Originally posted by RJHindsNow I think I am going to really study Satan. He sounds like the one for me.
You have been indoctrinated very well to believe in the lies of Satan.
There is proof all around you that God is the creator of the universe.
It certainly did not create itself as you have been taught to believe.
You have blinders over your mind's eye that prevents you from seeing
clearly the wonders of the creations that could only be designed and
crea ...[text shortened]... of plants
and animals and programmed them with the ability to reproduce after
their own kind.
Oh yes, its Satan all the way from now on.
Originally posted by RJHindsChristianity has given the world a great truth.
You have been indoctrinated very well to believe in the lies of Satan.
There is proof all around you that God is the creator of the universe.
It certainly did not create itself as you have been taught to believe.
You have blinders over your mind's eye that prevents you from seeing
clearly the wonders of the creations that could only be designed and
crea ...[text shortened]... of plants
and animals and programmed them with the ability to reproduce after
their own kind.
What is that truth?
God is the creator of heaven and earth.
Sadly after that Christianity fabricates most of its teachings and misguides mankind.
Originally posted by DasaExactly like your religion, which I understand you put your religion in a different place than Hinduism. Is that right? If so, what do you call your religion?
Christianity has given the world a great truth.
What is that truth?
God is the creator of heaven and earth.
Sadly after that Christianity fabricates most of its teachings and misguides mankind.
Originally posted by DasaThis is what you say in your profile, and what I quoted earlier (around page 8 or 9):
Once again you have made another dishonest comment.
I have never said this.
In the future can you maker am attempt to speak honestly.
Over time the false religions of the world namely Islam Christianity and Judaism have made the word RELIGION synonymous with make believe and therefore most people are suspect of all religion.
The religion presented by the Vedas is the one and only original and eternal religion (my emphasis, CJ) which stands alone and above the rest for its flawlessness and truth.
OK, you did not specifically say the religions you mention are a lie.
However, please explain to me the subtle difference between a lie and a false religion.....
I believe an apology is called for.....
Originally posted by sonhouseNeither you nor Dasa knows what my religion is, so your statement is incorrect.
Dasa says your religion is a lie. You say HIS religion is a lie. You can't both be right. Herein lies the problem.
I have not described my point of view adequately enough for anybody to hang a label around my neck!
😀
Originally posted by CalJustThe thing is.......
This is what you say in your profile, and what I quoted earlier (around page 8 or 9):
[b]Over time the false religions of the world namely Islam Christianity and Judaism have made the word RELIGION synonymous with make believe and therefore most people are suspect of all religion.
The religion presented by the Vedas is the one and only original and eter ...[text shortened]... between a lie and a false religion.....
I believe an apology is called for.....
you posted a comment and said specifically had used the word lie when I had not.
Leave it at that
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaYou ask what is the truth and offer "God is the creator of heaven and earth". You then go on to say "after that Christianity fabricates most of its teachings". I would remove the words "after that" from that sentence to give it a ring of truth. Where is the evidence for the existence of heaven? For that matter, where is the evidence for the existence of God? A book written by man is self-referential and a non-starter as evidence. Do you have any other evidence?
Christianity has given the world a great truth.
What is that truth?
God is the creator of heaven and earth.
Sadly after that Christianity fabricates most of its teachings and misguides mankind.
Even the title of this thread is ironic : "Is there valid proof for evolution?". We have creationists demanding proof for evolution, and yet offer no proof themselves for creationism? Referencing a book written by man is not proof, nor is faith, or the "mind's eye" (proof of that please) or the mere existence of things.
There was a post earlier that suggested we use our "mind's eye" to behold the wonderment of creation by a superior being. I look around and see animals that have been cross-bred by man, and plants that have also been cross-bred by man. Should I selectively exclude looking at these things when taking in the wonderment of things around me that have supposedly been created by a higher being?
I can offer my own truths:
~ Death is the cessation of life
~ There is no after-life
~ Life has no meaning
~ There is no higher being
~ Humankind is to Earth, as a virus is to a human
~ Humankind does not matter; it is a mere pimple on the backside of a 2-bit solar system lost in the bowels of the Universe
~ There is no special place for humankind in the history of the Universe
~ Humans are pre-conditioned to act in certain ways; religion attempts to impose order where none would otherwise exist
And there you have it. All donations gladly accepted. Come again same time next week for the same stuff delivered slightly differently.
For all those that continually keep asking for proof of heaven and hell, here it is at last.
I received this info today by e-mail
******************
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid-term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... .....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.
He got an A+!
*************************
This is arguably the first post in this thread that deserves to be in the Science forum!
😉
1 edit
Originally posted by andrew93It is unthinkable to me that anyone would believe life could come from
You ask what is the truth and offer "God is the creator of heaven and earth". You then go on to say "after that Christianity fabricates most of its teachings". I would remove the words "after that" from that sentence to give it a ring of truth. Where is the evidence for the existence of heaven? For that matter, where is the evidence for the existence of Come again same time next week for the same stuff delivered slightly differently.
non-life or inorganic substances. But some idiots have put all the
chemicals that made up a simple live organism together and passed
electricity through it in the hope that it would result in life. Since man is
not intelligent enough to do it, I would think anyone with any common
sense would know that life can not come about on its own. Life comes
from other life, as we see all the time with the reproduction process in
plants and animals. But where did the first life come from? Evolutionists
say it just happened by chance. I do not have enough faith to believe
that. By experience I believe life had to come from life. The best
explanation I have heard is from the Holy Bible that says an intelligent
God designed and formed the plants and animals so that He could impart
some of his spirit life to them so they became living things. The Holy Bible
also says that he made various kinds of plants and animals and provided
a programmed mechanism (seed) for reproduction of the plants and
animals after their kind only and not some other kind. The evidence shows
this process of reproduction of life after its kind has been going on for as
long as we can tell for sure. But we know also that there had to be a
beginning and the Holy Bible explains it best, in my opinion. So this is
why I think the existence of life is one proof that God exists. God is the
life giving Spirit that has always existed, without the need to be created
Himself, for He is infinite and eternal life.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsJust because you can't comprehend the science behind the formation of life
It is unthinkable to me that anyone would believe life could come from
non-life or inorganic substances. But some idiots have put all the
chemicals that made up a simple live organism together and passed
electricity through it in the hope that it would result in life. Since man is
not intelligent enough to do it, I would think anyone with any common ...[text shortened]... as always existed, without the need to be created
Himself, for He is infinite and eternal life.
doesn't mean its not possible, just that you can't comprehend it.
You are basically arguing that because you are too ignorant to understand
how it is possible everyone else must be this ignorant and thus fairies must
have done it.
Your entire argument is obliterated by the blind watchmaker argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
And again your argument is RELIGIOUS.
It is NOT SCIENTIFIC.
It thus does not belong in a scientific discussion.
Also could you for the sake of my/our eyesight please break up your posts into
paragraphs, Walls of text are really hard to read.
Originally posted by CalJustGod is not mischievous nor malicious? How about the instruction to Israel to destroy entire populations, including animals, women and children?
I agree with that statement in the Bible - but it has nothing to do with the statement that you are replying to.
God's wisdom may seem foolishness to man, yes - but God is not deceiving nor mischievous nor malicious
The same argument can be made against those people that suggest that God created starlight in space in an already mov ...[text shortened]... has nothing to do with the WISDOM (or perceived foolishness) of God, but the CHARACTER of God!
Jesus said he came to bring the sword, not peace.
Seems that how the Bible describes God and Jesus is a bit different than how most people want to believe.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you one of those idiots?
Just because you can't comprehend the science behind the formation of life
doesn't mean its not possible, just that you can't comprehend it.
You are basically arguing that because you are too ignorant to understand
how it is possible everyone else must be this ignorant and thus fairies must
have done it.
Your entire argument is obliterated by th ...[text shortened]... eyesight please break up your posts into
paragraphs, Walls of text are really hard to read.
You don't seem to know the difference between science and religion.
In religion all things are possible even if you can not comprehend it.
Science requires observation and the ability to be repeated.
Life, therefore is science and since God is Life then god is
a proven fact of science because we see life reproducing itself
every day.
Now as for Richard Dawkins, he is a known liar. The following link
to a YouTube video demonstrates how he was caught off guard
by a questioner about the evolutionary theory in which he had to
stop the carmera to give him time to come up with a story that
he thought got him out of the pickle jar. But at least he was forced
to admit that the ape was not our ancestor, but instead we descended
from some imaginary creature that is no longer in existence. Sounds
more like a fairy tell to me. But those that believe in the religion of
evolution ate it up.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYes I am... Except that I think you are the idiot (well I don't normally put it
Are you one of those idiots?
You don't seem to know the difference between science and religion.
In religion all things are possible even if you can not comprehend it.
Science requires observation and the ability to be repeated.
Life, therefore is science and since God is Life then god is
a proven fact of science because we see life reproducing ...[text shortened]... that believe in the religion of
evolution ate it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
that strongly but if your going to use the term for me...).
I was trying to put it in more words and make it less blunt but that
apparently made it too complicated for you.
Science is a process of exploring the universe through experimentation
and observation.
In science the point is to comprehend things, because if you can
comprehend things you can make predictions.
This is what makes science useful, and religion a hindrance.
If you say God did it, that leaves you with no understanding of what
happened, or if it would ever happen again.
You make no progress.
If you come up with a scientific explanation via observation and experiment
you can use that explanation to make predictions about how and why it
happened and if and when it might happen again.
And you make progress, you are now better off than you were before.
Evolution is a scientific theory and has nothing to do with religion, except
that it contradicts some religious beliefs and removes the explanatory need
for a deity, thus posing a problem for those of particular faiths.
This is not sciences problem.
And don't believe everything you see on youtube...
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
Dawkins is not a known liar... And although I believe he can be a bit too vitriolic
in his attacks on theism, I do agree with his message.
As for his science, he is a leading expert in his field.
One thing that often gets scientists in trouble is that its hard to convey complex
ideas in terms that a lay person can understand without compromising your meaning
or over simplifying.
Often times fairly simple questions can have quite complex answers.
It takes years of dedicated study to get to the level of understanding of a particular
discipline that professor Dawkins has.
Apart from anything else all fields of expertise have associated jargon and words can
take on particular meanings that differ from common usage, which means you are
almost literally talking a different language.
Science is not about pithy answers, the world/universe is complex, and often times simple
questions have long complicated answers.
Then of course you have those with an agenda who will distort your words and meaning
to suite their own ends.
As happened here.
That post was easier to read, thank you.
These theological discussions should not be in the science forum. It shows the mis-guided belief of creationists that creationism should have an equal voice vs evolution in the science arena. Creationism is not science, it is faith.
@RJ Hinds : your posts show you don't understand the concept of a circular reasoning argument. The bible is not proof. It is a merely book written by man (as are all other religious books). An entertaining read, funny in parts, pious in others and it gives a useful set of rules for an orderly society. But hey if you want to believe in that great, just don't force it on others in the science forum.