How did the universe come into existence?

[Dave Ellis]

Typical view of superstitious ancient mankind who dreamed up your understanding thousands of years before education. Do you also follow their ideas of medicine?

FYI. Adam's firmament or boundary of his world was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
On the next Day, Lord God made more Heavens, plural, the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
Each Day is Billions of years long in man's time and Adam's world/heaven was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 This released the Ark into Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago bringing the superior intelligence of Adam to this planet of the common ancestor of Apes. That is God's Truth which AGREES with Science and History. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

I couldn't care less what your book says, the physical evidence does not match the claims in the book. Therefore the book is wrong.

 

[Peter1000]

Scientists didn't say "would have", I said "would have" as you're quoting my post. Perhaps I could have worded it more to your liking, however your objection towards scientists in this situation is absurd.

And yes, I have seen the fossil. I also said it's one of the more famous examples we have, not the only example we have of a sarcopterygian. Quite frankly, if you care at all about science and biology, your beliefs are anything but real safe. In fact, they're patently false.

Realistically speaking, if all you're going to do is dismiss the actual evidence we have collected because it conflicts with your worldview, then you're not being intellectually honest. As such, unless you can start being intellectually honest, I'm wasting my time having a conversation with you.

Talk about intellectually honest. You have a 2 piece fossil of who knows what, but some scientist comes up with an entire story about that animal who supposedly lived millions of years ago, exactly what they actually looked like, what their habitat was, what their mating habits were, when they went extinct, etc., etc., etc. All from 2 pieces of fossil. I could give you many more overreaches from science if I had the time to go search. Overreach is a kind word.

It is outrageously obsurd to say, look at this fossil and then come up with all the story as if it was found in a nearby pond. Do you realize what kind of pressure scientists are under to come up with these absurd stories??? Their funding depends on it. Their livelyhood depends on their coming up with these stories. Their godless religion depends on them coming up with these stories. So don't talk to me about absurd.

I dismiss this tiny piece of actual evidence because the evidence is so weak as to stretch a normal persons perception of the whole made up image of what it looked like and the whole story surrounding it. It really is adsurd.

This fossil does not conflict with my worldview. For all I know that fossil could be a few thousand years old, and we could have those same kinds of amphibians roaming around today (see images of the lungfish) So the fossil does not phase my religious world view in the least.

Your world view should change though if this is the kind of evidence that you count on to keep your worldview in tact.

 

[Aman777]

I couldn't care less what your book says, the physical evidence does not match the claims in the book. Therefore the book is wrong.

Correction: The current consensus of godless science is provably False since the ToE cannot tell us where, when or how Humans had our origin. The best they can do is offer an incomplete view of the last 3.8 billion years and falsely assume that the sons of God (prehistoric people) magically evolved from Ape to Human, sometime in the past, and it cannot ever be repeated, and other easily refuted misconceptions.

The physical evidence aligns perfectly IF you have the proper interpretation which is available ONLY to some people of the last days with the increased scientific knowledge, of today. Dan 12:4 Your problem seems to be fitting the ancient superstitious view of Genesis, dreamed up by religious men who lived thousands of years before education, and trying to make it fit today's facts. It never will.

That is WHY I show that Scripture, science and history AGREE if you have the proper interpretation of Genesis. God Bless you

 

[Ed1wolf]

Is George Soros the Democratic Party, or is he someone that donates to the Democratic Party?

I have asked you repeatedly to show how the Democratic Party itself is involved, and explicitly said not supporters of the Democrats, but the Party itself. Why do you keep bringing up supporters? Do you have no evidence that the Democratic Party itself is organizing the protests?

George Soros combined with other wealthy donors basically ARE the democratic party's driving machine. And during the 2016 campaign, there WAS evidence from undercover videos that the DNC paying homeless people to instigate violence at Trump rallies. Even some Demos admitted it, and fired the guy that was caught in the video.

de: I couldn't care less if George Soros is funding things, he has the right to do that as a private American citizen. Same way that the Koch Brothers have every right in the world to donate their time and money to Republican organizations. Citizens can spend their money or help organize whatever they want as long as the protest or organization is legal.

No, they do not have the right to pay for specifically violent protests. Inciting violence can be illegal.

de: You made a claim against the Democratic Party itself, show your evidence for that claim.

See above.

de: They are being forced to provide basic health coverage, where that money is spent is no business of the employer.

According to the Constitution private entities are not required to provide their employees anything other than a reasonable wage and safe working conditions.

de: Likewise, the Catholic Church has voluntarily gotten into the adoption business. There are federal regulations that they must adhere to. You have two conflicting viewpoints, you have the well being of the child at stake, or you have someone's religious views. If someone is refusing a gay couple who would evidently make good parents based solely on their religion, my sympathies rest with the well being of the child.

If the Catholic Church isn't happy with that, they are more than welcome to sell their adoption services to a secular organization who will actually do everything it takes to ensure children in need find a good home.

The First Amendment trumps most regulations as long as no one is hurt physically or economically you can practice your religion anyway you see fit. And this concern about getting good parents for children is not just about religion, scientific studies have shown that children do better with a mother AND a father. In addition, studies have shown that pedophilia is higher among male gays than heteros. And lesbian couples have the highest rate of domestic violence than any type of couple. So this concern is not just based on religion it is also based on the safety and well being of the children. So if the states concern was truly about children and not just the feelings of a tiny voting constituency, they would at the least let RCC continue to only place children with hetero couples.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How? Without God humans are just another animal and of no more objective value than a cockroach.

Fraid so, without God neither of those things exist objectively. They are just arbitrary things that people make up for the government to do or take away. If the Christian God exists then those things objectively exist and cannot be taken away without facing the consequences in either this life or the next or both.

Objective value doesn't exist, value is always relative to the person evaluating something and is therefore subjective. Even if a god is involved, our value to him is still subjective to the will of that god.

Even in things with a set value (for example a US $100 bill), the actual value can fluctuate wildly compared to other currencies and currency traders. Also, subjectivity enters into it where some people value money more than others. For example an out of work homeless guy would value a $100 bill far more than Bill Gates would.

For us, we value our lives and the lives of other humans. That's the only value that matters when it comes to morality and how we treat each other.

I didn't say that Christians have always followed Gods laws and principles but we do have them as a standard and a goal. Why do you think that the first nations to outlaw slavery were ones based on Christian principles, ie Britain and the USA? And only western societies even have women's rights groups. As far as gay rights and trans rights, there are no such things. Those are just 21st century human constructs with no basis in reality or even nature. If you think they are real, please provide their origin.

Amazing, in one paragraph you simultaneously try to take credit for all the civil rights advances, while disregarding the modern day civil rights issues, just like Christians of 200 years ago argued in favour of slavery, and Christians of 100 years ago argued against universal suffrage, and the Christians of 50 years ago argued for segregation.

Just like the Christians of 100 years from now will try to take credit for the gay and trans rights movements, and claim it was christian values that lead to their full and equal integration into society.

Secular people like myself also have a standard, and a goal. I'd argue it's a far more defensible one, and a far better one than what you find in any holy book.

When properly understood from Gods perspective you would be amazed at how it has influenced society and the world. Look how the USA treated its enemies after WW2. Imagine what would be happening in our country if there were as many Muslims as there are Christians and the secular humanists were doing what they are doing to Christians. There would be much more violence because such a teaching is not a part of Islam. But you are right that Christians have not often obeyed it, because we are all sinners.

What would the secular humanists be doing that's a problem?

Fraid so, what He proclaims is based on His objectively existing moral character.

Objective means true regardless of anyone's opinion or views on the matter. The moral commandments in the bible are god's views on morality.

You can have an objective basis for morality, for example human well-being. However, someone's opinions on the matter, even a gods opinions are not objective.

Hardly, the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years and the Christian God created it. Since all humans are created in His image with a moral conscience based on His character they would be expected to create societies with many of the same basic morals taught in the Bible.

Actually, contrary to popular belief, a careful study of the Bible in context reveals that in actuality it does not advocate or endorse involuntary slavery for non-criminals and non-POWS.

Exodus 21:7-11 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Care to point out the correct context in how selling your daughter into slavery, or buying a slave wife doesn't count as involuntary slavery?

As God incarnate He had the omnipotent power to do so, but He didn't. Also His disciples could have been like the sicarii and forced people to convert by knife point and yet they did not. It was a free choice just like when Moses in the OT told the Hebrews that they were to "choose whom this day they would serve."

Jesus and his band of 12 merry men wouldn't have had a lot of luck converting Roman Judea to Christianity at knifepoint. The centurions had swords....

He is just warning you that if you want to prosper in this life and the next then you should choose to follow Yahweh otherwise you will face the natural consequences of your free choice. No coercion there. But it was more explicit in the actions of Christ and the disciples.

"That's a great soul there.... be a shame if something were to, you know... happen to it..... Better play by the rules, or something may happen....." God's "coercion free" setup perfectly mirrors what we'd expect to see from a mob thug demanding his protection money.

Either way, that's still not freedom of religion. It's a commandment that you will not have other gods. It's not an option, or advice, it's a commandment.

During the period of 300 to 1600 the RCC was under corrupt leadership and did not follow many of the teachings of Christ that is why the Reformation occurred. They valued their power more than following Christ. But after the reformation the bible became more available to the laity and learned that Christ and His disciples taught and practiced freedom of conscience. Christian scholar John Locke wrote about this and the founders of the USA learned from him how it came from the bible and this influenced them to incorporate into our Constitution.

lol.... yeah, ok, modern church leaders aren't also rampantly corrupt and self serving.

Also, the bible appears nowhere in the constitution.

I live in the deep south and have known many atheists and agnostics, in fact I used be an agnostic, with well paid jobs. There are very few Western Christian influenced nations that treat atheists badly. In fact, many of them in Europe have been taken over by atheists and agnostics.

There's also plenty who have been fired, harassed, kicked out of their house or otherwise mistreated by Christians simply because they are atheists.

Yes, but that is God's prerogative no human government is allowed to take human life except for murder and self defense or defense of others being killed.

No it's not. Morality is morality, and that morality must also apply to god. If it's wrong for us to kill a particular person, it's also wrong for god to kill that person.

If you think Morality is a double standard just because he's more powerful, then you are certainly arguing for subjective morality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The government acted in accord with secular super humanistic principles. They believed that only a certain race of humans deserved rights and protection, ie Aryans, whom they believed were superhumans. Unlike nations founded on Christian principles that believe that all humans of all races deserve basic human rights as enumerated in the DOI and the Bill of Rights of America. Hitler hated Christianity. And most of the population of Germany was unorthodox liberal Christians. Liberal theology originated in Germany about 150 years prior to WWII. So by the time of WWII it had pretty much taken over the Lutheran church and so they no longer believed in the moral absolutes of the Bible and were able to rationalize almost any immorality such as the mass slaughter of human beings who were no longer considered made in the image of God and of infinite worth and value. And there was some entrance of this theology into the Catholic seminaries undermining their belief in the inerrancy the bible and Gods moral law though not as extensively as the Lutheran church.

de: I suggest you pick up a history book. Hitler was a self professed Catholic

While he was very young he was a practicing Catholic but as he got older he came to reject it according to his childhood friend August Kubizek and his father was an agnostic. His friend never saw him at Mass. Of course he claimed to be a Christian in public when he became a politician in order to get votes, but in private and in practice he hated Christianity. For example he said "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." And he planned on eradicating it after the war.

de: and virtually all Germans were either Catholic or mainline Protestant. The antisemitism rampant in Germany can be directly traced to the Christian heritage of not only Germany but most of Europe.

But both denominations had become unorthodox and infected with liberal theology especially the protestants, read the excellent book about the German Church "Twisted Cross" by Doris Bergen. Thereby destroying the moral foundation of their nation and opening the door to pragmatic moral relativism.

de: Furthermore, Atheist and Freethinker groups were specifically banned and closed down by the Nazis, and many people from those groups wound up in the concentration camps.

Evidence? But even if so, many of the Nazi leaders were either atheists like Martin Borman and Himmler or pantheists (which are practical atheists since the pantheist doesn't believe in any kind of moral revelation) with a few theologically liberal catholics and protestants.

de: What you're describing above is not Humanism. It's racism.

Not classical humanism but racist humanism, they based everything on the Aryan Man rather than Mankind as a whole which would be standard humanism.

↑

ed: No, I did mention them. I said that the modern secular nations of Europe borrowed from their Christian heritage many of the moral principles of Christianity, such as the concept of human rights and etc. And the US is still in many ways living off its Judeo-Christian theistic founding. While not technically a theocracy the US was founded on many of the moral principles of the Biblical God. That is what the phrase "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" refers to. The first phrase refers to natural law, the second phrase refers to Biblical law. All of the founders even the non-Christians believed that God had revealed His moral laws in the Bible. So all nations that have been founded on these Christian principles generally have good human rights records except in the last 40 years not so good for the unborn.

de: Again, human rights is not a Christian concept. It's a concept that exists to some degree in almost any religious system, and secular systems.

The Western understanding of human rights primarily came from Christianity and it from there that the Founders incorporated it into our government principles. Only in Christianity does the concept have an objectively rational foundation. And secularism is actually an offshoot of Christianity.

de: "Nature's God" also is a phrase used by Deists to describe a deistic interpretation of a god. Those sentences aren't talking about the Christian god specifically.

No I am referring to the entire phrase "the Laws of Nature and [Laws of] Natures God." Jefferson who was actually a Unitarian not a deist, ie he believed in revealed morality from God, the second set of laws in the second part of the phrase refers to the moral law of God revealed in the Bible. All the founders believed that God revealed His moral law in the Bible even the deists and Unitarians who rejected the miracles of the bible.

de: The human rights record historically in Christian countries haven't been anything to be proud of either. Should I again bring up women's rights, civil rights and gay/trans rights? It seems to be universally true that the more free and secular a society becomes, and the less totalitarian or religious a society becomes, the better the human rights record looks.

Most of the leaders of the womens rights movement were Christians in America and other Western Christian nations. In addition almost all abolitionists were Christians and many of the civil rights leaders of the 1960s were Christians such as MLK. There is no such thing as gay/trans rights. You have yet to prove that they exist. Of course, as humans they are entitled to all the standard human rights but no special sexual behavior rights. Your last statement is not true among nations founded on Christian principles.

↑

ed: There is a more likely chance that an active email address is being used by real person than a very inactive address.

de: You didn't say it's inactive though, you said that one email has 2000 emails, the other has 1. The one with 2000 emails could have gotten that way because nobody actively checks that account anymore and the spam messages have piled up. For example, my aunt died last September. By the time we got into her account there were thousands of messages to weed through.

I meant 2000 emails going and coming.

de: On the other hand, the account with 1 email could be active but the user has downloaded the messages to a local backup. Or, the account was opened yesterday and is actively used, but hasn't had time to build up more than one message in the inbox yet.

So, simply saying one address has more emails in it gives us insufficient evidence to show how actively used that account is.

Again as with Christianity this does not prove it, but it is one thread of evidence among many.

↑

ed: None of these interpretations go outside the literal definitions of the original greek and Hebrew words. But we do reinterpret them based on Gods other book, nature which He has told us is a source of knowledge about Him.
.
de: Exactly, so you reinterpret them to mean whatever you want to in order to make the book look vaguely scientifically accurate.

No, if I was doing that then I would ignore the actual definitions and context of the greek and Hebrew and just make it say whaterver I want but I am not as I stated above.

↑

ed: No, the reason he doesn't cover any empirically observed evidence is because there is none. It is all done by the magical force known as Time. He believes with enough of that magic literally anything can happen, but this is false assumption.

de: This is just flat out false.

Well nowhere in the video does he provide empirical observations of the eye cup rolling up into a well developed eye. And you have yet to provide any such examples of empirically observed macroevolutionary changes.

↑

ed: You are assuming what we are trying to prove. Basically how they do it, is to look to see if it appears to have a purpose and have been created purposefully. And the universe has both such things in it.

de: No, I'm not assuming anything. Besides, apparent purpose is meaningless. Actual purpose is what matters, and you can't show actual purpose. You are assuming actual purpose without evidence to back up your assumptions.

No, as I explained we use the same means of determining purpose that archaeologists and forensic scientists use.

↑

ed: No, see above about purpose. While it is not an infallible criteria, it generally works.

de; It may generally work for your belief system, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

No, as I stated it generally works for archaeologists and forensic scientists. Also, the SETI researchers.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Talk about intellectually honest. You have a 2 piece fossil of who knows what, but some scientist comes up with an entire story about that animal who supposedly lived millions of years ago, exactly what they actually looked like, what their habitat was, what their mating habits were, when they went extinct, etc., etc., etc. All from 2 pieces of fossil. I could give you many more overreaches from science if I had the time to go search. Overreach is a kind word.

It is outrageously obsurd to say, look at this fossil and then come up with all the story as if it was found in a nearby pond. Do you realize what kind of pressure scientists are under to come up with these absurd stories??? Their funding depends on it. Their livelyhood depends on their coming up with these stories. Their godless religion depends on them coming up with these stories. So don't talk to me about absurd.

I dismiss this tiny piece of actual evidence because the evidence is so weak as to stretch a normal persons perception of the whole made up image of what it looked like and the whole story surrounding it. It really is adsurd.

This fossil does not conflict with my worldview. For all I know that fossil could be a few thousand years old, and we could have those same kinds of amphibians roaming around today (see images of the lungfish) So the fossil does not phase my religious world view in the least.

Your world view should change though if this is the kind of evidence that you count on to keep your worldview in tact.

If what you were saying was remotely accurate, the discovery would have been torn apart and savaged by other scientists in the field.

So, I'm left with two options. Either all of the scientists in all of the relevant fields have no idea what they're talking about, or you have no idea what you're talking about. My money is on the latter option.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Correction: The current consensus of godless science is provably False since the ToE cannot tell us where, when or how Humans had our origin. The best they can do is offer an incomplete view of the last 3.8 billion years and falsely assume that the sons of God (prehistoric people) magically evolved from Ape to Human, sometime in the past, and it cannot ever be repeated, and other easily refuted misconceptions.

The physical evidence aligns perfectly IF you have the proper interpretation which is available ONLY to some people of the last days with the increased scientific knowledge, of today. Dan 12:4 Your problem seems to be fitting the ancient superstitious view of Genesis, dreamed up by religious men who lived thousands of years before education, and trying to make it fit today's facts. It never will.

That is WHY I show that Scripture, science and history AGREE if you have the proper interpretation of Genesis. God Bless you

Sure dude, whatever you say.

The evidence still doesn't back your book though.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I just explained what time appears to be. And if correct then there is nothing in lacking that characteristic that restricts cause and effect.

de: No you didn't, you explained what you think time may be. There's nothing to tie that to reality.

Besides, if time is just relative positions in space, you've proven my point. Time and space came into existence with the big bang. There was no space for there to be relative positions in without the universe already being in a state of existence. So again, cause and effect breaks down when talking about the big bang.

No, you misunderstood, if time is just the relative positions of objects in space, then the absence of those things does not restrict cause and effect from occurring.

↑

ed: I just did. The universe is contingent and therefore depends on some thing for its existence. Then you can use the characteristics of the universe to find out the characteristics of what it depends on for its existence. Such as the existence of purposes in the universe means that the source of the universe is a personal intelligence since intelligent personal beings are the source of purposes.

de: You're asserting the universe is contingent, however you haven't demonstrated that. It could just be a random naturally occurring phenomenon.

Umm ALL known "random" naturally occurring phenomenon are contingent.

↑

ed: Most of the multiverse models still have an initial BB that means that the other universes that come into existence still needed an ultimate cause. But just because there is another dimension of time does not mean that there is another universe.

de: Again, you're applying the rules that govern this universe to whatever may or may not exist outside of the universe. There's no reason to believe they apply to anything other than this universe.

As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, throughout the history of science assuming the laws of logic are valid in every situation even extremely unique and mysterious situations (such as when we first studied outer space) has produced many of our greatest scientific discoveries. Not assuming them has produced next to nothing.

↑

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, you misunderstood, if time is just the relative positions of objects in space, then the absence of those things does not restrict cause and effect from occurring.

Yes, however time is not just the relative positions of objects in space. And again, you're talking about within space and subject to time. The big bang was the start of time and space as we know it. There was no "before" the big bang just as there was no space or time for a cause to exist in.

Umm ALL known "random" naturally occurring phenomenon are contingent.

There are two usages of the word contingent (not counting the noun usage).

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective
adjective: contingent

1. 1.
   subject to chance.
   "the contingent nature of the job"
   synonyms: chance, accidental, fortuitous, possible, unforeseeable, unpredictable, random, haphazard
   "contingent events"
   • (of losses, liabilities, etc.) that can be anticipated to arise if a particular event occurs.
     "businesses need to be aware of their liabilities, both actual and contingent"
   • PHILOSOPHY
     true by virtue of the way things in fact are and not by logical necessity.
     "that men are living creatures is a contingent fact"
2. 2.
   occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
   "resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement"
   synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on
   "the merger is contingent on government approval"

In your argument, are you referring to the first usage, whereas it's subject to chance? Or the second usage where it deals with dependencies? I assumed the second usage in my reply as I don't think you hold the position that a universe purposefully designed by god came around by chance.

As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, throughout the history of science assuming the laws of logic are valid in every situation even extremely unique and mysterious situations (such as when we first studied outer space) has produced many of our greatest scientific discoveries. Not assuming them has produced next to nothing.

Yes, however every scientific investigation other than this one has dealt with things within the universe as we know it. The laws that govern this universe may not apply to whatever may exist outside of this universe.

 

[Peter1000]

If what you were saying was remotely accurate, the discovery would have been torn apart and savaged by other scientists in the field.

So, I'm left with two options. Either all of the scientists in all of the relevant fields have no idea what they're talking about, or you have no idea what you're talking about. My money is on the latter option.

The scientists in this day would rather cover each other, rather than tear apart a colleague.

Think about it, if you came up with what you thought was a great discovery, and everyone laughed you to shame and wrote nasty articles about you, what would you do the next time a colleague came up with what he thought was a great discovery??

And I don't even care about whether it is true or not.

Scientists today cover each other because they know that right around the corner they may stumble into a great discovery, and will need the support of the entire community to fire up the donors and keep the funding processes alive for another year.

I believe scientists today are for the most part good men, trying to discover interesting things, but it is more money if they discover sensational million years old something that proves that God is not involved. I believe the donors primarily are godless and want a godless trail from the beginning. So that overarching goal puts a shroud on everything they say and do.

To the point that a little piece of rock can tell the full story about a ?? that lived ?? that looked like?? and was an intermediary?? and so amphibians originally came from fish millions of years ago. Great story, great print, great money, but weak evidence, and nobody cares.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The scientists in this day would rather cover each other, rather than tear apart a colleague.

Think about it, if you came up with what you thought was a great discovery, and everyone laughed you to shame and wrote nasty articles about you, what would you do the next time a colleague came up with what he thought was a great discovery??

And I don't even care about whether it is true or not.

Scientists today cover each other because they know that right around the corner they may stumble into a great discovery, and will need the support of the entire community to fire up the donors and keep the funding processes alive for another year.

I believe scientists today are for the most part good men, trying to discover interesting things, but it is more money if they discover sensational million years old something that proves that God is not involved. I believe the donors primarily are godless and want a godless trail from the beginning. So that overarching goal puts a shroud on everything they say and do.

To the point that a little piece of rock can tell the full story about a ?? that lived ?? that look like?? and was an intermediate?? and so amphibians originally came from fish millions of years ago. Great story, great print, great money, but weak evidence, and nobody cares.

Yeah, except that's not remotely accurate. The peer review process is brutal, a scientist will make a greater name for himself by exposing a false discovery than the person who publicized the discovery. Furthermore, your reputation will grow by doing good work, and will be damaged by publishing papers that are clearly in error.

But hey, if you want to buy into some conspiracy theory that says all the scientists are in cahoots just because the consensus goes against your personal opinions, so be it.

 

[Aman777]

Sure dude, whatever you say.

The evidence still doesn't back your book though.

Thanks for the opinion of someone who has a lot to learn. God Bless you

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thanks for the opinion of someone who has a lot to learn. God Bless you

I do have a lot to learn, there's plenty about the world and universe as a whole that I don't know.

I have very little to learn from someone like you though.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The books of the bible were not just set in real places, there is evidence that they were written in or near those places and near the time when they occurred. There are things that the author knows that only someone living at that time could know. There is no evidence that Spider-Man was written at time the events occurred. IOW the author has no special knowledge about the time and place that only someone writing in that time and place could know.

de: What? Are you serious? Spiderman is set in 20th and 21st century New York City. The person who started writing about Spiderman (Stan Lee) was born in New York City in 1922, and spent a large chunk of his life living there. Of course he knows about modern day New York City, the culture, places and events that occurred there. We don't just have evidence for that, we can definitively prove it. He's still alive, we can go talk to him.

Archaeologists a thousand years from now can't, however the author was still a contemporary who lived in the place at the time the events were said to occur.

Sorry I was thinking of Batman and Gotham City. I get those two confused sometimes. But anyway Spider-Man is intentional fiction that everybody knows is fiction. As I stated before intentional fiction where everyone knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages. And there are no independent sources that treat him as real which is the case with Jesus. IOW if the NY Times had articles about Spider-man treating him as a real person then you might have something analogous, though you still have the problem of intentional fiction not existing at the time.

↑

ed: Not just comparable, they would have to be unique to that time and place as I stated above. So again PB fails, try again. And there are no independent sources for his existence like Jesus written less than 5 years form the events when many people could easily disprove those sources. But they didn't for Christ.

de: Sure there are, there are plenty of independent writings about the feats of Paul Bunyan written roughly around the time he was said to exist. In fact, there's far more independent writings about Paul Bunyan than there are about Jesus. With Jesus you have one gospel written 40-45 years after the fact, two other gospels that plagiarized off the first written later than that, and the last gospel (John) which could date as late as the early second century all written by people who were not eyewitnesses. As for Paul, he even admits he never met Jesus, so he's not an eyewitness either.

No, Paul Bunyan has all the same problems that Spider-Man has above. No, most scholars believe Mark was written within 30 years of the fact. And there is evidence that John was written prior to 70 AD since he doesn't mention the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple. That would make all four gospels possibly written prior to 70 AD. And there IS evidence that two of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. John and Matthew. We also have evidence from two witnesses that were initially skeptics and then were convinced by the resurrection and converted. Paul and James. No, Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus and he also met Jesus on that road.

↑

ed: Intentional popular fiction was not invented until the middle ages. So they plainly cannot be that.↑

de; Nonsense, fictional writings have been around as long as writing has. We still have myths and fables that long predate the era of Jesus. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyssey and many, many others.

Not intentional fiction where the audience knows it is fiction. All those myths you reference were believed by most of their audiences to be actual historical events. Again, intentional fiction written for an audience that knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages.

 

[Peter1000]

Yeah, except that's not remotely accurate. The peer review process is brutal, a scientist will make a greater name for himself by exposing a false discovery than the person who publicized the discovery. Furthermore, your reputation will grow by doing good work, and will be damaged by publishing papers that are clearly in error.

But hey, if you want to buy into some conspiracy theory that says all the scientists are in cahoots just because the consensus goes against your personal opinions, so be it.

If you think for one minute that the truth outweighs money and fame, forget it.

Science these days are about the money. Truth is secondary, and especially a truth that would go against evolution and would support creation. That kind of truth would get buried for sure under the pier review process, for sure. In fact the scientist that suggested it would be black listed and probably drummed out of his position.

Because you are pro science you have a blind spot in you eye about the industry.
You accept all, hook, line, and sinker. I accept some. I believe they snudge their data to get the outlook for their projects they need.

I know, I am pretty pessimistic about scientists these days, especially in the case of global warming and evolution. What can I say, they cheat.

 

[Aman777]

I do have a lot to learn, there's plenty about the world and universe as a whole that I don't know.

I have very little to learn from someone like you though.

You could learn how to live forever and never stop learning the real Truth. Or is it easier to lay back and hiss at those who will be alive a million years after you are forgotten? We shall traverse the entire Universe in the thousand year reign of Christ after the wicked are Judged. God Bless you

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If you think for one minute that the truth outweighs money and fame, forget it.

Okay then. You have two scientists, one that just says "yep...evolution still appears to be true and here is the evidence," and you have another that says, "whoooops, looks like we got evolution all wrong and here is the evidence." Which one is going to go down in history as an award-winning acclaimed gosh-darn hero? Scientists have every incentive to overturn our current understanding of accepted theories. That is exactly how they get money and fame. Successful scientists don't just go through their career saying, "yep...what the last guy said."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sorry I was thinking of Batman and Gotham City. I get those two confused sometimes. But anyway Spider-Man is intentional fiction that everybody knows is fiction. As I stated before intentional fiction where everyone knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages. And there are no independent sources that treat him as real which is the case with Jesus. IOW if the NY Times had articles about Spider-man treating him as a real person then you might have something analogous, though you still have the problem of intentional fiction not existing at the time.

Again, utter nonsense. We still have clearly fictional stories written as intentional fiction from millennia before the time period we're talking about. We also have no independent contemporary sources for Jesus either.

No, Paul Bunyan has all the same problems that Spider-Man has above. No, most scholars believe Mark was written within 30 years of the fact. And there is evidence that John was written prior to 70 AD since he doesn't mention the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple. That would make all four gospels possibly written prior to 70 AD. And there IS evidence that two of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. John and Matthew. We also have evidence from two witnesses that were initially skeptics and then were convinced by the resurrection and converted. Paul and James. No, Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus and he also met Jesus on that road.

No serious historian gives dates that early. The only ones you'll find that claim that are hardcore fundamentalists with a clear bias to skew the dates super early. Any impartial, and most christian scholars say Mark was written first, most likely between 70-75AD. Matthew would have been fairly shortly after, around 80-90. Luke dates from the mid 90s to early 100s, and John is either very late first century or early second century. Some have dated John as late as 120AD. There's no evidence any of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses either.

Even the story in the bible says Jesus came to Paul in a vision while on the road to Damascus, not in flesh and blood. Someone hearing voices coming from the sky doesn't count as an eyewitness, if anything that counts as mental illness.

Not intentional fiction where the audience knows it is fiction. All those myths you reference were believed by most of their audiences to be actual historical events. Again, intentional fiction written for an audience that knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages.

You're just simply wrong. Many other authors wrote spinoffs and satire of numerous ancient works. For example "True Story" written by Lucien of Samosata. True Story (written in the second century) is a satire and includes going into space. It's often called the first example of Science Fiction. True History - Wikipedia You can't honestly argue that someone writing a satire about going into space in the 2nd century was regarded as anything but intentional fiction. The whole point of the book was to lampoon other works that claimed unbelievable things actually happened.

In fact, many well known Ancient Greek and Roman authors were satirists, and satire by definition is intentional fiction. Your claim that intentional fiction didn't exist until the middle ages is just flat out incorrect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you think for one minute that the truth outweighs money and fame, forget it.

Science these days are about the money. Truth is secondary, and especially a truth that would go against evolution and would support creation. That kind of truth would get buried for sure under the pier review process, for sure. In fact the scientist that suggested it would be black listed and probably drummed out of his position.

Because you are pro science you have a blind spot in you eye about the industry.
You accept all, hook, line, and sinker. I accept some. I believe they snudge their data to get the outlook for their projects they need.

I know, I am pretty pessimistic about scientists these days, especially in the case of global warming and evolution. What can I say, they cheat.

Whatever dude, if you want to buy into conspiracy theories, that's your business. However, what you are portraying is flat out wrong.

Any reputable journal won't even publish a work unless it's passed peer review. The journal won't risk its reputation (and therefore earning potential) unless vigorous impartial review has been done. Likewise, the peers that will be testing the phenomena described in a given paper have no particular vested interest in making someone else wealthy. If the results in the paper hold up, they report that. If they get different results from what was in the paper, they report that and the paper is generally disregarded. That's how peer review works.

Nobody gets rich by confirming discoveries. People get rich by overturning previous ideas. That's how virtually every great scientist in the last few hundred years has made a name for themselves.