The Religion Discussion

[nareshseep]

If it is not AbamB posting unrequested swathes of Islamic scripture, it is nareshseep posting swathes of atheistic scripture.

These fundamentalists...

^ such power but with a weak body that cannot withstand a hurricane or tornado.

the dominion quoted there is over animals, but you are referring to taking a perfect creation and making it imperfect - very different scale there.

Where would theses hurricanes and tornados would come from in a perfect world?

Dominion in Genesis 1 is referred to specifically over animals but it doesn't mean it was limited only to them. Man's dominion, as God's chief creation on earth, extended to him being a federal head of all creation.

Psalm 8:4-8 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

We have a case of the pot calling the kettle black,
Perspective is a hell of a ting eh!

[rocknrolla]

Meh boy I not sure what you reading,You need to read Genesis again Gen 2:7 is quite clear. God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed in him the breath of life and man became a living soul.Now where in the bible supports your statements.After Adam and Eve knew the were naked they made clothing from skin. As AdamB said your pelau view of religious mix is cause for concern, As Duane says all religion don't agree because it's either they are both wrong or one is right. You attempt to mix religious views is like trying to mix milk and curry.You know what the end result is likely to be.

you are right, i have mixed theologies. the topic of adam having a body radiating light comes from jewish literature.

but for the sake of christianity as the mainstay if we were to take genesis chapter 2 literally, we'll have to say that eden is on earth.. somewhere in the east by the tigris and euphrates rivers..and that God walked among adam and eve on earth. this would mean that they could be in the presence of God in the flesh. which is not supposed to be possible.

the contradiction gets deeper as we pursue literalisation as somewhere on earth, where eden is located are "Great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword to guard the way to the tree of life" - Genesis 3:24


this is why i propose that the studying of all religions brings great insight into one's own chosen and baptised faith. as each religion acts as an apocrypha for your own. each filling in the blanks where the other was left out or contradicting. remembering that this is an english translation. since jews adhere more closely to one of the original languages.. hebrew, that they may have more insight into the true meaning.

our christian bible doesnt tell us much about adam and eve. but jewish texts have a good bit to say on his description.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/758-adam

Adam in the Future World.

On the day Adam covered his naked body for the first time, he beheld in clothing a mark of human dignity, and offered God a thanksgiving of incense (Book of Jubilees, iii. 22). The garments made by God were not of skin, but of light (Gen. R. xx.)


Two Natures in Adam [edit]

There are, however, two points of view regarding man's nature presented in the two Biblical stories of man's creation; and they are brought out more forcibly in the Haggadah. "Both worlds, heaven and earth, were to have a share in man's creation; hence the host of angels were consulted by the Lord when He said, 'Let us make man'" (Genesis i. 26, Genesis Rabba viii.). [2] His body reached from earth to heaven [or from one end of the world to the other] before sin caused him to sink" (Ḥag. 12a, Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 38b).[2] "He was of extreme beauty and sunlike brightness" (B. B. 58a).[2] "His skin was a bright garment, shining like his nails; when he sinned this brightness vanished, and he appeared naked" (Targum Yer. Gen. iii. 7; Genesis Rabba xi.).

from this perspective we see why adam could not be of simple flesh. his skin radiated light and the radiating light was lost during the fall. there is more on this but i will have to do some digging to resurface the literature. this is from 15 yrs ago for me lol.

there is also the issue of the hebrew tranlation into english causing a loss of a great deal of meaning in the creation story than those who have hebrew as their primary language. the english translation into the words soil and flesh are questionable.

The Fall [edit]

Adam in paradise had angels to wait upon and dance before him (Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 59b, B. B. 75a, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer xii.).[3] He ate "angel's bread" (compare Psalms lxxiii. 26; Yoma, 75b).[3] All creation bowed before him in awe.[3] He was the light of the world (Yer. Shab. ii. 5b);[3] but sin deprived him of all glory.[3] The earth and the heavenly bodies lost their brightness, which will come back only in the Messianic time (Genesis Rabba xii. ; Zohar, iii. 83b)

tho christianity is a stranger to the idea of adam being a light being of sorts before the fall in his innocent state, it is nothing strange to judaism.

i will have to do a bit of a refresher but this sort of debate doesnt serve much to gain in terms of wealth of knowledge for Our task at hand.

for christianity's sake, not much changes. let us assume that the bible's english wording is accutely correct and adam was fashioned out of regular dirt as on earth, his soul, and our souls are made of light. and our main goals are to earn God's forgiveness in granting us repentance and restoring our soul to live in the house of the lord forever.

the concept is there, but is all left up to which aspect of the translations the scholars wanted to convey when penning the translations. literalisation of Genesis 2 can barely last 2 sentences without contradicting itself, let alone fit into everything that is known to be true. thus deeper understanding can be had by searching other religious texts. those who chose to include what christian scholars chose to remove from their books for various reasons. also by heading closer towards the original hebrew passages, will lead u to studying judaism. there is a trail of breadcrumbs. ive covered it already but a long time ago and my method was to hold onto those things that withstood the test of time as important links for what i was personally searching for. what type of body adam had wasnt as important to me as the answers to the questions:

why am i here?
is there a God?
Do i have a soul?
and i wonder if those things in the bible are true about heaven?
if so How can i ensure that i am saved?


my current knowledge addresses more strictly the path to God's blessing and restoring of the soul. i will describe scientifically how the body and mind work in the process of enlightenment. explaining the biological functions and the roles of the structures of the body. filling in all the blanks of the past that lead up to attainment. in essence.. a walkthru or step by step guide to attaining samadhi in as simple words as i can for all to understand including our roles, purpose and how all religions and ancient cultures adhere to and teach of it as the goal. so that there will be a clear cut way to attain God's blessing and no longer doubt our prayers.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ such power but with a weak body that cannot withstand a hurricane or tornado.

the dominion quoted there is over animals, but you are referring to taking a perfect creation and making it imperfect - very different scale there.

Where would theses hurricanes and tornados would come from in a perfect world?

you're saying that a perfect world does not have hurricanes and tornadoes? So who causes these natural disasters?

Dominion in Genesis 1 is referred to specifically over animals but it doesn't mean it was limited only to them. Man's dominion, as God's chief creation on earth, extended to him being a federal head of all creation.

Psalm 8:4-8 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

"works of your hands" is very vague when the very next line talks about only animals again.

Why can't we fly?

Man has taken dominance through technology. Before man developed agriculture or even before he was a hunter gatherer, he was just as vulnerable as any other animal in the food chain. Put a man on the plains of Africa in the wild with nothing but his body and he won't last very long. Is that what you consider to be dominion?

[Habit7]

you're saying that a perfect world does not have hurricanes and tornadoes? So who causes these natural disasters?

I dont know if there was natural disasters in a perfect world, natural disasters could be a result of the fall or it could not.

"works of your hands" is very vague when the very next line talks about only animals again.

I dont see it as vague, I see it as a general absolute. The next line doesnt talk about animals it further emphasises the point that "you have put all things under his feet" a hebrewism that again demonstrates that man had dominion over "all things." The choice of the writer naming examples with the animate objects of creation (animals) doesnt limit his dominion only to them but emphasizes the extent of man's dominion even over conscious creatures.

Why can't we fly?

Because we lack the physiological structures to provide sustained lift greater than the force of gravity.

Man has taken dominance through technology. Before man developed agriculture or even before he was a hunter gatherer, he was just as vulnerable as any other animal in the food chain.

Please, tell me more about this man before "he became a hunter gatherer," I am not aware of him.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ so you read the bible and extrapolate your own meaning from one sentence but there are volumes of detailed and peer reviewed scientific study regarding evolution and yet you say that is not enough?

Isn't that biased?

Then again, you subscribe to Jason Lisle so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Habit7]

today on BBC news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22788573

Putting my paleontology cap on though, the title for the video is somewhat misleading. The primate skeleton could give clues to primate origins not human origins. The animal is from a different clade than humans and is not common ancestor that would demonstrate human origins.

We have a case of the pot calling the kettle black,
Perspective is a hell of a ting eh!

Well call me a fundamentalist too, I am just saying your actions are no different than those you are criticising.

[Habit7]

^ so you read the bible and extrapolate your own meaning from one sentence but there are volumes of detailed and peer reviewed scientific study regarding evolution and yet you say that is not enough?

Isn't that biased?

What one sentence?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

today on BBC news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22788573

Putting my paleontology cap on though, the title for the video is somewhat misleading. The primate skeleton could give clues to primate origins not human origins. The animal is from a different clade than humans and is not common ancestor that would demonstrate human origins.

LOL @ your paleontology cap

[Habit7]

Man has taken dominance through technology. Before man developed agriculture or even before he was a hunter gatherer, he was just as vulnerable as any other animal in the food chain.

Please, tell me more about this man before "he became a hunter gatherer," I am not aware of him.

You find out more info on this yet?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Man has taken dominance through technology. Before man developed agriculture or even before he was a hunter gatherer, he was just as vulnerable as any other animal in the food chain.

Please, tell me more about this man before "he became a hunter gatherer," I am not aware of him.

You find out more info on this yet?

sorry I left out the word "when"

"Even before, when he was a hunter gatherer"

Happy?

Regarding the BBC link did you read the link posted by mak.tom after?

"Reconstructing the earliest phases of primate evolution has been impeded by gaps in the fossil record, so that disagreements persist regarding the palaeobiology and phylogenetic relationships of the earliest primates. Here we report the discovery of a nearly complete and partly articulated skeleton of a primitive haplorhine primate from the early Eocene of China, about 55 million years ago, the oldest fossil primate of this quality ever recovered. Coupled with detailed morphological examination using propagation phase contrast X-ray synchrotron microtomography, our phylogenetic analysis based on total available evidence indicates that this fossil is the most basal known member of the tarsiiform clade. In addition to providing further support for an early dichotomy between the strepsirrhine and haplorhine clades, this new primate further constrains the age of divergence between tarsiiforms and anthropoids. It also strengthens the hypothesis that the earliest primates were probably diurnal, arboreal and primarily insectivorous mammals the size of modern pygmy mouse lemurs."

[Habit7]

"Even before, when he was a hunter gatherer"

Ok, then please tell us more about man prior to when he was a hunter gatherer?


And yes I read the abstract of the paper and to quote "this new primate further constrains the age of divergence between tarsiiforms and anthropoids" that doesnt mean it gives us clues about human origin or as the title for the video on the BBC news home page Fossil could be 'ancestor of humanity'.

A fossil of a common ancestor of tarsiiforms (the primate fossil) and anthropoids (humans) would give clues about human origin or is an 'ancestor of humanity,' not a find of an early tarsiiform skeleton.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

"Even before, when he was a hunter gatherer"

Ok, then please tell us more about man prior to when he was a hunter gatherer?

you are apparently taking my statement out of context. I said before man developed agriculture or before, when he was a hunter gatherer. I did not mention before he was a hunter gatherer.

And yes I read the abstract of the paper and to quote "this new primate further constrains the age of divergence between tarsiiforms and anthropoids" that doesnt mean it gives us clues about human origin or as the title for the video on the BBC news home page Fossil could be 'ancestor of humanity'.

A fossil of a common ancestor of tarsiiforms (the primate fossil) and anthropoids (humans) would give clues about human origin or is an 'ancestor of humanity,' not a find of an early tarsiiform skeleton.

they said "could" and the video for the story the reporter shows a graphic of where on the line the fossil is from.

[Habit7]

you are apparently taking my statement out of context. I said before man developed agriculture or before, when he was a hunter gatherer. I did not mention before he was a hunter gatherer.

I didnt take your statement out of context, you did mentioned "before he was a hunter gatherer." You didnt punctuate the sentence as well as you did above, so now I understand your point.

But if man was a hunter/gatherer how could he just as vulnerable as other animal in the food chain? Without having to dive back into my std 4 science textbook, if man is the hunter, he is the dominant one in the food chain, no so?

they said "could" and the video for the story the reporter shows a graphic of where on the line the fossil is from.

Well they did say "could", but it "isn't." And the clade (what you refer to as "line") is not shared with humans.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ No one claimed an absolute.

The "line" I mentioned is an actual graphic on the screen.

It is possible to be a hunter and not be at the very top of the food chain.

I had asked a question a while before and I don't think you answered it:

Why do you think major schools and universities, news channels, documentary channels, museums, libraries, laboratories etc support the concepts of evolution, old earth, big bang?

[Habit7]

I am claiming an absolute.

The clade (line) flows from a common ancestor. Humans do not flow from that line.

Humans are always on the top of a food chain, no animal's diet consists of humans, ever. A human may fall prey to a carnivore but that doesnt remove them from their consistent place as head of all food chains they are in, always.

I answered you here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=14430#p7064039 where I pointed you to here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=7003936#p7003936

Speaking of questions, I dont believe you sufficiently answered mine "Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law." I answer your questions succinctly and with my comprehension of the supporting info. Please dont just point to wikipedia pages or claim that it could found in broad subjects, that is a cop out.

[AdamB]

Never thought I would say this on this thread "I agree with NareshSeep".

Habit7,
Who requested all the bullcrap interpretations that you and your christian bros rocknrolla and Djaggs have been posting? My posts have been consistent with the discussions at the time. Some spirit may have overtaken you rendering you incapable of seeing beyond the tip of your nose anyway...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Habit7, you are going around in circles and avoiding answering the questions - LOL @ me giving a cop out when you are the one claiming "we can't explain it, therefore God did it"

Your answer is that

I respect your views maj.tom. You have clearly outlined the extent and parameters of trust in science based on the principle of logic and observation. As stated before, you admit that there are fundamental areas of this world that science cannot explain due to our incapability of observing it, and there are areas where we have observed and there is little dissension as to how it works.

The scientific method however can be seen as a philosophy. A philosophy is a study and or attempt to attain truth and knowledge about the world and ourselves. To engage in the scientific method there has to be the presumption of the predictability and stability of the universe. This is where the laws of logic come in (Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). In order for a scientist’s observation to be objective and testable, this presumption must be assumed. The predictability and stability of the universe must be in place for the scientific method to work, but the scientific method cannot test that. One must go on that assumption throughout.

Now while the scientific method is good and works well and is a valid way of observing what is around us, there is a philosophical flaw. The scientific method presumes materialism and/or naturalism as it is focused on testable and repeatable things, things which will only be contained in a material world. Materialism says that matter and energy are all there is while naturalism says the world can only exist by scientific means. As a result, a supernatural being such as God can never be observed and would not exist in the realm of knowledge devised by the scientific method. This is not a problem when adherents to the sufficiency of the scientific method exclude themselves from things theological. However, these adherents constantly apply their worldview to areas outside its scope and claim belief in God to be irrational. In order for God to exist in their worldview the transcendent, immaterial, eternal God must provide non-transcend and material evidence now, in order for it to be true. This is akin to looking at the world with red lenses and proclaiming green doesn’t exist due to one’s numerous tests and observations. Therefore what one learns by philosophical assumptions is limited to these assumptions and as in the case of some, it becomes dogmatic.

So if the scientific method was to confine itself to materialistic phenomena and not venture into the existence of God, there will not be any confluence. However regularly people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Coyne, etc. speak absolutely and authoritatively on realms not covered by science. They would have it that we apply the philosophical view that science is the only means by which we attain truth. But if we were to define truth only being what we can research in a lab, how are we to quantify love, mercy, justice, morality and other realities that daily factor in our lives? How could we measure a God that created and sustains our Universe and transcends to have dealings with us in the only way we can observe it? He sent men, they wrote His message, He sent His Son whose life, death and resurrection has had the biggest impact of any individual for the past 2000 years. This is what Christians put their faith in, it is not in the absence of evidence as some would want to claim, but in the evidence revealed. So also apply your logic there too. Test the claims of every religion and see if they are true. I have been trying to give and apologetic for Christianity for the past 30+ pages and I hope I could answer any more. But to create your own parameters for God to exist, see that He that doesn’t meet them, high-five each other on how smart you are, and then call others foolish who apply the same logic as you but just differently, then you won’t meet the true God. You have to come humbly, on His terms, otherwise He will exclude you.

So in summation, the scientific method is a philosophy, that some elevates to dogmatism, and limit themselves to what truth is.

um no.

In the context that you are using, Philosophy is subjective however we all know that Science is objective

I see you've borrowed some argument from other Christian apologetics
http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy
but unlike you I don't think borrowing, copy/pasting, or sharing ideas of others is bad.

anyway as I was saying, the scientific method is CANNOT be the same as philosophy in that context and so your point is invalid there.
subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).
objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Also you assume Dawkins, Hitchens et al are the "Gospel writers" for this scientific method or for the "naturalists" as you refer to it. They are not. they have their own arguments and like any scientific method, based on the evidence, they have their own hypotheses.
I assume you think that way because you are accustomed to having that structure in religion and think that it operates the same way in science. The only dogma, "gospel" or absolute in science is truth found via evidence.

If science were to consider the supernatural and other things it cannot actually observe and repeatedly test then it would make room for any supernatural claim to be stated as true. That would make Leprechauns to be considered as absolute fact, which they are not.

regarding "how nature came to exist through natural law."

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Dude that will be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Plus you will be holding me to a different standard than you are holding yourself.

Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

this is a seriously flawed piece of argument

you are saying that because you are claiming a supernatural force, I cannot expect you to provide me with natural evidence. That has to be the most fantastical cop-out ever!

Yes my argument is flawed, yes I am claiming a supernatural force, point and laugh at the Christian hahahaha....





So can I expect you answer the question? I have answered so many of yours.

If you mean this question: "Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law."

I answered it already when I said to refer to Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc. I would just be regurgitating content that is already readily available online and in libraries.

In a nutshell you can read this Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

and FYI I am not pointing and laughing AT ALL.
I am very much intrigued and completely fascinated as I've always been of religions and its adherents / apologetics.

[Habit7]

Please quote where you quote me as saying "we can't explain it, therefore God did it."

The point is, I answered your question, I went on to address and refute the errors in your response, it is there for whoever see and enjoy.

When you were asking me questions about Christian doctrine, I didnt point you to Bible and say just read everything, that would be a cop out. Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it to a 6- year-old, you don't understand it yourself" and if you cannot "simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law" then quite possibly you dont understand what you are purporting.

[marlener]

Well then Rocknarolla,in confusing the different religious view and claiming one to belong to the other you are putting yourself in a stranger position.You can speak on behalf of Christians,so far most of your quote from scripture have been inaccurate,you can speak on behalf of Muslims because your views are not supported by any of the sects,so apparently you are speaking on behalf of the Jews now.I my friend if Adam and Eve body was made of light and/or spirit form then there would not be any need for them to eat and feed as their body would not be physical and the fruit on the tree would be of no attraction.Also Eden was literally on earth,if you have indeed studied the bible as you have claimed you would know that. If you wish to be gatekeeper of the thread as you have appointed yourself,then firstly the chest thumping and back patting is not a teaching of any religious group as they all teach humility.Claiming to be all enlighten and having reached certain level of study,going to heaven three times,astral travel and that just some of your claims. Are you Turbotusty or do we look for another.Remember study to show yourself approved unto God......

[marlener]

Nareshsheep your buy in the above quote seems confused.He personally denies any existence or evidence of Any God or God's then goes on to accuse some one that does not exist of murder.I am surprised that Duane didn't pick up on that and ask if it's logical or he just does that with Christian and Islamic post and not atheist?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Please quote where you quote me as saying "we can't explain it, therefore God did it."

The point is, I answered your question, I went on to address and refute the errors in your response, it is there for whoever see and enjoy.

When you were asking me questions about Christian doctrine, I didnt point you to Bible and say just read everything, that would be a cop out. Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it to a 6- year-old, you don't understand it yourself" and if you cannot "simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law" then quite possibly you dont understand what you are purporting.

i didn't say you said that in those words which is why I did not use quote tags. I made the quote to portray the gist of your attitude. Is it not accurate?

What makes Albert Einsteins claim there true? It's his opinion.

I am telling you that there are volumes of knowledge and research to support evolution and an old earth in biology, geology etc. You are just doing what Jason Lisle said he does: ignore any scientific evidence that contradicts the bible.

In any case MY personal understanding or knowledge of a subject does not affect the validity of said subject.

[maj. tom]

The 6 year old quote is a misquote/re-interpretation of what the man actually said. Mr. Einstein said "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."


Which is far from a 6-year old's view of the world.

Have any of you ever actually tried to explain VSEPR theory (this came up because he asked me why oil and water do not mix) to someone over 60 who never did Science? It does come across very well in my experience (with a lot of patience because you have to go all the way back to explaining the nature of matter itself), because they are still excited to understand how our world works and they understand life enough to get past static ignorance that some people retain in their youth. I wouldn't say that he understood it enough to write an exam on the subject, but he grasped what he could.

I once showed Saturn's rings to this old guy through a telescope and he was so blown away and amazed at how far this planet was from us. His initial words were "so how far away is that, like a thousand miles?" And I explained to him how fast light travels and how far the sun and other stars are from us. The look on his face! He actually thought all his life that the sun was as far from earth as the moon because of its size in the sky and he had no idea how to fathom a distance of a billion miles in outer space. At that age, they don't want to argue over nonsense, but are so willing to learn. It doesn't matter what they believe in, God or not, Heaven or not, it's all about experiencing life.

[Habit7]

i didn't say you said that in those words which is why I did not use quote tags. I made the quote to portray the gist of your attitude. Is it not accurate?

What makes Albert Einsteins claim there true? It's his opinion.

I am telling you that there are volumes of knowledge and research to support evolution and an old earth in biology, geology etc. You are just doing what Jason Lisle said he does: ignore any scientific evidence that contradicts the bible.

In any case MY personal understanding or knowledge of a subject does not affect the validity of said subject.

So I guess you are reaffirming that you cannot simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

The problem is you have been informed of one side of the issue, and you believe that because that side is popular then that means it is correct. If you were to apply that same logic into your repeated question of which religion is right then you would have to say Christianity. But then that would mean that you are applying your logic consistently, however from your need of empirical evidence to believe in God while conversely, there is a lack of empirical evidence for aliens, it doesnt stop you from believing in them. I can say that you logic isnt always consistent.

But even within the broad scientific fields that your punting to, there are pockets of dissent from the popular view:

"There are no universally accepted fossil remains which demonstrate the evolution of man." The Science Journal of Nature, vol. 412, 2001, p. 131.

Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.
The Science Journal of Nature, vol. 412, 2001, p. 131.

These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.
Antibiotics Pioneer Noble Prize winner, Dr. Ernst Chain:
Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, p. 25

So please dont cop out, I go through lengths explaining to you doctrines derived from the Bible. You mean to tell me that you cannot answer a question that is so fundamental to your worldview?

[Habit7]

The 6 year old quote is a misquote/re-interpretation of what the man actually said. Mr. Einstein said "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Well that quote is repeated by other sources http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... art-people



So are you going to critique Duane's view that at some point in time humans were not at the top of the food chain or am I the only recipient of your science critiques?

[MG Man]

you and this food chain thing eh
you do realize you can be a hunter / predator and NOT be at the top of the food chain, right?

[maj. tom]

The food chain that you learned in standard 4 is a massive oversimplification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the flow of energy within ecosystems. Try to understand that first. You're not in standard 4 anymore.

[Habit7]

So are you agreeing that at some point in time humans were not at the top of the food chain?

[rocknrolla]

Well then Rocknarolla,in confusing the different religious view and claiming one to belong to the other you are putting yourself in a stranger position.You can speak on behalf of Christians,so far most of your quote from scripture have been inaccurate,you can speak on behalf of Muslims because your views are not supported by any of the sects,so apparently you are speaking on behalf of the Jews now.I my friend if Adam and Eve body was made of light and/or spirit form then there would not be any need for them to eat and feed as their body would not be physical and the fruit on the tree would be of no attraction.Also Eden was literally on earth,if you have indeed studied the bible as you have claimed you would know that. If you wish to be gatekeeper of the thread as you have appointed yourself,then firstly the chest thumping and back patting is not a teaching of any religious group as they all teach humility.Claiming to be all enlighten and having reached certain level of study,going to heaven three times,astral travel and that just some of your claims. Are you Turbotusty or do we look for another.Remember study to show yourself approved unto God......

ur targetting the aspects of what im saying in the most arbitrary light.. and anyone can do that with anything..

but u are ignoring the analysis of what ive presented so far especially in my last response.

uve ignored the issue of translating genesis from hebrew in to english. i want to give a crash course in the hebrew language aspects but besides being quite long winded and there are books that cover the issue of certain words and their translations i dont think the forum by itself would be suitable.

u insist on literal interpretation but ive shown u literal interpretation cannot be the correct way of interpretting genesis bases on both the intentions of the scholars that penned genesis over into english and the fact that there are many aspects of hebrew and it's ancient form which give words more meaning than just one. that soil and flesh are just 2 of the words that face issues.

archeologists searching for eden will have to look out for large winged beasts and a huge fiery double edged sword guarding it's entrance. do u really think that is the way this should be interpretted? according to the bible those winged creatures and fiery sword should still be there today not so?

as i pointed out.. ur literal interpretation actually makes less sense than mine. im pointing to jewish analysis of the story of creation as their scholars in that region who may have penned it into hebrew from sumerian would have been closer to understanding the reality of the story than an english translated version which if i remember correctly also was translated into latin before becoming english. u must research the cost of translation in theology as i said.. much meaning is lost. placing the jews closer to understanding the hebrew scripture as it is their primary language. and this is why studying of multiple faiths is an absolute plus. i believe it's called comparative theology.

the jews may believe adam had a body of light because their language and culture being hebrew reveals more to them than the english version. the same reason why catholics choose to study and learn latin as well as why muslims aim to study the quran in arabic! i hope u are getting the picture now and dont intend to nitpick. i never claimed to know everything. in fact, i have stated categorically that i do not. but what i do know is the answer to the riddle which is the pinnacle of understanding for ALL religious and ancient cultures.. ALL of mankind.

u however are classically stuck in believing that everything must be read and interpretted literally and this is not quite right. as u can see, even if u try u cannot refute that our christian bible claims we were 'clothed in flesh'. to my understanding this means our spirits are clothed in flesh, and this is confirmed all thru the bible that the spirit and kingdom of God is WITHIN. that the body is a temple to house the spirit. do u aim to dismantle all that truth to support that adam was made of soil? the same corrupt material we are made of today? and that we were in the presence of God in this material in eden?

this is the method that worked for me. claiming enlightenment is not a joke and i dont take it to be in any way. for me to falsely claim such a thing would go against everything i believe in. the only gatekeepering i was doing was directed for adamb who could find fault in everyone except islam but not knowing islam has its flaws as well. my charge that i would point out his own flaws and it is him that had a lesson in humility to learn.

the bible is not perfect either. having read it cover to cover i have come across pages and stories where ur following the story and move to the next paragraph on the next page and it starts mid sentence and missing pieces that got to that part. parts of the bible are missing. the scholars put the bible together from ancient poems and writings. it was structured much like a puzzle deciding what to include and what to leave out to achieve their particular agenda. Genesis was found on stone tablets in sumeria in SUMERIAN and translated from there coming down the line. u shouldnt underestimate my study, all my life my day had 48hrs and not just 24 like the average person. (i hope u can conquer the literal interpretation of that last statement) obviously a day has only 24hrs.. let's see if u can decode what im trying to say.. it is easy enough.

u would end up in ur conundrum by not looking deep enough. i maintain, that each religion serves as an apocrypha to the others, as parts which are missing from one religious text, were included in other religious texts and other parts pulled out. THIS IS THE PUZZLE. essentially u are given a puzzle box, but someone intentionally left out some of the pieces and mixed them in with other puzzle boxes, so u have to search them all.

i will close by stating again as well, it doesnt matter that much. if u insist on believing that the bible is literally correct in saying man was of regular flesh and then clothed in animal skins as fundamental christianity purports, then what is lost from all that i have said?

are we not to pursue the kingdom of heaven?
are we not to develop ourselves spiritually?
are our souls not made out of light?
are the religious books penned by the hands of men all NOT Perfect?
is the chakra system not the pathway to heaven?

i can go on with that list. but what is worthy to note is that im speaking from experience not just study. the pinnacle of the knowledge of the books was achieved by me. and i am still blessed. will u ignore that to argue who is right jewish rabbinic literature or christian bible? is that the point of religion? to know what adam was made out of? it is knowledge yes, but very trivial to the entire scope of the bible and the task at hand. how to live and how to receive reward. becoming awake thru the awareness of soul.

u speak about eating, but in the jewish literature adam ate 'angel's bread' i highlighted it. angel's bread is known as mana, bread for the spirit! look up mana and u will see it is deeply rooted in estern yoga meditation where the practitioner is also fed with mana. this is why u have indian gurus in india whether truly or falsely demonstrating their ability to go for days, weeks, months and years without food or water. claiming to be feeding solely on mana which is a complete food. it is u that has to study and open ur mind to other possibilities in ur method of interpetation. i claim to have attained. can u say the same? or am i a liar? coming here typing all this to lie? asking for no money in return i couldnt be trying to con you. so what is my reason for this?

all this is why i dont like to get stuck in dogma literalisation debate of scriptures. i will post a mini crash course in hebrew and ancient hebrew later which will describe the issue of soil and flesh being translated from hebrew to english and hopefully u will understand. but when i say things here ppl have two choices:

take what i say and run with it
or stop and test it by research to build your knowledge.

to take what i say and run with it is simple. u wont have to analyse the entire bible and all other religions and cultures if u just do these things

study yoga meditation
study on the chakra system
study on kundalini meditation and the path to enlightenment outlined by Buddha in buddhism
and of course practice what u learn by embedding it into the fibre of ur being.

(clue)the path to enlightenment is a compassionate way of life aimed at service to God by serving others (works). but that alone is not enough to enter heaven.

the pinnacle is actually in the opening of our spiritual conduit/eye.. synonymous with receiving the seal of God. but not even i am without fault in this form of flesh nor anything else in this realm, and neither the bible. and let me just state as well.. that with all my study, we are talking about hundred upon hundred of books i have read in every culture dating back to ancient times which i had the advantage of access to a secret library on these things.. with all that study of history and spirituality in all it's forms including meditation and eastern philosophies, i barely understood what i was reading. it was only after attaining samadhi that all the information started settling in and making sense, and is still settling.

im not kidding, i intend to find a way of reproducing some sort of miracle as i unequivocally believe now that they are possible. and to explain their process scientifically. u should pray that i am successful and that God allows me to present such information. to be truthful i have performed one, but have not yet mastered it's replication to make a reliable presentation.

and yes i changed my name from turbotusty.

also u would find that most of my quotes are not exact, because im speaking from memory of a full read of the bible. i paraphrase and not copy and paste all my replies like most ppl. all my replies on this forum are also done entirely from my mobile phone.. even at home and now.

[maj. tom]

The Australopithecus genus was not.

The Homo genus was, from Homo Erectus come forward became the hunter when he started using tools and fire. There is evidence that other species of the Homo genus before Erectus used tools but may not have been dominant or at the top of the food chain but still primarily scavengers. It took almost 1 million years for the Erectus brain to evolve at which point they needed much more energy to maintain such brains. This was the first time that the brain became the most energy consumptive organ in an animal. Top of the food chain.

Homo sapiens which I think you are referring to, the only humans that you want to be concerned with was the most intelligent animal and at the top of the food chain since they appeared about 150 000 years ago. This was alongside other species of humans who also died out, leaving just us.

[rocknrolla]

the greatest problem with interpretation is that most ppl assume and believe that the bible as they hold it in their hands was written by the hand of God himself. that wouldve been an entirely different case im sure.

but what we have are a collection of books, assembled and editted to transmit a specific message by men.. all other info is just padding and filler.