There are actually christians that belive the eart is flat. They reason very much like the xians on this board. Here is an example from "Flat earth news", number 34. Column "100 proofs earth is not a globe"

quote:

---

"If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be -- if we could imagine the thing, to be peopled all around-'antipodes:' 'people who,' says the dictionary, 'living exactly on the pposite side of the globe to ourselves, having their fee opposite to ours' - people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the WHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe."

---

Now, about the flood. There is no such thing as proof of a global flood. On the contrary - it is easy to prove it never took place.

1) Where did all the biomass go? If the flood actually happened, there should be a huge strata of corpses in a solid layer.

2) Where did all the water go? Water that reaches above mountains has to go somewhere - it cannot just disappear, unless the god of course drank it

3) How did Mr. Noah fit all the 10 million species of animals on a little ark? Or did he just bring some? Where did the rest come from then? Evolution ?

That, plus that there is no evidence for a flood, should be enough to convince anyone. But oh no. The xian pamphlets says there is evidence for the flood, so it's gotta be true

TWU CATHOLIC

Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 9:51:39 AM

>for all of you that think the ''great flood'' is true, scientists
>have found NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that it actually occured.

Well, I''ve certainly read of a great deal of evidence, so I don''t know why you can feel so strong about this. What if I was to say that science has found no fossil remains of any intermediary creature (such as the common ancestor that apes and humans supposedly came from). If you want evidence for the flood try a book called ''The Genesis Flood'' by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. You must remember that there is a natural and necessary bias of non-christian scientists to disprove the flood and creation theory, because it threatens the fabric of what they believe. Same for Christians to destroy evolution.

>Even if it did flood the whole world, where the HELL did all
>the water come from? come on churchies, whered the water come
>from???

"...all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened"

So the waters came from above and below. There was a great deal of geological upheaval. There is plenty of water in the world, that is true. Enough to cover the world?

Psalm 104:5-9
"You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
You have set a boundary that they may nto pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth."

So the geography of the earth was vastly different before the flood to after. Here''s how it worked...all the water in the world combined to make the flood (there is enough, I can find the exact facts if you really want). When the flood was over, the geography of the world changed again to make the mountains and the ocean beds...the ocean beds is where the water went, which is why today it appears that there is not enough water.

>i thought so...

Why bother asking then?

>You know that if 2 people like brother and sister, have sex,
>and have kids, the kid could be deformed, right??? yes
>well, If all humanity started from adam and eve, isnt that
>pretty incest-full? so shouldnt we all be deformed and shit?

Well, presumably the first people (Adam and Eve) would have been made free of defect. Now, because we are all reasonably competant at science we know that for deformations and shit you must have two people with the same genetic flaw. Adam and Eve had no such flaws...so where did the flaws come from? I would say after the flood most of them came when the conditions of the earth had vastly changed, so survival became a much harder task. Therefore for quite a number of generations ''incest'' would have been safe. This is probably why it was later banned by God, because of the deformations and shit that it caused.

>You say taht something had to create us and the universe, yet
>you say that god has always been there adn always will be. Why
>wouldnt that be applied to the universe too?

The universe was created within time, God exists outside of time. That is why He said His name is ''I Am''...He just is. So ''when'' was the universe created in God''s eyes? That is irrelevant. It has a beginning because it was created...unless I have missed the whole point of what you were asking.

>If god is so perfect, why couldnt he write a book that didnt
>contradict itself?

Well, first of all, all of the Bible was written by men under inspiration of God. Secondly, I don''t believe the Bible contains any contradictions. Show me some and I''ll see if I can find the answers for you.

>oh oh oh, now how many things does that disprove in religion?

None perhaps?

>>Can''t really comment on this, haven''t studied the physics of
>>space. I have heard however that there are other theories to
>>describe the travel of light that allows the travel of light
>>from the furthest system to earth in just 15 years or something.
>> I will probably read up on this one day.

>Well, that does sound interesting. Where did you read this?
>Is it on the internet?

"The acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einsteins'' relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few light years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In this way the time requried for light to reach us for the most distant stars is only 15 years."
Parry Moon and Domina Eberle Spencer: "Binary stars and the Velocity of Light," Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, August 1953, p. 639.

Hope this helps, and e-mail if you learn anything interesting about it.


>tyreth: how long do you usually wait for tea? damn thats a long
>time to wait..

I wanted tea, it wasn''t ready so I waited Not sure how long it was in between.

>well, religion or not.... this is an OpenGL forum!!
>Nehe - you should stop this thread.... there are othe places
>for these things....

Dunno, this is a refreshing break from programming...we''re part of the same community?

>I''m sad to say, that if your god exists, Neither I nor anyone
>else has a free will.

Since when has knowledge of something made it predestined? Predestination implies some sort of deliberate control by some other intelligent/non-intelligent force. Merely being aware of an outcome that is 100% likely to happen does not mean you cause it to happen. It''s an interesting idea, but it simply isn''t true.


As for the earth being circular or not in the Bible - today we say the sun rises from the east and sets in the west. Will people look back and say that we thought the sun moved and the earth stayed still? Far enough in the future they might, because they will have lost most of our astronomical records. The Mayans (I think, some group anyway) had highly accurate astronomical calendars. The technology certainly wasn''t beyond the ancient world. If the Catholic Church misinterpreted a cultural explanation of the world, then they can be forgiven. We still make the same mistakes today.

quote:

---

Original post by tyreth
Since when has knowledge of something made it predestined? Predestination implies some sort of deliberate control by some other intelligent/non-intelligent force. Merely being aware of an outcome that is 100% likely to happen does not mean you cause it to happen. It''s an interesting idea, but it simply isn''t true.

---

Sure it is. Being the creator of everything, it knew what we would be doing already when the universe was created. If it would have wished for us to behave otherwise, it would have created things in another way. It isn''t "merely aware", it created everything, and therefore is directly responsible. i think you didn''t read the entire post, where I stated that that would be the obvious counter-argument.

Now, present whatever evidence of a flood you might have, and I shall debunk it.

Sorry, saw this after my last post.

>1) Where did all the biomass go? If the flood actually
>happened, there should be a huge strata of corpses in a solid
>layer.

There is. How do you think Christians explain all the fossils of dinosaurs, ancient plants n'' stuff? Why do you think it makes more sense to them when plants or animals from apparently different ages are discovered in the ''wrong'' place next to their impossible partners? Fossilization requries such things as rapid burial, such as in a flood.

>2) Where did all the water go? Water that reaches above
>mountains has to go somewhere - it cannot just disappear,
>unless the god of course drank it

Well, I talked about this in my last post, so you probably have read the answer by now.

>3) How did Mr. Noah fit all the 10 million species of animals
>on a little ark? Or did he just bring some? Where did the rest
>come from then? Evolution ?

He had to fit one of each "kind" on board, whatever those kinds may be. Not only that, they didn''t have to be fully grown, and most of them would have been very small.

Here is one such estimation of the number of animal species
Mammals 3,500
Birds 8,600
Reptiles & Amphibians 5,500
Fishes 18,000
Tunicates, etc. 1,700
Echinoderms 4,700
Arthropods 815,000
Mollusks 25,000
Worms, etc 10,000
Sponges 5,000
Protozoans 15,000
--------
1,000,000
This is probably an old estimate from ''The Genesis Flood''. Keep in mind that underwater animals would not need to be taken on board, and that the capacity of the ark would have been ''equal to that of 522 standard stock cars as used by modern railroads or of eight freight trains with sixty-five such cars in each!'' (The Genesis Flood, again)

Yes and no, the rest came from ''evolution''. If I remember rightly there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former is variation within a species (black skin, white skin, blue eyes, brown eyes, hairy or smooth skin, etc), the later is the evolution from one species to another. There is a vast difference. The first is observable, the second is not.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

Second, I''d like to share my views on religion with you:

I don''t know exactly what I am but I do know that I
don''t believe in any organized religion. I believe
that all religions were created by a government or a
controlling body so to keep its "Peasants" from
committing terrible crimes. Almost like a method of
control for the masses.

I also believe that whatever religion originally started
out as, it has been taken far too seriously. I think
that it might have been created for comfort. (We don''t
know where we came from and never will but believing
in something makes us feel more significant).

I personally don''t need religion because I also believe
that religion was created to help people become better
citizens. I don''t need some "divine" being to tell
me how I should behave, I just know.


--------------- Pythus -------------------

P.S. For some interesting information try going to www.religioustolerance.org !!

---

So, basically you think that the Government created religion??? Then why don''t most governments promote it better and support it better? Why are the governing bodies in America writing legislation that goes against the church and the family? Doesn''t sound like a good description of religion to me.

BeS
It''s Da BOMB Baby!!!
. o O ~
A little nonsense now and then,
is relished by the wisest men
~ O o .
-- Willy Wonka

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

I agree there. Religion is a drug for the mind. But if it makes people feel better to believe in something ''perfect'', why not ? Humans are not perfect and will never be. So alot of people want to believe in ''a higher entity'' that will help them achieve this ultimate goal, something they will never get in real life. May it be God, Allah, Jehova, Zeus or even Satan, it is OK for me, if it helps them in their life. As long as other people''s believes are respected. Christianity and Islam are both OK, islamic fundamentalism and ''aggresive christians'', trying to convert other people at any price, are definitely NOT.

---

But what happens when that Satan worshipper wants to kill your kid for a sacrifice? Are you supposed to respect his choices then? This "Everything goes" attitude doesn''t work. Plain and simple, you either choose to be part of the greater good of man (belief in a God is only ONE choice there), or you care nothing about humanity and just want to watch it go to ruin.

I can sort of agree with the previous A.P. in that Religion can keep people from doing bad things, and freedom FROM responsibility is not working. Today''s societies are all about "ME" anymore and that becomes "I don''t care about you" or how about "You stepped on my new Nikes so I''m gonna shoot you". Is that really better than religion?
This carefree attitude is doing worse for man than any of the Christian wars did. One example: you have women killing off their babies at a rate of over 1.5 million a year.

quote:

---

There is no place for an allmighty beeing in such a place.

---

Why is that? who are you to say that all the "Complex Rules" weren''t set forth by a higher deity or entity that is the universe itself??


BeS
It''s Da BOMB Baby!!!
. o O ~
A little nonsense now and then,
is relished by the wisest men
~ O o .
-- Willy Wonka

Hi there,

Someone pointed out these sites to me. I haven''t had a chance to really look at them, so I don''t know the validity of the information there. But it should at least give some interesting reading:

http://www.creationscience.com/
(look at ''Part3-FAQ'' on the left frame, it asks some of the common questions that were brought up here)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Like I said, I don''t know how valid it all is, but maybe there''s some good information there.

I just wanted to make a few comments. First, I am an athiest, and I find it very easy to live my life and fit in with society for a number of reasons. The most important... I respect other people. I respect their right to live, I respect their right to freedom. I respect their right to be who they are. This is NOT a trait reserved only for religious people, and I do not see why anybody would believe it is.

Also, I do not have any overwhelming need to have some higher meaning attached to my life. In the grand scheme of things my life is insignificant, but I do not concern myself with the grand scheme of things. My life and it''s immediate value to ME is the only thing that is relevant to ME. That relevance provides for a certain number of desires. The desire to be happy is at the very top of that list. That desire in itself is the motivation behind many of the things I do. I am kind to other people because I care about them. I care about them because I desire their companionship. Having their companionship brings me joy, and thus happiness. Why do I feel joy, happiness, sorrow, or any other emotion? For the same reason I feel pain or pleasant sensation. The biology of our bodies provides for these feelings and emotions. They can and have been equated to complex yet understandable chemical reactions within our bodies. I do not need a higher purpose, a higher being watching over me, to have goals, and to actually WANT to be a good person. The human body all by itself provides these things.

As for free will, two comments, the first will seemingly be pro-higher being...

In my view of things, their can be an omniscient being and still have free will. the fact that this being knows what I am going to choose does not preclude the fact that it is still MY choice, thereby maintaining that I have free will. The existance of Omniscience does not provide for the ideas of fate and destiny. Those two ideas provide that your future has already been decided and you have no choice but to follow it. Omniscience mearly says that you choose what youre future is going to be, and some being already knows what YOU are going to choose. The choice is, or was, still yours. The philosophical aspect of this topic can be argued both ways, but this is still my own view of the argument.

Now, as for God giving us free will and that being the, or one of the, reasons why we all don''t just automatically know without a doubt that God does exist... If I hold a rock in my hand, and I tell you the object in my hand is a rock, and I show it to you, I let you feel it, I smack you upside the head with it... am I taking away your free will in offering you evidence that there is in fact a rock in my hand? If God were to touch us all in a way that offered irrefutable evidence that he did indeed exist, how does that take away our free will? This is just one of the many aspects of the supposed existance of a higher being that doesn''t make sense to me.

And to end, I will say that I am an athiest not because I have adequate proof that God doesn''t exist, but because I do not have adequate proof that he does exist. Faith is nothing more then saying, believe something exists without proof that it does exist. In every other aspect of life other then religion, the concept of faith is bordering absurd. But then, there are many other aspects of religion that, outside the context of religion, would also be bordering the absurd.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

Hi there,

Someone pointed out these sites to me. I haven''t had a chance to really look at them, so I don''t know the validity of the information there. But it should at least give some interesting reading:

---

Hi.. Just to clear something up, the speed of light is
known not only by lab experiments with mirrors, but by
the time it takes to control space probes. Example;
It took around 1 hour to send an instruction to Voyager
while it was in Jupitor orbit. We know how far Jupiter
is because we have gone there before. Who went there?
Voyager. There were also the Pioneer probes, etc.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with Star Trek.

quote:

---

Original post by tyreth
"You can lead a believer to reality, but you can''t make him think"

You know, I feel the same way about unbelievers?

---

This I can''t stand. So, in theory, if you question the common
beliefs shown to you without much evidence, you are not
thinking. If you blindly accept a book, that technically
was written by people and *claims* to have inspiration
from God, than I AM thinking?

Your definiton of "think;"
To accept whatever information is given without question.

Also, the only way you know the bible has inspiration
from God is that the Bible says so. Keep in mind that
evidence has to be more than just what the book claims.