Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

*************
M*W: With all this talk about lactose intolerance, I'm getting that explosive feeling in my lower bowels.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woody: Some aquarium fish have live births, so it's not that big of a deal for a platypus to have eggs.
*************
M*W: All females produce eggs. It's how we lay them that matters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

spuriousmonkey: Evolutions is about being adequatly adapted, not perfectly adapted. You are confused with creation in which god or aliens could create perfectly adapted species.
*************
M*W: spur, you are so right! If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator (from here on out to be referred to as "CO3"), then I would have been born thin and rich.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woody says: When I was taking biology we were taught most mutations were harmful, but a few mutations are good. I asked a biology teacher to give an example of a "good" mutation. She couldn't produce a "good" mutation, can you? "Good" means it increases the chances of survival in a natural environement.

SG: Most mutations are neutral. They must be because several mutations occur in everyone's body every single day.
--------
Woody: I defined "good" as providing a visible survival value that couldn't be obtained otherwise. S/G and I were discussing lactose in dairy products, and a supposed mutation that allows adult humans to overcome lactose problems for dairy products. I don't see this as a "good" mutation, anymore than dark skin is a better genetic quality than light skin.

SG: It's a good mutation within the context of an agricultural civilization without access to alternative sources of nutrition.
------------
Woody says: OK then, what events cause evolution to proceed? Can you give an example where this has happened?

SG: Environmental changes cause evolution to proceed, interaction with other species, geological transformations, the opening of new environments like caves, epidemics, floods, island formation. Island formation is the best example. On madagascar, there are animals found nowhere else; descendants of what was present at the time it became an island, and descendants of those animals able to raft their way on to it.
----------
Woody: Then why don't caucasians have dark skin? they would have less skin cancer as a result. Yet many caucasians view dark skinned people as inferior, and dark-skinned people like Michael Jackson, want to be white.

SG: Caucasians have light skin so that they can use sunlight to make vitamin D in higher latitudes. Blacks recieve enough sunlight at middle latitudes to convert vitamin D even with their protective coloration. The prejudice against dark colored skin is at least partially biblical. Christians equate the color black with evil.
----------
Woody: Are you sure lactose tolerance is a mutation rather than another form of human conditioning?

SG: Yes, you can't develop it personally since it is the result of a particular enzyme.
---------
Woody:As S/G said, speciation is not the evolutionary method that got us here. I am still waiting to hear about the evolutionary method that got us here.

SG: Evolution is how we got here.
--------
Woody: On the subject of inert ingredients springing to life: What caused it I might ask? The answer must be pretty tough.

SG: The answer is tough, since it happened so long ago that any evidence is probably lost. It was also very tiny. I guess that these "inert ingredients" went through a transitional phase where they were not living, but not totally inert. There would have been some type of cycle occurring which resembled a primitive metabolism. You see, molecules are like strings in a drawer, eventually, they get tangled up with each other, and when they form certain kinds of knots, unique properties emerge. The first protolife might have been a short RNA molecule, that happened to be self replicating when placed in a soup of organic molecules. Then (passive) selection forces could act upon it, streamlining it's structure so that it developed advantageous mutations. This can happen in the lab today, RNA molecules can self-replicate and mutate in beneficial ways in a jar of organic molecules. (I'm not a chemist, so forgive me if the details are vague)
------------
Woody: My dismissal of evolution had nothing to do with the religious beliefs that I picked up many years later.

SG: But you don't dismiss evolution, you said that yourself. You are just incredulous at some of the more spectaular results.
----------
Woody: So what do you think about a human fetus "supposedly" going through all the evolutionary steps as it develops from single cell to baby? Do you attribute evolutionary proof to this phenomena?

SG: It doesn't.

 

Caucasians don't have dark skin because they live in a more moderate climate area, and as such are less prone to damage from the sun. If everyone in Africa had white skin you'd have a case to argue, but as it stands things are as they should be.

A persons personal opinion over what colour is more pleasing to the eye is of no relevance to this discussion.

What a person would like to look like is of no relevance to this discussion.

Luke's job description and the personal faiths of some medical practitioners are of no relevance to this discussion. The reason for goose pimples remains the same regardless to who worships who.

Ok, but then instead of "waiting to hear", wouldn't it be more pertinent to "go out and find"? The fact of the matter is that if you have an interest in something, want to understand more about it, or just to have a subject that you know enough about to argue competently, then you really should seek study in the subject.

Regardless to what you might 'believe', evolution isn't something that's been dreamed up by one scientist and never checked up on, tested as far as possible and documented extensively by scientists from all manner of different fields. It's science, and although there are still questions that need answering, what we do have isn't really arguable if only you studied it. It wasn't created in a backyard garage over a few beers and a hotdog.

Back to abiogenesis I see. There are several ways of looking at this:

1) The universe has always existed.

2) A giant cosmic tidal wave caused it, or Mickey Mouse, or Odin, or Tiamat.. If you take the stance that it was all done by some mystical being, then unless you can also show, ("prove"), who this being is, you would be in the exact same position that you now try to place me in. What it would come down to is a simple:

"We don't know".

This answer is suitable, and would then cause people to scientifically study to find out the answers. Reading the opinions of ancient people, (who were more confused than you are), does not serve any purpose other than to provide the very first answer it can think of without event checking the basic details. When it is then clearly and easily shown as astoundingly flawed, it should then be considered as pretty unreliable.

When you look at the fossil record you can clearly see how, as time has passed, living creatures have evolved and changed. It's an undeniable reality whether you personally want to accept it or not.

You know.. if you sat there and said: "Well, I do believe in god, and I believe he created everything on the planet - but then let everything progress and evolve by natural means", I would say all respect to you. At least you are being honest with yourself. Hell, even the pope had to put his hands up to this, because only a fool would try and claim evolution doesn't happen, and hasn't happened.

So for now let's state that a god, (of any name you'd like), created the world and all on it. This does not remove or change evolution - but would merely explain what started the process moving.

The only problem I can personally see for the religious folk is the acceptance that man has also evolved from other animals. Most religious texts will state that man was created as he is right now, and so naturally the religious man would throw a fit when a scientist states that apes and man share a common ancestor. Of course they would undoubtedly also see problem with the reality that we are very alike other animals - indeed being animals ourselves. Most religious texts try to work across that we are somehow superior to other animals, special, and with a purpose somewhat more appealing than just reproducing, eating and pooping.

In either case evolution is a reality whether you personally want it to be or not.

3) Life and non-life are so similar at the end of the day that a move from one to the other will happen eventually. Here's a simply put version from 'atheist vs god':

"All we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over. This can be achieved in a molecule containing sequence of only 32 amino acids. How long will it take to order just 32 molecules out of the Billions of Billions of atoms available over a period of billions of years? Remember that these molecules are attracted to each other and will readily bond together given appropriate conditions."

"There are many known self replicating molecules. such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group.

The "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group is a 32 amino acid long enzyme with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE. It is a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits.

It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. But most importantly it Self Replicates.

The formation of this self-replicating peptide is not a huge improbability. When you consider the billions of amino acid molecules all trying to react and bond with each other over a billion years, what are the chances of just 32 of them coming together in the right order."

So Woody, answer me this: At what stage would you consider something as "life"? Would you consider a self replicating peptide as "alive"?

You'd be amazed. I had a debate with a guy who asked that if evolution is real, why don't cows just grow wings. It took me a while to explain to him that grass is not in the air.

Unfortunately it is what creationism promotes. People will go round claiming evolution as false without even knowing the first thing about it.

This is now the third time I'm going to say this, and hopefully it will be the last: I cannot give you the rundown on a subject that takes slightly more time and effort than a 3,000 word forum post. You really need to sit down and study it from the ground upwards, and no matter what I say here, it wont supply you with what you need.

If you put forward a specific statement, (such as black people vs white people), I will certainly try to provide some pointers concerning it, but if you think I can provide you all that is required, you're seriously mistaken.

So given this, why would your "way back then but not now" time machine be any different? You seemingly want an absolute answer to several billion years ago, and if that isn't done entirely to your satisfaction, you'll instead accept the word of a man 4,000 years ago who thought the world was flat, and that there was a skydome surrounding the planet. That defies all logic.

No.

 

S/L said: In either case evolution is a reality whether you personally want it to be or not.

Woody says: It's a reality to you. There was a time when I believed in neither a god or evolution. I was an agnostic -- I didn't have an opinion. I was already college -degreed. I reached this point in my life after I heard everything about evolution in the 1970s, and very little about God.

The question I asked S/G is the same I ask you about the single celled zygote going through all the evolutionary steps to become a baby. It was taught as evolutionary gospel back in the 70s. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Austrolopithicus prometheus is hominid wanna-be. Yesterday's facts are today's science fiction, and so it continues. Just refuse to believe a "fact", wait fifty years and then you'll be right.

Australopithicus prometheus -- the great and mighty "firebuilder". The fire turned out to be none other than .... bat dung. :bugeye: Har Har Har

You say the evolution tree is all fleshed out, well have you taken a look at it? The gaps are tremendous, especially in the reptile to mammal/bird split off. How many transitional forms do you see here?

S/L: You really need to sit down and study it from the ground upwards, and no matter what I say here, it wont supply you with what you need.

Woody: I say the same to you about the bible. I have better things to do with my time than explain the "bible" to you. It's a waste of my time and in the end it makes no difference.

 

Do you have any idea how rare it is for something to get fossilized? There will always, ALWAYS be gaps, since each fossil is a single data point in a continuous process. "Transitional" species, especially between apes and man, will always be dismissed by creationists as either one or the other. "It's not a humanoid, it's a big gibbon", or, "it's not an ape-like human, but simply a race of strangely shaped people".

So, Woody, is DNA just a scientific theory, or a fact?

 

Australopithecus Prometheus has been reclassified as:

Australopithecus africanus
A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.

 

One for S/L since we are talking about goose pimples. How does sweating blood fit into the evolutionary scheme of things:

Sweating Blood

S/G: So, Woody, is DNA just a scientific theory, or a fact?

Woody: It is fact. By the way, the DNA was evaluated in a Neanderthal man specimen. Homo sapiens did not come from neaderthal "man." According to the DNA results, Neanderthal is no more a man than a chimpanzee is a man.

S/G: Australopithecus Prometheus has been reclassified as: Australopithecus africanus

Woody: First he lost his "fire", then he lost his name. He was supposed to be a fire builder, hence the name "prometheus." The supposed fire remnants were later determined to be fossilized bat dung as I recall. Shouldn't we call him "bat dung prometheus" in memory of our story-spinning archeologist? The fire-builder theory was a bunch of sh*t literally speaking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Neanderthals could have been a separate species of homonid. In fact, it is just as likely that any homonid we find is a separate species rather than our ancestor, both of us having descended from the first common ancestor, which would be too old to do DNA testing on anyway. Neanderthals were a kind of man, they used tools and made art.

So what that they made a mistake about fire? Scientists are able to be self critical in light of new information, unlike creationists. That's just why science can be trusted. Are you to have us dismiss the whole skeleton, just because they made a mistake thinking he used fire? The very fact of it's existence proves that many species of homonid evolved from apes, since all of these skeletons are comparatively recent, no older than 10 million years. Some scientists feel that the separation between hominids and apes is artificial, and that we are all in the same category.

 

And you and I both know that your college degree had nothing to do with religion or evolution. In my opinion it's always better to not have an opinion when you haven't studied the subject.

Well you are talking about a large step. Hey, 1970 - time of what.. drugs and long hair? We're not perfect Woody, (as made by god). Evolution has not altered. What has altered is the "how" and "why" of evolution. This still has disagreement.. Some consider it to occur in fast bursts, whereas some consider it to happen slowly over time. It still stands that it does happen, the question are in the "hows" and "whys". Do you understand that?

Evolution happens - regardless to what Woody or anyone else presumes. Why and how it happen are a different issue. (I use the terms why and how loosely).

Well that's fortunate, because unlike your church, it doesn't require subscriptions or "donations". There is nothing to "buy". Truth is always free of charge.

Science isn't perfect, and neither are humans. However, I fail to see the issue. You will happily espouse total truth and validity into a pile of old writings that you cannot in any way substantiate, so I am at a loss as to what the problem is here.

Sure, things change, (as they sometimes do with your religion).. i.e we no longer stone bad sons to death - and as such god is wrong on this point, (or outdated). However, the fine points remain the same.

Whether you agree with the laws or not, a god would remain true.

Whether you agree with the exact ordering or not, it remains true that we have descended from earlier hominids and so on.

With me so far? Good... Well, while we have evidence and facts to show our side, you have uhhh.... nothing, to show yours.

I love a game of poker, but even you have to admit defeat when the bluff has been called.

Sure, let's do this from the reverse side:

Tiamat, the might mother god of all.. She turned out to be none other than... bat dung.

Now, add another 100,000 gods to that example. Now add yours. If you see problem with that, kindly show how yours is any more substantial than any of the others.

Of course none of which would change an existing god's existence - ergo none of which changes the fact that we have descended from earlier hominids etc.

Well of course it bloody is. Regardless to what your bible might have you believe, you do not get all the facts of life answered after reading one 2,000 word book.

You'd think a man living in the year 2005 would know that. It's fucking bizarre.

Of course none of this changes the facts, but merely the how's, why's and who's. In time we will have a much better grasp of the exact chain, but do not presume that job is completed in one weekend. To do so is to show just how naive one is.

There's the thing.. I have a degree in religious education, and have been debating the issues for over two decades. I also have a degree in ancient history, psychology and am currently working on a degree in archaeology.

Tell me Woody, what level of study do you have in evolution?

And even if you did, (which you don't), have a degree in "evolution", one would ask how many books you have read on the subject. If you said one, any serious person would laugh at you.

Tell me Woody, how many religious texts have you read in depth?

Wait, are you telling me you read one religious text and accepted it as truth? Here is the serious man's response: "Lol!"

 

S/L: Tell me Woody, what level of study do you have in evolution?


Woody: I was fascinated with dinosaurs from the time I was a child. I read a great deal about them. I got a time-life book on evolution, studied it cover to cover until the pages fell out. Really cool.

I had two high school biology courses in evolution. I went to college preparitory school. My teacher was a former preacher that became a degreed biologist. He was well aware of both sides of the coin. He lost his pastorate over preaching "evolutionary genesis". With all your degrees and accolades surely you are aware of this theology.

I also took one botany course in college, and studied some plant evolution. My dad and I developed a really nice carnivorous plant collection from one of our local bogs. We even had venus flytraps (only found in a small part of the carolinas).

I took an anthropology course -- from which I learned all cultures adopt the idea of a supernatural entity no matter where they are on earth, and even if they are isolated on islands or the australian continent. All of humanity independently comes to the same conclusion -- there is a supernatural world. But then they didn't have Snakelord as a wise old sage to tell them otherwise, did they?

My last thrust into evolution was when I studied a book in it's entirety called "Genes, Genesis, and Evolution." I studied other sources independently in college. My favorite was "Darwin Retired," a secular text.

So I have more than just a passing interest in the subject. I was fascinated with dimetrodons, pliesosaurs, t-rex's, allosarus, ichiosaurus, and many, many, others if you would like to discuss them sometime. My favorite era was T-Rex's (Jurrasic) era. He is my alltime respectable carnivore.

I also collected fossils in my youth. I have a rather respectable white shark tooth in my collection. I also have a nice indian artifact collection. I was a member of an archaelogical society for a while.

-------------------------------------------------

S/L Tell me Woody, how many religious texts have you read in depth?

Woody: Before or after I became a christian? Let's keep this short if you don't mind. I have read the bible from cover to cover three times, and I have read the new testament altogether probably about 10 times. If you want to get into other religious minutia, let's please save it for another thread. Nobody for example has asked me about the differences between baptists, JW's, mormons, scientoligists, christian scientists, moonies, Lutherans, episcopals, methodists, seventh day adventists, LDSs, church of God, christian church, church of christ, unitarian church, presbyterians, independent christian, free-will baptists, primitive baptists, yadda ya. Perhaps we can dedicate several hundred posts to cover the christian and so-called christian denominations. We haven't even started, and I don't like typing.

Tell me Snakelord, how many times have you been to a church service other than weddings and funerals?

S/L: There's the thing.. I have a degree in religious education, and have been debating the issues for over two decades.

Woody: Odviously, the employment scenario wasn't good. Why would you get this degree anyway?

S/L: I also have a degree in ancient history, psychology and am currently working on a degree in archaeology.

Woody: History is one of my favorite subjects. I also dig archaeology (pun intended). In psych I only had two college courses. I am much heavier in the physics and engineering sections, though I also have strengths in social science (business & economics).

 

This isn't altogether true. There is no natural British god, (influences on the British and Irish came in the form of Nordic gods and middle eastern gods, (yhwh/jesus). As for natural Americans, (Red Indians), they worshipped the land in general instead of actual deities.

Remember that once people had the ability to travel, stories would follow them - and lead to new versions of those stories. You can see it quite clearly from Sumerian text and how it has filtered down through the ages - to the Babylonians, Akkadians and even the Jews. The OT heavily features the stories and ideas of the earlier people.

Let's also be aware that the one thing all of these people would have shared in common is a very limited understanding of the planet and universe. How many gods have been found/created recently? None.. the reason being that we actually know stuff about the world and universe - making god's redundant. The people of ancient times had little choice given that they could not work out the factual answers.

Just a rough estimate. I notice you put all christian beliefs, (which all stem from the very same text), but I was more interested in, and asking, what other texts you have read. Have you read the mahabharata, the vedas, the enuma elish etc etc? In short: Have you spent time reading religious texts other than the bible?

I was in a church for 5 minutes on a school trip when I was 9. Other than that I have never been inside a church.

Interest. Yeah, my wife thought it was a bit strange, but I merely have interest in the subject.

 

S/L: There is no natural British god.

Woody: What about the druids and stonehenge?

S/L: As for natural Americans, (Red Indians), they worshipped the land in general instead of actual deities.

Woody: I suppose that depended on the tribe. The Shawnees believed in a great spirit. Also, the Aztech, Mayas, etc had civilizations that indicated diety worship.

Our PHD anthropologist was not a religious man, but he told us the human need for a "God" is universal, and all the cultures he studied came to the same conclusion independently. Many of those cultures were primitive, and located in remote parts of the world. Travel, and exchange of ideas does not explain the origin of their "Gods". You might find a few exceptions.


S/L: Remember that once people had the ability to travel, stories would follow them - and lead to new versions of those stories. You can see it quite clearly from Sumerian text and how it has filtered down through the ages - to the Babylonians, Akkadians and even the Jews. The OT heavily features the stories and ideas of the earlier people. How about the Tiki Gods on easter island -- did they originate from babylonian religion?

Woody: That could explain the middle eastern religions, but not the rest of the world.

S/L: How many gods have been found/created recently? None

Woody: Actually the birth of cults is at an alltime high. Examples: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and Moonie movements have all happened since 1800. The new age movement is a rebirth of the eastern religions. Then there is the maharishi and the meditation religions. TM is a pretty big deal here in the U.S.


S/L: Just a rough estimate. I notice you put all christian beliefs, (which all stem from the very same text), but I was more interested in, and asking, what other texts you have read. Have you read the mahabharata, the vedas, the enuma elish etc etc? In short: Have you spent time reading religious texts other than the bible?

Woody: Before I was a christian I read Teachings of the Don Waun by Carlos Castanada. I also read one of those hari krishna books about the vishnu godhead. I wasn't a religious person at all, but I always had respect for Jesus. After I became a christian I read about Islam and Judaism, but now I am biased.

S/L: I was in a church for 5 minutes on a school trip when I was 9. Other than that I have never been inside a church.

Woody: So you probably don't know what goes on in a church service or a sunday school service. At a good church, the bible is opened and studied diligently. I have probably attended 3 thousand church services, and more than a thousand sunday school services. For a couple of years I regularly attended the morning worship, sunday school, evening worship, and wednesday evening. I have also been to several bible studies in people's homes. I believe I can learn about religion by participating rather than by getting a degree.

S/L: Interest. Yeah, my wife thought it was a bit strange, but I merely have interest in the subject.

Woody: Yet you never listened to the first church sermon. It seems you would be entertained, hearing the preacher make a fool out of himself. Try a fundamentalist service for maximum bizzareness. Don't try a catholic mass, they won't teach anything there. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican are all tepid -- try the hot stuff.

You want proof of God, but you have never, even once, gone to a place where He is worshipped. This is strange indeed. Do you think you could explain this to God someday? Well God, I did my part, where were you? oh really?

 

this is the most inanely stupid comment, I've ever read.
it says nothing about going to church regularly in the bible, you can worship wherever you wish to, god is'nt particular if you goto church or not, you dont score points by going.
with you logic, you should'nt read the bible at home, as it not a place of worship.

 

Yeah it's a nice sun dial. Druids themselves were considered to have been typically more 'earthly'. They had sacred trees and the like, and yet we see no sign of any actual deity worshipped.

Certainly, but that's why I said generally. The thing is that you did state that your teacher said that a human need for "god" is universal. An eagle spirit is not really classifiable as a "god". If you prefer to look at the word "god" so loosely, then it stands to more reason that you would find "gods" all over the world - because anything that exhibits supernatural elements would instantly fall under that category, from leprechauns to minotaurs.

Why not? Ok, it's perhaps easier to make out in the middle eastern religions, (Sumerian -> Babylonian -> Akkadian -> Jews -> Christians -> Muslims), but the natural course of action for man is to travel and spread stories. Even to this day you can see just how even your own religion has been affected. For example: take a look at christmas and ask why you have a christmas tree. (Christmas is taken from Sol Invictus, and includes 'strains' of several other cultures including Nordic beliefs, [the reason for the tree]). Take a look at easter, (ostara), pentecost, (lugnasao), etc. Every December 25th you get a tree originally delivered by Odin, and thus continue the traditions and beliefs of Nordic gods whether you notice it or not.

Looking back in history, who hasn't attacked who or visited who? In doing so they are most likely to spread their beliefs, and make those traditions and beliefs a part of the foreign society.

I didn't mention cults, because what you have mentioned are ones that have taken an ancient belief in a specific god or gods and then ammended the stories to fit. What I mean is, how many people have found or made an entirely new god?

It was obviously all the rage back in the day, (as you and your teacher seemingly attest to). The vikings found thor and odin, the Aztecs found quetzecotl, certain African tribes found abellio, etc.

Obviously from this, we can see that gods were abundant. There were snake gods and crocodile gods, elephant gods and human looking gods. There were fighter gods and lover gods, man gods and women gods, big gods and little gods..

When was the last time someone actually found a new god?

Not since I gave up flicking the tv on on a Sunday.

You most certainly can, but it is biased, (you have agreed to this). That's where they differ, (or should differ - even religious education studies can work out to be rather bias).

What if you die and find yourself face to face with Odin who asks why you've never worshipped him or believed in him? Wouldn't it be rather upsetting to find yourself in hell all because you didn't read the right book?

And by your own statements you can see the futility of the whole thing. You say: "don't go here, don't go there", and they would undoubtedly, (if you're all as judgemental as each other), say the same thing with regards to your church. You have never once managed to show why you are apparently in a position of authority whereby you can justify such a statement.

I shouldn't really need to point this out to a practicing christian, but jesus said not to go to a place of worship, but to find a quiet room at home where you can talk to god. I need not go somewhere with a leaking roof just to find this apparent proof of yours.

So tell me woody, how is it strange in your opinion? You disagree with jesus perhaps?

I doubt your god would have forgotten what he said.. right? As such, there would be nothing to explain.

 

This just in: Most Mainstream Christians Believe Science Offers the Most Rational Explanation of the Physical Universe.

 

S/L said: When was the last time someone actually found a new god?

Woody says: I don't know?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Woody: So you probably don't know what goes on in a church service or a sunday school service.

S/L: Not since I gave up flicking the tv on on a Sunday.

Woody: Whose service did you watch?

-----------------------------------------

S/L said: What if you die and find yourself face to face with Odin who asks why you've never worshipped him or believed in him? Wouldn't it be rather upsetting to find yourself in hell all because you didn't read the right book?

Woody says: What has Odin done to show he cares for me? If he doesn't care about me, what difference does it make whether I believe in him or not?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Woody: I believe I can learn about religion by participating rather than by getting a degree.

S/L: You most certainly can, but it is biased, (you have agreed to this). That's where they differ, (or should differ - even religious education studies can work out to be rather bias).

Woody: I am biased now, but I got here with an unbiased approach. I prayed to God that I could do things on His terms. I was going to try every religion in the world until I found God. He directed me to go to a baptist church.

I grew up going to a presbyterian church, but I always figured I just wasn't one of the "elect". There was no hope for me -- I wasn't in the cards. I only went there because my parents made me go. I didn't like it, and I could write everything I learned on one sheet of paper. That church was dead dead dead. Most people went there for the prestige. I must admit my dad sang good enough for the choir. Well at least my parents had friends there.

------------------------------------------------

S/L said: And by your own statements you can see the futility of the whole thing. You say: "don't go here, don't go there", and they would undoubtedly, (if you're all as judgemental as each other), say the same thing with regards to your church. You have never once managed to show why you are apparently in a position of authority whereby you can justify such a statement.

Jesus says: And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Jesus says: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Woody says: You might get lucky with one of the other denominations -- I don't have the authority to tell you which one. However, you probably won't find God unless you go where He is.

----------------------------------------

Woody: You want proof of God, but you have never, even once, gone to a place where He is worshipped. This is strange indeed. Do you think you could explain this to God someday? Well God, I did my part, where were you? oh really? ”


S/L: I shouldn't really need to point this out to a practicing christian, but jesus said not to go to a place of worship, but to find a quiet room at home where you can talk to god. I need not go somewhere with a leaking roof just to find this apparent proof of yours.

Woody: Have you found Him in a closet? Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. As my dad used to say -- if you want to catch fish you have to go where they are.

 

Me neither. Can we find some agreement in saying that science has replaced what once would have been 'god'? An example I often use, and you might have seen me use it before, is how an ancient disaster is assigned to god whereas the recent tsunami, (example), is assigned to the after effect of tectonic plate movement.

The key difference being that we have now progressed enough to know that god is not needed or relevant to the goings on of this planet. In the ancient times, they didn't know what we know now. They did not know about tectonic plates, or any other such earthly system that we know in depth.

Yes, we do still have many questions that need answering, but man is generally more intent to work out those answers based on observable reality as opposed to unobservable fantasy.

Believe it or not, but thousands of years does lead to a greater degree of understanding.

My apologies, it was a very subtle attempt at humour. No, I haven't watched those Sunday religious programmes either

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By that token what has yhwh or jesus done to show an atheist that he cares for them? Remember Woody, it's all about faith. Why must odin come to you? You must go to him. He has after all given you free will, and he considers it wrong for him to interfere, such is his system of morals.

He does care about you. He loves you - but he wont show himself to you unless you really seek it. He is "all loving", (of course like jesus if you don't follow him you burn forever - but that is after all the christian definition for "all loving").

That's not possible unless you read every single religious text in existence. Unless you read every single one of them, you could easily be missing out on the real text but have merely opted for a fake second best.

Funny thing is, that story is not unique to you - and nor is it unique to type of place of worship. I'm certain we could find some from other churches, mosques, synagogues and so on that say exactly the same thing. Now show why your statement would be any more valid than theirs.

It's quite common that a child will develop some resentment towards things their parents like when the child isn't given the attention he demands. I can see that your reason for disliking it now has come down to childhood memories of the establishment. But perhaps they do teach exceptionally well, but at that time you just weren't ready to learn. Hey, maybe it's another one of those "god tests" that crop up occasionally. "Will he walk away, or will he stick at it and show he has will and determination in the face of boredom and adversity?"

While it's interesting, it doesn't really answer what I was asking.

Same again.

And that is anyone's guess. Of course as I mentioned, jesus said it was best in your home by yourself. I have no problem with you disagreeing with him, I just find it amusing.

Oh right, jesus didn't say to look in the closet.

It's amusing isn't it, a child lost in a maze trying to find his parents. The thing is, his parents will happily come to him first. They wont sit at the edge hoping he makes it out ok - no, any decent parent would go to their child. I guess god just likes his little games.

 

Jesus says: And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. ”

S/L: While it's interesting, it doesn't really answer what I was asking.

Woody: And you never, even once, put Jesus to the test by asking or seeking. Should you expect to do any finding? No. Should you expect him to open up to you? No. He does not go where he is not wanted.

S/L: It's amusing isn't it, a child lost in a maze trying to find his parents. The thing is, his parents will happily come to him first. They wont sit at the edge hoping he makes it out ok - no, any decent parent would go to their child. I guess god just likes his little games.

Woody: Unfortunately, you are not one of his children. It wasn't a game when he died on a cross. Who came to Him to give him comfort? Who hoped He would make it? Jesus helped so many people, but was there a decent person to help Him? He was killed for convenience.

Sadly, that's where most people leave Jesus. Today, it is convenient to have Him dead and out of the way. Everybody wants to live their life their own way: for wealth, fame, chemical addiction, or whatever they are living for. So Jesus lets them have it their own way. They can't blame Him when they end up in Hell. He did everything He could.