The Origins of man & the real meaning of religion.

reply to post by Seede

No need to play the get mad game. You may be so brilliant as to know just how Mt. Everest came into being but I'm sure the rest of us dummies do not know. Why do the rest of us dummies not know? Simply because we were not there and neither were today's geologists and neither were you. Where does that leave you? Your right back in the theological pot the same as all humans are. You tell the ATS readers in your 60 seconds spiel just where is your proof that the marine fossils which are at over 29,000 feet came as the result of land upheaval.

Mad? No. More amused by the fact that you could have found the answer to your question in less than a minute had you cared to. But you don’t actually care to know. The right answer for you will always be that Bible is correct, regardless of what evidence is found to the contrary. Trying to act like there’s zero evidence for the explanation I gave you so you can try to level the playing field and give it equal footing to your faith is incredibly dishonest. The wiki page for Geology of the Himalaya gives an excellent overview of the formation of the entire mountain range, complete with a laundry list of references at the bottom of the page.

The National geographic Society claims that the Mountain is being pushed up at about the rate of 1.6 to 3.9 inches per year. At the rate of 4 inches per year it would have taken well over 49,000 years to attain its present height. The problem is not the height it is today but the rate that it took to attain this height. The reason it is a problem is that the marine fossils could have had ample time to escape the sudden destruction at the 4 inches per year rate. This leaves two other possibilities and they are as follows. At the onset it up heaved at a tremendous rate and then settled gradually to the rate of today or it was the result of a flood which is recorded in both the Hebrew literature and outside literature.

You’re laboring under the misapprehension that the fossils found were of marine life that died during the upheaval. The rock that the Himalaya range is formed from was a seabed. The marine organisms died, some were fossilized, then the mountains were formed. It’s hardly the false duality that you’re trying to establish here where either they died during the upheaval or the Biblical flood must be true. Further, you do realize that not all natural processes proceed in a linear fashion, right?

So now, you are so brilliant and above reproach, suppose you tell us dummies the rate of upheaval and why the marine life was caught in such a destruction. Geologist admit that they theorize this phenomenon but apparently you also know more than the geologist know. If geologists are entitled to the theological process then why are not Christians entitled to the same? Or is it because you simply hate Christianity?

The difference between the scientific theory of plate tectonics, and the subsequent explanation for mountain formation, is hardly theological in nature. I know that you’ve at least seen an explanation for what constitutes a scientific theory, given that I’ve been one of the people that’s provided you with that information in other threads, so your attempt to once again drag science down to the level of faith by playing the “it’s only a theory” card is just sad to see on a forum whose motto is “Deny Ignorance”.

So as you can understand, it's not a simple matter of what you want it to be but also what it could have been. I did not accuse you in anger because I realize that you have a problem with your attitude towards others. Perhaps if you would cool your temper and rationalize other people's opinions you would also learn to not insult others. By the way I did not write that article but for your information I do theorize that the flood of Noah is the reason for the petrified marine life on Mt. Everest and many other places in the world.

Leave the internet psychology at the door. You tried to play the “we don’t know how this happened, God did it” in a case where we do know how it happened. I’d say that I’m sorry if my earlier post offended you, but it would be insincere. I stand by what I said in that post: you could have taken the time to do some research yourself and didn’t; instead, you were content with the answer you already had which was, ultimately, an argument from ignorance. You're basically trying to play the Bill O'Reilly "tides come in, tide go out, can't explain that" game with something that we can explain, you just didn't know the explanation.

reply to post by iterationzero

You’re laboring under the misapprehension that the fossils found were of marine life that died during the upheaval. The rock that the Himalaya range is formed from was a seabed. The marine organisms died, some were fossilized, then the mountains were formed. It’s hardly the false duality that you’re trying to establish here where either they died during the upheaval or the Biblical flood must be true. Further, you do realize that not all natural processes proceed in a linear fashion, right?

You avoided the entire question with your own opinions. The question that was asked was - can you answer at what rate Mt. Everest was raised into its present height? You cannot and neither can anyone else answer that question. I have never disputed the fact that it was not a sea bed. Mt. Everest was raised from seabed but the marine organisms which are found to be fossilized had to die after they were involved in the great upheaval and not before such as you claim.

in an article about Mt. Everest on earthobservatory.nasa.gov it says this: --
"When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains." (3) This explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over 45 million years? Even with reduced oxygen it still would inhibit fossilization. If Everest was raised slowly and its summit was at a few thousand feet for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years the sea creatures wouldn't have been fossilized and there are ammonite fossils at 12,000 feet above sea level. See Visual Evidences of Himalayan Formation at library.thinkquest.org. If these were fossilized several million years ago how did they survive landslides and glacier melting, which may have triggered a powerful flood or floods?

Fossilization also favors organisms living in certain environments. Two particular environmental conditions favor fossilization: rapid burial and anoxia (lack of oxygen). Rapid burial protects organic remains from predators or scavengers and physical reworking by tides and waves. Oxygen supports bacteria and decomposition of organic material. Burial in an oxygen-free (reducing) environment insulates organic material from decay and thus favors fossilization." (Geology, Vol. 1, edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press, 1999, p. 259)

This confirms exactly as I said from the onset. Be happy - Someday you will know --

reply to post by MrXYZ


Reading your opinions are very interesting. You do have some valid points to consider. After reading "Jewish Views of the Afterlife" by Smicha Paull Raphael, i was really surprised to see his stats of the number of Jewish people who practice their belief. Here is what he has written--

Afterlife Beliefs Among Catholics, Protestants, and Jews--

Percentage in 1952 --------------- Catholics 85 % yes ---- 4% no ---- 11% don't know
Protestants 80 % yes ---- 5% no ---- 15% don't know
Jews ---- 35% yes ---- 24% no ---- 41% don't know

Percentage in 1962 - --------------- Catholics 83% yes ---- 3% no ---- 14% don't know
Protestants 78% yes ---- 7% no ---- 15% don't know
Jews ------- 17% yes ---- 46% no ---- 37% don't know

That's all the stats I have but thought it was very interesting to note that the Jewish people were not as Godly as I thought they were. After reading several more articles on the matter I was led to believe that the Jewish holocaust was the reason for the disinterest in God. I don't know what the stats are today but wanted you to note that in one decade the decline in their culture beliefs.

Don't have the stats on America as it is today but I would not be surprised to learn that the majority feel the same as you feel. I'm not about to preach to anyone out there but being a Christian is very hard in America today. Something might have happened to sour you on Christianity and I hope that you don't hate those that practice Christianity. LOL

Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Reading your opinions are very interesting. You do have some valid points to consider. After reading "Jewish Views of the Afterlife" by Smicha Paull Raphael, i was really surprised to see his stats of the number of Jewish people who practice their belief. Here is what he has written--

Afterlife Beliefs Among Catholics, Protestants, and Jews--

Percentage in 1952 --------------- Catholics 85 % yes ---- 4% no ---- 11% don't know
Protestants 80 % yes ---- 5% no ---- 15% don't know
Jews ---- 35% yes ---- 24% no ---- 41% don't know

Percentage in 1962 - --------------- Catholics 83% yes ---- 3% no ---- 14% don't know
Protestants 78% yes ---- 7% no ---- 15% don't know
Jews ------- 17% yes ---- 46% no ---- 37% don't know

That's all the stats I have but thought it was very interesting to note that the Jewish people were not as Godly as I thought they were. After reading several more articles on the matter I was led to believe that the Jewish holocaust was the reason for the disinterest in God. I don't know what the stats are today but wanted you to note that in one decade the decline in their culture beliefs.

Don't have the stats on America as it is today but I would not be surprised to learn that the majority feel the same as you feel. I'm not about to preach to anyone out there but being a Christian is very hard in America today. Something might have happened to sour you on Christianity and I hope that you don't hate those that practice Christianity. LOL

Those stats don't even make sense. How could someone be a Christian (especially Catholic or Protestant), yet not believe in the after life. That's the main thing Christianity is about! Putting faith in Jesus to get into heaven. If a Christian votes no to that, then they aren't a Christian. Either way, surveys like this are very circumstantial and certainly don't reflect an entire culture's beliefs. Those changes aren't even that big.

reply to post by Seede


I'm not disbelieving *insert random religion* because of some trauma, I'm not believing in it because it lacks logic, rationality, and objective evidence. Even worse, many things are demonstrably wrong...like the claim that humans just popped up in their current form without evolution, or that silly global flood, or people surviving in whales. It's all ludacris, which is why I don't believe in it until someone presents objective evidence

reply to post by Seede

Now isn't that something? I don't know if these clams flew or crawled or what happened but there they are. Oh! Maybe it was a flood or a great upheaval of the ocean floor. Don't really know do we?

We do in fact know exactly how those shells got there. At one point, that soil was the ground of a sea, until plate tectonics pushed that ground upwards until the Himalayas were formed. It's basic geology, and happened in several places. You can find those sea shells in the alps too

As a believer of the Bible as the Word of God, I really have no problems with the similarities of the tablets and Bible. The Word of God solely focuses on the lineage of His chosen servants as they descend from Adam. The Bible tells us His plan to establish His Kingdom on Earth and who is in it. It is for those given to Jesus.

Having said that, we know in the Bible that there were many civilisations, corrupted and in defiance to God. There were the fallen ones who were worshipped as gods, who convinced many into heresies, lies and love of pleasure and who continually did evil. These civilisations God destroyed or crushed in order to pave the path for His chosen lineage. The flood came about because this evil had to be destroyed, or at the very least, knocked back in the entire region.

Why couldn't these tablets be from the other side of the coin? By all accounts then, it would explain the similarities. The differences would also stem from the two different viewpoints - the chosen of God and the ones not chosen. What's any different today? I know the truth of the Word of God, know that Jesus lived and died for my sins and that His Kingdom of God is coming. Somebody that has not been called to Faith in Jesus Christ just stares at me blankly and has a totally different perspective. I see creation everywhere I look, yet that person sees evolution.

Why wouldn't the same thing be applicable to the differences between the tablets and the Bible?
The tablets creation accounts were no doubt influenced by these fallen ones, after all, they set themselves up as gods from the heavens. Look around now, how many young people are once again convinced that our true origins lie in extraterrestrials? And why is that? Because somebody gave them evolution as fact, Stitchin books, UFOs and Sumerian tablets which suggest the same thing. I know that the same thing is happening all over again. To me, looking today, I can clearly hearken to Jesus's words that the last days will be like Noah's time....

The Stars!!!

Really!, the god mob never ever accept that they could be wrong about what they believe.

Blind leading the blind faithful!

There are an awful lot of blind folk (And I dont me those with defective eyes) on this planet and it wouldnt matter how many eyes or brain cells you gave them they would still be blind stupid!!

Try listening to Steven Hawkins. Now he might be seriuosly handicapped but blind he aint!!! And Im not talking about his eyes!!!!

Nevermind! "Carry on God Mob" should be a comedy movie.

I'm not disbelieving *insert random religion* because of some trauma, I'm not believing in it because it lacks logic, rationality, and objective evidence. Even worse, many things are demonstrably wrong...like the claim that humans just popped up in their current form without evolution, or that silly global flood, or people surviving in whales. It's all ludacris, which is why I don't believe in it until someone presents objective evidence

reply to post by MrXYZ


In my opinion you are right on. I think all people at some time in their lives say the same thing that you have just said. In fact it makes sense to not believe every thing you see or hear. The question which bugs me is this. If human's did not suddenly pop up, as you said, but evolved from something else then where did that something else come from?

The monkey people say we came from a monkey but where did the monkey come from that we came from? You see just how the other shoe just doesn't fit. Now a guy in a white coat and a bunch of beakers says that he can produce evidence and put a scientific name on all of what he does but then he is only working with the material which is already there. Where did the material that he is working with come from? He doesn't know where it came from but then says that --" Well about twenty five million years ago this and that happened." But that is where it gets tough because then he's just guessing just like the crazies who said God did it. Why would I believe that white coated guesser any more than the bible? Simply because he split a gene and then theorized what happened two hundred million years ago? To me, that really takes faith to believe that.

Now i'm not saying that scientists have not done good and marvelous things with the material at hand because they have, and they have brilliant minds, but we have to put a limit on this so called science when it spills over into theory. Facts are facts and theory is theory. The bible is a written record by various people. Some of the bible has been verified in other literature as well as archaeology and geology. Most of the bible is theology and some of it very difficult to believe.

A Christian will vary in belief. Some will believe only the Greek literature while others may believe the Hebrew literature. The same thing happens with the Jews. Then there are some who believe both Hebrew and Greek bibles and believe it or not there are some religious people who do not subscribe to either the Hebrew or the Greek bibles. It gets very hard to sort all of it out and keep a straight perspective. Most all of us differ in belief and most all of us are not well educated people. But to insist that all science is infallible and factual is dead wrong just the same as all religious people are infallible is dead wrong.

A doctor may diagnose a certain thing wrong with you and be completely wrong. He may prescribe a certain medication to that diagnoses only to find out later that the medication killed you or harmed you. Why is that? Well he depended upon the scientific field for the answer to your problem. That biology was wrong and was recalled six years later. Maybe five years after they bury you. Happens every day. Watch TV and see all the recalls by lawyers. How much happens that we are not even aware of? Does that mean that all medicine is flawed? No it does not but it does show that a fact yesterday could not be a fact today and if it is not the claimed fact today then just how could it have been a fact from the start?

Getting back to the God thing. God is strictly a theology just the same as your two hundred million years is a theory but for the sake of argument I will accept your two hundred million years and add fourteen billion years to that. Some scientists claim the universe is fifteen billion years old. My question is this -- Where did the whole shabang come from fifteen billion years ago? From the big bang? Where did the big bang come from? Now I ask you one simple question with out name calling or denigrating anyone out there-- Why all the hatred towards people who believe differently than others? I accept the fact that biology split the gene and presented a hypothesis but there it ends because from that point to this point it becomes theory. To say otherwise is foolish and disingenuous.

Try listening to Steven Hawkins. Now he might be seriuosly handicapped but blind he aint!!! And Im not talking about his eyes!!!! Nevermind! "Carry on God Mob" should be a comedy movie.

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


I am led to assume that you have studied Mr. Hawkins literature and understand it? I don't think so. Mr. Hawkins specializes in theory and through this theory he then tries to prove it mathematically. He does have a great mind in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics but in most part is a thinker and theologist. He also has assistants in his work that contribute most of what he is credited.

What has he contributed to have such fame? The most noted is that he theorizes that the universe created itself. The universe needs no god to create anything because the universe is its own god. Of course it is not proven by any means but there you have some of Mr. Hawkins brilliant work. He hates the god mob just like you do but after all he is entitled to that theory because he is a scientist and being a scientist he cannot be wrong.

Now I find it very amusing that people like yourself can admire a Hawkins theory of god but cannot tolerate a Christian's theory of God. A little hatred there don't you think? Something like "I hope you drop dead" sort of mentality. I could more easily believe in a celestial entity being a creator than I could inanimate objects creating themselves out of themselves. Of course Hawkins cannot tell you how this inanimate cosmology started in the first place because he's still thinking on that one. But there you have it. Your and Hawkin's little gods floating up there in the dark matter of space. LOL

Originally posted by Seede

Try listening to Steven Hawkins. Now he might be seriuosly handicapped but blind he aint!!! And Im not talking about his eyes!!!! Nevermind! "Carry on God Mob" should be a comedy movie.

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

I am led to assume that you have studied Mr. Hawkins literature and understand it? I don't think so. Mr. Hawkins specializes in theory and through this theory he then tries to prove it mathematically. He does have a great mind in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics but in most part is a thinker and theologist. He also has assistants in his work that contribute most of what he is credited.

What has he contributed to have such fame? The most noted is that he theorizes that the universe created itself. The universe needs no god to create anything because the universe is its own god. Of course it is not proven by any means but there you have some of Mr. Hawkins brilliant work. He hates the god mob just like you do but after all he is entitled to that theory because he is a scientist and being a scientist he cannot be wrong.

Now I find it very amusing that people like yourself can admire a Hawkins theory of god but cannot tolerate a Christian's theory of God. A little hatred there don't you think? Something like "I hope you drop dead" sort of mentality. I could more easily believe in a celestial entity being a creator than I could inanimate objects creating themselves out of themselves. Of course Hawkins cannot tell you how this inanimate cosmology started in the first place because he's still thinking on that one. But there you have it. Your and Hawkin's little gods floating up there in the dark matter of space. LOL

He also explain why God doesnt exist and cannot exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of story blind fellow!

However, you could never be wrong could you? THATS WHY YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He also explain why God doesnt exist and cannot exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! End of story blind fellow! However, you could never be wrong could you? THATS WHY YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


Nothing I have said in this matter can be said by you or anyone as to not being true. I readily admit that all who say they are Christ followers are not Christ followers. Just because they are grouped into the category of Christianity does not make them Christ followers but also a true Christian will not condemn their fellow men with names without a cause.

If you are an atheist then that is your prerogative to believe any thing that you want to believe. Just as Hawkins has the same right to worship his inanimate gods, but to say that you and your elk have the right to try to silence others simply because your culture is somehow more blessed with super intelligence is absolute nonsense. Your entire life hinges on the unknown just as everyone's daily walk is by faith. You have no more insight in life upon this planet or even an after life than does any other man.

You continue to ridicule others with them being blind for being a Christian and yet you have not said one word in what the blind should realize. All you have ever touted was that Hawkins has the answers to our fate and yet even Hawkins himself is nothing but another human with a theology. Nothing more. His gods are his cosmology and that my friend is nothing more than his own opinion. So all other religious denominations should abandon their own theologies and follow this brilliant theologist named Hawkins. That is your spiel and I assume that it is also your theology as you have not stated any thing factual yet.

Yes I could be wrong and a true Christ follower realizes that he or she could be wrong. That is why we call it theology but we also tolerate those that do not agree with us instead of demanding a mandate that they observe our theology. Are we just as afraid as non Christ followers are also afraid? Yes we are just as afraid of the unknown as anyone else and we are also just as brave. Are we bigots? Some are but a true Christian will try not to be a bigot. Are we somehow better than our fellow humans? Not one bit better by any means. Can you and your elk say the same? I haven't heard it yet.