USA . . . war on the horrizon? The Sequel (Golden Rainbow)

Galvanization Of Diminutiveness
G O D

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

First off, every time I have argued/learned things from a scientist, I have yet to walk away being completely convinced that life "just happened." I also remain unconvinced that everything could have fallen into place to create even just 1 place in the entire cosmos, to have the absolute perfect conditions for abundant life. (Note here: I have used the word "ABUNDANT." That does not include a planet with a few extremophiles scattered around its surface. I mean REAL abundant life...fish, trees, dinosaurs, insects...those sorts of things.) Even with the trillions and trillions and trillions of stars in the entire cosmos, the chances of having a breatheable atmosphere, the perfect amount of solar radiation, with a magnetosphere to protect the planet from periodic solar flares, coupled with a thick ozone layer to further protect the planet. The planet being in the perfect "habitable" zone in its orbit around its star. A stable rotation, with the perfect-sized moon, to keep the planet that stabilized on its axis. UUMM...the right chemicals coming together...proteins, amino acids, and RNA, and whatever else was required....I mean the list just goes on and on and on about the ABSOLUTE PERFECT conditions on our planet to have life, literally, BURSTING out in every square inch of this planet. So science is hardly capable of explaining all of this...at least at the current level of research we have.<!-/Quote-!>

You kinda answer your own question here.

The chances of a planet being perfect for life to form are, as you say, trillions to one. But then, it only has to happen once, on one planet orbiting trillions upon trillions upon trillions stars, at only one instance over the past 15 billion years of the Universe's existance. So it is not really all that unlikely.

Also, life is a resilliant thing. Just look around at nature. Life exists in places that defy belief. At the bottom of vast oceans, so deep the sun has never touched them. Places unimaginably cold, environments so hot that lead would melt. Almost everywhere on earth, there is life. And although Earth may seem well suited to life, you will actually find that it is life that is well suited to Earth. The environs of our world are varied and innumerable. And yet, life exists in them all. Life doesn't need perfect conditions to form, only a range of factors which turn out to be quite wide in scope, moving from extreme to extreme. Indeed, the Earth on which life formed was far more hostile to life than the one we live on today.

When life formed, earth had a toxic atmosphere of methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide, along with water vapour. None of the surface-dwelling life of today could survive, except maybe the most hardy of microscopic flora and fauna. No ozone to protect life from harmful radiation - indeed this only becomes possible once you have free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Life is most likely to have formed around the volcanic trenches at the bottom of the oceans, where the water would protect it from harmful radiation. Of course, life adapts. It evolves to suit new environments as it attempts to expand into them. The survival of the most fit, or rather the death of the least fit, producing creatures which can flourish where life may once have perished.

Life takes advantage of natural resources, it exploits energy stores. It uses what it can to it's advantage, over the long term. Eventually, this gives rise to creatures which can "break down" the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and extract the carbon, giving rise to free oxygen. It makes it's way into the atmosphere, reacting to produce O2 and O3, creating the Ozone and what we would consider a breathable atmosphere.

Eventually, life evolves to exploit this new resource too, and now finds itself able to survive on land - no longer bombarded as heavily with harmful radiation.

This adaption and exploitation of environments never ends, and we still see it today.

Life does not need "perfect" conditions. All it needs are the basics for chemical reactions. As you say, the chances of it forming on any one planet are trillions to one. But taking the universe as a whole, over it's entire history, it becomes a near certainty - and we are the proof. When there are trillions and trillions and trillions of stars out there, each with the potential of a planet to be the cradle of life, the odds of a trillion to one event occuring are multiplied by that trillion, trillion, trillion. And, it only has to happen the once for life to exist. It seems absurd to believe that it could never happen naturally. And it's also somewhat conceited to believe that the earth is a special case.

As for science not being able to explain it all... Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I would suggest reading a book called The God Delusion, by the biologist Richard Dawkins. Not so much for his arguments against religion, but for his succinct explanation about all of what I have mentioned above. He does it far more clearly than I ever could, and dispells this myth that it is "impossible" for life to have formed naturally. All it requires is a little bit of lateral thinking.

hhhmmmm, I think I'll look around for that particular book you mentioned at my local bookstore. Sounds interesting.

"Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That quote is a double-edged sword ya know. That fits perfectly for my case in the existence of God. I would be a little more careful about how you would use that.

I like nix's definition of "God." He (she?) does not really have any exact definition of God. The way that I take it he means in his posts, is that God is undefinable. God is just...well...God...And that He is everywhere, and nowhere. From the least, to the greatest.

Also, I do not mean to say that there is NOT any other planet, or body out in space that does not support a lot of life. For all I know, most stars could be harboring life somewhere in their systems. Hell, there could be very intelligent beings, like us, who breathe methane, and oxygen would be toxic to them.

Unfortunately, the only evidence we have for the types of environments that life CAN evolve in, and flourish, is right here on our little round ball. The only rational conclusion we can come up with, about where and how life can evolve, is by looking at all the conditions of our planet. Not only the SURFACE conditions, but the SPACIAL conditions as well. Out of a solar system that is, for the most part, dead, this is the only place to harbor such extreme amounts of life. So, we look at its position in the system. The types of planets around ours (A gas giants acting as a huge sweeper, sucking up all the potentially earth-shattering asteroids, for example.) Without an asteroid belt, the inner, rocky planets would not have even formed to begin with. Comets full of water-ice bombarding the planet in its infancy, delivering water to the surface. The volcanic activity at the bottom of the oceans to provide a heat/energy source for life to even begin, in the deep oceans, which protects that life from deadly radiation in the early years. The life that forms, happens to spew off oxygen, creating a thicker, very protective atmosphere....

Sorry, I'm making that same damn argument all over again. My point is that, it all seems so purposely done. Perhaps a little TOO purposefully.

Even with trillions, upon trillions time tens of billions, of chances...Those number are SOOO far out of my mind...in fact, not even the most genius of hums could EVER imagine such a number...actually, not even the most intelligent genius can imagine much beyond the number 10. Beyond 10, the human brain actually can no longer comprehend what, exactly, that means. So trillions times trillions times trillions is absolutely meaningless. Even the CHANCES of life happening, that I have been arguing about, is pretty damn meaningless. Hell, for all we know, we are just stuck in a tiny little glowy-ball around some dogs neck, like in the movie MIB...

Well, anyway, we can sit here and argue day and night about whether or not God exists, but I do not believe that I would convince you of my point of view, and you could not convince me of yours. The only other option, is to just respect a different point of view...that is all. Now, if only the rest of the world could be convinced of that last thought....


But yeah, anyway, I have read an equal amount of books, and essays saying how God does not exist, as I have read books and essays on why God HAS to exist. Both arguments are very compelling, and very much valid, I just am not convinced that there is no God. I probably never will be either, no matter WHAT scientific discoveries are made in the future.

Should have kept it at the last thought

We make the world go around.
We might also be the cause of the world not going around for as long as it should have done.
With all the burning of the sub fuel's that the world(Earth) will need to keep her furnace's burning strong enough to create enough positive energy to compensate for her negative energy's(The rock) attraction towards the sun's thurst for negative energy to keep it's furnace burning. Opposite's attract.
We need to stop burning the sub fuel's.
The war on the horrizon for the US and the whole of world's population is........ To Desireless.
WHAT NO POLE

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

"Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That quote is a double-edged sword ya know. That fits perfectly for my case in the existence of God. I would be a little more careful about how you would use that.
<!-/Quote-!>

Far from it, actually. Add in Occam's Razor, and you will find that there is no way that this argument can fit for God. The simple truth is that using a God as an answer to any question raises far more questions than it answers, which makes any God inherently untenable as an answer to the grand question of "Why?"

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Unfortunately, the only evidence we have for the types of environments that life CAN evolve in, and flourish, is right here on our little round ball. The only rational conclusion we can come up with, about where and how life can evolve, is by looking at all the conditions of our planet. Not only the SURFACE conditions, but the SPACIAL conditions as well. Out of a solar system that is, for the most part, dead, this is the only place to harbor such extreme amounts of life. So, we look at its position in the system. The types of planets around ours (A gas giants acting as a huge sweeper, sucking up all the potentially earth-shattering asteroids, for example.) Without an asteroid belt, the inner, rocky planets would not have even formed to begin with. Comets full of water-ice bombarding the planet in its infancy, delivering water to the surface. The volcanic activity at the bottom of the oceans to provide a heat/energy source for life to even begin, in the deep oceans, which protects that life from deadly radiation in the early years. The life that forms, happens to spew off oxygen, creating a thicker, very protective atmosphere.... <!-/Quote-!>

You've made a couple of mistakes here. What evidence is there that all locations outside of our solar system are dead? Every star out there has a zone around it in which an earth-like planet could form and comfortably sustain life as we know it. Some have even been observed, and analysis shows great promise in their atmospheres for the potential of life. So it is hardly safe to argue that all but the Sol are dead.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Without an asteroid belt, the inner, rocky planets would not have even formed to begin with<!-/Quote-!>

This statement is false. You see, the evidence strongly indicates that all planest - rock and gas alike - form within what is essentially a system-wide asteroid field, colliding with eachother and forming progressively larger and larger bodies in space, which then attract even more of the rocky debris... Until we're left with the solar-system of today (which is still strewn with rocks and debris throughout). The asteroid belt is the result of a failed planet - indeed, Kepler's laws predict the existance of a planet where the asteroid belt is. But the tidal forces of the sun and Jupiter prevented it from forming.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Comets full of water-ice bombarding the planet in its infancy, delivering water to the surface.<!-/Quote-!>

It is more likely that the water came from within, and was emitted into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. Comets as we see them do not exist in any great number in the inner solarsytem. Indeed, they mostly exist in the Kuiper Belt, and are only occasionally knocked out of orbit by collission or a passing star. The comets which DO enter the inner solarsystem tend to be those on large, stable orbits around the sun. It also leaves the question of why the other planets weren't simmilarly bombarded with ice and water. Indeed, chemical composition provides a far greater insight into the formation of the early planets.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

. The volcanic activity at the bottom of the oceans to provide a heat/energy source for life to even begin, in the deep oceans, which protects that life from deadly radiation in the early years. The life that forms, happens to spew off oxygen, creating a thicker, very protective atmosphere....

Sorry, I'm making that same damn argument all over again. My point is that, it all seems so purposely done. Perhaps a little TOO purposefully. <!-/Quote-!>

It only seems purposefully done because you're turning the system on it's head. Your reasoning is that the ends influenced the cause. That the earth and it's environs formed the way they did to suit life. But every observation we make tells us the exact oposite. That life has changed itself to perfectly fit this planet on which it formed. That does not make the earth perfect for life, but life - through it's own development - perfect for this earth. It's called the survival of the most fit.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Even with trillions, upon trillions time tens of billions, of chances...Those number are SOOO far out of my mind...in fact, not even the most genius of hums could EVER imagine such a number...actually, not even the most intelligent genius can imagine much beyond the number 10. Beyond 10, the human brain actually can no longer comprehend what, exactly, that means. So trillions times trillions times trillions is absolutely meaningless. Even the CHANCES of life happening, that I have been arguing about, is pretty damn meaningless. Hell, for all we know, we are just stuck in a tiny little glowy-ball around some dogs neck, like in the movie MIB... <!-/Quote-!>

But you miss the point. Even the rare possibility of life becomes a near certainty because of these very vast numbers which you claim we cannot comprehend. Incorporate into the idea that it only has to occur the once in the entire ancient history of the universe, and then that's it. Life has formed. It doesn't have to happen again for it to be true, although it is likely to occur again and again and again.

Anyway, the point is simple, regardless of the huge numbers involved. Eventually, the probability of life forming somewhere in the universe becomes a near-certainty. The only reason people have trouble with this idea is because they are looking at it from the one place we know this to be true. And - unfortunately - that hinders their capability to look at this with an objective mind.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Well, anyway, we can sit here and argue day and night about whether or not God exists, but I do not believe that I would convince you of my point of view, and you could not convince me of yours. The only other option, is to just respect a different point of view...that is all. Now, if only the rest of the world could be convinced of that last thought....<!-/Quote-!>

Oh, I do believe in a god. But in the Einsteinian sense. God, to me, it a synonnym for all the forces of nature. Rather than being a creature of ligts or power or creation, it is the collective forces which form the cosmos. I simply don't subscribe to human-made religions, because there are too many flaws in the way they explain the world. If you trace religions back through time, you see that they evolve from one into the other. Christianity, for one example that I know well enough to comment on, takes most of it's festivals and celebrations from earlier religions. It contradicts itself within even it's own doctrines. But the idea of the forces of nature - the very natural and comprehensible forces which shape the cosmos, which we know to exist and influence everything from the quantum to the vast, seem like the perfect synonym, and apt for a feeble human intelligence to grasp, such is my own.

God or no, you should not view these things with a closed mind.

Hold on...typing response to Zeta...

*Sigh*

[quote]"Far from it, actually. Add in Occam's Razor, and you will find that there is no way that this argument can fit for God. The simple truth is that using a God as an answer to any question raises far more questions than it answers, which makes any God inherently untenable as an answer to the grand question of "Why?""[/quote]

This, in response to my argument for the use of the quote, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

If God really really is real, and all you scientist types who claim He is not because of the "lack of evidence," does not mean He is absent! So yes, this absolutely does qork with my argument!

[quote]"You've made a couple of mistakes here. What evidence is there that all locations outside of our solar system are dead? Every star out there has a zone around it in which an earth-like planet could form and comfortably sustain life as we know it. Some have even been observed, and analysis shows great promise in their atmospheres for the potential of life. So it is hardly safe to argue that all but the Sol are dead." [/quote]

[quote][b]"Out of a solar system that is, for the most part, dead, this is the only place to harbor such extreme amounts of life.[/b][/quote]

As you can see, I was only talking about this one solar system in which we happen to reside in. I said nothing about other stars at all. We have yet to find ANY evidence ANYWHERE ELSE within Sol. Which is why I said "in a solar system which is, for the most part, dead." Dead, of course, meaning lack of any biological life. Talking about the POSSIBLITY of life in other systems is pretty much a worthless topic of discussion, since we are decades...perhaps CENTURIES away from even reaching the next closest star....Bettlegeuse (spelling?) I believe. The ONLY conclusion we can possibly come up with about the possible environs of life inhabiting other parts of space, is by looking at the ONLY PLACE THAT WE KNOW OF in which HARBORS life....EARTH. Science should NEVER assume anything...They can postulate theories, but can be dangerous to assume something that which we are decades and decades away from finding out the true answer, especially when it comes to this topic.

Reason being: why would we want to funnel billions of dollars into funding a space exploration mission, in which we are trying to find the slightest little microbial thing that is barely hanging onto life, when that money could better be spent trying to fix problems in the here and now, right on our own little planet....Such as trying to research more efficient, and better, green energy sources. Or coming up with a cure for cancer (I think they finally did like last week btw! I saw a headline that says that scientists found a cure for cancer!!) but didn't have time to read it.

I am, by no means, opposed to having space missions, if it is going to help increase our knowledge of better technologies. I could care less if there is/was some slimy little cell that is/was alive on Mars. It proves nothing, and doesn't change anything.

Now, if they came up with a new, nifty little robot guy, with some incredible gagdets and wanted to test it in a harsher environment, such as Mars, in order to try to improve upon those techy areas, then I would support that.

Quote:

Without an asteroid belt, the inner, rocky planets would not have even formed to begin with


[quote]This statement is false. You see, the evidence strongly indicates that all planest - rock and gas alike - form within what is essentially a system-wide asteroid field, colliding with eachother and forming progressively larger and larger bodies in space, which then attract even more of the rocky debris... Until we're left with the solar-system of today (which is still strewn with rocks and debris throughout). The asteroid belt is the result of a failed planet - indeed, Kepler's laws predict the existance of a planet where the asteroid belt is. But the tidal forces of the sun and Jupiter prevented it from forming.[/quote]

First of all, how, exactly, is this statement false?? Without the asteroids, there WOULD be no rocky surface!!! And the fact that there is a gas giant...Jupiter....that kept the asteroids from forming into another rocky planet....Well, obviously, if not for Jupiter being there, WE, in most likelyhood, would not be here ourselves! I have no idea how it would have affected the formation of this solar system, and hence, the formation of earth and all it's life, but I DO know for a fact, without Jupiter, EVERYTHING would have been drastically different. But that's beside the point. I really do not want to get into that discussion.

[quote]It is more likely that the water came from within, and was emitted into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. Comets as we see them do not exist in any great number in the inner solarsytem. Indeed, they mostly exist in the Kuiper Belt, and are only occasionally knocked out of orbit by collission or a passing star. The comets which DO enter the inner solarsystem tend to be those on large, stable orbits around the sun. It also leaves the question of why the other planets weren't simmilarly bombarded with ice and water. Indeed, chemical composition provides a far greater insight into the formation of the early planets. [/quote

Um, in the early history of this solar system, there were likely MILLIONS of comets with water ice on them. We do not know for sure whether our water came from those, or from volcanic activity, or anything other than those two. As for the other planets not being bombarded: I never said they were not! One only has to look at the moon! Venus may have just as much water (in the form of water vapor, of course) as earth does. There may have been an ocean on Mars, that, for whatever reason, disappeared. It DOES have a polar ice cap, and I beleive that NASA just recently confirmed that it is, indeed, water. The problem with other planets, is the fact that when water turns to vapor, some planet may not have a thick enough atmosphere (Mars) and so that vapor could escape the planet. And in other planet, the atmosphere is so thick, and so hot (Venus), that any water is ONLY in the form of vapor. And for OTHER bodies, they are so small (the Moon) that when an asteroid, or comet strikes the surface, most of the materials are re-expelled back into space, due to the very low escape-velocities required to get off the surface of that body.

[quote]It only seems purposefully done because you're turning the system on it's head. Your reasoning is that the ends influenced the cause. That the earth and it's environs formed the way they did to suit life. But every observation we make tells us the exact oposite. That life has changed itself to perfectly fit this planet on which it formed. That does not make the earth perfect for life, but life - through it's own development - perfect for this earth. It's called the survival of the most fit.[/quote

I'll give you the point here. Still, it is very hard for me to imagine life forming where there is such a weak atmosphere, that is just gets BOMBARDED by the suns radiation fduring the day, and freezes over during the night. Or a body in which it is CONSTANTLY changing the rotation of its axis. Or such a hot and thick atmosphere which can melt lead (with no surface water in which to protect it). I mean, come on, let's be real here. Most bodies are no where near stable enough for life to even begin. I don't care how resilient life is, it cannot possibly adapt quick enough under those kinds of conditions. Even extremophiles need an incredibly stable system in order to startup. A system that will remain stable for centuries, possibly even millenia or more. NO single peice of life would be possible if not for the extreme stability of every single aspect of this planet. Even the extreme stability of the moon, and tidal forces associated with it.

That was the whole point I am trying to drive home. The amount of stability in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT, from the chemical composition on the earths waters, to the atmoshere, and everything else, the stability of the ozone layer (we are killing right now though), the stability of the earth on its rotational axis, the stability of tidal forces, the stability of the volcanic vents in the deep oceans, the stability of the magnetoshere, the stability Jupiter provides ot the inner planets....I'm telling you, the conditions are WAY TOO PERFECT, AND PURPOSELY DONE for all of this to "just happen" even WITH quadrillions of chances over billions of yeas!

(Remember, I am talking about ABUNDANT life here...ABUNDANT - Earth-like life, in which is just THRIVES! Not some stupid little cyano-bacteria crap either)

[quote]But you miss the point. Even the rare possibility of life becomes a near certainty because of these very vast numbers which you claim we cannot comprehend. Incorporate into the idea that it only has to occur the once in the entire ancient history of the universe, and then that's it. Life has formed. It doesn't have to happen again for it to be true, although it is likely to occur again and again and again.

Anyway, the point is simple, regardless of the huge numbers involved. Eventually, the probability of life forming somewhere in the universe becomes a near-certainty. The only reason people have trouble with this idea is because they are looking at it from the one place we know this to be true. And - unfortunately - that hinders their capability to look at this with an objective mind.[/quote]

So tell me, where do you think, or any scientist think, that life CAME from to begin with? HOW can it form without a supernatural being, such as a god? Ok, so I can accept the fact that stars, and planets, and so forth can...maybe...form without God (I actually don't really, just trying to humor you here.)

So let's say it is true there is no god, and everything "just happened." First off, where did matter come from if it is neither created, nor destroyed? One would have to assume, in this case, matter is eternal. Perhaps this is where you got the idea that God is the cosmos?

Second off, there is no explanation...in fact, there isn't even a decent hypothesis, much less a theory, much less any kind of evidence whatsoever, to come up with the "spark of life" that happened. Where is the link between amino acids, proteins, RNA and everything else, to form a bunch of...dead....materials into a living thing? Where is the line between life, and non-life? You would then have to assume there IS no line between non-life and life, and therefore, you would have to accept the fact that EVERYTHING is alive....kind of a Gaiea-like theory (spelling?)

[quote]it is the collective forces which form the cosmos. I simply don't subscribe to human-made religions, because there are too many flaws in the way they explain the world. If you trace religions back through time, you see that they evolve from one into the other. Christianity, for one example that I know well enough to comment on, takes most of it's festivals and celebrations from earlier religions. It contradicts itself within even it's own doctrines.[/quote]

Once again, someone who does not know what Christianity truly is....*Another Sigh!*

Christianity TRULY does not have any "institutions" whatsoever. If your thinking of the Catholic Church, then your all wrong. The Catholic Church, for the most part, is WRONG. They have it ALL wrong. Festivals and things are all right, to have a little wine, and to celebrate life in general. But all the ceremonies, and holidays and such is not Christian.

To break down Christianity to what it actually is:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was born for the sole purpose of dieing on the Cross to save us all from sin (not just original sin, that's the Catholics talking there), but form sin in general.

Throughout Jesus' life and teachings, ALL of his parables had one thing in common: ALL of mankind are ALL humans, and so, ALL are children of God...Gentiles, Jews, Samaritans, to name the famous "races" in the Bible. In all of his teachings, we are to forgive one another, love and respect one another, take care of eachother, particularly the sick and the elderly.

The third part of Christianity, is to confess your sins to the Son, and he'll intercede on your behalf to the Father. Jesus Christ is to be your Lord and Saviour.

ALL other crap other than those three simple things (not so simple in reality), is just that: CRAP...C R A P! CRAP!

Seems hardly anyone who are not non-denominational Christians do not know WHAT Christianity IS.....

I hardly believe I view anything with a closed mind. I am not a hard-core Old Testament believer. Some things I believe to be true, and some things are open for interpretation.

Sorry about some of the spelling errors and such. I am dislexic.

Like I said, you are not going to get me to budge from my position. So you arguing with me is kind of pointless. I already understand, or know, every single one of your arguments so far.

As for me, I am merely trying to state my own position, because I do not believe that you understand Christianity at all. Most Chrstians are not at all opposed to science. The Catholic School that I was institutionalized in even had Earth Science in 9th grade. A nun taught that class, and she taught about the Big Bang, evolution, and plate tectonics. She never once mentioned God in her classes either, except when she would pray before she began her lessons. This was approved curricula from the Catholic Church...Not even Catholics are opposed to science....

@Michael:
Quote:
Reason being: why would we want to funnel billions of dollars into funding a space exploration mission, in which we are trying to find the slightest little microbial thing that is barely hanging onto life, when that money could better be spent trying to fix problems in the here and now, right on our own little planet....Such as trying to research more efficient, and better, green energy sources. Or coming up with a cure for cancer (I think they finally did like last week btw! I saw a headline that says that scientists found a cure for cancer!!) but didn't have time to read it.


The long term hope of humanity is off of this one planet.

@Michael:
Quote:
I hardly believe I view anything with a closed mind. I am not a hard-core Old Testament believer. Some things I believe to be true, and some things are open for interpretation.

No picky-choosy. Take it all or reject it all.That is the essence of Faith.

Know the difference between righteousness and goodness and you will know all the monotheistic religions.

At both of you metaphysicists:

Science is not a "thing" in which to believe or disbelieve.

It is a process of rationally organizing one's observations objectively.

@Bob:

With the Bible, you have to understand, the Christian religion...all of the denominations...are based off the New Testament. Judaism is based off the Old.

Do I believe in the Bible: Sure. Do I believe God created the Earth in seven literal days: Absolutely not!

Besides, some of the language can be a bit ambiguous, which leaves it open for interpretation. I am speaking of the Old Testament here. Revelation is one of the most ambiguous books in the entire Bible, and is the only book in the New Testament in which I can't really have a ton of faith in.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the books most associated with Christianity. Those are the books that are the most important. It is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ....The word Christian, COMES from the word Christ....obviously...Like I've said, everything else is all just hogwash.

Also, exploring Mars for the tiniest bit of life IS kind of a waste of time and presious resources. Until the day comes in which we can build a hyperdrive into our space ships, space should mostly be used for some research on the stations orbiting the earth, and for the launching of satelites. Also, if they were to create a more modern/better Hubble Telescope, I would say go for it!

But you have to admit, we have severe problems here on this planet. Not to mention the fact that this is THE most viable planet in which for us to live and thrive on than anywhere else within our grasp. Talk about terraforming Mars...well, Mars does not have nearly the resources Earth does, and so any colonization efforts would show a minimum return.

True, while science is not a thing in which to "believe" the debate between science and religion still goes on nonetheless.

Science should be the advancement of knowledge.
Religion should be the advancement of faith.

All in all, argument occurs because one side does not fully understand the point of view of the other.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the books most associated with Christianity. Those are the books that are the most important. It is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ....The word Christian, COMES from the word Christ....obviously...Like I've said, everything else is all just hogwash.<!-/Quote-!>

No. No. No.

You have not read the Bible or you would realize the flawed logic in that statement.

"Christianity" is a religion created ABOUT Jesus Christ.

Not the message he himself preached.

And no its not love. Try again.

True, Christianity (the fusion of the old and new testaments) as taught is actually Saul's work (St.Paul) "distilled" through the ages.

The best description of science i've ever come across is:
"The ability, backed by fact, to shove your views down someone else's throat."
A little much, but the main idea is there. Where faith is based on belief, science (should) be based on knowledge.

Colonization of Mars:
Personally, I think it's (at the same time) the dumbest and greatest thought of our civilization. Why? Simple: What's the use of MAD if total annihilation is off the table? If an off-world colony is ever created, and becomes viable, what is to prevent idiots (pardon me, politicians) from going full nuclear? They will survive, it's the rest of humanity that wont.
As for the greatest, simple again: we need learn nothing new; do to Mars, what we're doing to the Earth, and Mars will BECOME Earth. Unfortunately, vice versa applies as well. On the other hand, splitting humanity to two worlds, gets rid of the biggest problem plaging the Earth-based organism: Massive Extinction Event.

MM: unfortunately, my sentiment lies very similar to Farmer Bob's, but in a different vein: it's either ALL literal, or ALL metaphorical. Can't have both.

uumm, Sam Houston....UUMMM....Christianity...NONDENOMINATIONAL Christianity is not so much a religion, as it is just following God's instructions via Jesus Christ. Once again, your thinking in terms of the Catholic Church. Christianity, as such, is NOT an institution.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - The Gospel - is the what is THE MOST important 30 years in the entire history of man-kind. I will say this again...Everything Else is mostly B.S. And yes, I HAVE read the Bible. I have read 4 or 5 different versions of the Bible. The KJV, and NIV I have read a good 4 or 5 times each.

Now, here is proof, directly from the Bible itself, that 7 days are NOT literal seven days.

In 2 Peter 3: 8-9, it says thus:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentence."

Sorry, I just recently moved like 5 hours away from my hometown, and left my KJV, and 2 other versions of the Bible at my home, so I only have the NIV as a reference.

Now...A DAY IS LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS, AND A THOUSAND YEARS LIKE A DAY! hhmmm...sounds like an interpretation to me. Also, it is stated twice in a row, but flip-flopped. I cannot remember what significance that poses, but I do remember sometime in the past, someone saying to keep an eye open for passages that repeat themselves like in this fashion! Those are passages which carry a LOT of weight. This is something you are supposed to know and understand!

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. - Well, we mere mortals thinks of even a decade to be quite slow...Not to God. Billions of years would ONLY BE like to 7 days. In the case of using the "thousand years" is meant to mean it took a loooong time in Earth years. Doesn't mean that God created everything in 7 thousand years rather than 7 days. It could very easily mean 2.34 billions years instead.

Now, take a look at Revelation:

This is an ENTIRE BOOK, that is NOT, by ANY means to be taken literally! The anti-Christ, for example, does not literally have 10 horns. OH!

I just now thought of something while writing that last piece of thought!

In 1 Peter, the passage where it says, "and remember, brothers, a thousand years is a day, and a day a thousand years." This, in a book that is jsut before Rev. In Revelations, it talks about an angel coming and locking Satan away for 1,000 years so he cannot decieve the nations anymore, and when the thousand years are over, he will be released, and will gather an army from the 4 corners.

Couple of things here: When Satan is locked away "for a thousand years, and will deceive the nations no more," one would have to assume there would be no wars between countries for a very long time. In fact, noone should be sinning durng this time period. Well, this has yet to coe to pass, which would mean that we won;t even see Armageddon in our life-time. Actually, our children's children won;t see Armageddon within THEIR life-time. Because when that "thousand years" are over, that is when Armageddon will occur.

What is the point of all of this you may ask? The point is that, certainly the Bible HAS to be interpreted, or else will make no sense at all. I mean, all the answers are there, they just need to be pieced together in this fashion. A lot of things in the Bible are chronologically out of order.

Genesis was written the way it was, because people who were alive around the time it was written could not possibly think of the earth in terms of an ancient body floating around in space. So the Bible had to be written in a way to simplify the idea of the order in which the earth was created, and to get the people to understand the reason why the earth was created in that particular order.

Modern humans...us...KNOW this to be true about the earth floating in space around the sun for billions of years. But if you were to read the opening passages, it kind of leaps out at you the order of when things were written, which is the order in which things actually, scientifically, happened!

Also, ANOTHER argument of why the Bible can be both literal AND metaphorical: First off, there are more people in the world who believe that Jesus actually existed than don't. There are even less people who believe Jesus to be the Son of God.

Now that it is generally accepted that Jesus actually DID exist, you can take that to be quite literal. JESUS DID LITERALLY EXIST!

Now that Jesus DID, LITERALLY teach/preach about himself being the Son of God, EVEN IF HE NEVER ACTUALLY CAME OUT AND SAID THOSE WORDS! Jesus WANTED us to understand He is the Messiah, but NEVER came out and said that as such. The Jews KNEW what he meant, what he was talking about in all of his teachings! Mostly through his parables and such. - This is one of the more extreme examples of the metaphorical parts of the Bible...even in the Gospels!

So no! it is NOT all literal, or all metaphorical! I gave you two examples of why that is, within 7 different books directly from the Bible itself which I have referenced.

I used 2 Peter, Revelations, Genesis, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If you were to read any parts of the Bible at all, those are the seven books to read, PARTICULARLY the Gospels! You will see, throughout the Gospels, Jesus CONSTANTLY speaking in metaphorical terms. The reason he does, is to make people THINK. The only way to get unbelievers to actually believe, is first to get them to think. He is trying to TEACH the people. Aesop was a philosopher who ALSO used stories in order to teach. The only way to actually teach someone, and get them to learn, is first, to get them to think for themselves, then they will be able to learn easier!

That is the very very first tactic Satan used on Eve, and was very successful. God/Jesus is trying to use the same tactics AGAINST sin, for once man fell, that is the only thing which will satisfy him in spiritual matters.

As for Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 look up the thread. You will find a post explaining the poor translation of the original Hebrew text into the King James version. And the common misconceptions it has caused.


As for the New Testament....

All "Christianity" is ABOUT Jesus.

Not what he taught his disciples to preach.

Not what they themselves proclaimed as his teachings.

What was Christs message?

You can find it easily...

Its the second most common phrase in the Bible after Lord. Listed 127 times.

Go. Read.

Open your mind. Its good for you.

ZOMGWTFBBQ!!?!?

HOLY CRAP! This almost does not warrant an argument....Sorry, next!

Accept the advice of the Dalai Lama.

The worlds' religions need to embrace their similarities, not differences.

Smart guy.

That is not quite true Bob. I mean, that is a wise saying, but we shouldn't just embrace our similarities, but we should also celebrate our differences.

I mean, I am an Italian-American from Williamsport PA, which makes me different from the rest of the world. I am proud of that difference. That's what makes us who we are.

Now, with those differences, we have the right to different beliefs. My problem with this whole discussion is that every single time someone talks about "Christianity," they seem to be stereotyping all Christians into one large group that are all narrow-minded idiots, who are also all anti-science, going around telling everyone how they are going to hell if they do not reform.

MY points of view on my "religion" are very very simple, and seems to be constantly getting ignored for some reason. I have said MANY MANY times, over and over what my beliefs are, and jsut get this crap:

"As for Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 look up the thread. You will find a post explaining the poor translation of the original Hebrew text into the King James version. And the common misconceptions it has caused.


As for the New Testament....

All "Christianity" is ABOUT Jesus.

Not what he taught his disciples to preach.

Not what they themselves proclaimed as his teachings.

What was Christs message?

You can find it easily...

Its the second most common phrase in the Bible after Lord. Listed 127 times.

Go. Read.

Open your mind. Its good for you."


Now, if I were actually RESPOND to this, my very very first question would be:

Do you, yourself, understand Hebrew perfectly fluently....so fluently, in fact, that you know exactly every single meaning for every single word? In other words, in the English language, the word "high" alone has many different meanings.

So, when someone, or many someones who are very very knowledgable scholars who are fluent in both English, and Hebrew, and they take many many years....decade...CENTURIES even, to interpret all these texts, I am sorry, but I will stick with the many different English versions of the Bible over what Sam is saying.

"And when people are saying crap like this here:

All "Christianity" is ABOUT Jesus. Go. Read.

Open your mind. Its good for you."


All I gotta say is: that could NOT be further from the truth!

First of all, Catholicism is more of a pagan religion than a Christian religion. Dont believe me? Look it up!

Christmas (which I celebrate myself still) is a pagan holiday, which is the Winter Solstice, celebrated 3 days after the actual solstice. December 22nd is THE shortest day of the year, and December 25th is the first day in which the days are beginning to actually lenghten.

Easter:

Catholics never even bothered to so much as change the name of Easter! Which in Anglo-saxon paganism, is a celebration of the goddes Eostre.

The x-mas tree is also pagan....MAAAN IU GREW UP in the Catholic Church, I was indoctrinated by the Catholics for the first 15 years of my life, so I KNOW what I am talking about! And yes! I DO read, perhaps more than most ppl on this forum

Another side note about the "English Bible:" The KJV is NOT the only English version of the Bible. I have read the KJV a good 5 times.

Want me to list off all the English versions for ya?

Ok, here goes!

The English Revised Version (ERV), American Standard Version (ASV, New American Version (NAV), Young's Literal Translation (YLT), Webster did a revision of the KJV, The Basic English, Darbys' Challoner-Rheims, God's Word...uummm....Oh yeah! the New King James (NKJV)...The New International Version (NIV - My personal favorite...The Church, actually all the denominations of Christianity sent their top scholars to Rome to translate the Hewbrew text directly into Modern, Plain, English. This is, perhaps, THE most accurate translation in existance. They didn;t jsut translate word for word either, they also took note on HOW each word was used, and the context in which they were used. The CONTEXT is what matters, NOT the LITERAL translation).

Anyway, this is why I did not want to bother responding to that post. I have more, I could easily go on for another 20 pages on why "ALL CHRISTIANITY is ABOUT Jesus" is completely false!

I could talk about the Crusades....NO WHERE in the Bible does Jesus give us permission to go around slaughtering other people because they do not believe. In fact, that is SOOO COMPLETELY against his teachings, it isn;t even funny....Same with the Spanish Inquisition.

The ONLY teachings Jesus Christ gave to us during his 30 years on this planet, is simply to love one another. Turn the other cheek. Make peace with your neighbors. And to believe that he is the Son of God, and by going to him, and confessing your sins to Him, you can get into heaven, and live in peace with the father for the rest of eternity.

Like I have said...All the rest is just BS, except for perhaps Revelation. I am not, personally, big on the whole Revelation thing, but I DO know when shit starts hitting the fan, I will be saved from having to live through that anyway. So, again, Revelation would not apply to me.

If, for some reason, I do not go up to heaven during the tribulation, I at least am smart enough not to have any kind of ID chip inserted into my arm. I would not use the number 666 for anything. In fact, I would be more than willing to suffer and die in the name of Jesus Christ when that time comes, and renounce Satan from my life.

Anyway, got class in 15, I am done. TTYL!

I dont recall mentioning Catholics, Easter, Christmas or any of the other topics.

I asked what his message was.

Jesus taught us about the Kingdom of God.

It is mentioned 127 times in the New Testament alone.

The most wonderful message Humanity has ever recieved has been ignored.

You should read up on it.

It will blow your Non Denominational Christian mind.

Holy Crap!

The most wonderful message Humanity has ever recieved has been ignored.

You should read up on it.

It will blow your Non Denominational Christian mind.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (wish I could use an 6523737634 point font to write this!@!@!!!!!)


NON DENOMINATIONAL CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY CHRISTIANS TO ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO JESUS TEACHINGS!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF HERE!!!!!


""Christianity" is a religion created ABOUT Jesus Christ.

Not the message he himself preached.

And no its not love. Try again."

AS QUOTED STRAIGHT FROM YOU, YOURSELF. THIS IS A COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATEMENT!!!! THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT NON-DENOMINATIONAL CHRISTIANITY AS OPPOSED TO DENOMINATIONS. I ONLY USED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A REFFERENCE TO YOUR INCREDIBLY FALSE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG!!!

Now, enough with the caps. PAY ATTENTION!!!!

The "Kingdom of God" is refferenced as a REWARD AT THE END OF YOUR LIFE! The journey is what matters most. If you have ever read Stephen King's Dark Tower series, you would understand this.

The "journey," in this case, is living life here on Earth! If you lead your life the way Jesus TAUGHT you to lead your life, your reward is in the Kingdom of God - Heaven. The WAY to the Kingdom of God - Heaven, is through doing what Jesus tells us to do....loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and confessing to Jesus your sins, and asking him to save your soul.

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS CURRENTLY!!! The CURRENT situation is that we are alive right here, right now, and what we are doing with the right here and right now. Right now, I am using my time horribly. But I have like 20 minutes to burn, so I figure why the hell not?

Now, the future doesn't matter, the past does not matter, what matters is the PRESENT, and the PRESENT is so fleeting, that we are to CHERISH the present. (That is my OWN philosophy).

Now, to THIS quote you made:


"All "Christianity" is ABOUT Jesus.

Not what he taught his disciples to preach.

Not what they themselves proclaimed as his teachings.

What was Christs message?

You can find it easily...

Its the second most common phrase in the Bible after Lord. Listed 127 times.

Go. Read.

Open your mind. Its good for you."


Again, I used Catholicism, because, well, it is the ONE denomination that I know MOST about!

And comparing what Catholicism is about, to my non-denominational beliefs, they actually CLASH quite a bit! But that is besides the point.

Take THIS line for instance:

"All "Christianity" is ABOUT Jesus."

UUUMMM...by using the word "ALL," you are leaving me open to complete disrepute this entire quote. By coming up with even a SINGLE so-called "Chrsitian doctrine," that is not Christian at all, and is used BY the majority of Christians (Catholics, for instance), I win!

Especially when you follow up the word "ALL" with the words "Christianity is ABOUT Jesus," then the above paragraph is completely true!

And what blows my "Non-Denominational Christian mind," is your lack of the ability to actually READ, AND think about the meaning behind the words AT THE SAME TIME.

I guarantee you that I have read the Bible many times more in my younger years then you ever will in your entire life. In fact, I have read more VERSIONS of the Bible than you will read the Bible PERIOD in your entire life....That is INCLUDING 2 different ITALIAN versions of the Bible!

I have also read the DaVinci Code, To Reign in Hell (both of which are complete works of fiction.) Other books, such as the Case for Christ, COUNTLESS articles, periodical, and documentaries on the subject.

I even subscribe to Nat Geo, Scientific American (which is a "modern technology publication,") and I used to subscribe to a VERY good one that was about ALL current events in the world. The mag also had various articles on ancient cultures, and past civilizations/religions. It was a veyr good one, cannot remember the name of it, for the life of me!

But yeah...I am VERY well-read, thank you very much.

I have also been to Italy, Germany, and Southern France....twice. Been to Cali, Tijuana, Niagra Falls, all up and down the Eastern Seaboard, and I am only 25, so I am also well-traveled.

My next destination is going to be either Tokyo, or Sydney.

So go away. This is my very last response to this thread, unless Bob has something to say. He's usually pretty constructive with his posts, and I have a lot of respect for the old man! ;P

/me shakes head.

To return to the discussion about abiogenesis (the creation of self-replicating life from non-replicating matter), I have just come across a very interesting article on the influence of viruses on the origin of life.

My biology is not really up to the level of fully digesting the article but it was certainly interesting. It's two years old, so there may be more recent data out there that I haven't yet come across. Also, when the article was written, it was when there were few scientific papers dealing with this aspect of abiogenesis. Bear this in mind when reading it as it means that the article is far from conclusive.

It also deals with an aspect of the evolution of life that is thought to have occurred AFTER self-replicating organic molecules had developed. It deals with the step from there to self-contained cells which protected the self-replicating molecules within from external corruption.

A viral influence on life's origins? from Ars Technica.