to be a science book.
Evolution is pseudo science. Things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, now dug up evidence to prove that they are false. They debunk evolution faster than creationists can.
Science(except evolution) is a discovery of something that had always been there. Scientists looking for these 'something' merely picked them up by chance or by guesswork through many failed experiments before making a discoveries.
Christian scientists are also looking for that something and they discovered some of the laws that even science buffs are still studying today.
Originally posted by googoomuck:How can science make the bible invalid? The bible is not intended to be a science book.
Evolution is pseudo science. Things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, now dug up evidence to prove that they are false. They debunk evolution faster than creationists can.
Science(except evolution) is a discovery of something that had always been there. Scientists looking for these 'something' merely picked them up by chance or by guesswork through many failed experiments before making a discoveries.
Christian scientists are also looking for that something and they discovered some of the laws that even science buffs are still studying today.
QUOTE Things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, now dug up evidence to prove that they are false. UNQUOTE
Googoomuck
You are terribly wrong with your statement above.
Can you tell me which evolutionist said such stuff ? (If you cannot, you are making thing up in this thread, or you are deluded again)
Can I ask your opinion of the current carbon dating technique used to ascertain age of an artifacts/fossil from the ground ?
If Christian scientist contibutes to science, that's great. However, what is your purpose of attaching 'Christian' with the profession 'scientist'? There are muslim scientist, buddhist scientist, catholic scientist, Hindu scientist ...... All these scientists are believing their own supernatural gods. In that sense, there are so many different god. They may be biased into scientific work to prove the existent of their god.
However, let's not discount these scientist from respective religion. Afterall, we don't ask what is their religious belief when they publish their scientific result.
laffin
Originally posted by Ikankering:Not so lucky was Galileo who was put under house arrest for the rest of his life (Vatican apologized to this only in the 1990s).
Did some "digging" in the past into this often quoted Galileo stuff.....and my uderstanding is that "his ideas were not entirely correct. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth."
I am quoting from a source from a Catholic website and thus it will provide the other side of the coin....and those interested can check it out at : http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
This is not to start another war on who's right or wrong.....just the other side of the story and you make your own judgement.
Originally posted by Ikankering:No doubt science does not understand the origin of the Big Bang. But this does not justify the conclusion that beyond Big Bang is a god in human image (since we were made in god’s image) and Prof Weinberg certainly did not imply that ).
.......................................................................
Nobody claim to know to know everything except the poor YHWH who has no choice but to swallow whatever words put into his mouth by the so called prophets, church elders and pastors, and other peddlers of the snake oil.
As at today, science cannot give an explanation as to who and how the universe is created. And until a concerete conclusion by science is found, it remains a mystery to scientisits.
On the other hand, the Bible had given an account of the creation and Christians choose to accept this. Non-Christians do not. But that really is a personal choice isn't it? Non-believers are asking for proof that the account is true and yet they have no proof to proved that it is untrue.
Let's says Christians accept that it is "untrue" and that what the Bible said is "falsehood"...then should they turn to believed in science that has yet to provide any answer? And what if nothing is found or discovered within our lifetime?
And what benefits is there to disbelieve the Bible then?
IMO, the Bible is about teaching people to love one another and lead a life of love, compassion and charity.
Even if everything in the Bible is "untrue" and yet lead people to lead a life of love, compassion and charity, what's the harm?
I know many others have read the same Bible but come to a different conclusion...... and these are the people who "put and forced words down the throat of the Bible".
Please do not start quoting me bible verses and asking for explanations....it's pointless as Christians explanations will not be accepted....and unless non-believers have the same open mindedness (that they are asking from Christains) and learn it from a reliable source in detail...there is no point saying that Bible is not real....
Originally posted by laffin123:QUOTE Things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, now dug up evidence to prove that they are false. UNQUOTE
Googoomuck
You are terribly wrong with your statement above.
Can you tell me which evolutionist said such stuff ? (If you cannot, you are making thing up in this thread, or you are deluded again)
Can I ask your opinion of the current carbon dating technique used to ascertain age of an artifacts/fossil from the ground ?
If Christian scientist contibutes to science, that's great. However, what is your purpose of attaching 'Christian' with the profession 'scientist'? There are muslim scientist, buddhist scientist, catholic scientist, Hindu scientist ...... All these scientists are believing their own supernatural gods. In that sense, there are so many different god. They may be biased into scientific work to prove the existent of their god.
However, let's not discount these scientist from respective religion. Afterall, we don't ask what is their religious belief when they publish their scientific result.
laffin
I've already talked about Ardi and Lucy.
Next, living fossils. Why didn't the evolutionists not talk about fish fossils? That's because early fish thought to be extinct (supposedly > 60 million years ago) was as much a fish as today's fish when some live ones were discovered recently.
If you have an explanation to this, I can still bring up a few other living fossils that have been discovered lately.
Christians also study the same science subjects with the other people before they became scientists. Their discoveries made them even more closer to God.
If we were to talk about scientists from other religions as well, the atheists will become more isolated. Can atheist scientists even reinvent the wheels by rejecting the discoveries made by fellow scientists who believe in God, which have withstood the test of time.?
if there is a god, he failed mightily. why he even has to create a world where there is so much sufferings. he merely just needed to create a heaven.
no need to defend him, you staunch believers of god. because the concept of god is created by men.
Originally posted by Rooney9:if there is a god, he failed mightily. why he even has to create a world where there is so much sufferings. he merely just needed to create a heaven.
no need to defend him, you staunch believers of god. because the concept of god is created by men.
I knew you or someone from the faith would said it. never mind, to each his/her own. I am not going to hell.
Originally posted by Rooney9:I knew you or someone from the faith would said it. never mind, to each his/her own. I am not going to hell.
Originally posted by googoomuck:I've already talked about Ardi and Lucy.
Next, living fossils. Why didn't the evolutionists not talk about fish fossils? That's because early fish thought to be extinct (supposedly > 60 million years ago) was as much a fish as today's fish when some live ones were discovered recently.
If you have an explanation to this, I can still bring up a few other living fossils that have been discovered lately.
Christians also study the same science subjects with the other people before they became scientists. Their discoveries made them even more closer to God.
If we were to talk about scientists from other religions as well, the atheists will become more isolated. Can atheist scientists even reinvent the wheels by rejecting the discoveries made by fellow scientists who believe in God, which have withstood the test of time.?
My earlier question to you on carbon dating, do you want to pass it ?
(1) Your remark on fish fossil and existing fish is not convincing. If the fish is "thought" to be extinct, then it is gone forever. How do evolutionist you are talking about mange to link the extinct fish to the existing fish. Is the evolutionist a real person or your thought experiment ?
(2) QOUTE Can atheist scientists even reinvent the wheels by rejecting the discoveries made by fellow scientists who believe in God, which have withstood the test of time.? UNQUOTE
Why would atheist scientist do that ? Reivent the wheel by rejecting accomplishment of religious scientist? What are you talking about ? If it is backup with evidence, everybody will support it. Why do you pull in religion ?
I believe in God
but i blieve that God is baised
whoever give more
God will bless more also
Sounds like Stock market investments
Originally posted by laffin123:My earlier question to you on carbon dating, do you want to pass it ?
(1) Your remark on fish fossil and existing fish is not convincing. If the fish is "thought" to be extinct, then it is gone forever. How do evolutionist you are talking about mange to link the extinct fish to the existing fish. Is the evolutionist a real person or your thought experiment ?
(2) QOUTE Can atheist scientists even reinvent the wheels by rejecting the discoveries made by fellow scientists who believe in God, which have withstood the test of time.? UNQUOTE
Why would atheist scientist do that ? Reivent the wheel by rejecting accomplishment of religious scientist? What are you talking about ? If it is backup with evidence, everybody will support it. Why do you pull in religion ?
What about carbon dating? Is it accurate? I don't know. No one is able to verify something that's assumed to be 50,000 years old. I trust the BC/AD dating system, which was based on the birth of Jesus.
Why is the fish living fossil unconvincing? It proves that evolution of that fish did not occur. Evolutionists are very afraid of living fossils.
Another evolution theory that the evolutionists themselves debunked is the use of vestigiality organs. Go do your research, OK?
Why pull in religion? Do you believe in creationism or evolution? You tell me.
I've said before. Research by creationist scientists are not confined to creationism only. They are also biologists, chemists or physicists. They become more convinced of the existence of an intelligent designer with each new discovery .
Two interesting articles that are recommended for the discussion of this thread:-
‘Quantum Physics and God’ (*1)
A Discussion on “The Evolution of God” (*2)