Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
walnutcowboy

Bible On The History Channel.

Recommended Posts

Earlier Paul was mentioned.

 

Personally I cannot take Pauls letter that seriously, because he keeps changing his mind all the time.

 

i mean in one letter he says one thing, then in the next letter he says something completely opposite.

 

And sometimes he changes his mind inside the same letter...

 

Confusing...

 

Yeah I've been reading something about Paul preaching to the Athenians about their Greek philosophers and that somehow he shouldn't have done that. Honestly I don't even know what was all the fuss about and why Paul made a mistake. (confusing :icon_confused: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm curious about where Paul changes his mind and/or makes mistakes.

Could you let me know where you find these things?

 

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW, THROUGH EVOLUTION, A CATERPILLAR CAN CHANGE INTO A BUTTERFLY !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "Lucy" know?

 It took me awhile to get your point.

But I love it !!

 

WC S.O.A.P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walnut cowboy you will never learn because you don't want to see the truth. There is no evidence of God, but there is evidence in all the examples viddy9 presents. As Professor Hawking said, god is a creation of man because of his innate fear of the darkness. Fact is that waht you believe is just that, an unproven belief. Scientific facts are are real and proven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walnut cowboy you will never learn because you don't want to see the truth. There is no evidence of God, but there is evidence in all the examples viddy9 presents. As Professor Hawking said, god is a creation of man because of his innate fear of the darkness. Fact is that waht you believe is just that, an unproven belief. Scientific facts are are real and proven. 

 

And has Professor Hawking proven that God does NOT exist?   Has any scientist proven that God does NOT exist?

 

Newton discovered gravity, he didn't create it?  Where did it come from?  Doesn't the possibility exist that God created all the ingredients that make up what scientists use to define gravity? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @ CARLOS,

 I TRY not to attack people that have different views then me, the way you've just attacked me !

HOW DARE YOU tell me I will never learn to see YOUR "truth"!!

Do you think I was born a CHRISTian?

You have NO IDEA what my personal history is !

You have NO IDEA what I've learned in my life !

You have NO IDEA how or why I FINALLY accepted JESUS as my PERSONAL SAVIOR !

 

 Lets look at some "scientific facts", Shall we?

"Scientists" once said there was such a thing as spontaneous regeneration (which is FALSE) !   

"Scientists" once said there was no such thing as germs (which is FALSE)!

"Scientists" once said the smallest piece of matter was the atom (which is false) !

"Scientific facts" are ONLY "scientific facts" until DIFFERENT "scientific facts" PROVE that the first "scientific facts" are wrong (which is TRUE) !!

 

 FYI: Believing in an UNPROVEN BELIEF is called FAITH.

Your UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH) is that there is no GOD to create ANYTHING.

My UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH)  is that there is a GOD that created EVERYTHING.

Neither UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH) can be "PROVEN" as there is no one is around now, that was there in the beginning to START the experiment.

As I'm sure you know, NO one can start ANY type of "cause and effect" experiment WITHOUT being there before the cause has been started.

 

 CARLOS, if you believe in science so much.....

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME, scientifically, how by evolution a Caterpillar turns into a Butterfly ?!?

 

 PS And as far as your comment about Professor Hawkings goes, just because he is a genius doesn't mean he is always right.

 

 PPS If I were to go by your non-belief in GOD, than nothing is going to happen to me when I die, right?

I get put in a box, worms eat my brains, no big deal, right?

So with your way of thinking, I would lose NOTHING with having a belief in GOD, right?

 

BUT if I'm right,...well......

 It's your ETERNAL SOUL at stake, not mine !! 

 

   HAVE A NICE DAY,

       Mike

Edited by walnutcowboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @ CARLOS,

 I TRY not to attack people that have different views then me, the way you've just attacked me !

HOW DARE YOU tell me I will never learn to see YOUR "truth"!!

Do you think I was born a CHRISTian?

You have NO IDEA what my personal history is !

You have NO IDEA what I've learned in my life !

You have NO IDEA how or why I FINALLY accepted JESUS as my PERSONAL SAVIOR !

 

 FYI: Believing in an UNPROVEN BELIEF is called FAITH.

Your UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH) is that there is no GOD to create ANYTHING.

My UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH)  is that there is a GOD that created EVERYTHING.

Neither UNPROVEN BELIEF (FAITH) can be "PROVEN" as there is no one is around now, that was there in the beginning to START the experiment.

As I'm sure you know, NO one can start ANY type of "cause and effect" experiment WITHOUT being there before the cause has been started.

 

 

 PS And as far as your comment about Professor Hawkings goes, just because he is a genius doesn't mean he is always right.

 

 

   HAVE A NICE DAY,

       Mike

 

Well he isn't always right...Stephen H. who for more than 30years researched in the black holes. He went against the theories of many scientists to find out in the end he was wrong and admitted it. He claimed time and time again that black holes did disappear somehow... But he was wrong with his theory... In fact they don't.  Certainly if he states that God doesn't exist doesn't make me feel better. If God is dead I don't feel too well either.

 

P.s. Walnut... you are a sort of scapegoat to me. :) Why you must prove your FAITH to anyone confronting you... I wonder.  I never prove any of mine to anyone, well almost so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walnut cowboy you will never learn because you don't want to see the truth. There is no evidence of God, but there is evidence in all the examples viddy9 presents. As Professor Hawking said, god is a creation of man because of his innate fear of the darkness. Fact is that waht you believe is just that, an unproven belief. Scientific facts are are real and proven. 

 

Carlos you will never learn because you can't see the truth, you are blind to the truth. You are so convinced by false science to a level of arrogance.  

 

The God that you don't believe in has spoken of you....

 

Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

 

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God"....

 

You will at the return of Christ bend your knee and see your folly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier Paul was mentioned.

 

Personally I cannot take Pauls letter that seriously, because he keeps changing his mind all the time.

 

i mean in one letter he says one thing, then in the next letter he says something completely opposite.

 

And sometimes he changes his mind inside the same letter...

 

Confusing...

 

What is confusing is you is your appalling lack of biblical understanding, which you has shown time and time again in your uninformed posts.

 

Please provide a refference and example to back up you claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Walnut. Okay, I don't know why you're going on about caterpillars and butterflies. The transformation is called metamorphosis:

 

"First, the caterpillar digests itself, releasing enzymes to dissolve all of its tissues. If you were to cut open a cocoon or chrysalis at just the right time, caterpillar soup would ooze out. But the contents of the pupa are not entirely an amorphous mess. Certain highly organized groups of cells known as imaginal discs survive the digestive process. Before hatching, when a caterpillar is still developing inside its egg, it grows an imaginal disc for each of the adult body parts it will need as a mature butterfly or moth—discs for its eyes, for its wings, its legs and so on. In some species, these imaginal discs remain dormant throughout the caterpillar's life; in other species, the discs begin to take the shape of adult body parts even before the caterpillar forms a chrysalis or cocoon. Some caterpillars walk around with tiny rudimentary wings tucked inside their bodies, though you would never know it by looking at them.

Once a caterpillar has disintegrated all of its tissues except for the imaginal discs, those discs use the protein-rich soup all around them to fuel the rapid cell division required to form the wings, antennae, legs, eyes, genitals and all the other features of an adult butterfly or moth. The imaginal disc for a fruit fly's wing, for example, might begin with only 50 cells and increase to more than 50,000 cells by the end of metamorphosis. Depending on the species, certain caterpillar muscles and sections of the nervous system are largely preserved in the adult butterfly. One study even suggests that moths remember what they learned in later stages of their lives as caterpillars."

 

I don't know why you're asking for an evolutionary explanation of the caterpillar and the butterfly though - evolution is the gradual change in the species over a long period of time.

 

The horse example that I gave you is a perfect example of how species come from other species. The earlier fossils were not "horses", and the tree extends beyond eophippus, but one has to start somewhere, don't they? So, your objections fails on all accounts.

 

There's often no such thing as a scientific fact, but science is the best tool that we have to explain reality. It gives us a model to work from, and many of these models have been highly successful - examples include quantum mechanics as well as general relativity. Of course science changes, it doesn't arrogantly and obstinately hold to dogma no matter what. Evolution by itself has been observed, which is why biologists regard it as a fact. You seem to want to see a horse suddenly change into a fish, as many creationists do. But, I'm afraid evolution is gradual, so you can't observe these massive changes. Moreover, you wouldn't even notice it, in the same way you don't really notice how relatives age. However, like detectives at a crime scene, we can look at the evidence later on, and from this evidence, we can see that evolution by natural selection is a fact. My examples still hold.

 

Indeed, it is the evidence that one should base their beliefs on, not faith. If there is no evidence for something, one shouldn't believe it, or they should at least withhold judgement. Faith is the most overrated of all the virtues.

 

@Kasey - of course Professor Hawking hasn't disproved god - the notion of a god is unfalsifiable. Professor Hawking couldn't disprove a miniscule flying teapot orbiting the sun either, nor could he disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This links to WalnutCowboy's post too: the atheist position, at least for the majority of atheists, is that there is no good reason to believe in god. Yes, the theistic position is unproven, but that's precisely why there are atheists. You call atheism an "unproven" belief. Well, so is the lack of belief in a tooth fairy, but I assume we're all a-toothfairyists. After all, the tooth fairy could be controlling our parents' minds to put (in my country, a pound coin) under our pillows. Anything that's unfalsifiable, whether it's gods, ghosts, fairies or flying teapots, should be treated with suspicion.

 

@Catweazle - of course the people who wrote the Bible are going to put those kinds of verses in - it's a control tool. It's also why they put hell in - they needed to maintain control of the people so they invented a place which quite accurately describes a place where humans wouldn't like to go. Indeed, all of the Holy Texts are so obviously man-made - they contain a god who is referred to as 'Him'; they contain a god who takes sides in petty disputes and wars; they contain a god who punishes people unjustly and eternally, and of course they contain a god who, in the form of Jesus, orders people to leave their families to follow him, as the little sect that was Christianity needed followers at first.

 

EDIT: I also noticed another point raised by you Kasey - where did all this material come from in the universe?

 

Well, there is a plausible theory, or should I call it hypothesis for now, even though it has some evidence behind it, which demonstrates that the universe could have come from nothing. Basically, due to the laws of quantum mechanics, particles can pop in and out of existence. These are called virtual particles, and have been observed for example in the Casimir Effect. We've also realised that the total energy of the universe is zero, because we're in a flat universe. Due to the energy-mass equivalency, this means that the universe weighs nothing. This is because the positive energy in the universe is balanced out by the negative graviational energy, which is repulsive. Because, at the instant of the Big Bang, the universe would have been incredibly small, this is the perfect time for the laws of quantum mechanics to come into effect. Because there's essentially zero energy in the universe, the universe could have popped into existence out of nothing. This is part of Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal, and successful models have been posited by Professor Lawrence Krauss. Some evidence for Hawking's model came from the telescopes in the 90s and WMAP also gives evidence for this Krauss/Hawking proposal. So, the universe could have come from nothing, without any god involved, but obviously we need to wait for more evidence.

 

For more on this, read Professor Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" and Hawking's 2010 book "The Grand Design", where he tries to incorporate m-theory into this.

 

You're still left with the question: 'where did the laws of physics come from'. Well, the laws are just human constructs designed to explain reality, so it's like asking "why does 2+2 = 4?". For more on that, go here:

 

http://vidurkapur.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/god-nothing-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

 

Do I believe in this hypothesis yet? Not really, I'm withholding judgement until more evidence becomes available, but at least it has more evidence than the God Hypothesis. If science gets something wrong, it doesn't mean that religion has got anything whatsoever right.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@viddy9   So all I'm saying is that the existence of God has not been disproven.  And while there are scientific explanations, I chose to believe that God is the one who created science.  If that makes me simple, a fool, controlled or whatever by God and His Son Jesus - well praise God, I am....

 

 

Oh yeah and how this turned from a discussion of a TV miniseries to this is truly mindboggling...

Edited by Kasey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@viddy9   So all I'm saying is that the existence of God has not been disproven.  And while there are scientific explanations, I chose to believe that God is the one who created science.  If that makes me simple, a fool, controlled or whatever by God and His Son Jesus - well praise God, I am....

 

 

Oh yeah and how this turned from a discussion of a TV miniseries to this is truly mindboggling...

 

On your last point, I agree. On your first point, it seems almost deistic, but okay. (Except that fairies haven't been disproven either)

 

Concerning the TV miniseries, I didn't see it - all I know was that people said that Satan looked like Obama and then Obama made a joke out of it in the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On your last point, I agree. On your first point, it seems almost deistic, but okay. (Except that fairies haven't been disproven either)

 

 

I'm so glad that we can agree on something.  And a lot of things have not been disproven or proven so ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 To all of you with opposing views,

Perhaps I need to explain my point differently !

As I can't seem to get my point across.

 

VIDDY9 has explained VERY WELL that "evolution is the GRADUAL change in the species over a LONG period of time." 

VIDDY9 also explained VERY WELL the term metamorphosis, in which a "caterpillar digests itself" and "turns into caterpillar soup" than "grows an imaginal disk for each of the adult body parts".

 

 The term metamorphosis seems to me to slap the term evolution in the face.

Metamorphosis is an almost instant change "in the species".

 

 What you seem to be telling me is that, once upon a time, a caterpillar, one day out of the blue, decided (by metamorphosis) to "digest itself" and turn itself into "caterpillar soup".

In the soup it ALREADY had "imaginal discs" in it's DNA makeup " for EACH of the adult body parts".

 WHERE did that bit of DNA magically come from?

The DNA makeup had to be PERFECT the first time or it wouldn't be anything BUT "soup".

 Lets pretend that the caterpillar magically became a butterfly.

It would need another butterfly (to be around AT THE SAME TIME) to mate with, to be able to reproduce, right? *

 

   Or perhaps you are trying to tell me that through evolution, there was a little thing called (here it comes) "trial and error".

BUT unless the chemicals (think imaginal discs) were PERFECT, nothing would be produced thru each "error".

Lets pretend again that the goo was "just right" and the caterpillar (again) magically became a butterfly.

It would (STILL) need another butterfly (TO BE AROUND AT THE SAME TIME) to  mate with, to be able to reproduce, right? *

 

 * WOW, I just thought of something, it takes TWO of the same species to reproduce (AMAZING) !!

 

 The reason I keep harping on this is, I find it IMPOSSIBLE (through evolution) to have a caterpillar (through metamorphosis) become a butterfly !

 

AT NO POINT HAVE ANY OF YOU EXPLAINED HOW THE FIRST CATERPILLAR (digesting itself, turning into caterpillar soup) BECAME THE FIRST BUTTERFLY (WITHOUT THERE BEING A CREATOR)!!

 

 Nothing I can think of, can change from one thing to another thing WITHOUT some kind of outside force.

 

PS @ VIDDY9, After rereading your post # 186, you state that GOD can not be proved nor disproved.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT !!

 I see NO REASON to continue to argue the point any further, since none of us are likely to change our minds in this forum. 

 One thread on the subject of GOD has already been locked by TRIPPER, due to people getting too personal!

THIS thread was/is SUPPOSE to be about The BIBLE on the History Channel anyway.

 I'm all for letting this thread die (as it should have when the mini series was over).

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Walnut Cowboy: I don't want you to consider what I said a personal attack, as that wasn't my intention. If I offended you in any way I apologize. However I do think that you don't want to see or hear any opinion different to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 CARLOS,

 If you reread your post # 180, I think you may agree was it seems that you were attacking me personally.

But I've never been one to hold a grudge, so apologize accepted.

 

 BUT as far as me NOT wanting to "see or hear any opinion different than" mine, I suggest that you go back and read this thread from the start, and/or the now "LOCKED" thread ARGUE (a thread I also started) from the beginning, you'll see I listen VERY CLOSELY to others point of view. 

 I also TRY to take others opinions, point by point, and than explain my point of view, point by point.

BUT arguing is NOT something I have EVER enjoyed !!

 

I'm about to (briefly) tell you about part of my past, just so you can see we have not always been so different.

 

 Once upon a time, I was on your side of the fence as far as GOD was concerned.

You wouldn't believe how far away I was from GOD.

The people I hung around with at that time wouldn't believe how close I have gotten to GOD since then.

 After YEARS of studying MANY other "theories", I became convinced that the only true way to go, was to accept JESUS as my PERSONAL SAVIOR. 

So I did !

 EVERYONE is given (think "has") FREE WILL (whether you believe in GOD or not).

With my  FREE WILL, I've chosen GOD, your FREE WILL, has not.

But I see no reason why we need to argue the point, and why we can't be friends on the Threads. 

 

 OBTW, The reason I keep "BUGGING" (get it?) about the Caterpillar to a Butterfly is because I, MYSELF could never give a good reason on how SCIENTIFICALLY METAMORPHOSIS could ever occur originally (think the FIRST time) in nature, BY ITS SELF  !

 And no one here has successfully done it either.

 

     Hopefully, Your Future Friend,

         Mike

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 (Except that fairies haven't been disproven either)

 

 

There are not billions of people around the earth worshipping fairies. There are not milions of churches, temples and Mosques dedicated to fairies. There are no wars fought in the name of fairies.

 

Do try to find a sensible comparison. If you can!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not billions of people around the earth worshipping fairies. There are not milions of churches, temples and Mosques dedicated to fairies. There are no wars fought in the name of fairies.

 

Do try to find a sensible comparison. If you can!

 

Do try not to use a logical fallacy. If you can! Millenia ago, everyone thought that we lived on a flat earth. Anybody who was taking the contrarian position in those days would likewise have been put down. Just because people aren't worshipping fairies, the fact remains that fairies cannot be disproven, and nor can the gods, whether it's Zeus, Thor, Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh or Odin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why Fairies are loved: NO WARS...NO CHURCHES...NO TEMPLES...NO MOSQUES... :)

 

As in the case of fairies, there are no wars.. no churches... no temples... no mosques for gremlins, leprechans and pixes because they don't exist outside of imagination.

 

In the case of God's existence, wars... churches... temples... mosques are a testament to something more than imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do try not to use a logical fallacy. If you can! Millenia ago, everyone thought that we lived on a flat earth. Anybody who was taking the contrarian position in those days would likewise have been put down. Just because people aren't worshipping fairies, the fact remains that fairies cannot be disproven, and nor can the gods, whether it's Zeus, Thor, Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh or Odin.

 

If you actually knew anything about God's word you woud not have made that false statement that millenia ago, everyone once believed the earth was flat. False.

 

Millenia ago the Bible recorded that the earth is not flat....

 

Isaiah 40.22 It is He that sits obove the circle of the earth.....

 

And before you come back crowing that the earth is not a circle but a sphere, ask yourself this question. "What do you see when you look at the moon". That's right.... a circle!

 

Here is a bonus for you. Milenia ago God made it known that the earth was not held up on the backs of elephants, nor on the shoulder of Atlas.

 

Job 26:7 He speads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actually knew anything about God's word you woud not have made that false statement that millenia ago, everyone once believed the earth was flat. False.

 

Millenia ago the Bible recorded that the earth is not flat....

 

Isaiah 40.22 It is He that sits obove the circle of the earth.....

 

And before you come back crowing that the earth is not a circle but a sphere, ask yourself this question. "What do you see when you look at the moon". That's right.... a circle!

 

Here is a bonus for you. Milenia ago God made it known that the earth was not held up on the backs of elephants, nor on the shoulder of Atlas.

 

Job 26:7 He speads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

 

That wasn't my point, nor was I trying to imply anything about the Bible (although I could conjure up a number of Biblical contradictions, false claims and failed prophecies if you like; in fact, it'd be more on topic!). I was pointing out that you used a logical fallacy, namely the argument from consensus. 

 

If you like, I shall use another analogy. Centuries ago, people used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun orbited the Earth. Anybody who disagreed would have been arrested for heresy by the religious authorities, because it contradicted the solipsistic, anthropocentric and hubristic religious view that humans were the centre of a divine plan. Just because there were a large numbers of people who believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun orbited the Earth, doesn't mean they were correct.

 

Similarly, just because there are more people who believe in gods than fairies, it doesn't mean that the chance that a god exists is any higher than the chance that a fairy exists. They're both unfalsifiable claims , thus we should, as the falsification principle tells us to do, dismiss them and forget about them. 

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Viddy9,

 Let me start by saying you seem to be very bright person.

You seen to be very well read.

But I don't know what type of background you've had.

 As for me, I spent MORE than 15 years searching for what I believe is the "WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE"..

During that time I probably read some of the same books you have been reading !

MANY gave examples of "BIBLICAL contractions, false claims,and failed prophecies".

 However, as I READ (and compared it with those other books) the BIBLE (in context), and UNDERSTOOD what had been written, I found that it was those other books that were filled with "contractions, false claims" and out and out lies.

 I have found no "BIBLICAL contractions, false claims or failed prophecies" (when read and UNDERSTOOD) ANYWHERE in the BIBLE !

 

 I am beginning to understand that nothing I can say will sway your mindset, but understand this too, that I was ONCE, MUCH like you ! 

 

Perhaps you are SAUL to my PAUL !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might not be directly on point but I feel like sharing.

 

About 35 years ago (maybe longer) my best friend and I were talking about Jesus on the phone.  We had both gone to Catholic schools (me for 12, she for 8).  She was denying everything to do with Jesus.  I was countering her argument.  All of a sudden the line went dead.  Thought nothing of it, called her back and we continued again with her denying Jesus.

 

The line went dead again.  Called each other back and though she thought it was weird, she continued her disbelief in all things Jesus.

 

The ling went dead again.  When she called back she was a bit more inclined to accept the existence of Jesus.

 

Make a long story short, she brought me to a church 8 or so years later where she had accepted Jesus as her Lord and Savior.  After one visit, so did I...

Edited by Kasey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.