Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Daskalot]

In the case of the Red Sea and Moses, what makes this a historical fact? Is this story verified in other sources, ie Egyptian ones etc. Or is it only found in the Old Testament?

[julie]

I read somewhere the red sea "parted" was a tsunamai

[Vangelovski]

SoM,

My current view on the earth's age was a result of the evidence at hand. But obviously I was a Christian first, who believed in an old earth originally and could not understand how people could believe in a young earth until I slowly unravelled the 'science' behind it all and what we actually know.

When atheists and Christians debate, they usually refer to natural events as events that do not include divine intervention. I understand where you are coming from now, basically, that God caused things to happen in nature which led to the parting of the red sea - that is still divine intervention.

As for Moses and his staff, God likes to work through people (which is a key theme in the Bible). God did not even need Moses, let alone his staff, but it is how he has decided to bring about his will for the most part.

[George S.]

There are a lot of excellent points made regarding creation & science.For one thing you can't siscount a god out of the picture he ias real as they come.Our very existence proves there is a god.The universe is proof that god exists.It says in the bible that only a FOOL hath said in his heart there is no god.When one considers the immensity of it all we are like ants and we don't count for anything like nought.It says in isaiah that god is doing whatever he wants & he is in charge of everything.In regards to proof god is not going to provide proof to everyone who asks.We aren't going to hget proof in this lifetime.Also it says that gods ways are higher than mans.Mans ways &thinking are not gods.At the same time god says he did not make man in vain but with a chance to elevate theselves to god status not in this life but in the next life.Man tries to be like god but it's in a linited way.A lot of deceived people such as the catholic church beleive that the kingdom of god is allready here on earth & representing christ is the pope who is the vicar of christ.Nothing could be further from the truth.The kingdom of god means a kingdom of god beings.That's in the future after everyone that is meant to be ressurcted unto eternal life.Gods spirit living in them.Jesus was saying that to his disciples to worry about more important things like following gods word.He said don't worry about what you shall wear or what you shall eat.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Does it really matter whether I was a Christian first and then delved into the old vs new earth or the other way around?

It does if I am to understand what led you to your current perceptions and how they were developed.

I think we're confusing each others terminology - when you say nature could have been responsible for the parting of the waters, that implies no divine intervention.

Nature would also be the work of God according to your previous definition relating to the existence of God. Thus, such an event can imply divine intervention, depending on how one would perceive it - and one could easily see how such an event would be considered as divine intervention, irrespective of Moses' presence.

I don't think anyone suggests that Moses' stick parted the waters - that would be ridiculous - and that's not what the Bible is saying - its saying that God parted the waters.

The chapter says that "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back". However, just prior to this passage, God says to Moses, "lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it". If it was God that split the sea, why did He ask Moses to raise his stick over the water and "divide it"?

[Vangelovski]

Tom, I wouldn't deny the fact that you are well versed with the subject, but you have formed a strong opinion based not only on research but also on religion. Was your devotion to the latter what triggered the former, or the other way around?

Is it uninformed to suggest that nature and not Moses' stick was responsible for the separation of the Red Sea? In my opinion, neither exclude the possibility of divine intervention from God.

I am receptive to such a notion, but this would only be an assumption based more on religious faith than anything else, as there is no factual evidence which can be conclusively determined beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this regard. We simply don't know, therefore all we can do is have faith that there is a God - but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the stories in the Bible are true, or are meant to be interpreted literally.

Does it really matter whether I was a Christian first and then delved into the old vs new earth or the other way around?

I think we're confusing each others terminology - when you say nature could have been responsible for the parting of the waters, that implies no divine intervention. I don't think anyone suggests that Moses' stick parted the waters - that would be ridiculous - and that's not what the Bible is saying - its saying that God parted the waters.

What isn't there factual evidence about? That something cannot come from nothing? That is not a line of argument that even the most militant atheists make

If something can appear out of nothing, then surely it would not be unresonable to expect a $50 note (a simple piece of plastic) to appear out of nothing in my wallet, especially if we were to believe that this complex universe appeared out of nothing?

[Soldier of Macedon]

To suggest that I'm not open to the evidence on old earth vs new earth would be to ignore the fact that I used to believe in an old earth and ignore the fact that I have spent numerous years reading literally thousands of books and articles on the subject.

Tom, I wouldn't deny the fact that you are well versed with the subject, but you have formed a strong opinion based not only on research but also on religion. Was your devotion to the latter what triggered the former, or the other way around?

In relation to the events described in the Bible, people do apply their own interpretations to them - this thread alone is evidence enough of that. But be careful not to apply an uninformed interpretation.

Is it uninformed to suggest that nature and not Moses' stick was responsible for the separation of the Red Sea? In my opinion, neither exclude the possibility of divine intervention from God.

........if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is God.

I am receptive to such a notion, but this would only be an assumption based more on religious faith than anything else, as there is no factual evidence which can be conclusively determined beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this regard. We simply don't know, therefore all we can do is have faith that there is a God - but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the stories in the Bible are true, or are meant to be interpreted literally.

[Vangelovski]

SoM,

Without going into the theory of nationalism, I actually agree that nations exist, not because I can conclusively prove they exist, but because the evidence points towards their existence. Same as the idea of existence itself - its an entire philosophical question of its own. They are topics for another thread. Regardless, I was merely trying to point out that everything requires some degree of faith, otherwise you can't believe anything.

To suggest that I'm not open to the evidence on old earth vs new earth would be to ignore the fact that I used to believe in an old earth and ignore the fact that I have spent numerous years reading literally thousands of books and articles on the subject. Having gone through this process, I would have to leave my brain at the door and revisit everything I have already learn't for a second time. But, if you have evidence that you want to provide, do so. Even if I have already seen it, that is not a reason for you not to post it.

In relation to the events described in the Bible, people do apply their own interpretations to them - this thread alone is evidence enough of that. But be careful not to apply an uninformed interpretation.

In relation to the 'who created God' question, the question does not really make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

[Phoenix]

GS, in regards to your 'LHC is being sabotaged from the future' post (#335).
I think you should cut this project a bit of slack, considering the LHC is the largest machine ever made by mankind, undertaking the most advanced research ever attempted, it wouldnt be very wise to suggest that everything should go flawlessly from the moment somebody plugs the thing in and pushes the shiny green button...

[Soldier of Macedon]

You confused the crap out of me

Sorry mate, the topic has expanded well beyond the original post, like many topics do, sometimes more fortunately than others

Can you prove to me that we actually exist, as opposed to being in the matrix or a figment of someone’s imagination?

We have senses, both emotionally and physically. Neither can be truly replicated in their actual forms through a matrix or figment. They can only be programmed or conjured in the world of their creator, but they will never be tangible, never real, irrespective of the illusion of reality it may come with. If you are suggesting that the opposite is the case, then the onus would be on you to prove it. What evidence is there against the suggestion that God was the figment of someone's imagination, given that nobody has ever see Him or knows what He looks like?

The existence of nations is not an indisputable fact. Nations are not tangible, they are an idea.

I could just as easily say that the existence of a government is not an indisputable fact because it is not tangible. And while the concept of a government or nation may not be tangible, the people that form a government or nation most certainly are.

Marxists have always denied the existence of nations. Rather, they believe people either belong to the proletariat or the bourgeoisie and that nations are the figment of bourgeoisie imagination in order to suppress the masses.

The concept of a nation could commence for a number of reasons, such as common positive action, common negative action, common reaction/rebellion, etc.

If you can argue convincingly against a young earth (i.e, 5500BC), then I'm all ears. I used to believe in an old earth (as many Christians do), but I have been thoroughly convinced against such a notion over the past few years.

I am not sure if you're all ears on this point given your strong convictions, or that you would ever be convinced, despite the evidence. I am neither an atheist or a Christian fundamentalist, so I would be more open to suggestions based on balanced and logical interpretation - not that I am implying that you don't apply logic, it's just that your current views don't seem to allow for a revision of the status quo as you see it.

Someone who believes this is a Christian and if you believe this, then its only logical to believe that this all powerful God gave us the Bible and whats in the Bible is true, not just a bunch of stories.

That is fair enough, but I also think that people should be allowed to take some of those stories with a grain of salt and apply their own logical interpretation, especially in this day and age. For example, it is more logical to assume that there was a tide or tidal wave that parted some of the waters in the Red Sea rather than them being split by Moses and his stick. That interpretation doesn't necessarily exempt the possibility of divine intervention from God, but the point I am trying to make is that the story about Moses would have been more readily accepted as genuine at the time of its occurrence because of ignorance and lack of available information. There is no actual evidence in support of the event taking place as described in the Book of Exodus.

Nothing is literally that – nothing – the absence of everything. How can even the tiniest particle just spontaneously appear out of nothing?

So if we assume that God created everything, who created God?

There are scientist who believe God created the Universe but they support evolution! This, IMHO, is a far more reasoned and logical position to take on the question of the existence of God than to argue for a newly created earth in accordance of the creation theory found in the Bible.

I agree.

To me, what christianity did is; adopting ethnocentric Jewish religion and making it universal by adding a new protagonist, the Jesus. Remember that first christians even argued about whether christianity is a sect of Judaism or a new religion for decades.

What do you mean by 'ethnocentric'? Has Christianity ever excluded non-Jews?

What are your perceptions of the man who was Muhammed? Was he just a disgruntled Arab who adopted 70% of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and scriptures, and inspired his followers to spread this religion through the sword, just like their subsequent lackeys (like some Turkish tribes) did afterwards? Is that a fair assessment, or is it cynical, like your assessment of Christianity?

If the Earth is 6 billion years ago or however old Evolutionists believe the Earth is. Why did human civilisation come only around 6000 years ago??? In 6000 years Humans have come from using stone tools to what we see in the world today. If evolution was true then we should not have been able to evolve so quickly in such a short amount of time I mean it took us 6 billion years to evolve from a cell to a human then 6000 years to develope the high amount of intelligence we possess today

Yet we have only made great strides in scientific discoveries in the last couple hundred years. Why did it take 5,800 years (according to your 6,000 year suggestion) to figure out how electricity can be used to supply power to most of the daily resources in use today? Why didn't the ancient Egyptians, who built magnificent structures that would take years to replicate even with modern technology, not realise that they could use the power generated from the sun in the same manner that some fish in the Nile are able to generate electricity? Why were there glorious periods in antiquity followed by periods of 'darkness' and backwardness? I don't you think you understand how evolution works and all the implications involved, it isn't always a straight line of continuity where layer upon layer of improvement is successfully applied.

[Vangelovski]

This is an answer to most of Dawkins' rubbish:

http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

I know that noone is actually reading these lengthy articles because if they were, we would have had a few conversions in the last few days, or at least given up on evolution!

[Vangelovski]

TM,

Other than showing us parts of skeletons and what are obviously animal bones, do you have any evidence to actually connect them to humans?

I've already posted some evidence on the 6 day creation. You should read my posts more carefully. What is more relevant however, is science's inability to date anything beyond a few thousand years - which I have posted on quite thoroughly. So when a scientist claims to have discovered bones that are supposedly older than a few thousand years, how exactly did they date them? What method did they use? Currently, there is no way to conclusively date anything beyond a few thousand years, so to claim something is millions or billions of years old, is pure fantasy without the technology to actually support that.

[George S.]

Large Hadron Collider is 'being sabotaged from the future'
By staff writers and wires
From: news.com.au
Octo


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...#ixzz1PVD1KoPk
'Time-travel from future to kill atom-smasher'
Hadron Collider to test for 'God particle'
Scientists suggest God could be jinxing it
In pictures: Tour the Large Hadron Collider
In pictures: Tech conspiracy theories
SCIENTISTS claim the giant atom-smashing Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being jinxed from the future to save the world.
n a bizarre sci-fi theory, Danish physicist Dr Holger Bech Nielsen and Dr Masao Ninomiya from Japan claim the LHC startup has been delayed due to nature trying to prevent it from finding the elusive Higgs boson, or "God particle".
They say their maths proves that nature will "ripple backward through time" to stop the LHC before it can create the God particle, like a time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
“One could even almost say that we have a model for God,” Dr Nielsen says in an unpublished essay.
“He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.”
"While it is a paradox to go back in time and kill your grandfather, physicists agree there is no paradox if you go back in time and save him from being hit by a bus," Dannis Overbye wrote in the New York Times.

"In the case of the Higgs and the collider, it is as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus."
“It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,” Dr Nielsen told the New York Times.
European science agency CERN designed the world's biggest particle accelerator to shoot beams around a freezing 27km concrete ring underground near Geneva, smashing atoms together in search of the elusive "God particle" which is believed to have been present at the Big Bang.
The multi-billion-dollar machine, built over almost 20 years, was set to launch in late 2008 but broke down after it overheated during a test run.
The relaunch was pushed back to late 2009 as more parts had to be replaced, and CERN was recently scandalised when a LHC scientist was found to have approached al-Qaeda for work.
The LHC - which features in sci-fi plots such as Dan Brown's Angels and Demons and the new TV show FlashForward - has been dubbed a "doomsday device" with claims it will open black holes.
Last year, Professor Brian Cox of Manchester University told the UK Telegraph that LHC scientists had received threatening emails and phone calls demanding that the experiment be halted.
But Prof Cox, ex-keyboardist for 1990's pop group D:REAM, dismissed the hysteria in rock-star style.
"Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a tw--," he said.
The LHC is set to start up again next month.
- with Reuters


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...#ixzz1PVCmju2h

[George S.]

SCIENCE : DISCOVERIES
Racing to the 'God Particle'
Lakshmi Sandhana
Physicists from all over the world are racing to prove the existence of a particle that's surmised to be at the heart of the matter. Literally.
Dubbed the "God particle" by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman, the Higgs boson is a controversial particle believed to bestow mass on all other particles.
Scientists are hoping to discover traces of its presence in Fermilab's Tevatron, a 7-mile-long circumference particle accelerator that smashes opposing beams of protons and antiprotons around a circular track, sifting through the debris with two immense detectors called CDF and D0.
Because it plays a key role in the standard model of physics (the theory on which physicists base their whole understanding of matter), proving the existence or absence of the Higgs boson could rock the entire foundation of physics, indicating the existence of particles and forces not yet imagined and paving the way for an entirely new set of laws.
"The Higgs boson is interesting because it is the only reasonable explanation we have for the origin of mass," says Dave Rainwater, a researcher at FermiLab. "Without the Higgs, all fundamental particles would be massless, and the universe would be very different. The weak nuclear forces wouldn't be weak at all, for instance, so the elemental composition of the cosmos would be radically different, stars would shine differently, and we probably wouldn't exist."
The best experimental data on the Higgs boson so far comes from experiments done with the LEP collider at CERN, near Geneva, in 2000. Results indicated that the Higgs particle was too heavy to be detected by the collider and that it probably had a mass of 114 billion electron-volts (GeV). The Tevatron is expected to be able to spot the Higgs in a couple of years, if it is not heavier than 170 GeV to 180 GeV.
If all else fails, the Large Hadron Collider being built at CERN, scheduled to go online in 2007, is designed to guarantee discovery of the Higgs. With a 27-kilometer-circumference tunnel, the LHC will collide protons at seven times the energy levels of the Tevatron.
And the payoff for whoever discovers the Higgs boson? Nothing less than a Nobel Prize. "Its discovery would be one of the crowning achievements of modern science, and validate decades of intense research," says John Conway, a professor at Rutgers University.
"We believe that the Higgs is the key to unlocking the mystery of the elementary particles: the quarks and the leptons. The standard model does not give us the answers to many questions: Why are there three 'generations' of matter particles? Why do they have the masses and electric charges that they do? The Higgs is believed to be related to the mechanism by which the matter particles get their mass, but there is no good theory yet as to why different particles have different masses."
"One thing we expect the Higgs to open up is the question of supersymmetry," says John Womersley, co-spokesman of the D0 experiment at Fermilab. "Supersymmetry is a relationship between the particles of matter and the forces of the universe. Mathematically, it's beautiful. Not one piece of direct experimental data really supports it yet. Finding a Higgs in the place we expect would be a piece of evidence. Not finding it would be a big problem for the advocates of this idea.
"What would shake the foundation of physics much more than finding the Higgs would be a definitive 'ruling it out.' That would upset all of our conceptions about how the universe works. It would make supersymmetry something that, if it applies in the universe, does so only at much higher energies than we can observe. And it would require new forces or new laws to explain masses, in the absence of a Higgs."
The last stage in this three-stage relay race is a linear collider. While the LHC is guaranteed to make a definitive discovery or exclusion, it will not be able to measure the properties of the Higgs precisely. "There is an international consensus among the particle physics community that we would need another accelerator to go one step beyond and resolve the riddles ... nature gives us, (of) which we will have first insights from the Tevatron and the LHC," said Dr. Klaus Desch, a scientist at the University of Hamburg who is working on the European study for such a machine called TESLA.
"The linear collider will enable us to actually verify that the Higgs has exactly the properties we expect. We'll be able to test that it couples to each particle proportional to the mass," added Womersley.

[TrueMacedonian]

YouTube - ‪Missing Link Found - Ida, The 47 Million-Year-Old Fossil [May 19 2009] in [HQ]‬‏