The Religion Discussion

[meccalli]

Nah i didn't mean it like that, its just its hard for me to see how he just does this and sometimes not aware of it. I think its pretty neat.

[MG Man]

i had a buddy did the same thing............but some idiot doctor called 'epilepsy' and blamed it on 'science' and 'biology'

[Bizzare]

I don't think anyone saying he's puttin on a show, just that it's a common thing in many religions...even the ones Christianity looks down on. I have witnessed it before and personally i think it's useless, no one can understand it and they don't deliver any messages from the "other side", they don't even remember doin it. But to each their own.

Are you a Christian? Or do you claim to be a Christian?

[MG Man]

^^^what does that have to do with anything?

[brainchild]

I don't think anyone saying he's puttin on a show, just that it's a common thing in many religions...even the ones Christianity looks down on. I have witnessed it before and personally i think it's useless, no one can understand it and they don't deliver any messages from the "other side", they don't even remember doin it. But to each their own.

Are you a Christian? Or do you claim to be a Christian?

I don't see what this has to do with d topic at hand, but i'll bite anyway. Raised Catholic...don't follow any religion right now...closest description to match my beliefs would be deist...google it if u don't know.

[d spike]

I don't think anyone saying he's puttin on a show, just that it's a common thing in many religions...even the ones Christianity looks down on.

willing to bet if he saw a hindu man doing that he would swear the man was demon possessed and needed the power of christ to compel him

So true... That is how it is with those who are insecure in their faith.
(When "WE" cure the sick/speak in tongues/perform miracles, it's 'ther power uf Gawd'... when "THEY" do similar acts, it's "demons at work"...)

I have witnessed it before and personally i think it's useless, no one can understand it and they don't deliver any messages from the "other side"

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet and speak to himself and God.

Are you a Christian? Or do you claim to be a Christian?

...trying hard to understand why this query is posed this way...
Does he think brainchild claims to be a Christian, but isn't one?

^^^what does that have to do with anything?

Bizarre, isn't it?

[brainchild]

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet and speak to himself and God.

...great quote...i agree 100%!

[mediahouse]

to all the atheists i guess this is alluh reason for the earths existence?




that man talking so much scientific BS there, so ah star burst and explode and created the sun and our solar system?

right.

stick to alluh reason yes.
let the other religions stick to theirs too.

talk dun chel lock now

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ that's not a belief based on faith though.
that scientific explanation is based on extensive research, rock and carbon dating and testing and observing how other planets and stars form. The astronomers can see this through powerful telescopes such as Hubble

Scientists have observed the birth of stars (suns) and formation of planets in other galaxies that are millions of light years away.

They didn't just make it up and say that's what we believe, they've actually seen it.

Faith and science are two very different things

[mediahouse]

well scientists have no solid proof that the universe burst into existence just theories . Most stuff was based on darwins theories . so by using those powerful telescopes now and examining the stars to say what happening now is what happened billion years ago.. Just based on assumptions and theories.

[d spike]

Most stuff was based on darwins theories

?????????????????????

[sMASH]

those assumptions and theories make a lot of sense. when u take the time to understand how one step goes to the next,,, yeah. convergent evolution is a situation which for me at least is quite compelling to believe in evolution.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the post you made was specifically about stars and planet formation.

When you look up at a star that is 1 million light year away, it means that what you are seeing of that star right now is the way it was 1 million year ago since the light from that star that you are seeing now took 1 million years to get here. Our sun is about 8 light minutes away from us, which means that if the sun were to stop shinning, it would get dark here on earth 8 minutes after it actually went out.

THEREFORE, if another solar system in our galaxy was formed 20 million years ago, to us it would appear as though it is only now forming since the light from that system is only now reaching us here on earth 20 million years later. AND SO, scientists can see how our galaxy (of which our own solar system is part of) formed millions and even billions of years ago.

So it's NOT a theory. It is FACT when scientists actually see planet and star formation taking place elsewhere in the universe and it is not an issue of "what happening now is not what happened billion years ago", they are seeing it before their eyes because light takes time to reach us.

[MG Man]

well scientists have no solid proof that the universe burst into existence just theories . Most stuff was based on darwins theories . so by using those powerful telescopes now and examining the stars to say what happening now is what happened billion years ago.. Just based on assumptions and theories.

and your beliefs based on what?

[d spike]

well scientists have no solid proof that the universe burst into existence just theories . Most stuff was based on darwins theories . so by using those powerful telescopes now and examining the stars to say what happening now is what happened billion years ago.. Just based on assumptions and theories.

and your beliefs based on what?

FACTS written down in the Koran/Bible, you heathen! If they weren't facts, then they wouldn't have been placed therein! [/religious rant]
***wipes away spittle from monitor screen***

well scientists have no solid proof that the universe burst into existence just theories . Most stuff was based on darwins theories

Darwin wrote theories about how the universe started???

[meccalli]

Sorry man, you need a roll of bounty there...mr. darwin dealt with evolution and genetic work. Current science gets their data from isotope dating fossils as well as different types of rocks, things like fission tracks and observation of supernovas from hubble.

[Kasey]

Is friggen mediahouse for real???????

To mediahouse:
"Its better to keep ur mouth shut and let ppl think u are a fool, than open it and remove all doubt".

What proof do you have that ur scriptures are real? What evidence can you bring forth to counter what science says?

[mediahouse]

Is friggen mediahouse for real???????

To mediahouse:
"Its better to keep ur mouth shut and let ppl think u are a fool, than open it and remove all doubt".

What proof do you have that ur scriptures are real? What evidence can you bring forth to counter what science says?

all that science bull crap was based on theories maybe u should read
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ u dumb fool

The whole evolution crap was based on theories was man around to see it happened?

believe what u must yes this universe is to complex and creation to just burst into existence.

[Kasey]

were u around to see what in ur scriptures? Were u around to see ur mom give birth to you? U sure ur dad is ur dad? Just the way science can prove tha ur parents are ur parents, they can prove that the uivervse came into existence. They didnt have to be in ur parents bedroom to prove that they are ur parents.

I ask again, what proof do you have that ur beliefs are real?

Also no need for name calling bro. I think everyone here already know who the fool is. I never called you one.

[d spike]

Sorry man, you need a roll of bounty there...mr. darwin dealt with evolution and genetic work. Current science gets their data from isotope dating fossils as well as different types of rocks, things like fission tracks and observation of supernovas from hubble.

Zigactly!!!

[bluefete]

Just thought i'd recommend this... http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/index.htm ....a good read for believers and skeptics, i'm still in the midst of it myself.

Very interesting reading. Crucifixion was first attributed to the Persians. But if there are representatives of crucified saviours in so many religions, what does it say about global religion in general and the claim that notwithstanding what we believe, there is only one God?

With respect to the resurrection of Jesus and the claims made about Matthew and John not mentioning it: The fact that they do not mention it is covered in John's statement about all the things that Jesus did not being able to fit in all the book. But the same John while in exile on the island of Patmos was shown great things by the same Jesus who was then in heaven.

Paul who was a contemporary of Jesus (meaning he lived at the time while many of Jesus' disciples were still alive and thus would have gotten first hand information) stated that there were many witnesses to his ascencion. Matthew even mentioned that some of those who saw Jesus after his resurrection "doubted".

[d spike]

...What proof do you have that ur scriptures are real? What evidence can you bring forth to counter what science says?

all that science bull crap was based on theories
The whole evolution crap was based on theories was man around to see it happened?

believe what u must yes this universe is to complex and creation to just burst into existence.

I ask again, what proof do you have that ur beliefs are real?

This very argument has been hammered into the ground in this very thread before. I guess each fanatic will deliver the same argument as he washes his feet and dives into the discussion, in the fervent belief that his religious zeal and righteous indignation will make his argument correct (rather than using logic)... or they do not bother to read...

Hey! I made these two points often before! ...that fundamentalists do not care to read anything other than their prescribed texts - if extraneous material agrees with their texts then it is superfluous, and if it disagrees then it is blasphemous;
and in their books fervour and blind obedience outweigh logic...
Megadoc (in one of his recent saner moments) pointed out a basic truth: that Faith exists in the absence of proof.
Duane said it best:

^ that's not a belief based on faith though.
that scientific explanation is based on extensive research, rock and carbon dating and testing and observing how other planets and stars form. The astronomers can see this through powerful telescopes such as Hubble

Scientists have observed the birth of stars (suns) and formation of planets in other galaxies that are millions of light years away.

They didn't just make it up and say that's what we believe, they've actually seen it.

Faith and science are two very different things

Science is based on proof.
Trying to compare the two, as though they exist at the same level, is the work of a fool who has not yet understood what "semantics" mean - as he is busy tying knots with what is left of his short line of thought with words like "believe" and "creation"...

[bluefete]

were u around to see what in ur scriptures? Were u around to see ur mom give birth to you? U sure ur dad is ur dad? Just the way science can prove tha ur parents are ur parents, they can prove that the uivervse came into existence. They didnt have to be in ur parents bedroom to prove that they are ur parents.

I ask again, what proof do you have that ur beliefs are real?

Also no need for name calling bro. I think everyone here already know who the fool is. I never called you one.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

GUESS! GUESS! GUESS! GUESS!

If scientists would work with the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Gita or the Vedas or the Upanishads, they would not end up looking this foolish!!!!!!!!

Are you a man or a mouse? How humans evolved from RODENT that lived in China 160m years ago

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 7:52 AM on 26th August 2011


A mouse-like creature that scurried about in bushes and trees 160 million years ago gave rise to humans, say scientists.

The small, furry placental mammal lived in what is now north east China during the Jurassic era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

Its remarkably well preserved remains were dug up in the fossil-rich region of Liaoning Province which has also produced ancient evidence of feathered dinosaurs and primitive birds.


Common ancestor: This is what scientists believe the oldest known 'eutherian' looked like - an animal that gave birth to its own young

Named Juramaia sinensis, the fossil is the oldest ever found of a group of animals called the eutherians, or placentals, that give birth to live young.

They include cows, rats, monkeys, lions, tigers, dogs, horses, whales and, of course, our own group of mammals, the primates.

Juramaia, hairy and about the size of a mouse, provides fossil evidence of the date when eutherian mammals diverged from other mammals - metatherians whose descendants include marsupials such as kangaroos and monotremes such as the platypus.

Palaeontologist Dr Zhe-Xi Luo, of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, said: 'Juramaia, from 160 million years ago, is either a great-grand-aunt, or a 'great-grandmother' of all placental mammals that are thriving today.

'Analysis of the fossil skeleton indicates the animal was an agile creature with a powerful ability to climb.

'This may explain how it managed to survive during the age of the dinosaurs - by climbing and hiding in trees.'

Describing the fossil in Nature, the researchers say it represents a new milestone in mammal evolution that was reached 35 million years earlier than previously thought, filling an important gap in the record.

The name Juramaia sinensis means 'Jurassic mother from China.'

The fossil has an incomplete skull, part of the skeleton, and, remarkably, impressions of residual soft tissues such as hair.

Most importantly, Juramaia's complete teeth and forepaw bones enable paleontologists to pinpoint it is closer to living placentals on the mammalian family tree than to the pouched marsupials, such as kangaroos.

Dr Luo said: 'Understanding the beginning point of placentals is a crucial issue in the study of all mammalian evolution.'

The date of an evolutionary divergence - when an ancestor species splits into two descendant lineages - is among the most important pieces of information an evolutionary scientist can have.

Modern molecular studies, such as DNA-based methods, can calculate the timing of evolution by a "molecular clock." But this needs to be cross-checked and tested by the fossil record.

Before the discovery of Juramaia, the divergence point of eutherians from metatherians posed a quandary for evolutionary historians.

Evidence from DNA suggested eutherians should have shown up earlier in the fossil record - around 160 million years ago.

Yet, the oldest known eutherian was Eomaia, another shrew like animal dated to 125 million years ago.

The discovery of Juramaia gives much earlier fossil evidence to corroborate the DNA findings, filling an important gap in the fossil record of early mammal evolution and helping to establish a new milestone of evolutionary history.

Juramaia also reveals adaptive features that may have helped the eutherian newcomers to survive in a tough Jurassic environment.

Its forelimbs are adapted for climbing. Since the majority of the Jurassic mammals lived exclusively on the ground, the ability to escape to the trees and explore the canopy might have allowed eutherian mammals to exploit an untapped niche.

Added Dr Luo: 'The divergence of eutherian mammals from marsupials eventually led to placental birth and reproduction that are so crucial for the evolutionary success of placentals.

'But it is their early adaptation to exploit niches on the tree that paved their way toward this success.'


The fossil has an incomplete skull, part of the skeleton, and, remarkably, impressions of residual soft tissues such as hair

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1W8zy5i3e


Just when I thought they couldn't get any better, they went and outdid themselves.

Foolish scientists.

[d spike]

But if there are representatives of crucified saviours in so many religions, what does it say about global religion in general and the claim that notwithstanding what we believe, there is only one God?

Having said this before, I will say it again...
Humanity has survived due to people's ability to form social groups that provide security and provisions for its members.
Survival techniques have to be passed on to future generations in order to ensure the continuation of the group. This includes rules, language, customs. This is called "culture".
"Survival of the fittest" In order to justify their group's domination of the environment it exists in (and that includes other groups they come into contact with) and thus, their survival, the group must hold the belief that their group is superior. Some believe they are the descendants of a god, some believe they came from the sky, some believe they were specially chosen by a god...
People mature over time... both as individuals and as groups... chronologically as well as rationally.
If God needed to deliver a message, then He would have to communicate with each group separately, and His message would have to be couched within each group's culture and way of thinking in order for them to appreciate and accept it.

[d spike]

were u around to see what in ur scriptures? Were u around to see ur mom give birth to you? U sure ur dad is ur dad? Just the way science can prove tha ur parents are ur parents, they can prove that the uivervse came into existence. They didnt have to be in ur parents bedroom to prove that they are ur parents.

I ask again, what proof do you have that ur beliefs are real?

Also no need for name calling bro. I think everyone here already know who the fool is. I never called you one.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

GUESS! GUESS! GUESS! GUESS!

Bluefete, a response RESPONDS to what is said... it must be relevant...
(Response comes from the Latin rēspondēre, meaning to answer or reply...
reply strongly implies a return commensurate with the original demand, statement or question...

That childish nonsense quoted above along with the story of a dead rat that follows FAILS as a logical response.
What am I saying??? This is Bluefete we're talking about...

My child, an argument is NOT a football match, where if one side "loses", then that means the other side "wins". This is not a matter of guessing which side a flipped coin has landed on. Proving your opponent's view as wrong does not make your view right.
If you want folks to take you seriously, attempt a more mature type of argument please.

[d spike]

If scientists would work with the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Gita or the Vedas or the Upanishads, they would not end up looking this foolish!!!!!!!!

Riiiiiight...
So scientists would not end up looking foolish if they attempted to prove that the world as we know it came into being in 144 hours (six days)... or a flood covered the whole world entirely (and that water is still in existence)... or that the entire human race descended from one couple (every one of us is thus the result of a massive inbreeding programme - this certainly does explain politicians, the treatment of the environment and some tuners)... or that man was instantaneously created from mud/blood clot/dust (I find the "clot" idea of origin appealing, as it again would explain certain people)...

[Kasey]

To bluefete:

Is writing in large bold font really nescessary? Have you ever heard of 'netiquette'?? Does it make ur point righter?

To quote spiky:
" Proving your opponent's view as wrong does not make your view right."


I heard a pundit make this analogy:
If u want to make ur garden look nice, you dont go destroying all ur neighbours gardens eh, all you have to do is care for urs more.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete, your subscription to the the outdated concepts of the local "drug trade" in the SOE thread is no different from your almost fanatical subscription to dailymail.co.uk

both are done purely for sensationalism

[bluefete]

bluefete, your subscription to the the outdated concepts of the local "drug trade" in the SOE thread is no different from your almost fanatical subscription to dailymail.co.uk

both are done purely for sensationalism

But Duane, these same scientists publish their findings in refereed journals!!!

Okay, I will try to find these articles first in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times or BBC before I take them from the DM!!!! That should give them more credence. Not so???

[d spike]

I will try to find these articles first in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times or BBC before I take them from the DM!!!! That should give them more credence. Not so???

Buddhist saying: The village chicken-thief has become a pillar of society - he has not stolen a chicken for three days...


So... instead of quoting your fav rag, you will quote from another source that at times quotes your fav rag... how does that change the tone set by your fav rag? Examples of raping, looting and slaying men, women and children abound in that other scientific journal of yours, the bible... does that make these actions right?
If I quote a madman, does that make him sane?