Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 28, 2004, 06:53:02 pm
-
Aside from the story of Moses, which ranks right up there with LOTR, there are some kick-ass snippets, fables, tales and yarns in the Bible that just make it an absolute hoot to read (as a story):
I was browsing through the story of Sodom and Gommorah and thought this was worth a quote as a demonstration to all you Christo-hippies who think the Bible is all peace and love:
Originally posted by God - Genesis 19:4-5
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
It's from the New International Version and the King James version has it down as "So that we may know them" but I'm assuming the underlying Hebrew of the original (presumably) was the inspiration for this newest translation and the KJ Version was trying to appeal to a more demure demographic.
Homosexual gang-rape in the Bible though. Funny, eh?
-
Yea, thats what happened back then.
Thats why god destroyed those cities. They were all horny gay faggots.
-
Actually, they were just greedy ****ers who ignored a few of the various edicts which God imposed upon the land.
The whole 'faggot' thing can be disputed through text analysis. There are very specific words for homosexuality and anti-God behaviour which are used many times in the Old Testament, but in the case of the story of Sodom and Gommorah the words used are very ambiguous, indicating that the unruly mob was unsure of who was in Lot's house (male or female) and that Lot was unsure of their intentions (the word used being very vague but generally leaning towards bad **** happening).
The whole gay-sex thing seems to stem from two point: Firstly, that they refused the offer of Lot's virgin daughters in exchange for leaving the 'visitors' alone. People assumed they were offered for sex and rejected by the gays, but it's more likely they were offered as sacrifices for Pagan rituals and rejected by the mob.
Secondly, the works of Philo (circa 50AD) in regards to the major points of Genesis alude to homosexuality being the cause for the destruction of the cities. Though he had no real proof upon which to make such a claim.
-
This sort of **** has been happening over the past decade in general to the bible - being rewritten in vulgar, explicit modern day language in order to make it more accessible to the stupid. Score -1 to the Church, as usual
-
Well you know your bible stuff, An0n. I have heard of all of the stuff you mentioned above except how they wanted to sacrifice the daughters to the Pagan gods. Thats interesting, never heard that before.
I would have hated to be one of Lot's daughters then. lol
-
If you were one of Lot's daughters, you'd have a rack.
-
EDIT: i was confused with something else. OK IIRC here's what happened:
In the culture at the time, if you took a guest into your house, you protected them with your life. Now the visitors had come to warn Lot and his family that the cities (neighboring cities: Sodom and Gomorrah) were going to be destroyed. The city was infamous for its residents being homosexual and raping strangers. When the mob demanded the visitors of Lot, he refused (see first sentence for reason) and offered up his daughters instead. The crowd refused the daughters: they wanted the visitors instead. The visitors (angels) struck the mob with blindness. The next day, the visitors led Lot and his family out of the city, and it was destroyed (here's the other tale, of Lot's wife, who looked back in hesitance and was turned to a pillar of salt). the city was destroyed with fire and sulfur from heaven.
there you have it.
-
Nope.
Depending on which version you take to be true:
- A rabble of men surrounded Lot's house and demanded that the strange men inside come out to be gang-raped. Lot offered his daughters up instead, but they rejected them.
- A rabble of men surrounded Lot's house and demanded that the strange men come outside to get the **** beaten outta them and all their stuff stolen. Lot offered his daughter up for sex and/or sacrifice to prevent the Angels being attacked, but they rejected the offer.
- A rabble went to Lot's house and demanded to see whom he had brought into the city. Lot offered his daughters as a sacrifice, but they rejected the offer.
Either way, the Angels dragged Lot back inside the house and blinded the rabble for their impudence. They gave Lot, his daughters and their husbands enough time to run to the nearby village of Zoar - then torched the entire plane.
-
yeah. note that i edited it, and by the time i posted it, i saw the post you just made. i was confusing the story with something else
-
You still are.
The city was more renouned for it's greed than for it's sexual deviancy. They had ****loads of fruit and gold dust to spare, but they built great cages around the trees so not even the birds could take their fruit and they turned over any foreigners for all they were worth.
And the Angel's didn't do **** to help Lot escape. It was basically a case of:
Angels: Go hide in the mountains.
Lot: The mountains?! They're ****ing miles away. I'll be toast before I can reach 'em!
Angels: Okay, then what the **** do you suggest?
Lot: Uh, how about Zoar?
Angels: Sure. **** it. Hurry up though, we need to smite this place before God gets pissed at us.
-
And the Angel's didn't do **** to help Lot escape. It was basically a case of:
Angels: Go hide in the mountains.
Lot: The mountains?! They're ****ing miles away. I'll be toast before I can reach 'em!
Angels: Okay, then what the **** do you suggest?
Lot: Uh, how about Zoar?
Angels: Sure. **** it. Hurry up though, we need to smite this place before God gets pissed at us.
i disagree.
Genesis 19:16
And while he lingered, the men ("men" being the angels, the visitors of Lot) laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.
(angels took lot and his family and led them outside the city... thereby helping them escape.)
-
its funny the inconsistancys of various versions of the bible regaurding this particular fairytale. any normal king james version says "so we may know them" but ive seen versions that replace the word 'know' with the word 'intercourse'. i blame this little typo on cristianity's unacceptance of homosexuals because it tends to be the first thing anti-gay christians seem to bring up. people fail to see the point that the bible is so old that the languages used have evolved to the point where words no longer mean the same thing,
-
Yeah, they led them outta the city, but that's nothing considering the entire Jordan River Plane was gonna be incinerated.
Soon as they reached the edge of the city the Angels were all:
18 - But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please!
19 - Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die.
20 - Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 - He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.
22 - But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it."
-
The Jude passage mentioned earlier cites "fornication" and "going after strange flesh." The Genesis passages (ch. 18 & 19) mention the citizens wanting to molest visitors, then turning on Lot who was keeping the visitors safe. Jeremiah also seems to mention sexual sin (23:14) along with lying and "strengthen[ing] the hands of evil doers." The most detailed list of Sodom's sin is found in Ezekiel 16:49 (if indeed it is not speaking figuratively of another city); "pride" and "prosperous ease" head the list, followed by the converse of Jeremiah's complaint, they "do not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy," and finally, stating that they were "haughty" and "committed abomination before God." The magnitude of Sodom's sin is also mentioned throughout the Bible as "great and grievous" (Gen.18:20), so pervasive that Abraham doubted that there were even 20 righteous people in it (Gen. 18:32), and that they acted without shame, openly displaying their sin, not hiding it (Isa.3:9).
so yeah, an0n, i guess it was for both.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, they led them outta the city, but that's nothing considering the entire Jordan River Plane was gonna be incinerated.
Soon as they reached the edge of the city the Angels were all:
... note what i originally said:
The next day, the visitors led Lot and his family out of the city
i never said the angels led them out of the country or anything... simply that they were led out of the city. which they were :)
-
Basically - the people of Sodom were total ****-ups.
-
roger
-
Angels are genderless. It seems a bit strange that the crowd would want them for sex if they don't really look like men/women.
-
because they weren't shimmery, half see-through spirits with halos around their heads holding harps... they were sent in the bodies of men.
if they were in their spirit forms, i'm pretty sure instead of wanting to rape them, the mob would've been scared ****less...
-
The only real thing we can be sure is that Sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to be very wicked. Most of the other perceptions are either drawn from context or inferred from secondary references to the event.
In any case, what was the point of this again?
[edit] And yes, when an attempt is made to make an accurate translation, some of the stuff in the Bible is rather surprising [/edit]
-
Originally posted by Nuke
its funny the inconsistancys of various versions of the bible regaurding this particular fairytale. any normal king james version says "so we may know them" but ive seen versions that replace the word 'know' with the word 'intercourse'. i blame this little typo on cristianity's unacceptance of homosexuals because it tends to be the first thing anti-gay christians seem to bring up. people fail to see the point that the bible is so old that the languages used have evolved to the point where words no longer mean the same thing,
The modern Hebrew word "to know" is used as "to have intercourse with" in Biblical Hebrew, and that's a fact. It's used in such terms not only in the partially ambiguous passage here concerning Lot and the people of the city, but in other passages as well, ones that don't leave much room for alternate meanings.
So it's not an inconsistancy, it's just a change from assuming that the Biblical meaning of the word is know, to providing the modern equivalent of the Biblical meaning of the word.
-
About the gender thing, I don't know any Hebrew, but in Latin, if they write homus they can mean both a man, or a human.
-
Same in Hebrew... "Adam" is both "man" and "human". Sort of.
-
Who ever said that Christians thought the Bible was all peace and love?
We know god had to show his mad ownage powers every once in a while.
-
I pretty much stopped believing in fairy stories when I was 9....
-
Well, lucky for the Bible there aren't any fairies!
-
It's the same genre...
-
Every time you say you don't believe in Jesuses a fairy dies. Or is it the other way round?
-
Only one jesus. Multiple fairies. You got it right.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Every time you say you don't believe in Jesuses a fairy dies. Or is it the other way round?
'Every time you say you do believe in Jesus, a Fairy loses some rights' ;)
-
I don't believe...
You see, I have trouble accepting things as fact without some reasonable form of evidence...
The Bible is a set of stories written by lots of people over a long period of time...
It cannot be seen as anything other than that...
To base your way of life on words written in a book seems bizzarre to me...
I don't buy it... any of it, in any way.....
-
Originally posted by Clave
I don't believe...
You see, I have trouble accepting things as fact without some reasonable form of evidence...
The Bible is a set of stories written by lots of people over a long period of time...
It cannot be seen as anything other than that...
To base your way of life on words written in a book seems bizzarre to me...
I don't buy it... any of it, in any way.....
So I suppose the Big Bang is a better idea, although there is no reasonable form of evidence, In fact, none at all?
-
Er- don't go there, Tin Can.
1) There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.
2) The Big Bang is consistent with the Creation account, especially the "creation of what is seen from what is unseen" bit.
If we're going to have a discussion on the Bible, we should leave Creation out of it. There are too many strong opinions held on it, even among Christians.
-
"'God' is an image created out of man's insecurities." - Wiegraf
"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand." - Frederick the Great
Those pretty much sum up my opinions and thoughts on this matter.
-
well i'm glad we don't really care about your thoughts and opinions :yes:
;)
-
So Goober, let try not to offend or provoke any form of Creation or Explosive Theory, but by all means let try and disprove everything else in the Bible. Let a rip kids!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
well i'm glad we don't really care about your thoughts and opinions :yes:
;)
Exactly what is that supposed to mean? I only said that those quotes summed up my general stance on religion. Is there something wrong about that? I CAN voice my opinions this way, yes?
-
All religion is fundementally flawed, it's self-edvident.
Show me God or STFU
-
Does anybody remember the joke about the lost page of the bible in Red Dwarf beside me? :p
-
Clave, that exact argument is why Christians don't like atheists all that much and many Muslims want to kill them. It has always been a matter of faith. I wouldn't respect any deity that made him or her self available for inspection that easily.
Every Atheist's favorite quote is "God is dead" from Frederick Nietzche. The forget about is the rest of what he said. He predicted, fairly accurately I'm sad to say, that the 20th century would be the most violent in human history and that the 21st would be worse. The void in the human spirit left by God's demise would be filled by the baser behaviors that Religions since time immemorial have sought to repress, whether it was through enlightenment or dogmatic principle. Man is an inherently violent creature. Religion developed to blunt the vast majority of that violence, because while the violent are highly unlikely to hearken to those they veiw as the weaker, they could hardly fight a surpreme, all powerful being.
I believe that God had a physical presence on Earth when he created Humanity because at that time everything was perfect and he could be in our presence. However, sin is anethema to Him, and after The Fall, sin was prevalent throughout the world and he could no longer allow Himself to have a physical presence on Earth. Thus sprang up religions to facilitate communication with Him.
-
I think it's more along the line of the 'loose film' syndrome. Mankind is having to come to terms with, as he learns more and more, the fact that his morals are his own choice and not guided by some external force.
It's that fear and paranoia that gave rise to religion, and, certainly as far as the Church is concerned, having their methods for controlling millions of people being pulled out from under them by scientific theory is causing a rush of religious fervour to try and re-strengthen that control.
-
Perhaps, flip, perhaps.
But does science offer a solution to the inherent violence in Man? Other that mass druggings and other less obvious forms of external mind control I mean.
Religion is effective because it's internal to the adherant. There is usually nothing external to them forcing them to obey.(except in certain countries where the violent have absconded with control of the religion, which will remain nameless)
-
Originally posted by Clave
All religion is fundementally flawed, it's self-edvident.
Show me God or STFU
Show me evidence of a big-bang explosion forming everything in the universe, or STFU.
-
Tin Can, STOP IT! If you and Clave want to have a flame war, do it in PM please. You to Clave. We are trying to have a calm discussion about religion here. I will ask the management to ban the next person to flame from the Hard Light Section for a week.
-
I'm sure they'll give a **** Lib. :lol:
-
:lol:
-
I've always found the bible really interesting for all its stories. Especially the old testament. One of my favorites as a kid used to be the story of Samson. Pritty much a He-man of his day. Though I agree with Anon that the Moses story ranks up there with LOTR!
-
Lib, I've never seen such an interesting argument about the causes of violence in the modern world. You say that religion has been the blunt of violence, and yet in the past centuries, most violence was caused by religion itself (crusades, jihad, inquisition, etc...).
Religion does not repress violence in any way. It does not also encorage it in general, dispite what I said previously. When any religion tries to explain violence, of course it is not going to say it does nothing to stop it... at least directly... For example, morals that you are so fond of linking to religion (and from there to god), have nothing to do with it. Religion might try to supress or uphold a moral code, but that moral code is beyond religion. For example, stealing is an offense in most of those codes and yet it is not specific to any religious/non religious group.
So concluding, you cannot link the raise of violence in the world to religion or lack of it. Violence stops when all individuals reach a certain level of maturity.
Also, I'd like to know what is your opinion on what to do with children that disrespect their parents... the bible seems to have a very... "original" solution...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Show me evidence of a big-bang explosion forming everything in the universe, or STFU.
Well, the universe proves we're right.
So we've got a whole cosmos comprised of hundreds of millions of galaxies and an almost infinite expanse of space and time backing us up.
What've you got? A book.
-
To be fair, it's a very thick book...
Anyway:
Originally posted by Liberator
Every Atheist's favorite quote is "God is dead" from Frederick Nietzche.
I much prefer Voltaire's "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him"... :)
__________________
Diamond Geezer joins with Helios nine times out of ten
-
an0n, we can say the exact same thing.
What proof do we have that God created the universe?
An almost limitless expanse "filled" with hundreds of millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars.
What have you got to prove a titanic explosion created everything?
A research paper.
-
I prefer: Infinite diversity in Infinite Chaos.
It's a perversion of Vulcan ideology, but it suits my big-bang theories.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
an0n, we can..................paper.
If anything the scale of the universe disproves what the Bible says.
-
Elaborate on that theory, an0n.
-
Don't start with that 'theory' line again, TC. First, you must understand what a theory actually is. And since it was posted 8 times in the last thread like this, and you still can't grasp it, I refuse to repost it.
His view is no less a theory than yours.
-
First, the big bang is not an explosion, it is the expansion of the universe from when it was a single point. This theory "began" when Hobble discovered the predominent red shift of far away galaxies. Saying God exists because we exist is not evidence nor is saying god exists because the universe exists. God is supposedly out of the universe, and therefore you cannot conclude that he exists by saying the universe exists.
-
Tell me - what happens when aliens land on the lawn of the White House, hear about our assorted monotheistic religions and **** their pants laughing at the primitive natives?
__________________
Diamond Geezer greatly enjoyed the third season of Lexx
-
God smites them? :lol:
-
It's not a theory, it's a fact.
No-where in Genesis 1 does it mention God making stars.
Most people do the stupid thing and take 'God created the heavens...' to mean he created the stars, overlooking the fact that Heaven itself doesn't exist yet - and in the original texts Heaven means Heaven - not 'stuff above us'. It's a name, not a descriptive word. Taking 'heaven' to mean space is just a perversion of the idea based upon poetic license.
Put simply, the entire Bible ignores the concept of space - to the point that it's almost as if the person writing it didn't know a thing about the universe other than what he had personally seen. Funny that the creator of the universe wouldn't know about space.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No-where in Genesis 1 does it mention God making stars.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Genesis 1:14-19:
[q]14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.[/q]
I'll assume you merely missed that passage... :doubt:
Originally posted by an0n
Most people do the stupid thing and take 'God created the heavens...' to mean he created the stars, overlooking the fact that Heaven itself doesn't exist yet - and in the original texts Heaven means Heaven - not 'stuff above us'. It's a name, not a descriptive word. Taking 'heaven' to mean space is just a perversion of the idea based upon poetic license.
Err... in the original texts, Mr. Hebrew Scholar, the word for "heavens" is "shamayim", which is literally "sky" or "skies", although it is also used to refer to "heaven".
-
Originally posted by Liberator
an0n, we can say the exact same thing.
What proof do we have that God created the universe?
An almost limitless expanse "filled" with hundreds of millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars.
What have you got to prove a titanic explosion created everything?
A research paper.
What proof do we have that a titanic explosion created everything?
An almost limitless expanse "filled" with hundreds of millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars.
What have you got to prove God created the universe?
A book.
an0n: While it'd be nice if you were right, going by what you're saying would mean that God would have created multiple "heavens". If it's a name in that instance, there'd be one "Heaven".
-
Well, I personally don't believe in the Bible, however, even if you look at science, where they are now turning equations that were supposed to be used at a sub-atomic level to predicting behaviour on a Galactic scale, where every system is linked and often dependant on a whole number of systems, and it all turns like clockwork. You can't help but get at least a little spiritual if you step back and take a look at the whole thing.
-
It's hot gas.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
What proof do we have that a titanic explosion created everything?
An almost limitless expanse "filled" with hundreds of millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars.
What have you got to prove God created the universe?
A book.
an0n: While it'd be nice if you were right, going by what you're saying would mean that God would have created multiple "heavens". If it's a name in that instance, there'd be one "Heaven".
So than in essence, we are both right and we are both wrong. I like that.
-
No. In essence, Liberator's argument is stupid.
-
In the end I think your not just accepting the truth.
We can't prove both, and we can't speak against it.
-
No.
The question of the supernatural, the transcendant is, by its very nature, unverifiable, unanswerable.
On the other hand, the question of the Big Bang is verifiable, is answerable, because it is contained wholly within a cosmos that, so it appears, adheres to a set of laws, of processes and reactions and soforth.
The transcendant is subject to the eternal back-and-forth of 'you have no proof/you have no disproof'. The reality of this world and its history - schools of thought being what some men thought thousands of years ago and what we see today - are neatly encapsulated within a verifiable system and thus doesn't suffer from "Well, I believe this and you believe that, let that be an end to it."
-
We can't prove both, and we can't speak against it.
Why do people insist on using the word "proof" ambiguously like this? All you're doing is clouding up the discussion by pretending all things in the world are black and white and mechanically provable. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
Exactly what is that supposed to mean? I only said that those quotes summed up my general stance on religion. Is there something wrong about that? I CAN voice my opinions this way, yes?
it was meant as a joke, lighten up ;)
-
"And that, children, is why God caused the tsunami..."
__________________
Diamond Geezer is not a morning person
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it was meant as a joke, lighten up ;)
I'm sorry, sometimes I can be a little bit short-tempered, so my deepest apologies :)
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
No.
The question of the supernatural, the transcendant is, by its very nature, unverifiable, unanswerable.
On the other hand, the question of the Big Bang is verifiable, is answerable, because it is contained wholly within a cosmos that, so it appears, adheres to a set of laws, of processes and reactions and soforth.
The transcendant is subject to the eternal back-and-forth of 'you have no proof/you have no disproof'. The reality of this world and its history - schools of thought being what some men thought thousands of years ago and what we see today - are neatly encapsulated within a verifiable system and thus doesn't suffer from "Well, I believe this and you believe that, let that be an end to it."
Some things we can and cannot prove, like things that happened in the past where we did not exist. We simply will not know. The basis of proof in the bible and the basis of proof in science is we just do not know because we weren't there to record it or to see it with our own eyes. Now do you see what I'm getting at?
Sure, the universe follows laws that we discovered and wrote down according to what we have experienced. But just because we write them down, does that mean they didn't exist before? How did they get there? Exploding ball of energy? Much more powerful entity doing it? Your mom? We just dont know.
See the point is that some things are going to be in black and white, until we can create some kind of time-traveling device to send us back to the earliest stage possible that is not hazardus. Until then, it is all just a guess or speculation. Nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Lib, I've never seen such an interesting argument about the causes of violence in the modern world. You say that religion has been the blunt of violence, and yet in the past centuries, most violence was caused by religion itself (crusades, jihad, inquisition, etc...).
That is patently false. Both World Wars were fought over subjects that were not religious. The 100 Years War was fought over subjects that were not religious. The myriad of wars fought between the German princedoms were not religious. The Napoleonic Wars were not religious. The Crusades were the exception, not the rule in the wars of Europe in the Middle Ages. The wars of conquest by the Romans were not religious. The wars in the losing battle the Romans fought to save their empire were not religous. Alexander the Great's wars were not religious. Genghis Khan's wars were not religious.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Religion does not repress violence in any way. It does not also encorage it in general, dispite what I said previously. When any religion tries to explain violence, of course it is not going to say it does nothing to stop it... at least directly... For example, morals that you are so fond of linking to religion (and from there to god), have nothing to do with it. Religion might try to supress or uphold a moral code, but that moral code is beyond religion. For example, stealing is an offense in most of those codes and yet it is not specific to any religious/non religious group.
So concluding, you cannot link the raise of violence in the world to religion or lack of it. Violence stops when all individuals reach a certain level of maturity.
Or is it? At this stage, can you truly seperate the effects of the culture and those of the religon? Can you prove that, growing up in a framework completely and utterly free of religious influence at any time its history, one would have morals as we recognize them?
The effects of religion on our culture have been profound and vast. Perhaps they did not invent morals; that is too far back into our history, and too fundemental to it for us to see clearly. But clearly religion codified them. Clearly religion taught them to the masses. Clearly religion extended their influence into the omnipresent one we know. And clearly religion provided the ultimate, end-all threat and punishment for those who would break them.
Whatever its faults, religon in general has wielded vast power, mostly for the good, down through the centuries. The actions of the many, of the Fathers, of the Imams, of Pastors, of the monks of every denomination, far outweigh the actions of the few, the Popes, Caliphs, crusaders. Every major organized religion, in the end, is about treating your fellow humans well and doing good. That is what its practioners and clergy are told to do, and far too many of them actually buy into that for religon to be considered a true evil.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Some things we can and cannot prove, like things that happened in the past where we did not exist. We simply will not know. The basis of proof in the bible and the basis of proof in science is we just do not know because we weren't there to record it or to see it with our own eyes. Now do you see what I'm getting at?
Hi. You know the universe?
Yeah?
Well, surprisingly, it contains stuff from, like, before we existed. Oddly enough, we can draw conclusions from this stuff. We can say things like "Billions of years ago, the Earth was really quite hot."
Really quite amazing, isn't it?
No, seriously.
And if you're going to question the validity of scientific analysis and the evidence it gathers for us (as well as the evidence of the *snicker* Bible), then I ask you: why is personal experience - man recording it or seeing it with his own eyes - immune to this inquisition? What's so wondrous about this particular method of learning? Is this some kind of solipsism you're advocating, or something?
Sure, the universe follows laws that we discovered and wrote down according to what we have experienced. But just because we write them down, does that mean they didn't exist before? How did they get there? Exploding ball of energy? Much more powerful entity doing it? Your mom? We just dont know.
It's probably more accurate to think of it as a 'becoming'. The universe became what we see today, as opposed to just 'beginning'.
And, again: not including the standard skeptic's-clause that makes science such a wonderful tool for furthering one's knowledge, we *do* know what happened back then. It was the Big Bang. The whole 'red shift', expanding-universe thing shows us that. The possibility of some entity magicking everything into existence lacks evidence, regardless of your protestations desperately trying to keep the door open. And it lacks support because it is not a scientific notion, but a philosophical one - rooted as it is in transcendentalism and not empiricism.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Sure, the universe follows laws that we discovered and wrote down according to what we have experienced. But just because we write them down, does that mean they didn't exist before? How did they get there? Exploding ball of energy? Much more powerful entity doing it? Your mom? We just dont know.
Laws don't exist before we think of them. They're just notions we developed so we can guess how things happen. You think there's a Newton's law of gravity hardcoded into the world as if it's the Matrix?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That is patently false. Both World Wars were fought over subjects that were not religious. The 100 Years War was fought over subjects that were not religious. The myriad of wars fought between the German princedoms were not religious. The Napoleonic Wars were not religious. The Crusades were the exception, not the rule in the wars of Europe in the Middle Ages. The wars of conquest by the Romans were not religious. The wars in the losing battle the Romans fought to save their empire were not religous. Alexander the Great's wars were not religious. Genghis Khan's wars were not religious.
Or is it? At this stage, can you truly seperate the effects of the culture and those of the religon? Can you prove that, growing up in a framework completely and utterly free of religious influence at any time its history, one would have morals as we recognize them?
The effects of religion on our culture have been profound and vast. Perhaps they did not invent morals; that is too far back into our history, and too fundemental to it for us to see clearly. But clearly religion codified them. Clearly religion taught them to the masses. Clearly religion extended their influence into the omnipresent one we know. And clearly religion provided the ultimate, end-all threat and punishment for those who would break them.
Whatever its faults, religon in general has wielded vast power, mostly for the good, down through the centuries. The actions of the many, of the Fathers, of the Imams, of Pastors, of the monks of every denomination, far outweigh the actions of the few, the Popes, Caliphs, crusaders. Every major organized religion, in the end, is about treating your fellow humans well and doing good. That is what its practioners and clergy are told to do, and far too many of them actually buy into that for religon to be considered a true evil.
On the first quote I said violence, not wars, although wars are indeed examples of violence. You can also find interest in over nine cruzades, one jihad (or more?), many inquisitions and many, MANY religious persecutions, etc, etc, etc... I should have said many instead of most, since you are right there, but that still proves my point, religion does not prevent violence. You can find many examples of what I'm talking about.
For the second part, I can prove that morals are seperate from religion by the simple fact that morals predate religion. Again you are right to say that religion has had a great role throughout history, but that I didn't disagree with. But the fact remains that most morals, the most important moral codes are universal. Things like murder and theft are universaly considered... immoral, for lack of better word. Religion only enforced it on the masses, religion made it law, religion made anyone that didn't abide by it's moral codes a heretic. That wasn't hard to live with those days... especially the live part.
And finally, although I cannot say any religion is wrong, I find that many things about many religions (and some of their moral codes) that are deeply... disturbing... except buddism...
*note to self, must find a pratical flaw in buddism* :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
*blah blah*...It was the Big Bang. The whole 'red shift', expanding-universe thing shows us that. ..*blah blah*
Actually that part only shows that the galaxies in question are moving away from us. It is bias toward the Big Bang that allows you to assume that the BB is the reason they are moving away from us.
-
Maybe the universe does know that Humans are in this galaxy and is just trying to get the hell out of the way? ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Actually that part only shows that the galaxies in question are moving away from us. It is bias toward the Big Bang that allows you to assume that the BB is the reason they are moving away from us.
...and when you trace the direction of galaxies moving away due to space expanding over time:
13 billion years ago everything was at one point. Bam! Big bang!
Common sense folks. What I don't understand is why creationists don't just shut up about the 8,000 year thing and just claim that science vindicates them due to the big bang. At least the official stance of the Catholic Church is that :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Actually that part only shows that the galaxies in question are moving away from us. It is bias toward the Big Bang that allows you to assume that the BB is the reason they are moving away from us.
No... because calculations showed that most mass in the universe would have been in a single area in the past... Bias is something like, because of belief in a book that tells that god created the universe you can dismiss evidence that backs up things like evolution, and the earth orbiting the sun, etc...
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Hi. You know the universe?
Yeah?
Well, surprisingly, it contains stuff from, like, before we existed. Oddly enough, we can draw conclusions from this stuff. We can say things like "Billions of years ago, the Earth was really quite hot."
Really quite amazing, isn't it?
No, seriously.
And if you're going to question the validity of scientific analysis and the evidence it gathers for us (as well as the evidence of the *snicker* Bible), then I ask you: why is personal experience - man recording it or seeing it with his own eyes - immune to this inquisition? What's so wondrous about this particular method of learning? Is this some kind of solipsism you're advocating, or something?
It's probably more accurate to think of it as a 'becoming'. The universe became what we see today, as opposed to just 'beginning'.
And, again: not including the standard skeptic's-clause that makes science such a wonderful tool for furthering one's knowledge, we *do* know what happened back then. It was the Big Bang. The whole 'red shift', expanding-universe thing shows us that. The possibility of some entity magicking everything into existence lacks evidence, regardless of your protestations desperately trying to keep the door open. And it lacks support because it is not a scientific notion, but a philosophical one - rooted as it is in transcendentalism and not empiricism.
Do I know the universe? No. Of course not. Do you know it any better than I? Absolutely not.
Do scientists know more about it than us?
Yes.
Do they know how it was created?
No.
Can they guess or speculate how it was created?
Yes.
Does that mean it's right?
No.
Let's look at this from the Big Bang's point of view.
A ball of energy exists, rotating very quickly and is very hot, the size of a vollyball. It contracts, expands, and one day could not hold it's expansion and simply blew up. Kablam. What happens? The universe is made! The explosion shoots out a gazillion miles and makes all the happy little suns and planets and nebula and asteroids and what not. Since explosions make stuff, they also make lifeforms and can turn into bigger lifeforms, that are eventually humans who evolved from Apes. The end.
Do we know if this is true?
Certainly not.
What scientists are looking at they think "Hey, these are the effects from the beginning of time! We know because we can guess!"
Speculation is not law. Guessing is not always true. Estimates are not factual. Theories are not verifiable. For those who think I don't know what a theory is, here is a dictionary definition:
- Abstract reasoning; speculation
So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess. Do I really care how it got here? No. Do I have my own beliefs and my own thoughts on the universe? Certainly. Do I care what yours are? No. Doesnt matter. It's all just one big guess (all of it) so it doesnt really matter. Live in the present, not in the past, and hope for the future.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I'll assume you merely missed that passage... :doubt:
Yeah, I kinda glossed over it.
Err... in the original texts, Mr. Hebrew Scholar, the word for "heavens" is "shamayim", which is literally "sky" or "skies", although it is also used to refer to "heaven".
Meh. I guessed, I was wrong.
Still, that creates more problems than it solves. Also lends weight to the Raelian arguments about God.
-
An0n admitting he was wrong?
It's a sign of the Apocolypse! :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Actually that part only shows that the galaxies in question are moving away from us. It is bias toward the Big Bang that allows you to assume that the BB is the reason they are moving away from us.
I don't know... is it just me? Am I the strange, crazy, lunatic one?
I would have thought galaxies moving through the cosmos away from a single point would be evidence enough for some kind of 'Huge Explosion' - especially since there isn't any evidence for any other kind of explanation. I mean, if there was some kind of detectable 'galactic magnetism' that was pushing the celestial bodies away from one another, yeah, or... hell, I can't even think of other possibilities, because the inspiration doesn't exist in real life! Come on, people!
And the galling thing is... what appears to be a Biblical literalist - someone who has picked up an ideal and is now walking about the world, carrying it under its arm, and desperately trying to make it fit what he sees, denying the validity of the universe itself in order to conform to what somebody said some supreme being said thousands of years ago - is muttering accusations of bias - bias!
I suspect not only does God get pissed off when you walk by a field and don't notice the colour purple in it, He also gets upset when you believe Man's truth, Man's books, above His own creation.
(Hopefully, she'll forgive the butchering, but it suffices.)
-
Didn't they say that 2% of the universe has been seen? How can we say that this measly 2% means that the entire universe is moving from a single point? We can't. Give it up Blaise, you wan't to cling to something no one really gives a **** about. Im happy being what I am and beliving what I want, not someone telling me Im wrong and his "scientific evidence" (aka, nothing) is superior over everyone elses.
-
I hope God exists, just to see the look on the faces of the flat-earthers and creationists when he comes down from on high and goes:
"What the ****? Six thousand years? Do you have any goddamn idea how hard it is to will matter into existence? DO YOU?!!?"
-
Anyone else find it hilarious that Tin Can is using a computer to denounce science?
-
Im on a computer denouncing the Big Bang Theory. How friggin hillarious. You should be a comedian for pointing that out an0n.
Anyone else find it hillarious that an "admin" doesn't know how to use the edit button?
-
Tin Can, the remaining percentage is not detected (I think it's more than 2%) but it's effects are felt... this galaxy and many others exist after all... and the galaxies are what led to this theory.
-
My Jedi Force powers are tingling...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Let's look at this from the Big Bang's point of view.
Let's not, because you turned it into a horrible mess that's really quite disgusting.
Do we know if this is true?
Certainly not.
We certainly understand your unwitting straw man to be untrue, because it's quite the pile of nonsense.
The distressing thing, Officer Can, is that at some point you might come across the scene of a crime (let us say that it is a rape, for the sake of getting emotional reactions and so on), see a dishevelled woman in rumpled clothing, sobbing uncontrollably for the loss of her sexual control, leaning against an alley wall, clothing torn, dress up about her waist, bruises and scratches all over... see a man pulling up his trousers, his parts still coated in sexual fluids, the nail marks on his cheek, the glare in his eye... see the blood, see the pain, see the anguish and hurt... and say "Hullo? Hullo? Is this a party? Can I join in? Smashing!"
If you really have a problem with inductive thinking, I suggest you hand over your life to someone who could really do a lot with it. There are starving children in Africa who are willing to accept that the transient nature of their existence requires them to use more than their two eyes in figuring things out, you know.
Vacuous nonsense
You really shouldn't have written that. See, you need to be using the SCIENTIFIC definition of 'theory', which is quite different to the common use of the word. For that matter, educate yourself on the scientific meaning of 'law'.
Actually, nevermind, I'll do it myself. A theory is a - to put it poorly - linking of facts to create an understanding of a phenonemon. For example, the theory of gravity links facts about things falling down to create an understanding of the concept of gravity - that is, how and why things fall down. A theory = facts, basically, just connected and written into meaningful form.
A law is an equation. V=IR is a law about the relationship between current, voltage and resistance. Everyone knows E=MC^2. A law of evolution might involve Game Theory. A law = facts, basically, just in mathematical form.
Hence, your blatherings about the semantics of 'Big Bang Theory' are irrelevant, because science speaks a different language to the one you use. Not that the names of things have any relevance to their truth, of course.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Didn't they say that 2% of the universe has been seen? How can we say that this measly 2% means that the entire universe is moving from a single point? We can't. Give it up Blaise, you wan't to cling to something no one really gives a **** about.
In the United States of Jesusland, maybe. Where I'm standing... no.
Im happy being what I am and beliving what I want, not someone telling me Im wrong and his "scientific evidence" (aka, nothing) is superior over everyone elses.
1) If you see this discussion as something that people are trying to 'win', then I hereby forfeit the trophy in your name. Congratulations. You won an argument on the Internet. You earn a very slow handclap.
2) As if (so I suspect you think) the Bible is any better than scientific evidence which, according to you, is "nothing".
I still can't understand why somebody would hold what somebody wrote thousands of years ago, when we lacked intellectual regulation and basic philosophy, over the evidence of one's own senses. It's crazy. It lacks all sense.
-
1) Find where I wrote "Vacuous nonsense".
2) I'm sure starving children in Africa and Rape have everything to do with the Big Bang Theory.
3) Since when was I pressing that my way of thinking was correct? I didn't. I'm trying to press that both ways of thinking, one from god, one from explosions, cannot be tested and therefor cannot be proven. End of story Blaise. It seems you like to throw in filler **** on rape scenes and starving children in Africa to digress from the real topic:
It's one, big, gigantic, guess.
We THINK the universe was a ball of energy at the center of the universe
We THINK that it exploded creating everything around us
We THINK this, we THINK that, and yet you preach it like it's all fact, it's all based of several writings and factual proof that can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant. That's it.
It's a guess, it will always be a guess, so until then:
Yawn.
-
And thousands of years ago, don't we read **** that great philosiophical people wrote, mathmatics, factual laws, and historians? I believe we use that knowledge in public thinking.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We THINK the universe was a ball of energy at the center of the universe
Siggified :lol:
-
I should have said "middle of space". Dang-nabbit.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess.
Uhh. I really don't like pointing this out over and over.
A law is imaginary. Laws let us predict how things happen. They don't explain things. Some laws aren't universally applicable and aren't useful in theoretical fields. Newtonian physics doesn't work on extremely large scales (relativity) or extremely small scales (quantum mechanics) but we still use Newtonian laws.
A theory is how it works, supported by math, experimentation, checked, re-checked, submitted to the scientific community, laughed at, looked at again and finally accepted.
We THINK this, we THINK that, and yet you preach it like it's all fact, it's all based of several writings and factual proof that can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant. That's it.
I've said this earlier, but where do you get the notion that things in science must be proved mechanically from axioms like in mathematics?
You have very inconsistent and ambiguous standards for truth and fact.
-
Perhaps you missed the fact that the sentence was composed of several things besides "testing".
Can be proven? Not yet.
It IS fact? Not yet.
Factual writings on it's factual existance? Not yet.
So then, what part of "Not yet" or "Non-existant" are you having trouble understanding? My definitions of "Law" and "Theory" might not be up to snuff, but I'm sure even the little kids know what the words "No" mean.
EDIT: Goob? No flaming here. No insults, no attacks on one another, simply disagreements. I wouldn't call it a flame war yet, but it could form one.
-
This is going downhill fast. Tin Can, I highly recommend you read up on the Big Bang, Creaion, Old-Earth Theory, Evolution, etc. before you continue your discussion. You aren't making any headway and you're self-destructing your own position.
I call thread hijack. Unless this returns to the original topic I'm leaning heavily toward closing it to avert another flame war.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
1) Find where I wrote "Vacuous nonsense".
A ball of energy exists, rotating very quickly and is very hot, the size of a vollyball. It contracts, expands, and one day could not hold it's expansion and simply blew up. Kablam. What happens? The universe is made! The explosion shoots out a gazillion miles and makes all the happy little suns and planets and nebula and asteroids and what not. Since explosions make stuff, they also make lifeforms and can turn into bigger lifeforms, that are eventually humans who evolved from Apes. The end.
...
Speculation is not law. Guessing is not always true. Estimates are not factual. Theories are not verifiable. For those who think I don't know what a theory is, here is a dictionary definition:
Abstract reasoning; speculation
So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess. Do I really care how it got here? No. Do I have my own beliefs and my own thoughts on the universe? Certainly. Do I care what yours are? No. Doesnt matter. It's all just one big guess (all of it) so it doesnt really matter. Live in the present, not in the past, and hope for the future.
There. What you wrote was vacuous nonsense. That last sickly little platitude is the worst of all, I think.
2) I'm sure starving children in Africa and Rape have everything to do with the Big Bang Theory.
Let me put it like this:
1) A failure to understand that you can figure things out from the results of said things - little pieces of glass on the ground next to square hole with frame in wall is from a window being broken - is indicative of severe mental defects.
2) I was not there when a tree grew from a sapling into, well, a tree, and neither were you. Yet while I say "Here, a sapling grew into a tree," you would vehemently cry "THAT'S JUST A GUESS!"
3) Since when was I pressing that my way of thinking was correct? I didn't.
Your whining about people telling you you're wrong and your suggestion that somehow "we're all kinda right, in a way" indicated that, rather than an exchange of ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, you saw this as proselytisation, as a Battle of Science Versus Religion (in a sense a false dichotomy to draw, of course).
I'm trying to press that both ways of thinking, one from god, one from explosions, cannot be tested and therefor cannot be proven.
Um, no. The God one is unverifiable, because it rests upon a fundamentally transcendental concept - a supernatural Creator that, by his nature, cannot be seen or otherwise detected.
The 'explosions' one *is* verifiable, that's how it came into being - via evidence. Unlike religion's sad forays into the world of science, it did not start off with people saying 'Explosions did it, explosions did it all' and selecting the evidence to back them up - rather, the other way around.
can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant.
And thousands of years ago, don't we read **** that great philosiophical people wrote, mathmatics, factual laws, and historians? I believe we use that knowledge in public thinking.
Habla Inglis?
It's a guess, it will always be a guess, so until then:
Yawn.
No. And this is what you don't seem able to understand.
We can work out what happened from what came afterwards. It's that simple. And when we do that, it isn't 'just a guess' - it's 'working out what happened,' something scientists do with a thing called evidence.
Your 'didn't see it, didn't see it, stick the fingers in the ears, NAH NAH NAH' counterargument does not dispel this truth - that when you use evidence to come up with a conclusion, you use evidence to come up with a conclusion.
-
Tin Can, try reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, it will clear your mind about the subject, since you appear to have doubts about some parts of the theory... and what a theory is...
-
Let pull over what is www.big-bang-theory.com (Very good site since it has the domain name for it and all, and clobbers the science together)
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Notice the obsessive use over "We don't know". They didn't even know how this mystical energy got there.
Sure, noticed things like broken glass next to a shattered window clearly show it was broken. Sure, a sapling that was where a tree will be, and returning we see a tree, its conclusive that it indeed grew to a tree. However, the frame supports complete evidence, meaning everything we need to see is there.
Let's put the missing pieces into play, like they do with the Bing Bang Theory, with the same glass window.
Let's say the same window has a hole through it. Only this time, let's remove the broken glass. Do we know it was broken now? Was it carved out? Was it made that way? Was something thrown through it? Not sure, but we can speculate what happened.
The Big Bang Theory revolves over an incomplete scene over what we have seen SO FAR to be the believed effects over the big bang. That's it.
Your whining about people telling you you're wrong and your suggestion that somehow "we're all kinda right, in a way" indicated that, rather than an exchange of ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, you saw this as proselytisation, as a Battle of Science Versus Religion (in a sense a false dichotomy to draw, of course).
I'm simply trying to defend that your way of thinking is not proven, and neither is mine, but you insist that what you have to say is right, and is factual, and what I believe is wrong, and is purely stupid.
Now, if you will excuse me, I will watch a movie with my dad and eat dinner.
-
For the record:
I'm an agnostic. A proper one. That is, somebody who thinks that the question of 'God' is not one we can answer. I'm disinclined to consider the major religions, partly due to the heavy influence of Man and partly because any God worth his salt - benevolent, all-powerful - should be able to 'save' me or get me to save myself when it becomes clear that I *need* saving.
I... distrust faith, distrust taking something to be true without examination. It can be intellectually dangerous, not examining ideas before putting them in your head. However, it's a necessary part of day-to-day living and can save a lot of time and trouble.
I think science and religion should stay in their own playpens. Rather, I think science should stick to what it can describe - this physical reality that we live in. The mechanisms of religion - hopefully philosophy, oftentimes faith - are usually ill-equipped to discuss this particular field of knowledge. Likewise, science is not capable of going where philosophy and faith are.
This universe is the domain of science and science can explain the universe. Religion lacks the necessary tools to do that. Religion can explain theology, issues of morality and ethics, the 'Big Questions' because those are its fiefdoms - and science can't touch them.
Just a thought.
-
We don't know how the window was broken but we do know it was broken... can't you follow an analogy?
-
Attempting to get back on topic...
Wikipedia has an interesting article on Sodom and Gomorrah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
Apparently classical Jewish views hold that the inhabitants were destroyed not because of homosexuality but other causes.
This snippet was interesting:
There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual coitus (intercourse), with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors. We simply know that their intentions were unfriendly.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Notice the obsessive use over "We don't know". They didn't even know how this mystical energy got there.
Please, tell me where god comes from. What's his name? What's his daily schedule? how does he looks like? He is blonde? Is he a he or a she? Man, I'm sure you'll give me a lot of "I don't know".
I love to turn one-sided arguments like that the other way.
-
Nico, how many times must I stress that I know what I believe in isn't proven either. I'm not trying to force that what I believe is right and that the Big Bang is wrong. I'm defending the fact that both statements are questionable and unproven, so not one beats the other, because there is no fact to either of them.
BTW, God comes from Austria, his name is god, his routine is smiting ass holes, it's a he, he has brown hair, and his looks will kill you since he is the face of all the most beauitful people. He rocks:
God - 1 / Nico - 0
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Let pull over what is www.big-bang-theory.com (Very good site since it has the domain name for it and all, and clobbers the science together)
Remember what we said about names and their relevance?
When you find a source that doesn't cite Hitler and Stalin as exemplars of 'evolutionism', we'll talk.
Stuff
What?
First, you misconstrue the tree example. We don't see the sapling; we see the tree. We see that it is growing - that parts are moving away from a central position. I say "Reversing the movement of the tree reveals that it began in a smaller state - a seed, if you will - and grew out into its current state."
You say "The tree was made just like this, and your theory sucks because you weren't there and didn't see it yourself, so you don't *know* how the tree began, and the whole growth-thing isn't really evidence, so I'm just as right as you are."
Yes/No?
Also, something about 'complete frame'. waht?
I'm not sure what else anyone could possibly need. You have Time 0. You have Time n. At Time n, Stuff is moving away from Point. Time progresses in a linear fashion, hence at some point Stuff was at Point. What else is required? CCTV footage? What?
I'm simply trying to defend that your way of thinking is not proven, and neither is mine, but you insist that what you have to say is right, and is factual, and what I believe is wrong, and is purely stupid.
And not doing it very well. Your entire position consists of 'you don't *know* that'. The Orthodox Creationist standpoint has not a single leg to stand on. Come on... you know you're in trouble when you have to work from the conclusion backwards.
-
Blaise, walk up to a scientist, and ask him:
"Is the Big Bang a fact."
What will he tell you? Call me back when you have done this.
If you cant figure out the picture frame analogy that YOU decided to put into the mix, then I have to explain it to you to get through to your poor excuse for comprehension.
You see a hole in a window, with glass by it. Everyone can conclude it was broken. Yes, it is, because we have the whole picture. Let me LIST the whole picture to be observed:
- The Broken Glass
- The Window
- The hole in the Window
All this together proves the window was broken. Now let take away the Broken Glass.
What can you conclude? Was the window made with a hole in it, or was it purpousfully broken with an object going through it? We dont know. We can guess, but we dont know.
Your "tree" analogy still doesnt prove anything. Trees have been proven to originate from a seed or sappling. It's a fact. All trees grow from seeds, end of story. It has no relation to the big bang theory.
And you know what, you don't know that. Neither do I. That's all there is to it Blaise, I don't know why you make it more complex than it is.
-
Your window analogy is flawed.
Science looks at the tiny slithers of glass on the ground and stuck in the frame and says "Hey, look, there used to be glass here".
Occasionally they'll say it was a sheet of glass when infact it was a stained-glass design, but for the most part, they're right to the point that only a window expert would care when they're wrong.
-
Good point an0n. :nod:
-
the tree analogy is not flawed as it is assumeing you have never seen a tree and you encounter one and find it changeing in a predictable way.
-
And BTW, I am too lazy to search for a link, but at least one theory has been proposed about where the energy/matter from the Big-Bang came from. I don't remeber exactly what it is, but there was some proof that a void could generate energy, and that this 'void energy' was the start of the big bang. Since it's 3:30AM, I'm going to sleep, and se tomorrow if I can pull my head outta my ass and search for a link 'bout this.
-
Wouldn't all the evidence you would ever need be right there at the site? The roots indicate it was stationary, and sprouted from something that didn't move. The leaves indicate that it gains energy from the sun and water to live, due to the changing of colors from chemical imbalances in leaves during times of lack of water and sunlight. Basically, everything you could guess from that tree you can find from the tree.
-
on average, everything in the universe is flying away from every other boject in the universe
would it not be logical to say that at one point in time they were all in the same place?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Blaise, walk up to a scientist, and ask him:
"Is the Big Bang a fact."
What's your criteria for a fact?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Homosexual gang-rape in the Bible though. Funny, eh?
i always thought it was funny that, since the married daughters were identified as virgins and both of them later had children by Lot himself, the most righteous family in those cities apparently practiced nothing but incest.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
What's your criteria for a fact?
fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
-
on average, everything in the universe is flying away from every other boject in the universe
would it not be logical to say that at one point in time they were all in the same place?
could someone not say that perhaps everything was at one point in time closer together, and that was when God created the universe?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
could someone not say that perhaps everything was at one point in time closer together, and that was when God created the universe?
Apparently not. Personally I think we've screwed up the topic enough, from homosexual gang-rape in the bible to a creation vs big bang argument. Enough already.
-
For the love of whatever ****ing diety you believe in, shut up already. You're trying to sound like the 'big man, I'll drop the discussion because it's derailing the topic' but you're trying to get the last word all the time, and it's ****ing annoying. Believe what you want. You'll find out when you're dead if you were right or not. Or you'll find out nothing at all, as your souless corpse rots away in the dirt. Either way it's of no use to argue about it now.
Everyone should keep their views to themselves, and stop delegating how others should behave/think/whatever. Ok?!
-
Oh, I shouldn't get the last word, but you should Raa?
-
****ing hell! You're doing it again.
I'm telling you to shut up, and that it doesn't matter wether you're right or wrong, because in the end, we're all stuck here together on this overcrowded dirt ball.
-
And I'm telling you to stick your foot in your mouth and hobble home.
-
I've something else to stick in your mouth.
-
And I'll choose to cut it off with a razor. Stop trying to jump in and say "oh, Tin Can, stop trying to be the big man. After all, I[/I] am the big man and am always right. Succumb to my brilliance!"
-
I'm sick of this. **** you, you're a moron. Buh-bye.
-
That's the kind of response I expected. Game. Blouses.
Anyhow, back to mass destruction of cities like S&G. My memory of large cities being destroyed is vague, asside from Jherico that was brought down by trumpets. Anyone have more to add to the list?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
That's the kind of response I expected. Game. Blouses.
Blow me. There's no way I'd win a game of annoyance with a 15-yr old. I'm upset at myself for even responding to your trolling in the first place.
-
Then why did you even start in the first place? Why did you even walk in and say this crap to boot? Does anyone really give a **** if I'm the last one to speak? Raa, just shut up and go away.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Blow me.
-
I´m wondering how this thread is still open...
-
I'm sure you are acting a whole lot more mature...
-
Not sure, but I reported it to a moderator. Just hope they answer the call soon.
-
You're both being dicks...
*thread locked*
:lol:
If only I could...
-
I think Raa with his "blow me" and "**** you" attitude is the worse candidate.
-
It takes two to tango, you know?
-
Wheee!