Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

"Conceit is God's Gift to little men."
--Bruce Barton

OK, thanks for the quote. Here are a few.

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. ~William Shakespeare



[/FONT]Aggressive fighting for the right is the greatest sport in the world.
Theodore Roosevelt


Science without religion is lame....
Albert Einstein

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

We have genuflected before the god of science only to find that it has given us the atomic bomb, producing fears and anxieties that science can never mitigate.
​

Martin Luther King Jr


Ps 119:99 -I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Rom 1: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,


Lu 21:15 - For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

 

[dad]

Shall we take a poll as to whom is the proud, shrill voice in this forum?

The teachings of a self made creation are rampant all through earth. Hundreds of millions of us believers know that! The bible foretold it. So, what ten or 20 mind made up posters in some forum vote on really means little.

All of it.

Actually, for the record, and the lurkers, I reject no evidence at all. Not decay, not the present state, not physics, not anything.

You mean that they consider the evidence. You just make stuff up.

The opposite, actually is correct. I look to the bible, and what real evidences we have in science. I do not use a bias certain state belief that is called science falsely, to filter all evidences religiously through! I am honest enough to let the unknowmn be unknown to science. I don't wave a magic wand, to justify a same state past belief, and stuff the universe in a speck, and declare 95% of it dark stuff!!

Science can say nothing about the supernatural, or magic. The point is, that science can explain without recourse to either. It doesn't need to posit a schizophrenic universe.

False, it can only start at a belief based foundation, and assume that all that ever existed is like what is under it's nose. And it posits the most absolute absurd conclusions possible, to the trillionth power, in denial of the spiritual it can't see, or detect, pulling all out of it's magic hat, including the sun, moon, and stars, and all life!

Your holy book was obviously man made. The stars, the stones, the stuff of life, could not have been made by man. That is where the real word of god is written.

I disagree. The stars are the way they are, and the laws of physics, and our life spans, etc, BECAUSE of man. God had to change them, as He will again one day. He used men, faults and all to pipe down His word. To omit the unseen source is short sighted indeed. It misses the writing on the wall, the reason for it all, and does so with unmitigated gall.

No. It means that they carried water into space.

Water was in space right over earth. Thats more than we can say for the comets that went by in my lifetime! The water in the spacecraft came back to earth, bringing more water that all comets in our lifetimes, far as I know. Whay imagine stuff? Like that literal oceans were wafted down!!? Absurd.

You mean no evidence at all unless it fits your schizoid universe, for which you can provide no evidence. Of course I cannot prove that the universe wasn't poofed into existence last Thursday with the the appearance of age and every memory falsely implanted, nor can I prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorn, or teapot in the asteroid belt.

And you cannot project a present state into the far past, therefore all things that are based on assuming one are truly null and void. It is no more fact than the FSM.No memory on earth remembers a same state past, no need for implants, that is insane. In fact, men remember a very different past, that included the spiritual! That happens to be the actual record we have, of course.

I repeat: Your holy book bears all the earmarks of a human creation. The stars, the stones, and the stuff of life tell a different story.

No, they do not. Not unless we first filter them through your same state past filter! They actually tell the same story as the word. Of course.

And if you are the most certain of what you know, are you not certainly wrong? It is you who dismiss the word of god in favor of the words of men.

Say what?? Who dismisses the bible how? I think any fair observer would admit that I try to include and accept it.

... like how your computer works?

My computer is not in either the garden of Eden, or the new heavens of the future. It is in the present, and works with the laws that work here. Nothing to do with the creation debate.

But you post in this forum, and not in the Christians-only forums, where accusing people who disagree with you of godlessness would get you banned.

Science is godless. Ask around.

You never would. You dare not challenge the delusion in which you have invested so much of yourself.You seem to be firing off metaphors at random. If I didn't know better, I would think you were becoming hysterical.I think we all see that it positively terrifies you.

Knowledge is my friend. Pretend knowledge is my enemy. Especially when it is used to rob kids of a chance to have faith in God. There is nothing fearful about so called science at all. Not when you really realize it has been locked out of the truth, because it uses the wrong key, and cannot ever get in with it. So, all of it's stories, and all of it's men, can never put so called science together again.
Not for those that are aware that it is predicated on a false and unprovable, and unsupportable and godless foundation.

But you know? All those scientists are wrong, all those Christians who disagree with you (almost all of them) are wrong but you have to be right. God says that the Bible is not his word but the the faulty understanding of men, and you kick his keister. Truly, whom God would destroy, he first makes arrogant.

Say what??? God says the bible is not His word??!!!! Support that allegation!!! God is not a monster looking to kick folks, and I think it is great news, that His word is actually true, and that science really did have it wrong.

You demand of God that he agree with you[\i].

I demand He no be a liar, of course, and He says He cannot lie! This is news?

His word is the reality written in a hand that cannot be forged, not some book of bronze-age myths that isn't even consistent in itself.

Reality that is limited to the perceptions of men, and his current abilities, that purportedly encompasses the creation, and the future of all things, is no match for the Hand of God, that wrought a message to the world, in scripture!
- Me

In all kindness, I advise you to temper your ferocity lest you find yourself restrained in a padded room.

Relax. Godly anger at principalities, and powers, and the wickedness in high places is quite cool.

 

[Danyc]

OK, thanks for the quote. Here are a few.

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. ~William Shakespeare

Well fooey on Shakespeare-- apparently he doesn't approve of poes.




[/FONT]

Science without religion is lame....
Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

Being a religious man, Einstein would of course hold to such a statement. He would not agree with you, however, on your views about science. Einstein understood the phrase "Burden of Proof". After all, he had to prove his theories. His proof was not "You can't prove it isn't".

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

"At this point an enigma presents itself which in all
ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that
mathematics, being after all a product of human thought
which is independent of experience, is so admirably
appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason,
then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able
to fathom the properties of real things?

In my opinion the answer to this question is briefly
this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality."
---Albert Einstein

I know you would like to have the opinions of famous scientists on your side,
but you don't.

We have genuflected before the god of science only to find that it has given us the atomic bomb, producing fears and anxieties that science can never mitigate.

Martin Luther King Jr

Being a man of peace, King would obviously hold to such principles. However, if his argument was one against science, he was wrong-- What something produces is not an indicator of the good or evil of the thing in question. God produced everything we see that is bad around us-- he created Satan for heaven's sake. Does this reflect badly on God?

Lu 21:15

- For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

This, obviously, does not apply to you.

 

[dad]

Well fooey on Shakespeare-- apparently he doesn't approve of poes.

That has what to do with the thread? Is that some sort of insinuation?

Being a religious man, Einstein would of course hold to such a statement. He would not agree with you, however, on your views about science.

I disagree. He was smart. Smart enough to know there would be no choice.

Einstein understood the phrase "Burden of Proof". After all, he had to prove his theories. His proof was not "You can't prove it isn't".

His proof also dealt with things relative to the state of this present universe. If he was to discuss something else, then he would do so accordingly.

In my opinion the answer to this question is briefly
this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality."
---Albert Einstein

I know you would like to have the opinions of famous scientists on your side,
but you don't.

Don't get jealous, now.

Being a man of peace, King would obviously hold to such principles. However, if his argument was one against science, he was wrong-- What something produces is not an indicator of the good or evil of the thing in question. God produced everything we see that is bad around us-- he created Satan for heaven's sake. Does this reflect badly on God?

He did not create Satan to kill all men, however. Man would do that, with his science, if not stopped. If a plant bears bad fruit, it is a bad plant! Science cannot hold the high ground, it must face up to the vile deathly fruits of it's hands. One does not smash out a man's teeth, and then hand him a well designed toothbrush, and expect that people only see the toothbrush. They will also hold it responsible for the bad, as well as the good.


I would have to add that assuming a same state in the future and past is an absurdity of science! Because there is no reason to. Just look at the insane conclusions such wrong reasoning has come up with!!!!

 

[Danyc]

That has what to do with the thread? Is that some sort of insinuation?
[/font]

Pretty much.

I disagree. He was smart. Smart enough to know there would be no choice.

Smart enough to not subscribe to a theory he had little evidence for.

His proof also dealt with things relative to the state of this present universe. If he was to discuss something else, then he would do so accordingly.

A proposition is a proposition-- it is proposed, and then proven. If you are saying you cannot prove your proposition, then nobody wants to hear about it.

That's why Einsteins theories are so prevalent, as is Darwin's.

Don't get jealous, now.

Of what?

He did not create Satan to kill all men, however. Man would do that, with his science, if not stopped. If a plant bears bad fruit, it is a bad plant!

He created Satan, who did terrible things. The methodology of science allowed us to split atoms, which we then used to do terrible things. Just as God cannot be held responsible for Satan's doings (or can he?) Science, a simple methodology of looking, observing, and drawing conclusions cannot be accused, as if it were an actual entity, of the things people have done with technology.

I would have to add that assuming a same state in the future and past is an absurdity of science! Because there is no reason to. Just look at the insane conclusions such wrong reasoning has come up with!!!!

Its only insane to you.

 

[dad]

Pretty much.

So in bringing up poes, you say it was an insinuation. OK.

Smart enough to not subscribe to a theory he had little evidence for.

A lot of the evidences for his theories came later. Even quite recently some were confirming them in experiments. A lot of what he did was think. I will not compare myself to him. My theories come from simple deduction, and reading! Reading the bible, and history. I would think I am evidence heavy compared to Einstein.

A proposition is a proposition-- it is proposed, and then proven. If you are saying you cannot prove your proposition, then nobody wants to hear about it.

Darwin's ideas are junk. The concept was good, if taken within the creation model. Otherwise, it is trash. Yes, evolving was a big part of life. Much ado about nothing, really! Einstein's ideas are, as I have said before here, relative to the box, and only the box of the temporary present state. They can't even line up with the quantum level. Mickey mouse in the big scheme of things.

He created Satan, who did terrible things.

But only with permission, as was best for man! Surely you know that God is in total control? The commies used to have what they called 'useful idiots'. God has uses for some idiots as well. And I call The old boy, and his cronies, and devotees idiots on purpose, because they will actually try to fight God when He comes!!! They actually must think they have some chance, which makes them idiots, indeed.

The methodology of science allowed us to split atoms, which we then used to do terrible things. Just as God cannot be held responsible for Satan's doings (or can he?) Science, a simple methodology of looking, observing, and drawing conclusions cannot be accused, as if it were an actual entity, of the things people have done with technology.

No. First of all, you split PO atoms! That is why they go boom! In the true nature forever state, it doesn't work that way. So, then, the tinkering and mucking about science of the present does with present state atoms results in death on a grand scale, and destruction.

God uses the devil. It is not some uncontrolled experiment run amok. The innocence of man was not righteousness. Righteousness comes, I would think, from resisting temptation. The last leader will be a man that follows the devil's agenda, most likely just as went on in the garden.

Getting man to look at the pride of life, and the lust of the eyes, and the doubting of God's word. 'Ye shall not surely die'. The choices of man must end up worshiping either God, or the alternative. Believing either God, and His word, or the wisdom of man, and agenda of the devil. The devil is not a nuclear bomb, he is a jailer.

Its only insane to you.

Not true. Billions have believed in a new heavens coming. In an afterlife. This state is well known to be temporal! As the grass of the field, so it will pass away. Therefore so called science assuming that the future is to be held to our laws, and burn out the stars, is insane to a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot of people over history. It also is insane to many of them, to hold Eden to our laws.
I have simply tried to put a voice to the obvious! To point out that no science can support the fables of so called science after all.

And this thread is here for any to prove otherwise. Since it hasn't been done, it is also here to have a good belly aching laugh at the real honest to goodness absurdities of so called science.

Enjoy the moment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So in bringing up poes, you say it was an insinuation. OK.

Don't act so surprised, dad -- most of us have been saying you're a parody for quite some time now.

I think it all started when you were believing in pixies.

A lot of the evidences for his theories came later. Even quite recently some were confirming them in experiments. A lot of what he did was think.

As well as act. You obviously know nothing of Einstein's experimental work.

I will not compare myself to him.

Let's see how long this lasts...

My theories come from simple deduction, and reading! Reading the bible, and history.

What "history" that didn't come from the Bible?

I would think I am evidence heavy compared to Einstein.

Didn't last long, did it? Not only did you compare yourself to him, but you (surprise!) placed yourself as superior.

Darwin's ideas are junk. The concept was good, if taken within the creation model. Otherwise, it is trash. Yes, evolving was a big part of life. Much ado about nothing, really!

Well, you being the expert on nothing, why not explain your statement?

Einstein's ideas are, as I have said before here, relative to the box, and only the box of the temporary present state. They can't even line up with the quantum level. Mickey mouse in the big scheme of things.

Why do you pretend to be an expert on the big scheme of anything? Even the pixies laugh at you.

But only with permission, as was best for man! Surely you know that God is in total control? The commies used to have what they called 'useful idiots'. God has uses for some idiots as well.

[Insert your own Infraction-worthy comment here]

No. First of all, you split PO atoms! That is why they go boom! In the true nature forever state, it doesn't work that way.

According to whom? The pixies?

So, then, the tinkering and mucking about science of the present does with present state atoms results in death on a grand scale, and destruction.

If done wrong -- otherwise, it could provide a clean source of energy.

Anything is dangerous if used improperly -- even in the true nature forever state.

Just ask the pixies.

Not true. Billions have believed in a new heavens coming. In an afterlife.

Billions might very well be wrong -- nothing new there.

This state is well known to be temporal! As the grass of the field, so it will pass away. Therefore so called science assuming that the future is to be held to our laws, and burn out the stars, is insane to a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot of people over history. It also is insane to many of them, to hold Eden to our laws.

A lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot of people over history might very well be wrong -- nothing new there either.

I have simply tried to put a voice to the obvious! To point out that no science can support the fables of so called science after all.

You have -- as usual -- failed miserably, yet colorfully.

The pixies are not amused.

And this thread is here for any to prove otherwise. Since it hasn't been done, it is also here to have a good belly aching laugh at the real honest to goodness absurdities of so called science.

Enjoy the moment.

Indeed we shall -- for the moment may very well be all we have, until the pixies come.

 

[dad]

Don't act so surprised, dad -- most of us have been saying you're a parody for quite some time now.

I think it all started when you were believing in pixies.

Is the bible pixies, now? But, fair enough, we all form opinions of others. My opinions of you are not something I could post, and remain on this board, however.


I guess I could give my opinion of the doubts I see often raised here, though. I find that many of them are strikingly similar to something called, at one time 'the satanic bible'. I only saw bits of it, when I was first a believer, I admit. Someone was trying to overthrow my new found faith in God. They had the book in hand, and quoted from it. It was like a compilation of seemingly contradictory verses from the bible. The example I remember was this.

'Answer a fool according to his folly' and then,

'Answer not a fool according to his folly'

As well as act. You obviously know nothing of Einstein's experimental work.

Why not tell us about it, if you think you do, then? I am not here promoting the secret work of some dead scientist, anyhow.

What "history" that didn't come from the Bible?

Sumer. Egypt. These speak of things spiritual, and even the flood, and long lifespans etc.

Didn't last long, did it? Not only did you compare yourself to him, but you (surprise!) placed yourself as superior.

I would not compare my brain power to his. But I will humbly admit that God's power kick starts us to eternity, leaving poor Al in the dirt. Of course. He is simply among the best man's wisdom has to offer. He can't play with the big boys!

Well, you being the expert on nothing, why not explain your statement?

Evolving was a gift of God to all creations, and happened fast fast fsat in the former state. Therfore Darwin's observations are of no concern.

Why do you pretend to be an expert on the big scheme of anything? Even the pixies laugh at you.

No, I don't. I do claim to have a bigger scope than man's knowledge can give, however. So your Pixies will just have to deal with it.

If done wrong -- otherwise, it could provide a clean source of energy.

Clean is relative. Nothing is really clean in a temporary state. It has waste.

Anything is dangerous if used improperly -- even in the true nature forever state.

False. Because what creates the danger is the fallen state of man, tinkering in the temporary state of things we find ourselves near!

Billions might very well be wrong -- nothing new there.

Billions might be right, or wrong. That is not determined by the opinions of one, or a few.

A lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot of people over history might very well be wrong -- nothing new there either.

Then they have a lot lot of work to do, in doing more than thinking that the records are wrong. Obviously.

You will need more than Pixies to help you formulate a cohesive case, I would guess. But keep working on it.

 

[Freodin]

Sumer. Egypt. These speak of things spiritual, and even the flood, and long lifespans etc.

You are right... especially the sumerian lists speak of extremely long lifespans.

Problematic for you hypotesis is only: they speak of lifespans that go back some several ten thousand years before, according to your timeline, the world was created.

So we have to introduce a new "split" - a new space-time-spirit-split - between the "hebrew" and the "sumer" world.

 

[Atheian Libertarist]

Science without religion is lame....
Albert Einstein

Why don't you state the whole quote? Nothing like censorship to correlate with your views I am glad I found this quote by you, you just showed the true nature of your thinking

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is the bible pixies, now? But, fair enough, we all form opinions of others. My opinions of you are not something I could post, and remain on this board, however.

Now, now, dad -- you claimed you studied the Bible and history -- if you studied history the same way you study the Bible, you would inevitably come to the pixie conclusion.

I guess I could give my opinion of the doubts I see often raised here, though. I find that many of them are strikingly similar to something called, at one time 'the satanic bible'. I only saw bits of it, when I was first a believer, I admit. Someone was trying to overthrow my new found faith in God. They had the book in hand, and quoted from it. It was like a compilation of seemingly contradictory verses from the bible. The example I remember was this.

'Answer a fool according to his folly' and then,

'Answer not a fool according to his folly'

Alas, dad -- I've actually read the Satanic Bible (that title is reserved for the book written by Anton LaVey) and no such contradictions exist.

Alas, you are either mistaken, or once again, making things up in the interest of self-glorification -- as if anyone would be interested enough in you to deconvert you!

Why not tell us about it, if you think you do, then? I am not here promoting the secret work of some dead scientist, anyhow.

No, you're not -- merely attempting to establish your superiority to him -- the common pastime of the impotent who wish to look important.

Sumer. Egypt. These speak of things spiritual, and even the flood, and long lifespans etc.

Yep, it's called mythology -- and the Hebrews copied nearly all of the Bible's stories from them -- incorrectly, as it so happens. And then the Christians imitated the Hebrews -- incorrectly again.

There's no such thing as an original story; everyone copies from anyone else. Only a fool would think that stories of Gods and spirits are any exception.

I would not compare my brain power to his. But I will humbly admit that God's power kick starts us to eternity, leaving poor Al in the dirt. Of course. He is simply among the best man's wisdom has to offer. He can't play with the big boys!

And you are unquestionably a little boy playing at being big -- why do you continue to compete?

Evolving was a gift of God to all creations, and happened fast fast fsat in the former state. Therfore Darwin's observations are of no concern.

Because you say so, little man? You really shouldn't be playing with the big boys like Darwin -- you're clearly out of your league.

No, I don't. I do claim to have a bigger scope than man's knowledge can give, however. So your Pixies will just have to deal with it.

Your scope can't even deal with the pixies, which are quite small. You're stuck in your Pixieless Box, and may never see the real picture.

Clean is relative. Nothing is really clean in a temporary state. It has waste.

And yet you pretend to know otherwise -- how wasteful is that?

False. Because what creates the danger is the fallen state of man, tinkering in the temporary state of things we find ourselves near!

And yet you pretend to know otherwise -- how dangerous is that?

Billions might be right, or wrong. That is not determined by the opinions of one, or a few.

Or of you, little man -- and yet you pretend to know otherwise.

Then they have a lot lot of work to do, in doing more than thinking that the records are wrong. Obviously.

The problem is that they think the records are right -- you're the only one claiming they don't apply.

You will need more than Pixies to help you formulate a cohesive case, I would guess. But keep working on it.

I hardly need a cohesive case to deal with blather.

 

[dad]

You are right... especially the sumerian lists speak of extremely long lifespans.

Right, thank you. Nat are you reading this?

Problematic for you hypotesis is only: they speak of lifespans that go back some several ten thousand years before, according to your timeline, the world was created.

So we have to introduce a new "split" - a new space-time-spirit-split - between the "hebrew" and the "sumer" world.

Not at all, actually. No one says a pagan account is accurate in any detailed measure, of course, at all. Especially modern man's interpretation of what they recorded!
I do not lean on it for accuracy, merely for the basic tome, and reference points and generalities, and realities that underlie the record. The fact that long lives are the norm in that early early record has weight. As for what kings were real, and who really followed who, and etc is another story altogether. Taking that stuff seriously at facce value is to indulge in the giggles of Gilgamesh.

Same thing with Egypt, they dealt with spirits, let's face it. Even a crowbar couldn't separate spirits from the Egyptian record.

The clarity book, that has the trusted records is, of course, the bible. To put the pagan notions into focus, we need the prime record of God to man for the time. Together, they bring the hazy sparse records of the antiquity of man into astounding focus.

No need, then to flush the baby of the true bits down with the water of misunderstandings, and weaknesses, and embellishments of people other than the people of God of that time. We can accept some basics as being rooted in some sort of truth. Basics that underlie the story, like the fact that there were men, and women. Like the fact that they grew stuff, and ate food. Like the fact that there were rivers, and water, and buildings, and kings, and etc.


To wily nilly wave away all the records of mankind with the wand of a present based perspective, is anything but reasonable, or science, or possible!

After all, I wave nothing away that is real, such as science of the present.

 

[Freodin]

So, if some book tells a story that disagrees with the story in my book, it is incorrect?

Come on, dad, master of splits and different pasts. You of all people should be able to accept the realities of different realities.

There once where a number of different "pasts" which merged somewhere around last Thursday. Stop thinking inside your "one-different-past-only" box!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Right, thank you. Nat are you reading this?

Indeed I have -- and I've read the Sumerian lists.

I've also read the Norse Eddas, the Greek myths, the Hindu Vedas, and Egyptian Book of the Dead, and of course, the Bible.

How about you?

Not at all, actually. No one says a pagan account is accurate in any detailed measure, of course, at all. Especially modern man's interpretation of what they recorded!

"No one" says a Hebrew accout is accurate, either.

I do not lean on it for accuracy, merely for the basic tome, and reference points and generalities, and realities that underlie the record.

You mean "realities" that pre-date the record? IOW, you cherry-pick it only insofar as it supports you, and ignore anything you can't use.

The fact that long lives are the norm in that early early record has weight.

Indeed -- it shows us which myths the Hebrews stole from.

Not surprising, really, considering that most primative cultures -- including the Hebrews -- had little to no concept of an afterlife, so long and prosperous lives were commonly used as literary/mythological symbols of their Gods' blessings.

Factor in the ancient peoples tendancy for hyperbole, as well as the universal tendancy to conflate history and mythology, and it all makes perfect sense.

As for what kings were real, and who really followed who, and etc is another story altogether. Taking that stuff seriously at facce value is to indulge in the giggles of Gilgamesh.

Or worse, the giggles of Genesis.

At least Gilgamesh was well-written.

Same thing with Egypt, they dealt with spirits, let's face it. Even a crowbar couldn't separate spirits from the Egyptian record.

So, anything you can't use a crowbar on must be real? You realize, dad, you're straying into pixie territory again.

The clarity book, that has the trusted records is, of course, the bible.

You are speaking, of course, out of your hat. The Bible is, of course, a mix of history, poetry, and mythology, and any educated person can, of course, tell you which is which.

I suggest, of course, that you seek out such people on these boards. I would volunteer, but of course, you wouldn't like what I have to teach you.

To put the pagan notions into focus, we need the prime record of God to man for the time. Together, they bring the hazy sparse records of the antiquity of man into astounding focus.

The prime record would be the Earth itself -- crafted from God's own hands with no intercention whatsoever from human imagination.

Alas, in that regard, you've already ruled God's work out as unreliable.

No need, then to flush the baby of the true bits down with the water of misunderstandings, and weaknesses, and embellishments of people other than the people of God of that time. We can accept some basics as being rooted in some sort of truth. Basics that underlie the story, like the fact that there were men, and women. Like the fact that they grew stuff, and ate food. Like the fact that there were rivers, and water, and buildings, and kings, and etc.

The problem, of course, is that everybody claims that they are the true people of God at that time, and God Himself is not around to straighten out exactly who is on His side.

But I'm sure even the Hebrews got some of it right, like the fact that there were rivers, and water, and buildings, and kings, and pixies, etc.

To wily nilly wave away all the records of mankind with the wand of a present based perspective, is anything but reasonable, or science, or possible!

And yet, that's exactly what you do. How do you read with that beam in your eye?

After all, I wave nothing away that is real, such as science of the present.

The past is real too -- but you wave away anything not in the Magic Book.

 

[Danyc]

When I cannot think of a way to say it, Nathan comes along

I always enjoy reading your comments.

 

[dad]

Indeed I have -- and I've read the Sumerian lists.

I've also read the Norse Eddas, the Greek myths, the Hindu Vedas, and Egyptian Book of the Dead, and of course, the Bible.

OK, ...and..?? So?

How about you?

You kidding? I have little time for trash. I simply acknowledge some valid bits in some of them.

"No one" says a Hebrew accout is accurate, either.

False. No One you know, perhaps. So?

You mean "realities" that pre-date the record? IOW, you cherry-pick it only insofar as it supports you, and ignore anything you can't use.

No, nothing like that. I mean the realities recorded. Like long life spans, I have no reason to suspect they made it up. I do have reason to take the whole package with a grain of salt, as far as the story telling goes. That is a good rulle that should be taught in schools regarding so called science, by the way. Know any teachers?

Indeed -- it shows us which myths the Hebrews stole from.[/quote[ No, that is a common misconception. No proof exists for that claim, of course. The flood account is something that would be expected in post flood peoples, even if they messed it up. And Good's people traveled, so the stories could be spread. Look at today, does the gospel get out? Yes indeed! That is how God works.

Not surprising, really, considering that most primative cultures -- including the Hebrews -- had little to no concept of an afterlife, so long and prosperous lives were commonly used as literary/mythological symbols of their Gods' blessings.

Pure imagination, projecting baseless doubts into time. Doesn't fly at all.

Or worse, the giggles of Genesis.

Well, there is humor in a lot of things, but some things have more than humor in them.

At least Gilgamesh was well-written.

A real best seller, that. I wonder why?

So, anything you can't use a crowbar on must be real? You realize, dad, you're straying into pixie territory again.

The concept of separating fact from fiction, however hard seems foreign to you. Not sure I can help.

You are speaking, of course, out of your hat. The Bible is, of course, a mix of history, poetry, and mythology, and any educated person can, of course, tell you which is which.

You have no way of knowing where Inspiration begins, or not. Really. Got any Insppiration detectors for sale?

The prime record would be the Earth itself -- crafted from God's own hands with no intercention whatsoever from human imagination.

Except in the dreaming up where it came from when stuff. That is called science.

The problem, of course, is that everybody claims that they are the true people of God at that time, and God Himself is not around to straighten out exactly who is on His side.

False. No one else claimed to be the people of the Living God that I ever heard of. Some that got too haughty, and grabbed the arc of the covenant found out that they were'nt it real fast, as they died.

But I'm sure even the Hebrews got some of it right, like the fact that there were rivers, and water, and buildings, and kings, and pixies, etc.

If you call spirits pixies, fine. Call them tomatoes if you like. But they were certainly around, and in a way that they are not today. Today, they are hidden, out of sight, and out of the mind of science of the flesh!

And yet, that's exactly what you do. How do you read with that beam in your eye?

I do not wave away the records of history. Any more than I accept them at face value. But there are records and they do tell of certain differences. Why would I ignore that?


The past is real too -- but you wave away anything not in the Magic Book.

 

[Jester4kicks]

So, if some book tells a story that disagrees with the story in my book, it is incorrect?

Come on, dad, master of splits and different pasts. You of all people should be able to accept the realities of different realities.

There once where a number of different "pasts" which merged somewhere around last Thursday. Stop thinking inside your "one-different-past-only" box!

You are my new favorite person on the forums!

 

[dad]

So, if some book tells a story that disagrees with the story in my book, it is incorrect?

That depends on the basis of the book. Not all books are equal. The history books have some basis, not as true accounts, persay, but as accounts, from which certain basic fundamental realities can be glimpsed.
The bible has the added oomph of having many many learned men sacredly protect it, and take almost ridiculous measures to pass it down with perfect accuracy. It also has the unique stamp of authenticity among all books on earth, of spine tingling prophesies fulfilled to a tee. It is signed, sealed, and delivered to man as a book that stands out among books. For thousands of startling and real and tried and tested reasons.
When we add raw power of the bible, to any frothy, flimsy, and foolish pagan histories of great antiquity, we are able to bring some genuine focus to what is said. We also are able to weed out the fact from the fiction.

As I filter the accounts of the Sumer that I have heard, and skimmed through, and those of Egypt, shake then out, and siphon off the junk, we have a few kernels of basic realities of the time, that stand out in stark contrast to the world and realities of the present. Therefore, when someone tries to wave these away, out of ignorance, and intrenched assumptions based only on the present realities, I can laugh.

Come on, dad, master of splits and different pasts. You of all people should be able to accept the realities of different realities.

If you mean the long lifespans recorded in early human history, and that there were spiritual beings close to the world of men, even mingling, and a flood, etc..yes, of course I have no choice but to accept it. Even the tattered, left field, likely second hand embelleshed accounts of pagans are of some merit!

If you mean some stupid theory of modern so called science, like the string theory, or some such, no alternate reality based only on this universe state laws is of any worth at all!

The bible and actual records of history show that there were differences, unlike some nerdnotion that was dreamed up from the brew pot of modern so called science!

There once where a number of different "pasts" which merged somewhere around last Thursday. Stop thinking inside your "one-different-past-only" box!

No, sorry. There is a basic staring point for debate, and that has to do with reality. Part of that reality is real records, and real observers. Trying to wave away reality with some supposedly equal halucenation dreamed up at a whim is insanity. While it may be acceptable as wit in most universities, it is actually time wasting nonsense.

Science is in no position to comment on the new heavens. All it's doom and gloom prophesies about all stars burning out are pure fiction. Not science. All it's reverse extrapolations from this present, to form an imaginary world of yesteryear are excerises in vanity. Only here and now, and the fairly recent past are it's bylaws relevant.


Once this thread is done, I have a fairly chilling and sobering thought, concerning the present, I might try a thread on.

 

[Nathan Poe]

OK, ...and..?? So?

You kidding? I have little time for trash. I simply acknowledge some valid bits in some of them.

You make plenty of time for the Bible -- time enough to worship it.

False. No One you know, perhaps. So?

So -- no one, as I said.

Sure, there's you, but you hardly count for anything.

No, nothing like that. I mean the realities recorded. Like long life spans, I have no reason to suspect they made it up.

I have plenty of reasons -- if you actually did some reading, so would you.

But as you say, you have no time for reading.

I do have reason to take the whole package with a grain of salt, as far as the story telling goes. That is a good rulle that should be taught in schools regarding so called science, by the way. Know any teachers?

I am one, dad. And I take everything with a grain of salt -- including the Bible.

Helps me separate the history from the mythology -- you should try it sometime; you wouldn't be so confused.

No, that is a common misconception. No proof exists for that claim, of course.

Just because you don't have time to read the proof doesn't mean it's not there.

The flood account is something that would be expected in post flood peoples, even if they messed it up. And God's people traveled, so the stories could be spread. Look at today, does the gospel get out? Yes indeed! That is how God works.

it's also how mythology works -- which explains how the Flood "account" exists in cultures which rose and fell long before the Hebrews came onto the scene, let along wrote their unoriginal mythology.

Pure imagination, projecting baseless doubts into time. Doesn't fly at all.

It's pure history, dad -- even today's Hebrews, the direct descendents of the people who wrote those stories, acknowledge this.

If you had time for an education, you'd know some of this.

Well, there is humor in a lot of things, but some things have more than humor in them.

Agreed -- Which is what makes Gilgamesh so important... as well as Genesis -- for the exact same reasons.

You really should make the time to read Gilgamesh, dad -- you can find where the Biblical authors came up with their ideas.

A real best seller, that. I wonder why?

Gilgamesh? Being the earliest written work in human history makes it quite the object of study.

Of course, about a thousand years later, the Hebrews got around to writing down their ideas, and I'll be the first to admit, they did well with that.

The concept of separating fact from fiction, however hard seems foreign to you. Not sure I can help

Oh I know without a doubt you'd be absolutely no help at all -- you've proven yourself quite the hinderance.

You have no way of knowing where Inspiration begins, or not. Really. Got any Insppiration detectors for sale?

Give me yours, and I'll trade you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Except in the dreaming up where it came from when stuff. That is called science.

And when you do it, it's called blather.

False. No one else claimed to be the people of the Living God that I ever heard of.

Well, we've already established that you know so little, that limiting ourselves to the things you ever heard of would be worthless.

Some that got too haughty, and grabbed the arc of the covenant found out that they were'nt it real fast, as they died.

Yes, but enough about the Nazis -- reality is far more complicated than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This is one of many reasons nobody asks you to separate fact from fiction -- you simply don't have the knack.

If you call spirits pixies, fine. Call them tomatoes if you like. But they were certainly around, and in a way that they are not today. Today, they are hidden, out of sight, and out of the mind of science of the flesh!

So you believein invisible pixies, and claim that others have the problem distinguishing fact from fiction.

This is just too good -- sprinkle some dust on you, dad ,and give us a call when you get back from Neverland.

I do not wave away the records of history. Any more than I accept them at face value. But there are records and they do tell of certain differences. Why would I ignore that?

You don't ignore them all -- you only ignore the ones you can't creatively twist for the purpose of self-glorification.

I would expect nothing less from you, dad -- and I've long since given up expecting anything more.

 

[dad]

You make plenty of time for the Bible -- time enough to worship it.

Well, do you believe it is the word of God? Let us know. If so, you would respect it. If not, who really cares what you think!?

So -- no one, as I said.

Just because you don't know Him does not mean He is dead, or doesn't exist. It doesn't work that way/

But as you say, you have no time for reading.

I have enough time to research my opinions, enough to defend them. And to put a cohesive case on the table. In the discussions, for example of Egypt, and Sumer, I did more than make some remark that I read them. I actually discussed the content.
If anyone wants to talk dates, I am ready to look at the basis for those dates. If anyone talks content, I am ready to meet them in the field of battle, and prevail, more than likely.
So, if you have something to contribute other than casting fireballs of doubts and aspersions, do let us know.

I am one, dad. And I take everything with a grain of salt -- including the Bible.

So did Lot's wife, I recall. Fat lot of good it seemed to do her.

Helps me separate the history from the mythology -- you should try it sometime; you wouldn't be so confused.

You may discuss history and put something on the table any time now. We'll check out your work. I already did. I factually pointed out that history supported the long lifespans and flood, and spirits etc of the different past.

it's also how mythology works -- which explains how the Flood "account" exists in cultures which rose and fell long before the Hebrews came onto the scene, let along wrote their unoriginal mythology.

That is false. God's people are and were not Hebrews, except in the era of those Hebrews that believed. His people always will be here, and always were from the garden on down! The issue is whether the Sumerians and ancient early Egypt were post flood. If they were, then God's people were here tooo! There is no way that the far from God heathen peoples have any record older than ours! No way. All that we see is that the written records so far known to man, as for original copies go, have God's people's written records as later. That means nothing, of course. The hard drives of heaven had the record, ans spit it out as needed, and those records are older. We win, and no one can prove otherwise. Who cares about the clay tablets? It is the record itself, both passed by word of mouth, angels, and God Persoanlly, that was in existence that matters. Not when a photocopy was made.

It's pure history, dad -- even today's Hebrews, the direct descendents of the people who wrote those stories, acknowledge this.

Not sure what they acknowledge, but they will have to agree with what I just said, which trumps all else anyhow. If they disagree they are wrong.

You really should make the time to read Gilgamesh, dad -- you can find where the Biblical authors came up with their ideas.

I have done some research on the matter, thanks. And just the opposite turns out to be true! Funny that.

Gilgamesh? Being the earliest written work in human history makes it quite the object of study.

Great,..so? Have you any results you can share of this studying??

Yes, but enough about the Nazis -- reality is far more complicated than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Glad you are aware of some of the basics. Too bad you seem to be unaware of the history of the ark itself, not a movie. When it was taken, tens of thousands of heathen were killed, and forced to return it.

So you believein invisible pixies, and claim that others have the problem distinguishing fact from fiction.

You are the one that brings up pixies. I bring up spirits. If you think all spirits and spiritual is untrue, and always has been, you are in a boat with holes, sitting on a sandy beach. It just doesn't float, or jive with reality of man's experience through all time.

You don't ignore them all -- you only ignore the ones you can't creatively twist for the purpose of self-glorification.

I ignore none at all, I have met any evidence head on, and tamed the beast. That is why you can only talk in shadows, and cannot come out and discuss actual issues in any meaningful way at all. But, some are not here for that, are they?