[Kellan]

Anyway...to make a little more sense: on Hell. And heaven, too, but I'm more interested in Hell for the purposes of this discussion.

Now - a Christian (and other religions, but Christianity is my example) believes in God and heaven and hell. I'm willing to accept their beliefs in this, but here are my questions:

1. Are they physical or metaphysical places - after all, it's your 'spirit' or whatever that leaves your body.

2. What is hell like? Is it a place of fiery physical torture, blah blah, or is the true nature of hell the knowledge that one is eternally separated from God?

3. An extension of (2) - Sandwich told me that the punishment in hell would be like physical torture even if it was not. Why, if there are no physical forms, or if the latter condition of (2) applies?

4. Does everyone who doesn't believe in God go to hell? If so, why?

===

I'm assuming for all the above that CP5670 isn't going to interject with a "religion is being used to control the masses through fear appeals" until after someone has replied...

[Stryke 9]

Kellan: This doesn't apply for all, but if you read the Catholic catechism (sp?), it says that it's only if you intentionally refuse to believe in or worship God despite one's predilection or evidence at hand that you get the shaft. Otherwise, Limbo, I suppose.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Weird that people still read the cathechismus (sp?)... We used to have it in school (I heard), but that got abolished (even in catholic schools) long before I got there

[Stryke 9]

Hell, you don't learn **** in school. Wanna know something, you go for it yourself.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Hell, you don't learn **** in school. Wanna know something, you go for it yourself.

Maybe that's true on the other side of the pond, but here things are quite different

The question is of course: for how much longer??

[Stryke 9]

Eh?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Eh?

? anyway, we're digressing

back to topic

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
On the other hand, we're not exactly the best candidates to decide what is "good" and "evil" anyway.

True, but "good" and "evil" are human words (English words, to be precise ).  If we can't define them, who can?

It is a pretty big question, though, but then it all gets into the meaning of life and such, and there's no particular reason to tread there in this thread.


As for the theory that God created physical laws and the big bang and such, and then basically put it on autopilot, there are problems with this.  For example, what would be the difference between God being there and creating the Big Bang, or the Big Bang just being there?  Since there's basically no difference (assuming God is truly letting us run on autopliot), they're basically the same thing.

One of the reasons I find any notion of God a bit bogus is the mere fact that there are so many planets without life on them.  Why would a God create other planets in such detail if they weren't going to be used for anything?

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
? anyway, we're digressing

back to topic

It's nice that you get back on the topic of arguing about Christianity with reply 666.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by NotDefault


It's nice that you get back on the topic of arguing about Christianity with reply 666.

There goes my cover

[CP5670]

Well I think all the pro-religion people have left due to lack of further arguments, leaving the anti-religion guys victorious.

[Blitz_Lightning]

I'll give you a brief overview over some evidence against evolution.

First of all, about all the "radiometric dating". Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth). Now when you consider that uranium emits alpha particles (helium nuclei) when it decays into lead, you would ask, where is all the supposed helium? The amount of helium found on earth and in the atmosphere, supposing that it was made just from this decay, is nowhere near the amount it should be if the earth was billions of years old. The amount of helium found now suggests to scientists that the earth is <10000 years old. Now you might say that all the helium escapes from the earth. This is not true. Only hydrogen is light enough to escape the earth, for those who study physics would realize. In fact, earth gains helium when travelling through the space dust around the earth. And this amount gained this way is about the same as from decay of uranium. Thus, the amount of helium is only gaining.

Another radiometric dating is C14. Did you know that the amount of C14 is now known not to be at equilibrium, as it should have after only 30 000 yrs? The rate of creation of C14 is about 25% more than it is destroyed. Tracing this rate back to a time in which the amount of C14 is zero, it gives a date of the earth as <10000 yrs!

Fred Hoyle (the man who coined "the big bang" phrase) stated that the probability of the making of the simplest possible organism by chance would be around 10^7800 (this is for an organism with 200 genes, while the most simple one known has 300). The universe has only 10^80 particles, and only 10^18 seconds have elapsed, according to the big bang model. This is a truly staggering figure. Now, this is even only a very conservative estimate. Neutral scientists on this issue have even suggested values such as 10^10500!. Take a look at this article,

why abiogenesis is impossible

We can also consider the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear force. If either of these forces were off by a fraction of a percent, then either all the elements that could exist would be either hydrogen or helium, as all the elements such as lithium and beyond would be unstable. Or, on the other hand, hydrogen would automatically merge to form helium, all carbon to form heavier elements, etc.

If the amount of matter in the universe was to be over by a trillionth of what it is, big bang theorists say that the universe would have started contracting before the inflationary epoch. If it was a fraction less, galaxies, clusters, etc would be impossible.

Now don't tell me you'll suggest natural selection in these properties of the universe?

Evidence against evolution

Now, recent evidence shows that early on in earth, it had no HCN (which was suggested with malicious forethought for which there is no evidence existed on earth at the start), or such high levels of CH4 and H2 in the atmosphere. For substances other than alanine, etc which are in fact the most simple of proteins, they need at least a 1:2 or 1:1 ratio of C to H in the atmosphere. Any less, then it would be impossible for the stuff to form. Take note, as well, as things such as lightning, etc which form these just as easily destroy them. How convenient it is for evolutionists to forget that all reactions are equilibriums!!! Take a look at this article

Instability of building blocks

and this article

the information problem

Now, evidence from archaelogy.
Now all of you people believe that Julius Ceasar existed, yes? However, the number of ancient documents found about Julius
Ceasar is much less than that found for Jesus Christ's life. Now, if you don't believe that Jesus existed, you might as well believe Julius Ceasar didn't exist. Accuracy of the bible? Not a problem! The dead sea scrolls confirm the accuracy of the bible. Much less than 1 word in 1000 is arbitrated, less than 3 in a thousand had just different wording (synonyms, etc).

evidence from archaelogy

Now, if you had 30 or so modern writers, what is the probability of them all agreeing on everything? Nil! In the bible, all the supposed contradictions have been answered! Refutations

Extra refutations

Now, that great example used to promote evolution

pepper moths

and this one, it is proven that Haeckel fudged his embryo diagrams

Now, all those missing links between birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc still haven't been found, if you look at the evidence carefully. A refutation of the

crown jewel of evolution is refuted here

Now, I could go on and on with evidence, but these sites should give you some food for thought...
trueorigins archive
origins.org
answersingenesis godandscience yfiles
Institute of Creation Research
christiananswers
363 other sites

[Blitz_Lightning]

Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the New Testament, and as he stands forth from all its writings, is too single and too great to have been invented so uniformly by all these writers. The force of Jesus Christ unleashed these writings; the writings did not create the force. Jesus is far bigger and more compelling than any of his witnesses. His reality stands behind these writings as a great, global event stands behind a thousand newscasters. Something stupendous unleashed these diverse witnesses to tell these stunning and varied, yet unified, stories of Jesus Christ.

Nobody has ever explained the empty tomb of Jesus in the hostile environment of Jerusalem where the enemies of Jesus would have given anything to produce the corpse, but could not. The earliest attempts to cover the scandal of resurrection were manifestly contradictory to all human experience—disciples do not steal a body (Matthew 28:13) and then sacrifice their lives to preach a glorious gospel of grace on the basis of the deception. Modern theories that Jesus didn't die but swooned, and then awoke in the tomb and moved the stone and tricked his skeptical disciples into believing he was risen as the Lord of the universe don't persuade.

Cynical opponents of Christianity abounded where claims were made that many eyewitnesses were available to consult concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. “After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6). Such claims would be exposed as immediate falsehood if they could. But we know of no exposure. Eyewitnesses of the risen Lord abounded when the crucial claims were being made.

The early church was an indomitable force of faith and love and sacrifice on the basis of the reality of Jesus Christ. The character of this church, and the nature of the gospel of grace and forgiveness, and the undaunted courage of men and women—even unto death—do not fit the hypothesis of mass hysteria. They simply were not like that. Something utterly real and magnificent had happened in the world and they were close enough to know it, and be assured of it, and be gripped by its power. That something was Jesus Christ, as all of them testified, even as they died singing.

The prophesies of the Old Testament find stunning fulfillment in the history of Jesus Christ. The witness to these fulfillments are too many, too diverse, too subtle and too interwoven into the history of the New Testament church and its many writings to be fabricated by some great conspiracy. Down to the details, Jesus Christ fulfilled dozens of Old Testament prophecies that vindicate his truth.

The witnesses to Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament gospels and letters are not gullible or deceitful or demented. This is manifest from the writings themselves. The books bear the marks of intelligence and clear-headedness and maturity and a moral vision that is compelling. They win our trust as witnesses, especially when all taken together with one great unifying, but distinctively told, message about Jesus Christ.

The worldview that emerges from the writings of the New Testament makes more sense out of more reality than any other worldview. It not only fits the human heart, but also the cosmos and history and God as he reveals himself in nature and conscience. Some may come to this conclusion after much reflection, others may arrive at this conviction by a pre-reflective, intuitive sense of the deep suitability of Christ and his message to the world that they know.

When one sees Christ as he is portrayed truly in the gospel, there shines forth a spiritual light that is a self-authenticating. This is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 4:6), and it is as immediately perceived by the Spirit-awakened heart as light is perceived by the open eye. The eye does not argue that there is light. It sees light.

When we see and believe the glory of God in the gospel, the Holy Spirit is given to us so that the love of God might be “poured out in our hearts” (Romans 5:5). This experience of the love of God known in the heart through the gospel of Him who died for us while we were yet ungodly assures us that the hope awakened by all the evidences we have seen will not disappoint us.

[Blitz_Lightning]

Could the Moon Form by Itself?
Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon’s direct creation by God.  They have come up with several theories, but they all have serious holes, as many evolutionists themselves admit.  One astronomer said, half-jokingly, that there were no good (naturalistic) explanations, so the best explanation is that the moon is an illusion![9]

Fission Theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles).  He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off.  But this theory is universally discarded today.  The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.

Capture Theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity.  But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured.  Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.

Condensation Theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity.  However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.

Impact Theory—the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object.  Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars.  Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.[10]

[Blitz_Lightning]

An extract from this article

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes, changes perhaps comparable to the current differences between Venus, Mars, and Earth. According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

[Blitz_Lightning]

There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon-some 70 million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or 30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes).

The effect of gravity depends on distance as well as mass, so the pull on the near side of the earth (to the moon) is greater than on the far side. This causes the land and (especially) sea surfaces to bulge in response, as is apparent to us in tides.

Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.

This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years.

That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct.

FOOTNOTE
* The moon was probably created close to its present distance from the earth. Over 10,000 years, lunar recession amounts to less than one kilometre.

For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

Also, note that, if the universe is really as old as evolutionists say, the moon should be covered by tens of feet of dust (from the solar dust in the solar system accumulating) using basic math. That's why in the 1960's NASA was concerned that the moon was covered with dust, but when they landed on the moon, they found little evidence of dust.
The earth should also have tens of feet of dust. Now, space dust is rich in substances such as iridium. Then why does the earth have so little of it? Now, this proves that the universe can't really be all those billions of years old.

[Blitz_Lightning]

An extract from this site
Several categories of membership are available, each of which requires agreement with the CRS statement of belief. Since the CRS is a scientific society governed by scientists, voting membership requires an earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science. All remaining categories are nonvoting. For those who have an interest in origins but lack the advanced science degree, sustaining membership is available. Student (those enrolled full time in high school or undergraduate college) and senior (voting or sustaining members who are age 65 or older) memberships are available at reduced rates. A special life membership (for either voting or sustaining members) is also available.

Membership includes subscription to the journal (the CRS Quarterly) and the bimonthly newsletter (Creation Matters). Institutions (such as schools, libraries, churches, etc.), or individuals who cannot in good conscience ascribe to the statement of belief, may also obtain subscriptions to the CRS Quarterly without membership.

The annual membership and subscription year for the Creation Research Society begins in June 2002. When you join, you will receive all back issues for the current subscription year.

Memberships and subscriptions over the past few years have been steady with a total of over 1700 worldwide. About 650 are voting members. Foreign members/subscribers number about 250.

[CP5670]

Okay, some of that stuff really had me laughing. I'm not even going to bother with people of such intelligence and gullibility (don't have the time to argue at the moment; need to go sleep ), but I'm sure that some others will come up soon to argue with that.

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by CP5670
don't have the time to argue at the moment; need to go sleep

Likewise.

[Blitz_Lightning]

such as
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NotDefault
Yeah, well, but all that Unarium and Carban was put in by God to make it seem like Creationism is wrong to test our faith!!!!!11111

How do you answer that, science-boy????????????????/////

BTW, u dont have to flame me, ppl!!!
Sigh...
Most of my information is on page 27 as well as this page...