Instructables

Why Global Warming DOES NOT WORK

You probably drive an environmentally friendly car, recycle, and maybe even attempted to stop someone else's bad emissions!

But do you really have any control over nature, will anyone, or everyone for that matter really change the weather of this enormous world that we live in?

If you think about how big the earth is and how puny we and our carbon emissions are then you will see how impossible it is for us to do anything about anything in regards to the weather.

Well, if I am not responsible for the weather then why do all the scientists, the politicians, and the media tell me the opposite?
The reason so many people support Global Warming is because of its popularity. It is popular to believe that those bad republicans and those bad SUV drivers and the bad people out there are causing world catastrophe and we are all going to die by 2050 because they refuse to save the environment.

What makes Global Warming Popular?

Global warming is highly supported and publicized in the media because of its draw.
Would you buy a paper or watch a show telling you that there is no problem with the world, showing everything as good as ever with no signs of changing?
You wouldn't buy that paper and the company would go out of business. The truth is that news companies thrive on BAD news and love all of those end-of-the-world scientists.

The politicians have a similar motivation. They present the world with a problem and then they present their perfect solution to imminent disaster. If you believe the paper and you think that you will die without the politicians perfect plan then you vote for him and he becomes the popular candidate. Would you vote for a candidate who said they believed in the destruction of Global Warming but had no intention of doing anything about it?

The majority of scientists only support Global Warming because it is popular with the media and the politicians. The Scientists will get the support of everyone if they teach what is popular, they may get grants from the government for promoting Global Warming that they would otherwise not have received. In science you can get money, fame, and power for your Global Warming beliefs, not to mention being part of the "IN CROWD".

You see! The real reason for the GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT is to sell a few papers, to get a politician into office, and to give people the false feeling that they are doing some good for humanity.

Now that we see how it started, let's discus the facts of Global Warming or maybe even Global Cooling.

Please: if you agree with me then send this instructable to someone who believes Global Warming and let them know the facts.

Because my ideas are so unpopular I will probably be hated and I my instructable may be kicked out,
but if you agree with me and the true science then please post your support and all your anti-global warming content.
If not, post your own ideas so that they can be debated.

When I talk about some of the groups, I sometimes am referring to the extreme cases or limited cases. I have no intention of being insulting or offensive anyone. Since these groups greatly very, I wish that you would simply post up with anything that you see as offensive.
Keep your comments constructive and I will try to keep my comments constructive.

So you made it to the end of the first page: But I'll bet that you will shut down this instructable before the end, because you don't want to hear the truth or even the opposing side's case. If you hear this then you may start to question your own beliefs and then your own popularity goes right down the drain. If you care to hear something that is not popular BUT IS THE TRUTH then keep on reading.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warning: This article contains content that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politically Incorrect, Politically Unpopular, Factual, Accurate
Viewer discretion advised

IS GLOBAL WARMING BAD!

Global Warming is always supposed to be BAD and therefore we need to stop it.

But is Global Warming really bad?

I tend to think the opposite.
In fact I wish Global Warming was occurring, because it would mean that the whole earth would turn into a perfect paradise with mild warm California type weather.

Right now you are thinking "WOW thats crazy! Everyone knows that Global Warming is not responsible for anything good, especially a lush paradise. "

What you hear from your local environmentalist is this.
"The carbon emissions from your vehicles and the factories are creating an insulating layer similar to a greenhouse's glass roof. The radiation comes in but it can't go back out."

Remember a few years back when everyone was worried about the ozone layer. The theory went that CFC's were breaking down ozone in the upper atmosphere and as the ozone breaks down the atmosphere escapes into space. The thinning atmosphere causes a temporary cooling which then leads to Global Warming as the UV rays get through to the earth. Sound familiar? They are using the same rhetoric to justify this new unscientific theory (At that time they said there was a hole over the south pole caused by Right Guard Deodorant. So Right Guard and everything else is propelled by propane now instead of freon. It turns out the hole was caused by the extreme cold and had always been there).

Now for the part that they leave out!

Sure, if the ozone was depleted or if we ended up with enough greenhouse gases this would happen! ( by the way, water vapor is a greenhouse gas).
BUT!
This wouldn't be a problem because

1.) As the UV rays enter the earth the temperature goes up.
2.) As the temperature rises the ice caps begin to melt in the north and south poles and it would appear that the ocean level was going to increase and that we were all going to drown.
3.) But as the caps melt the ocean still evaporates.

Now for the part that you probably don't know

4.) Water evaporates faster than the ice caps melt (Rate of Ablation {glaciers melting} is slower than the rate of evaporation.)
5.) The evaporated water turns into clouds
6.) The cloud layer blocks the UV rays and acts like a green house, distributing the heat evenly all over the earth.

Will the Greenhouse Effect cause the heat of the sun to be trapped in the earth resulting in an ever increasing heat effect where we all get cooked?
NO! Absolutely Not!
If you have ever seen a greenhouse or a terrarium you know that the temperature is not going up and up continuously in a never ending cycle! The truth is that the heat will reach an equilibrium point that is not dramatically higher than the earth's average temperature's now.
The humidity will increase along with the fog which will be much more conducive to plant growth all over the world. It will actually help the environment (Yes, us Global Warming skeptics do like trees, too).

At this point a lot of benefits occur.
1.) A comfortable warm climate all over the earth
2.) A dramatically increased lifespan for humans because of the lack of UV radiation.
3.) The weather will stay more stable
4.) The heat of the earth will not dissipate as fast, so nights won't cool down as dramatically
5.) The Ocean levels decrease making more land available.
6.) Fewer Hurricanes ( take a look at this study :Global Warming Causes Less Hurricanes)
Be careful about what is fact and what is speculation: click on this regarding Polar Bears Polar Bears

Disadvantages:
1.) Fewer ski slopes

Sounds completely different from what you have been told before, doesn't it?

You may have heard that the water level has risen a few inches in the past couple of years (NOT TRUE AT ALL- A BUNCH OF MEDIA BALONEY)
But, the temperatures have not been increasing. In fact they have been dropping for the last 7 years.
Does this make any sense?

Ask some eco nut about what happens to water when the temperature goes up.
Tell them to prove me wrong.

Don't stop now: there is more fun ahead!

Pretty controversial stuff right? You Bet!
But just you wait, the fun's just getting started!
What, you're leaving?
Coward!
Sissy!
Told you that the truth would make you leave!

Carbon Emissions!

Yes, we do give off gases that could cause the greenhouse effect.
But, are we giving off enough to actually change anything or are we just encountering a natural cycle in which the temperature is just a few points of a degree higher?

Are we the only ones giving off these terrible green house gases?

No! Actually, there are plenty of natural forms of green house emissions that we are not in any way responsible for.
Water vapor for one, contributes greatly in terms of percentage to the greenhouse effect .

Water doesn't seem bad so that can be ignored!
Right?
OF COURSE NOT!
Everything has to be considered, because everything is important.
When stuff like this is ignored the studies are all thrown off significantly!

Some other forms of natural greenhouse gases come from volcano's and certain animals.

Three volcanic eruptions give off more green house gases then all the coal factories did throughout the entire industrial revolution.
This figure kind of blows away any of our puny attempts at controlling our temperature

Studies of all sorts that try to prove some aspect of Global Warming have been under pressure to produce pro-Global Warming results, and therefore can not be trusted 100%.
You do not get funded if you are trying to prove Global Warming is a myth.
You do not get fame or future jobs if your hypothesis turns out to be false.
It is very easy to come up with figures, make your study produce figures, believe figures that may not be true, or use figures that have no scientific basis.
No research is 100% accurate.

I don't think that anyone put a big jar over a volcano and measured the quantity of greenhouse gases directly. I tend to believe the research of someone who had no pro-Global Warming Bias to start with.
A study that sets out to prove Global Warming WILL in the prover's eyes and in the eyes of the scientific community succeed even before it starts.

Example: The temperature rose 1 degree in 1 year; so, at THAT RATE we would all die in 30 years.
Now you are told it this way:

According to the experts, the temperature of the earth may be rising at a rate so fast that human life will be impossible within 30 years.

That study does not prove anything, but it convinces a whole bunch of people that they have a reason to fear and thus a reason to join in with the Global Warming Group.

Cows and other big animals give off methane in great quantities. One Moose Creates More Greenhouse Gas Annually Than 8077miles (13,000 km) of Car Travel
I know that there are more cars than moose but are there more cars then all methane producing animals?
And by the way, do cars really affect the temperatures at all? Look at the chart below showing the temperatures during the past hundred years.

If you know your history then you know that 1941 is when World War II started.
At that time, the temperature "dramatically" dropped. Does this explain Global Warming?
Sounds more like an ice age than Global Warming.

What if you think about it this way:
The scientists realize that the temperatures are dropping too rapidly because of a lack of emissions to keep the temperature up so they begin to evoke new smog laws, requiring everyone to do their share to warm up the planet; they require at least a minimum amount of pollution for all companies, and they still predict a dismal frozen end of all civilization.

Now, are we and volcano's and cows really causing enough emissions to cause a dramatic change in the weather all of a sudden? For all the years that this earth has existed and all the years that cows and volcano's have been around, the earth has been perfectly fine.
Even if volcano's give out less then 1% of the gases that cause global warming now, after so many years of no cars or factories wouldn't the greenhouse effect been achieved anyway?
So if volcano's give off any greenhouse gases then the billion year evolution is refuted.
But if that's wrong then the billion year evolution is still refuted. The truth is that we have not been around that long and that volcano's have always been giving off greenhouse gas. (Evolution being false should not surprise anyone since it is the same people who teach and promote both, and for the same reasons) because the atmosphere is so vast the puny "emissions" do relatively nothing.

But what is this dramatic rise I see on the graph?

The natural cycle of the earth involves temperature rise and decline and it just so happens that we are at a time of Sun Spot Max.

I can't stay and listen to this!
I begin to forget what I believe as it gets jumbled up with a whole bunch of facts?
I don't ask that you believe everything that I wrote, all that I ask is that you read it to see my reasons for believing what I do.

Sun Spot Max!

The concept is simple!
Sun Spot Maxima cause increased radiation, increased radiation causes increased temperature, increased temperature causes increased cloud cover, increased cloud cover causes the paradise greenhouse effect until the sun's radiation decreases. At this point the cloud cover stays intact until it all falls again as rain.
Sound too simple to be true!
Remember Y2K? Remember the big build up and all the tension for NOTHING?
Remember the "EXPERTS"?
I doubt that they are still considered experts.

But what about those graphs?

The Temperature has been increasing since the 1730's when the "Little Ice Age" in Europe came to an end. This trend started before the industrial revolution and has continued steady since then. The use of the hundred year time frame is inaccurate and used only to prove some correlation between the Industrial Revolution and Global Warming. The trend started before the industrialization and is more accurately indicative of the earth entering a natural warming trend. The recent short spike in temperature correlates to the sun spot max in 2001.
This is the spike that people began to get worried about.
But after 2001according to the IPCC (UN agency) the temperatures have leveled off and actually dropped. The IPCC were the people that started the global warming scare in the first place. Now you will notice that they don't even use the term Global Warming, but in fact they use the term climate change because there data can not back up Global Warming.

Yes there is a trend but what caused people to get hysterical a few years back was just the sun spot max.

Is it just coincidence that "Global Warming" happens at precisely the same time that Sun spot maximum occurs?

Don't quit now, just a little longer and you can accurately say that you know why I believe as I do.

NEGATIVE RESULTS OF THE "GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT"

So why should we bother about it?
If it makes them happy to think that they are saving the planet then why not let them continue?

High gasoline prices are a result of environmentalism.
What??!!! That can't be!
Well, read on.

Gasoline is not high because of the Arabs in the middle east, it is not high because of the war, and it isn't even the president's fault.

We have massive amounts of oil in the United States.

We do?

Yes! But because of decisions by the government in favor of the environmentalists we have not been allowed to drill in Alaska or the gulf of Mexico.
Because of this it is required that we get our oil overseas at over $100 a barrel.

But that is not the only problem.
Since 1976 there have been no new refineries in the United States
and oil has to be refined to work in cars.
Since the refineries can only produce so much gas, there is a shortage,
and the shortage drives up prices.

The high prices mean that less gas is used and therefore less "Global Warming" gases escape. So they (the eco nuts) are not in any hurry to let gas drop down to ONE DOLLAR a gallon so long as Global Warming is still a threat in their minds.

Because of these strict "Global Warming" laws many industries have problems that directly affect us and the world economy.

Because of this, many industries move to other countries where their pollution is legal. As the businesses leave the prices increase and the money goes out of the country.

There are many economical problems with the continuance of the Global Warming Movement,
many of which are not going to be discovered until it is to late.
If you know of more negative effects of the Global Warming Movement then please tell everyone and post it here.

The people don't deserve to be kept ignorant of any facts, so please tell all you know.

You can't say that about all those people who are just trying to see to a better world!
Actually I can. I have to suffer the high gas prices same as anyone!
Don't feel too bad, just keep reading

THIS SECTION IS ABOUT MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND TO SOME IS CONSIDERED NOT RELEVANT TO THE GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION. IN MY OPINION THIS IS A LEGIT REASON FOR MY DISBELIEF IN GLOBAL WARMING BUT I AM CONSIDERING THIS SOMETHING EXTRA SINCE IT REALLY SHOULD BE WRITTEN UNDER A DIFFERENT TOPIC.
PLEASE READ IT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED OR IF YOU WISH TO DEBATE.
IF YOU DO READ IT REMEMBER THAT IT WAS YOUR OWN CHOICE AND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT POST SPITEFUL AND PURELY HATEFUL COMMENTS. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS CONSTRUCTIVE. THANKS.

OTHER REASONS!

Since the billion year evolution theory is not true because of what we understand about volcanic eruptions, we must assume that something else has occurred.
If you have read the book of Revelation or Isaiah in the Bible then you would begin to see the situation prophesied beginning to unfold. The world is actually approaching a paradise-like state.
That sound crazy?
Well, just wait and see!
Someone will be proved wrong in the end!

Ever wonder how come there are no transition species between the perfect species of the past and today?
There are no half completed species that barely can survive.

Each one is completely unique and amazingly coordinated for something that came together by chance, it is almost like it was intentionally designed.

Ever asked a scientist where "stuff" came from?

I don't mean people and animals.
I mean the very existence of anything and everything!
Matter!
The very particles, the energy, and also the infinite nothingness of the universe.
Were they always there?
Or did they have a beginning?
In our world and our realm of understanding doesn't everything have to have a beginning?
Can you think of anything that just was?

The only alternative is that there is something outside of our universe, our dimensions, our time and our global warming controversies, In which time is not existent.

So yes, three space dimension's and a time dimension are a creation.

At this point most of you who have made it this far are going to shut this page down because you are afraid of the truth, you are afraid that this could affect your popularity, because you are afraid that there might be more to this life than you realize. You might think that scientists know whats happening, they know all the facts and they know all about everything.
But do they?
Were they not once just like everyone else in terms of their knowledge until they were taught something that they took to be truth?
Have not some students of some schools in the past accepted something that was later proved to be wrong?
Are we just to assume that everything taught in school is 100% accurate, or are we actually supposed to seek the truth?
Seeking the truth is not very popular because it often entails leaving the zone of popularity and entering the zone of the outsider.

All that I can say is that time will tell.

In time we will all know the truth.

If I am wrong I will know it! If you are wrong THEN YOU WILL KNOW IT.

For more information look at this movie Creation in symphony: THE MODEL by Dr Carl Baugh
http://www.creationevidence.org

For you free thinkers and truth seekers make sure you see the movie: EXPELLED

Thanks For Reading

You made it.
GOOD!
Then perhaps you are seeking truth after all. Maybe you are truly wanting to know what is truth.
Maybe you didn't find what you were looking for in this article. Maybe you need something better than my facts. All that I ask is that you constantly seek the truth.

You don't even know when World War Two started, the lack of knowledge of such a historic date casts a poor light on the rest of your suppositions, especially when you fail to take into account the value of the dollar, the thermodynamic effect of increasing atmospheric moisture and your digression into creationism. This is twaddle!
kentjoe (author)  Tool Using Animal5 years ago
The war in Europe started in September 1939 before it was a world war. I live in America and we entered the war on December 8th, 1941, after the attack on pearl harbor on December 7th. And how would my not knowing dates of history affect anything. It is kind of changing the subject. You are very correct about the value of the dollar, The value of the dollar is worth less then 10% of what it was in the 50s and 60s. SO if the cost of one gallon of gas was 20 cents then it would be worth over $2.50 a gallon. Makes perfect sense! But why should we not accept lower gas prices. Other economic factors also affect how much we earn and can pay for gas. My "digression into creationism" is important in understanding my view on GW. There is a huge difference in a billion years and 10,000 years and knowing what is true will definitely affect your understanding of the weather. Everyone just assumes that evolution occurred so therefore all of our studies and computer models have evolution factored in. And until you tell me where "Matter" came from I will not believe in anything but creation. I will do more research on the thermodynamic effect of increasing atmospheric moisture, but it seems to me that this is not sufficient proof that my theories are wrong. Thanks for commenting
> And until you tell me where "Matter" came from I will not believe in anything but creation. . I don't understand. You can believe a God that has no creation (see, eg, Rev 1:8 and 22:13), but not Matter that "just is." How does that work?
(lol ! Please, let me speed up the debate a little )

> You can believe a God that has no creation (see, eg, Rev 1:8 and 22:13), but not Matter that "just is." How does that work?

A : Believing in matter that "just is" is as much paradoxical than believing in a deity that has no creation.

B : However the advantage of matter over deities, is that we can touch and feel it : we have the proof it exists.

A : It's not because God never talked to you that God does not exist.

B : Anyway, if a deity talked to you, how could you be sure it's not just in your head ? How could you be sure you're not mentally hill ?

A : How could YOU be sure I'm not a figment of your imagination ? Maybe you're arguing alone ? Maybe I don't exist ?

B : I can see you. I can hear you. I can feel you. You're matter. You exists.

A : Maybe I've seen God. Maybe I've heard God. Maybe I've felt God. In what would it be different ?

B : Have you actually seen with your eyes, heard it with your ears and "felt" it with your hands ?

A : ... It does not work like that. God is not made of matter.

B : If your God created the universe, why couldn't (s)he show up and tell us he exists ? Why don't he help us to make the world better ? So many wars, so many diseases, so many injustices blablabla ...

A : He did : He came on Earth and talked to Mose blablabla ... He sent us his son on Earth in sacrifice blablabla to save the world blablabla and to show us the good example to follow ... If you follow the good example, you'll improve the world blablabla ... God left us free of our choices : We are responsible of our acts. You can choose to follow our Lord blablabla or GOTO hell or GOSUB purgatory.

B : Why did he created us then ? Why did he created sadness, pain and violence ? blablabala

A : happiness would have no sense without sadness, blablabla ...

B : He could just have not created us ! ... Is your god a sadistic ? Are you sure your god is not the evil ?

A : God is love blablabla ... he sent us his son in sacrifice to save us blablabla (more biblical blabla)

B : There are no evidences it actually happened ! It's just an old book, an old story ! There are plenty other myths and legends. What does tell you that you're not wrong ? Why this god and not the Roman's deities or the Egyptian deities ? Would you believe in the same deity if you were born in an other culture ? Would the "truth" be the same to you ?

A : ........ continue here ........
kentjoe (author)  chooseausername5 years ago
I am loving the debate. A. Let me start by saying that a huge amount of faith is required for both positions. And since there really are only two possibilities that we know of at present then every person has to pick one or the other. I have no physical proof of my God and you have no physical proof of anything before the 4 billion year evolution. But what is harder to believe in? "Everything came from nothing and then by some 1 in a million chance just happened to turn into something alive which in turn evolved (More like it jumped from one perfect species to another because of the lack of transition species) until it had produced a superhuman (By the way this amazing process would itself seem to have some sort of organizer to design things to evolve in this way). Or the other option is this "a God who doesn't live in a physical realm (as we know it) but a realm without time, a realm that can't understand beginnings and ends, a realm that has its natural laws to govern it in a different way then our world, a realm that is beyond our own human ability to reason. This God spoke everything into existence based on the law of the word in Gods kingdom. Everything was perfectly made and perfectly whole from the beginning which explains why there are no transition species." We really can only try to explain our own universe because that is all that we can understand. I can't get into God's realm right now and find out everything I don't know. All that I can debate with you is whether or not something outside of our universe was involved. Now having said that I have actually talked with people who were dead for a short time before being revived. One of such people was dead for several minutes and when she died she went to a place that was beautiful and perfect, She remembered a sense of timelessness something that she couldn't understand again when brought back (She remembers having understood it then). She was so peaceful and happy she didn't ever what to leave. She met a group of people who asked her "do you want to come with us and see Jesus" I cant remember exactly but I think that at that time she was revived and she came back. The same thing happened to someone else I know but he met his father while he was there and he didn't come back for 20 minutes. There are also stories of people who had very different things happen to them (Horrors that were also beyond our knowledge to understand). I didn't mean to go off on a tangent but it is kind of a first hand witness you might say, a slight glimmer of proof. B. Of course "matter" exists, I am not denying that, what I am debating is where "matter" came from. True we can't touch and feel a deity but we can't feel evolution, or any belief on how matter came about. I don't see how my argument is less solid then your argument. The only difference is that my belief accounts for the beginning of matter and 3d space while yours doesn't. God is something that is above our complete understanding (he wouldn't be God if he wasn't). He never was created, but always just was. The closest thing that we can understand is that God just is. A. and B. I am somewhat confused with A but I think I know what you are getting at. There are mentally ill people who hear voices. And I myself have never heard any voice from God saying anything. What do voices prove? It could be a prank by some friends or just the wind. However a voice from God has a purpose. My dad was driving on the freeway several years ago behind a flatbed loaded with gear. All of a sudden he heard a voice saying "MOVE OUT OF THIS LANE NOW"! So he did. And at that very instant all of the contents of the flatbed truck were jarred loose and flew off the back of the truck to where my dads car had just been. That voice saved his life. Is he mentally ill just because he heard a voice. You can't be sure until you see what was in your head having a relevance. A. I used to think about that. How do I know that I am not just a brain that someone is messing around with on a supercomputer, or perhaps a single being in a virtual reality. How do I know that I am seeing the same colors as you. Maybe my red is your blue. But don't people seem pretty similar. Everyone seeing colors different would be more in line with a random process that creation. For that matter how do you know that you are not just a brain that has evolved so much that you are just imagining all of this world up. But even with one of these cases there still had to be a way of getting here in the first place. Whether God or evolution we would have to come from somewhere. A. God is not made out of matter in our terms so we can't try to understand Him in our terms. His realm isn't something that we can touch and we are not something that those of His realm can really touch. I will not be able to provide you with physical proof of God. Remember this: If sometime during your lifetime a vast number of people just disappear without a trace off the face of the earth no proof will be provided that they left to heaven but remember that I told you it would happen. You are now thinking that I am totally insane, but wait 20-25 years and then come back to what I said and maybe you will believe without actual physical proof. I have seen people instantly healed (pulled out of wheelchairs, healed of fatal diseases.......). I have felt the power of God, and I have heard the praise of Gods actions. But I have not seen physical proof like an angel being sent down to be put on display. I have to go someplace for memorial day But I WILL answer the rest of your questions in more detail This will take a long time to explain and will involve the entire Bible. but I will try to give you a brief explanation until I have time to go into more detail (This May be a few days). Basically Adam and Eve were given this universe, they were tempted by the devil (He had rebelled against God beforehand), they in turn were tricked into giving the world over to Satan because God had given them freedom of choice, At that point God had to obey the rules that He Himself had set up, so he formulated a plan to save mankind using his own Rules. But if God knows everything past present and future that why did he make mankind at all? It has to do with a bigger plan to eradicate sin from any existence in any realm anywhere. Got to go now but come back in a few day and I will write more. Thanks for your comments
I did not thought you were going to reply point by point. Instead of designing it as "virtual debate" between a Player A and a Player B, I should better have selected a list with numbers ... That would have made your task simpler.

Well, I perfectly agree that our scientists still have not provided any relevant theories about what's at the origin of the matter. And I personally believe they will never do, simply because it's impossible.

Because of this lack of explanations, I perfectly understand that many people simplify the problem to : This is the proof that God created everything, God exists in an other realm that ours, he is not a 3D + "unidirectional time" God, and because we are 3D + "unidirectional time" creatures, we can't understand God, etc ....

And that, then : God exists because I've seen "miracles" ; I know peoples who died and came back to life, and they told me they've seen a wonderful place (paradise) and almost talked to Jesus ; I've heard stories of peoples who almost died and went to a horrible place (hell) ; I know peoples who "heard a voice" that saved their life ; etc. ; those are the poof that I'm not wrong ...

However, remains some problems to me :

1) - Why the holly bible ? Why not an other holly book ? why not the Popol Vuh for instance ? Why not Australian aboriginal beliefs ?

2) - Miracles : couldn't they be fake miracles ? That would not be the first fake miracle organized to revive the faith or to make money ...

3) - About Near Death Experience : Everyone gives his/her own interpretation according to his/her belief. I could give you mine, scientist could give you their, and the scientist one is solid : delirium caused by drugs, pain and brain.
Also, how could we be sure a NDE is really like "dying for real" ?

I had a friend of mine whose Grandma experienced a NDE. She said she was seeing a sky and a giant bird flying over her who was unable to move. How would you interpret this ? Hell ? Paradise ? Purgatory ? Not a real NDE ? Something else ?

4) What's the place of dinosaurs in creationism ?

5) What's the place of "random mutations" ?
Haven't we got a "featherless chicken" who "appeared" all of sudden about 50 years ago ? Couldn't it be how species evolved ?

6) What's the place of Neanderthal, Australopithecus, etc ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primate_and_hominin_fossils

7) - If I tell you that God talked to me, that (s)he shown me the "truth", and that (s)he did not created the universe, that (s)he created nothing : everything was already there ; (s)he does not remember when (s)he "appeared", (s)he does not know why (s)he exists, neither why "we" exists, and that the best thing (s)he found to do to occupy his/her existence is to "play" with us, to "study" us and to "judge" us, again and again ... Will you believe me ? If not : why ? Because I'm alone ? Because I can't prove it ?
kentjoe (author)  chooseausername5 years ago
I want to answer a few of your questions briefly now but the longer ones I will have to try and answer later when I have more time (weekend).

1.) Once you believe that we had to have come from somewhere and that there must be something bigger/smarter/God out there to have made matter, then you just have to eliminate the religions that don't make sense. I will elaborate later on.

2.) I admit that there are "faked" miracles. But when the miracles are performed by a family member (Yes, I am a pastors son) then you are more likely to believe that they are real. And besides miracles tend to happen when the congregation is already full of faith and when the church is doing well, not when the church needs reviving. You probably will not have this kind of affirmation so at sometime it would require trust or faith.

3.) I don't know if NDE is like "dying for sure" but at some point there must be an end to the NDE and a beginning of the DE (death experience). I have seen a video made about an African man who was killed in a car crash (doctor signed the death certificate), he was embalmed, and was waiting to be buried. A short time later his wife was attending a Reinhard Bonnke crusade, and he had her bring the body into a room where he and others prayed for close to 6 hours, he began breathing and eventually got up. For the rest of the story please read this article:
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/bonnke_raisedpastor.aspx

But he describes Heaven and Hell after having a DE.

in Luke 16 the rich man lifted up his eyes in torment and said, 'I have a number of brothers. Let me go back and warn them.' Father Abraham said, 'No, they have Moses and the prophets. If they won't believe them, they will not believe the one who rose from the dead.
This seems to be amazingly true even today. Most people think that it is a trick and refuse to believe the word of the dead man.

This is how he described hell:
BONNKE: He said he saw no fire but he said he saw these people cannibalizing themselves. Every time they had done it, the flesh seemed to jump back to the same places and then the torment started again. He said it was so horrible. He came back and said, 'Heaven is real. Hell is real. Become serious with God. You need to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and live a holy life.
Think about death if you are right: We both die and then we both become nonexistent or something similar and no-one is worse off then anyone else.
Now think about death if I am right: I go to a place of eternal joy, peace and happiness. But you (assuming that you are not a Christian) would go to the place that this man described.

Is the risk worth it?

Are you willing to risk an eternity of that kind of pain for what our scientists tells us is impossible?
I am not!
I don't mean to preach "gloom and doom" that is for the environmentalists, but you have to understand where I am coming from.

4.) Whatever dinosaurs existed where created along with everything else. And I do believe that some sorts of "Big Lizards" existed. There is even documentation of a dragon like beast in the Bible.

5.) I believe that random mutations do happen! and that the featherless chicken was just a random mutation. But does random mutation = evolution? I believe in de-evolution! Basically, things mutate (deform really) into less complex or less capable beings. They would die off or maybe possibly survive long enough to leave some weird fossil behind. Only the animals that were designed to survive actually do. Wouldn't all of the bad mutations have some effect on evolution? Even if an animal evolved into a more complex creature by a 1 in a billion chance would it really change anything. Creatures devolve into the mutation that are less complex.
When you put the parts of a watch in a plastic bag and shake for 4 billion years what do you get?
A bag of dust. Not an i-pod, or even a functional watch.

Now it is time for my short answers

6.) I kind of answered this one before. There are slight variations of creatures from de-evolution that die and leave fossils. There would be a lot of fossils to find after 4 billion years of different types of creatures roaming the earth.
Wouldn't there?
Evolution is yet to produce a super-human, but everyone is different. Some small, some tall. These are slight variations to produce slightly different fossil.

7.) This is how the Mormon religion was created! I would believe that you saw what you said, but I would believe that the devil or a demon was the one who showed it to you. Remember Lucifer was the angel of light before he fell.
I don't believe that God actually judges us, (many people have a misconception of what Christians believe) we were already from the moment Adam and Eve sinned destined as followers of the Devil to follow the fate of the devil. God then starts his plan to save mankind. This plan does not require works or righteousness. All that is required is that you believe in your heart that Jesus died to save you from the Devils fate by tricking the Devil into killing someone without sin which breaks his hold on the earth. By doing this you are following Jesus and have abandoned the Devil forever. You can not loose you're salvation by any means once acquired.
Gods overall plan was to remove the evil of the devil by making him violate one of the eternal laws. God could not violate his own law so he had to trick the Devil into it.
This is the short answer but I am sure that I or someone else could elaborate on this if they had the time.

Thanks for commenting
Unfortunately, we're almost back to :

> A : God is love blablabla ... he sent us his son in sacrifice to save us blablabla (more biblical blabla)

> 1.) Once you believe that we had to have come from somewhere and that there must be something bigger/smarter/God out there to have made matter, then you just have to eliminate the religions that don't make sense. I will elaborate later on.

Here are few questions you could reply quickly just with a yes or a no :
a) Have you studied all other religions ?
b) Have you read the Popol Vuh ?
c) Does your version of the bible includes Enoch's book ?
d) If you were born in Arabia, in a Muslin family, and if your father was an imam instead of a pastor, wouldn't you consider the truth is in the Koran ?
e) As your Holly Bible has been badly translated many times from different ancient languages (hebrew, greek, latin), are you sure that the way you read it is correct ?

> 2.) I admit that there are "faked" miracles. But when the miracles are performed by a family member (Yes, I am a pastors son) then you are more likely to believe that they are real. And besides miracles tend to happen when the congregation is already full of faith and when the church is doing well, not when the church needs reviving. You probably will not have this kind of affirmation so at sometime it would require trust or faith.

When and if a miracle happen, it should be possible to prove to the world it's not a fake one. Most miracles are related to health and handicaps. If a blind can see, a mute can talk, or a handicapped can walk, then, atheist doctors and atheist scientists could easily verify that "something unexplainable" has happened.
Wouldn't it be the best way to show to the world the "light" ?

About 3) and NDE and the link you provided :

I've seen many video too, and I have read many testimony and interview.
However, I've never seen anything "official" and scientifically verified.

Unlike what a lot of dogmatic (religious or atheists or agnostic, etc) persons seems to think, Science is not the enemy of God or of "miracles". Science is just a method to think and analyse facts in a neutral way. Science is an intellectual tool that help us to avoid traps.
If it's possible to prove that miracles happen, or that God exists, or that there is something after death, or that there is reincarnation, Science WILL demonstrate it, and there will be no more doubt about that, as long as Science remains a neutral intellectual methodology.

Science allows and encourage doubts and open-mindedness, while religions encourage "faith" (blindness) and close-mindedness.

If I say it in your language :
- if the Devil traps you in a fake religion, you'll have no chances to escape him, because "faith" is involved, "faith" does not allow doubt, and religions generally don't change.
- on the other hand, if the Devil tries to trap you with Science, it's only "temporary", because Science allows doubt, Science is in perpetual evolution, every scientist have the right to disagree with others as long as they have some solid evidences (non based of faith) that they are not wrong.

Science is a perpetual quest for truths. It's based on evidences, facts and neutrality, while religion is a biased bet based on blind faith and fears to be wrong.

(However, I admit that some scientists are very close-minded, and that their works are biased by dogma (religious or not)).

> Think about death if you are right: We both die and then we both become nonexistent or something similar and no-one is worse off then anyone else. Now think about death if I am right: I go to a place of eternal joy, peace and happiness. But you (assuming that you are not a Christian) would go to the place that this man described.
Is the risk worth it?

Unfortunately, you don't know what I believe in.
Things are not all black or all white. Maybe those two point-of-view that you described are both wrong ?

If I apply your religious reasoning to GW :
- Maybe the Global Warming is real, and maybe we are accelerating it ? If non-believers are right, human impact is negligible, and that we reduce pollution or not has no importance. On the other hand, if environmentalists (and most scientists from everywhere around the world) are right, by reducing pollution, we still have a chance to reduce the GW and its negative effects over weather ... and we could save (or at least postpone the end of) many lives and species.

Is the risk worth it ?

About 5) and 6) : Random mutations and evolution :

Do you know what happened with Monsanto's genetically modified corn ? (it's a corn they modified, and which produces an insecticide to kill a larva that destroy the fields)

Every weak larvae died, and the most resistant survived.
The most resistant reproduced, giving birth to a new generation of resistant larva.

Monsanto's genetically-modified-corn killed diversity and created a more resistant "variety" of larva, all sharing the same characteristics.

This is also what happens with virus and bacteria : if a medicine don't kill them all, the most resistant will reproduce, and will give birth to a new "variety" that will all share the same characteristics.

And this is also what happens in the nature since the beginning : what is unable to survive vanish, and what survive reproduce together and share the characteristics that helped them to survive.

This is : natural selection.
This is : natural evolution.

Now, if you add to that mechanism random mutations, it's possible to see "new features" appearing in a variety. If the "mutant" can survive and reproduce with the others of its variety, its "mutation" will be slowly mixed in the gen pool. Or this will be a plus for its species, or it will not and its species may vanish. If the mutant can't reproduce or survive, it will die alone ...

All of that slowly happens since billions of years.
When the changes between generations are too small to be noticed, it's hard to call them "different species". However, after several thousands years of slows modifications, it's possible to see the differences, and we can talk about "different species" or "evolutions".

It's like comparing two pictures of you :
- compare your today picture with a yesterday one, and you'll see no difference.
- compare your today picture with a picture when you were 6 years old, and you'll be able to see how you evolved.

Also, there is no such thing than "de-evolution". Time is unidirectional : it does not go reverse.
Species are in perpetual evolution through time, and "degeneration" may be part of their evolution.
Degeneration is not "de-evolution".

> 7.) This is how the Mormon religion was created! I would believe that you saw what you said, but I would believe that the devil or a demon was the one who showed it to you. ...

Indeed ... it's so logical ...

Let's imagine that the Devil wants us to destroy our planet as soon as possible so we reduce our chances to improve ourselves before "the judgement day" : wouldn't his best tactical to create a new religion (or a fork of a religion) based on pseudo-scientific and biased biblical interpretations, and that would deny what almost every scientists around the world agree to say : we, humans, are accelerating climate change ; we, humans, are destroying our planet ??

If I was the devil, that's probably what I'd do ....... I'd use a religion based on love and faith, and I'd perversely corrupt it to "control" the believers ...

Isn't Creationism taught in many schools in the US ?
kentjoe (author)  chooseausername5 years ago
If we are just going about in circles in the debate then that is a legitimate reason for you to call the debate. I had no clue that there would be this much debate and it is taking me a long time to answer everyone.

Let me start by saying that my belief fits together perfectly, explaining everything important that can be comprehended be man.
No other religion is so precise and perfect.
For example if there is a God then whatever he says is good is good and whatever He says is wrong is wrong. So if a god is doing something bad like the Greek gods did then he is not a God but instead probably a demon. This holds true for the Islamic religions and all the aboriginal beliefs. Most other religions are just versions of Christianity that have been corrupted by the devil.
a.) NO
b.) NO
c.) NO
d.) Probably- but look at Africa, people are becoming Christians by the millions (Not atheists).
e.) The bible has a huge number of translation errors many of which change the meaning of an entire passage, this is why many pastors learn Greek, Latin and Hebrew languages so that they can know what is being said.

When and if a miracle happen, it should be possible to prove to the world it's not a fake one. Most miracles are related to health and handicaps. If a blind can see, a mute can talk, or a handicapped can walk, then, atheist doctors and atheist scientists could easily verify that "something unexplainable" has happened.
Wouldn't it be the best way to show to the world the "light" ?

Yes, it would be a great way! I have seen time and time again doctors being amazed by what they saw. They told there patients that there healing was unexplainable and that they had no clue what happened. But sadly they don't tell anyone because they don't believe that it was supernatural. And who would believe them if they did. All that would happen is that they would loose there creditability. When cancer just disappears over night with no explanation that should be front page news but it is ignored and kept quiet.

I've seen many video too, and I have read many testimony and interview.
However, I've never seen anything "official" and scientifically verified.

That is because no-one will verify what is thought to be impossible. There will never be anything official or scientifically verified. I have seen magicians perform and it is all just a trick, no-one will verify something that they think is just a trick.

I think that science is not the enemy of God in fact science shows all of his wonders.

Science WILL demonstrate it, and there will be no more doubt about that

I think that science already has proved Gods existence but people keep trying to shut it out. Just look at the world and think "was it evolution that gave me all this beauty and wonder without producing anything ugly or destructive"

Science allows and encourage doubts and open-mindedness, while religions encourage "faith" (blindness) and close-mindedness.

Science is great and should be used to prove and disprove GW. Religion encourages faith in God and in your own protection. God doesn't try to explain natural phenomena other than creation because we do have science and have learned about our planet. I was taught evolution in school but broke out of that box and started looking for more answers. This is why I believe that trusting in science without direct proof is close-mindedness but having faith in something in order to understand real science is not.

f I say it in your language :
- if the Devil traps you in a fake religion, you'll have no chances to escape him, because "faith" is involved, "faith" does not allow doubt, and religions generally don't change.
- on the other hand, if the Devil tries to trap you with Science, it's only "temporary", because Science allows doubt, Science is in perpetual evolution, every scientist have the right to disagree with others as long as they have some solid evidences (non based of faith) that they are not wrong.

Doubt is a good thing to have if you don't not understand something. And the according to you having doubt about evolution is scientific. Science allows and encourage doubts and open-mindedness, while religions encourage "faith" (blindness) and close-mindedness. So I do encourage everyone to have doubts about what they believe until they are somewhat convinced, but at some point everyone will have to have faith in something. Some have faith in evolution, others faith in a God. But they are both really religions. I don't think that faith and religion are against science just as evolution is not against science.

If I apply your religious reasoning to GW :
- Maybe the Global Warming is real, and maybe we are accelerating it ? If non-believers are right, human impact is negligible, and that we reduce pollution or not has no importance. On the other hand, if environmentalists (and most scientists from everywhere around the world) are right, by reducing pollution, we still have a chance to reduce the GW and its negative effects over weather ... and we could save (or at least postpone the end of) many lives and species.

Is the risk worth it ?

Yes I do think that the risk is worth it.
I thought of that!
Why not just let them think that because if there right we just won't die!
The truth is that it will cost us!
What has not been factored in is the social and economic costs to stop global warming. It would be funny if we saved to planet only to ruin our worlds economy and cause major problems that might be worse then global warming. And then what if they are wrong. We cause major world problems for nothing. We only have to get oil from others because we don't drill in America because it "MIGHT" hurts something or do some damage in the distant future. A depression may result if things are not thought through throughly .

Please don't post an answer until I finish because I will be back in a few hours. But I have more stuff for you about the rest
Thanks for posting

Christians are taught not to judge. By claiming that your religion is the most perfect, you've judged every follower of every other religion as lower than you. That does not seem very Christian to me. Christians are taught that the judging is to be left to God, so what are you going on about?
kentjoe (author)  kentjoe5 years ago
Ok I am ready.
Species adapt to their surroundings. Salt water sharks have slowly adapted to fresh water other species adapt in different ways. But only to a point! How long do you think that it will take for sharks to adapt from salt water to lava.
They won't ever adapt that far. Those mosquitoes only went through one test, they probably wouldn't make it through many more tests. All that it means is that that species of larva always had the ability to change a little to survive different situations. People live in different climates and are susceptible to different diseases. They adapt to temperature and climate. You know that we have been eliminating more a more diseases and living longer in more climates. There is no real proof that a mutation or an imperfection in a species will ever become something better. If people with mental disabilities is you idea of random mutation then that would not be a good change. But I have not seen any mutation turning out to be good. This is a degeneration that occurs and not an evolution.

Let's imagine that the Devil wants us to destroy our planet as soon as possible so we reduce our chances to improve ourselves before "the judgement day" : wouldn't his best tactical to create a new religion (or a fork of a religion) based on pseudo-scientific and biased biblical interpretations, and that would deny what almost every scientists around the world agree to say : we, humans, are accelerating climate change ; we, humans, are destroying our planet ??

If I was the devil, that's probably what I'd do ....... I'd use a religion based on love and faith, and I'd perversely corrupt it to "control" the believers ...

God wouldn't let that happen without letting us know about it somehow.

Isn't Creationism taught in many schools in the US ?

No public school teaches Creationism! The teachers are kicked out if they even hint at being skeptical of evolution. Because of the unconstitutional Supreme Court decision to eliminate it from schools (That is a decision to be made by state or local governments, Not Federal) no one can. In some small Christan community where there is no one to know, maybe there could be creation still taught, but if you can find one teacher of Creationism in a public school then I will admit that I am wrong about the belief being suppressed.
Hope I covered it all.
It might be better if you brought your arguments one at a time so that I can answer them more quickly.
Thanks For Commenting
Yes, I'm aware that debating on the internet is not an easy task ... It needs a lot of patience and free time.

I'm going to try to keep my answer as short as possible by going straight to the essential. So, please, don't take offence if I deliberately leave the excess of diplomacy aside in my arguments. It's in no manner a mean to offend you. Okay ? =o)

Also feel free to reply one point per day if you want.

1) you said : «... my belief fits together perfectly, explaining everything important that can be comprehended be man.»
And so think Muslims, so think Raelians ... etc.
And so is my belief. And it's different than yours. And it explains what yours doesn't explain.

And I could imagine many other coherent explanations that would have a chance to convince the scientific community (unlike yours).
I could even imagine something coherent that would "unify" everyone ...

It's just a question of imagination and coherence.

2) you said : «No other religion is so precise and perfect.»
and you also recognize that you did not study all other religions.
It's not logical.

3) you said that your version of the bible does not include Enoch's book.
Why not ?
Ethiopian's version of the Christian bible has it in it. Why not yours ?
Have you read it ?

4) you said : «look at Africa, people are becoming Christians by the millions (Not atheists).»
And many atheist or Christians become Muslims. And many Christians became "something else". Haven't you noticed that already ?
Also, how many Muslims around the world ? --> 1.5 billion, with 2 main branches.
How many Christians around the world ? --> 2.1 billion, with up to 13 main branches, each one claiming to own the truth.

5) Accusing the devil as soon as something does not validate your belief is not serious and is an easy escape.
I could do so. Muslins could do so. Catholics could do so. And atheists could claim that you're all insane, or that you're a dangerous sect.
Then, who will be right ? The one who has the stronger faith ? The most numerous group ?

6) about doctors witnessing miracles, you said : «But sadly they don't tell anyone because they don't believe that it was supernatural. And who would believe them if they did. All that would happen is that they would loose there creditability.»
In a so christian country than the US, it should be easier than anywhere else.
If, in Europe (and my so laïc France), scientists have started to study NDE testimonies, in a so religious country than yours, someone serious and credible must have started to study miracles.

7) Any religion has its own set of miracles.
It's not specific to a branch of the Christian religion.
So, in your logic, if others religions are corrupted by devil, this would mean :
a) devil can make miracles too : how could you be sure your miracles are not from devil neither ?
b) miracles can happen without any god or devil : how could they prove the existence of any divine entity or that you own the truth ?

8) you said : «I think that science already has proved Gods existence but people keep trying to shut it out.»
Some peoples claims that science already proved UFO and extraterrestrial civilisation existence, but people keep trying to shut it out.
Who should I believe ?

If there was a proof, no one could dismiss it.
If there was a proof, wouldn't that be the best mean to unify the world ? That what I'd do if I've found a mean to prove God exists.

9) you said : «God doesn't try to explain natural phenomena other than creation because we do have science and have learned about our planet.»
You should read Enoch's book then.
I guess you know who he is : son of Jared, and father of Methuselah.
Never you wondered where he went when he "vanished" ?

10) You try to associate faith to science through evolution to demonstrate that your religion is as much valid than science : it's not honest.
Evolution is a theory based on facts and evidences.
When new evidences or new facts come, or the theory is completed to fit the reality, or the theory becomes "obsolete" and is replaced by a new accurate one.
Theories remains theories. They don't need faith. They need facts.

11) How can you prove (without involving the bible or God) that Earth is not 4.5 billions years old ?
Scientists could demonstrate why they think so, without involving religion.
Could you do the same to demonstrate that Earth is about 6,000 years old without involving any religion ?

12) About GW, you said : «The truth is that it will cost us!»
Yes this will cost us a lot.
And actually, that will cost a lot of financial sacrifice from the first nation of the world : USA. That's why there are so many resistance on its part.

But GW or not GW, we (at West) will need to change a lot of things anyway :
- China and India are becoming super powers and super-consumers (about 2.4 billion of persons)
- they all want to live like we do at west (do we have enough resources on Earth for both Western and Asian super-consumers and super-polluters ?)
- because of the selfish way capitalism is practised, there are many financial crisis smouldering everywhere.
- globalisation is globally unfair : Only stronger win, while weaker whine.

Not to mention all the various diseases that recently appeared, and all the human catastrophes that happen more and more often because of earth-quakes and weather ....

We need to change our way of life and to ourselves to the reality.
If we don't, we will vanish.

But as many religious persons, you probably consider that it's all God's will, and that, whatever happen around you, he will protect you and your peers ...

11) About evolution, you said : «Salt water sharks have slowly adapted to fresh water other species adapt in different ways. But only to a point! How long do you think that it will take for sharks to adapt from salt water to lava.»
Sharks are a variety of fish.
According to the theory of evolution and scientific facts and evidences collected by many scientists around the world, it took about 500 millions of years for fishes to adapt themselves to earth, lava and space. And they're currently planning to go back to Moon and to visit Mars.

12) and : «There is no real proof that a mutation or an imperfection in a species will ever become something better. If people with mental disabilities is you idea of random mutation then that would not be a good change.»
You're using a straw man argument.
Of course, most random mutations lead to cancer, disease and death.
However, and as most serious scientist don't believe that Earth appeared 6000 years ago, the "positive" role of random mutations is considered as a serious eventuality. (not the main one, but an eventual one).

Also, keep in mind that according to the theory of evolution, our evolution started in a puddle billions years ago.

Some scientists (if I remember correctly, they were German) demonstrated that fragment of RNA could spontaneously be created during the collision of a meteorite on a planet without a dense atmosphere, and that those fragment of RNA could interact and combine with each others when in water to slowly form primitive DNA.
That would be how life "spontaneously" appeared on Earth.
And according to this theory (built around verifiable facts and evidences), we'd actually come from a puddle of mud ...

13) about devil's traps, you said : «God wouldn't let that happen without letting us know about it somehow.»
Indeed ... And maybe (s)he told me ?

Sorry ... it was longer than what I thought.
Take the time you need if you want to reply.
I don't try to convince you of anything. I'm just trying to explore the reasoning on which your belief is based.
=o)
This is KentJoe posting through another user because none of my answers are appearing. I will answer a few questions now and a few later. I appreciate your patience. 1.) True everyone thinks this about there belief and everyone just leaves out what they can't explain. You leave out the origin of matter, other religions leave out the reason for our existence, and Christianity leaves out only what we were meant to find by science. Let me put it this way, I have seen no other belief that will allow a full explanation to everything. Although you have more physical evidence then me, my belief explains a lot more and has some rebuttal to every stance of those who believe differently. Just out of curiosity do you believe that before evolution there was something intelligent that created matter (alien, human, God), or do you believe that it poofed into existence, or do you believe that it has be there forever? It might help me to understand what to debate! 2.) I can't know everything about every religion, no one can, but what I do know about them revels flaws. For example most gods are portrayed as human kings with faults. The only God that is portrayed as all good is the Christian God. Wonder why so many groups of people commit human sacrifice? If a god is bad then it is not a god because a god would makes the rules. And because I am trying to keep this short I will not go into every fault with every religion. I do know people who would and could write pages and pages on this topic but I am not one of them. I have not seen anything more thorough than Christianity so I can't believe something that explains part and leaves out part. Lets say your car was stolen and the police came and one of them told you this, "I know how your car was stolen, look at the footprints and the tools used" but another officer tells you this, "What the other officer tells you is wrong even though he has the footprints as proof, not only do I know how it happened but also where your car is". He explains his unlikely theory and many think that he is crazy, but they get in the car to check out the location. Would you go with the guy who tells you what must have happened or the guy that tells you how to get your car back. Not a very good analogy but I think that you get the point. Thanks for Posting
about 1), you said : «True everyone thinks this about there belief and everyone just leaves out what they can't explain.»

So you understand that seen from an external point of view, you're all in the same basket.

also, you assumed : «You leave out the origin of matter ...»

This is an assumption that you make because I did not tell you what I believe in. And if I did not, it's because, in the culture of my country, faith is privacy.

However, just to help you to understand who you talk to, here are some clues.
There are two main things that I believe in :
- coherence
- benevolence

And I'm not religious at all. I'm not even part of a group of other person all thinking like me. I'm a single and free individual.

You asked : «... do you believe that before evolution there was something intelligent that created matter (alien, human, God) ...» ?
No. That would be incoherent.

and : « ... or do you believe that it poofed into existence ... » ?
This would mean that before it "appeared", there was absolutely nothing (no time, no dimension, no awareness : just nothing).
Is this possible that something just "pop out" from the nothingness ?
IMHO, the only thing that can pop out of the nothingness is a paradox.

and : «... or do you believe that it has be there forever?»
Time is a question of perception.
Can time exists without matter ?
If the content of the universe was totally immobile, what would be the difference between an instant of the time and an other ?
All the instants of time would be the same ... There would be no time ...
Therefore, time exists because each instant is different from the previous one. And each instant of the time has a dimension, because "someone" can perceive and measure the changes of the universe.

Change == Time.

In a previous message, you said that God exists in an other realm where time does not exists. Unless your god never change, thinking so is not coherent.
If your god "changes" or just "thinks", or "does something" then, time is part of his/her realm.

Also, if your god created our universe, then, who created the universe of your god ? Does your god has a creator ? If yes, who created your god's creator ?
Thinking so is not coherent enough for me.

Instead of considering just our universe, let's consider what I use to call the "Full Universe" (ie, the Great Everything that includes EVERYTHING that has an existence). If there is a god, this god is therefore part of this Full Universe.
Now, what would be the origin of this Full Universe ?
Does your religion gives a coherent and plausible theory ?
If not, then, you can't convert me to your religion, because your religion is not different from any other religion : it does not own the truth, and not even enough coherence ...
I don't know what you believe in but I am trying to understand.

But you are basically saying that none of these options for the origins of matter are possible because they are not cognitively acceptable.

I have been thinking on this topic since I was under 7 years old and I came to the conclusion that there are things in this universe that we can't comprehend. If you don't believe in anything that you can't comprehend than you may not get the whole truth. I can comprehend that there are things that I can't comprehend. A bug can't comprehend with human ability so it is possible that people can't comprehend everything ether.

Time is only comprehended as change because that is the only way we can understand it. If no matter existed then how do you know that time doesn't pass. How can we try to comprehend a different realm or for that matter try to explain how that realm was made. All that I know is that whether we can comprehend it or not, something happened and we exist. Don't try to comprehend that because you never will. There is an interesting book by C.S. lewis called "out of the silent planet" that is about people who are trying to reduce the human race down to an idea. Something that was cognitive only and did not include life. I am sure that you are not like that but you get the point.

Since we can not comprehend our own origin how are we to explain the origin of a realm that we do not exist in. Only a time based realm has a beginning and an end. If God doesn't exist in a time based realm then logically He couldn't have a beginning or an end. Origin indicates a beginning of time and since time is not existent in that realm so also origins are nonexistent. Pretty mind boggling stuff right? You bet. Since you believe in what you understand then you should believe in stuff you can't because you understand that there is stuff out there that you can't understand. Boy am I confused now.
When you only think in terms of the human realm you will not be able to comprehend those of another realm.

Does your religion gives a coherent and plausible theory ?

When thinking in human terms this is a question that can't be answered so work with me and try to think outside of human terms for a minute.
God invented origins and God invented time. God did not need an origin because in a no time realm there are no origins. So what if God always was and God is as high as the chain goes. What are you going to do if one day you die and leave this realm and all of a sudden you understand it all and it was just our human understanding that was limited?
Well the cognitive is very interesting but I warn you not to be too narrow minded when thinking about what we can't comprehend.
The problem in your reasoning is that you take an "imaginary realm" as a certitude. How can you be sure that this "imaginary realm", that you say humans are unable to comprehend, actually exists ? and also, if we can't comprehend it, how can we "imagine" it ? and how could we be sure that we "imagined" it correctly ?

Actually, you can't know. Because it's just a pure speculation. It's just a blurry concept someone invented to try to explain what can't be explained. You want to believe in that just to try to give a coherence to your personal interpretation of the reality.

But as I demonstrated to you, anyone can invent his/her own explanation of what can't be explained, and anyone whose belief is different than yours will be convinced he/she is right because he/she thinks he/she found "proofs" and "evidences" ...
So, who's right ? Which "imaginary realm" is the correct one ?

And when you say that there are things humans can't comprehend, I agree. So, if we know we can't comprehend them, why trying to explain them with "imaginary realms" ?
What's the difference between a "kingdom of gods where time does not exists" and a fairy tales ?

> You said : Time is only comprehended as change because that is the only way we can understand it.

The other way to comprehend time is as a fourth dimension.
But this fourth dimension would still not let a place to the god you describe (and it's easy to demonstrate).

> You said : If God doesn't exist in a time based realm then logically He couldn't have a beginning or an end.

And if God doesn't exist in a time based realm, then, logically, he/she is an invariable object. He/she is something that does not change. He/she is something that does not make anything. He/she just is.
And therefore, praying something that is "unable to do something", is pure waste of time.

> You said : When thinking in human terms this is a question that can't be answered so work with me and try to think outside of human terms for a minute.

We can't think "outside of human terms", because we are humans. We are enclosed into our reality.
As soon as we try to "imagine" what's outside of our possible comprehension, we're just making "fairy tales" ....

So, when you tell me : let's think outside of our human terms : god created time and origin ..., come on, you're still thinking in human terms. You're thinking like a human trying to give coherence to his/her perception of his/her reality by imagining that there is a god that created what we are yet unable to explain other ways ...

Many of our ancestors believed in magic and sorcery because they were unable to understand their reality ...

Okay, let me try to show you something :
- what does really matter all in all ?

1) that we pray a god and try to convince everyone that he/she exists and that we own the truth ?

2) or that we try our best to improve the humanity ?

Whatever major religion you take, they all share something :
- they all try to teach us how to live all together in a more agreeable way.
And since the beginning of the humanity (that we believe or not in the theory of evolution), that's what our species "evolves" toward : more peace, more justice, more respect, more humane, more "love", more "qualities" ... --------> more Benevolence.

If Benevolence is the message carried by almost every historical religion of the world, and if everybody agrees to say that his/her "God" inspired their religion, couldn't we logically understand that it is His/Her main message to the Humanity ?

Also, look at what my ancestors have done in my country back in 1789 :
- after they got rid of their unfair king and of the power of the church, they proclaimed Human Rights for all. This is the proof that we don't need religion or gods to move toward Benevolence. This the proof that it is where our species naturally wants to go : a better society, an ideal society.

Couldn't it be considered as an "universal message" ?
Shouldn't we all consider Benevolence as our main and sole priority whatever is our belief ?

Now, if christians are right about hell and paradise, will I go to hell just because I refused to take the risk to believe in a fake truth ?

What do you think your god would rather prefer :
- a christian who is good just because he/she is afraid to go to hell ?
- or an atheist who has chosen to believe in Benevolence just because he/she is convinced it's the best way to go ?
The problem in your reasoning is that you take an "imaginary realm" as a certitude. How can you be sure that this "imaginary realm", that you say humans are unable to comprehend, actually exists ? and also, if we can't comprehend it, how can we "imagine" it ? and how could we be sure that we "imagined" it correctly ?

I am sorry for my lack of engagement but I have been really busy.

It does require faith in what we can't see to believe in an imaginary realm. But it also requires faith to believe in matter coming from no outside source. I can be just as sure that it exists as you can be that it doesn't. According to science matter can not be created or destroyed but then how did matter get here. Everything that humans have, humans built. To me it is like this:

An inventor builds a super robot with artificial intelligence and he lets it slowly get more intelligent. After a short while it stops taking orders from its master and decides that it should be the master. Eventually the robot gets so full of facts and so intelligent that it denies that the inventor even exists. It starts to claim that it was once just a lot of junk in a junk yard and windstorms slowly after billions of years assembled him. He was never created and their is no master. He is now so intelligent that he comes up with a complete theory as an alternative to his creation with facts and explanations to refute all of the creation facts. He doesn't tell how the junk got into the junk yard but he still claims that it was not a inventor and he goes further and says that there are no inventors.

I will try to finish more later.
Thanks For Commenting
I perfectly understand the image of this robots denying the existence of its own creator. However, following your image, what would be the origin of the creator ? We're remaining at the same point : a paradox.
Just as the robot doesn't understand the realm or existence of his own creator so also we don't understand the realm or existence of our creator. It does seem a little silly that I am trying to prove something that can't be comprehended. It would be a paradox in our world but only because it can't be understand. I have been able to partly and briefly comprehend the idea of infinities. As I study calculus I slightly understand the concept of infinities. For example there is an infinite amount of time between two points in time and this passing can be comprehended. We measure the time in years but there is really an infinite amount of time that passes. In the same way the atom is made up of particles that go infinitely down in size until it is a infinitely small size that we can not comprehend. It is the same with distances and all dimensions. We can comprehend that it does exist because it must but we can't comprehend how it exists. Infinities exist because they must but we still can't understand them in human terms. All the things that have to do with infinities that we can't understand makes me think that there are infinities that exist and that in a realm of the all knowing not only would infinities be understood but also controlled and used. Using another robot example: Our robot is so smart now that he has been replacing his processor to be able to comprehend things at a faster rate. Eventually he figures out a way to be able to comprehend at an increasingly fast rate. He normally comprehends at the rate of a human but now every second he is able to comprehend twice as fast as the second before. After a few seconds he is still able to comprehend, move and think but he is now out of a time dimension that he can comprehend and has entered infinity. Time still moves but it takes all infinity for the robot to realize it. The robot is approaching a point in time and is not going through time anymore. If we could invent something like this then we could also enter a timeless world and live in an infinity just like the Christians heaven. If you have noticed we do at times comprehend faster and at times slower. When we do something we enjoy, time seems to fly, but when we are doing work, nothing seems capable of going slower. The idea of time is only in our heads and the idea of infinity would still be possible to comprehend if we were in it. So you see, the idea of infinities is not so far from human comprehension. Very mind boggling stuff though. In fact it took me several years to be able to comprehend this example. I hope that this will kind of explain my reasoning. Thanks For Commenting
Sure. I understand that your reasoning remains illogical and incoherent, because what you're doing is that you are trying to justify your belief.

You believe in a religion, and you use this belief as your base of reasoning : you go reverse. (from a highly potential "fairy tale", back to the reality)

About infinities in distances and times : it's absolutely possible that there is a "granularity" of space-time, something that gives a coherence to the whole universe : a base unit.

Else, why would all particles of a same type have the same size and same properties ?
We could have particles of random sizes ?
We could have giant protons of the size of your head, and neutrons smaller than the smallest known particle ?

Instead of a such anarchy, the size and properties of particles remain coherent. This mean that all those particles share common unit of time and space : and this mean, thus, that it's absolutely possible that the space and the time both have a granularity, a granularity that make the number of "physical positions" between two point of space (or time) finite.

To take a technical image as example, this would be like the pixels of your screen :
- you could have an infinite number of pixels if your screen has an infinite dimension
- but you'd have a finite number of pixels between two different point on your screen

The pixels would be the base unit of space on your screen, the unit that would give its coherence to what is displayed on your screen.
If science encourages open mindedness then why exactly is it illegal for public schools to teach anything BUT evolution, to me that does not sound very open minded...
1) That depends on what you want to teach instead of the theory of evolution. Is there a serious and non religious alternative to the theory of evolution ? 2) Governments make the rules about what is taught at school, not scientists.
However the advantage of matter over deities, is that we can touch and feel it : we have the proof it exists.

Um, not to be persnickety but we have sensual proof, which means it might be activated by brain only activities so we could be sensing an illusion (but then, that goes for everything so this literally destroys all sensible arguments LOL).
Sensual proof? Hey keep the debate above the waist line Goodhart ;-)
I know you know that I know that I meant anything felt with the senses

;-)

including hearing, seeing, touch (heat & pressure), taste and smell, all of which can be influenced by the "electrical activity inside one's head" . :-p
EXACTLY! for all i know i am a massof (anything) sitting (anywhere) and everyithng in this universe is made up to convince me i am a person. so far you are the only person i know that properly understands this! although...you are made up by me..soo i guess someone has to.
although...you are made up by me..soo i guess someone has to.

oooo, does that make me god ? :-)
yes. yes it does.
OMG. you have discovered my belief that all is an illusion made up by my head and none of you are real but me.
Sorry, that is just an illusion too, you are actually just a brain in a vat also, and can not prove that you are not. :-p
gmoon5 years ago
Come on--at least decide what this laughable rant is about...

It is global warming or evolution that offends you?
kentjoe (author)  gmoon5 years ago
It was meant to be funny so at least I made you laugh. I do tend to rant and change topic all of a sudden (Sorry). I should have kept this post related to GW only. This article Is only trying to disprove GW and I kind of got carried away. I am not offended by GW or Evolution, it is everyones right to believe what they want. All that I really want is for people to seek out truth for themselves and not take it for granted that what other people say is true. Schools up till a short time ago did not teach evolution, Now they do, BUT IN BOTH CASES YOU SHOULD NOT JUST TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT WHAT THE SCHOOLS TEACH IS TRUE. Thanks for your comments
Well, the schools teach it for a reason. Because it's tried and proven. In my humble opinion, how anyone in this day and age can truly believe that we were created magically or molded from dirt.
kentjoe (author)  xACIDITYx5 years ago
Unless they teach how it was proven and also give the opposing point of view then they are giving a very one sided argument. They don't even allow the opposing point of view to be believed! This is very much like "indoctrination" which is from communism, instead of the freedom of belief and the seeking of truth that is associated with America. Thanks for commenting
You're free to believe whatever you want, but I don't want kids learning facts that are incorrect and flatout absurd.
kentjoe (author)  xACIDITYx5 years ago
In your opinion Creation is absurd and in my opinion Evolution is absurd so why should all students be limited by what someone else believes. Shouldn't they be able to conform an opinion based on hearing both sides and both arguments. That is what America is about. Freedom of belief. It we try to force students to believe what we say is true and indoctrinate them, then we are copying the communist society. I am not in favor of nationalized schooling, where the government controls what we believe. Just like nationalized health care it would not be constitutional, or American. Thanks For Commenting
Who says that Communism is bad? Clearly you've been indoctrinated in more ways than one.
No, they should not be learning both sides. Why? Because Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up, along with the fact that it just makes sense. As opposed to Creationism, which says that we were just *poof*ed up.

Let's look at this analogy.
My sister says that she KNOWS the sky is orange.
I tell that I know for a fact it's blue.
She still refuses.

Just because she believes that the sky is orange, doesn't mean anything if I can look up at the sky and physically see that it's blue. Just because you believe it doesn't make it correct...
Kiteman kentjoe5 years ago
...YOU SHOULD NOT JUST TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT WHAT THE SCHOOLS TEACH IS TRUE.

Ah, the light dawns - the poster lists his age as 16, and has a bee in his bonnet about what schools teach.

I smell a troubled teen, indoctrinated by his church since pre-school, who has just had his comfortable religious safety blanket torn in two by a few facts from a science teacher.

(Check's kentjoe's profile) ... Shooting, FIRE, Explosion ... I especially like the things that Go BOOM.

Why am I not surprised?

Even though I like to figuring most things out for myself.

Since he's swallowed the whole YEC mythology whole, I'm not so sure he's being entirely honest with himself.

I'm guessing South of the Mason-Dixon line. Well South.
Whoa, smells like a personal attack. Does that "...South of the Mason-Dixon line. Well South." bit constitute a comment on his ancestry? Oh well, it is a time-honored tactic, when unable to take on an opponent directly, just smear them instead.

Ah, I can smell the maturity! It's either that or I really need a shower.

Besides, well south of the Mason-Dixon line is Florida. There are some real nice people there. And oranges. I like oranges. But not grapefruit.
Merely an exploration of kentjoe's motivation. To paraphrase Sun Tzu; know thy debate partner.

To an external observer, it is clear that the majority of fundamentalist creationists tend to live in states below the Mason-Dixon. I have no idea why, but I am also sure that there are many nice people there. Unfortunately, as i said, there are also many YECs.

Floridian oranges I can take or leave - I prefer smaller citrus fruits like satsumas or mandarin oranges. I'm also rather fond of grapefruit. (Sorry - another cultural divide 'twixt we two)
Ah, the light dawns - the poster lists him as a teacher, and he has a bee in his bonnet about Creation. I smell a troubled physicist, indoctrinated by his school since pre-school, who has just had his comfortable social safety blanket torn in two by a little debate from a student. (Check's Kiteman's profile) YEC-hunting, beer... Why am I not surprised? I teach others and learn from others. Since he's swallowed the whole socially accepted evolution bit, smeared his opponents and denied without proof every other position, I'm not so sure he's being entirely honest with himself. I'm guessing Britten. Well Europe. Hail to the queen and all that bloody nonsense. Get the point? I was just joking but you were not. I respect all my opponents no matter what they believe or want to debate. Please give me the same courtesy.
if you're going to go on about how smart you are you should at least check your spelling. It's Britain, not Britten.
Merely an exploration of kentjoe's motivation.

Hmm. Your technique is reminiscent of exploring whether a leg is broken using a steel-toed boot, with kicks of increasing intensity until a definite conclusion is reached.
This is KentJoe speaking because my posts are not coming through>

Doesn't it usually mean that when your opponent starts to use personal attacks that you are winning the debate? Personal attacks on me only hurt your case!

Well since you have slurred my "good name" (Ha what a joke) then I will have to come up with an answer.
Yes I am 17 years old and yes I do like ... Shooting, FIRE, Explosion ... I especially like the things that Go BOOM. and I am proud of what I like.
Hasn't mankind been fascinated by fire for as long as it has been around (this I heard from an evolution teacher). Am I the only one who enjoys the hobbies of model rocketry and gun shooting? Take a look at how many other people use explosives, fire, and guns on this site. When did fire stop being fascinating and turn into a mental disorder?

I smell a troubled teen
This I find funny and quite ironic. Christians are disliked because they supposedly "Judge" others based on their own moral standards but It seems OK for you to judge the Christians based on no standard what-so-ever. Please tell me what standard that you used to come up with the conclusion that I was troubled. So others judge too, not just Christians. Hmm...

Oh and by the way, I live smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles two blocks from a movie studio. This is probably the most liberal place on earth.

indoctrinated by his church since pre-school, who has just had his comfortable religious safety blanket torn in two by a few facts from a science teacher.
The only thing that kids understand and the only thing that churches teach them is the Ten Commandments and how to live a good moral life. They don't understand anything about Jesus or God except that he loves them. It is when they are older and can make a decision that they choose what they want to believe.
I have been going to a Junior College since I was 13 years old and I have anything but a comfortable religious safety blanket. I have been opposed everywhere just because I was a Christian. I have often wished to have a more protective social environment. If anyone has a blanket it is those who hide under the social blanket, those who have all the world on there side to back them up.
Every fact that I have received I have been able to refute or find a refutation. When voting my sister asks my dad, "who should I vote for?" he answers I will tell you what I know about everyone and you have to pick. This is a very open way of learning and is in no way indoctrination.
Everything that I believe I have confirmed by something other then just a preacher.
So you now understand your opponent.
There is no more need to smear me.
actually Christians are taught to NOT judge people. There is no standard by which 'we' judge because we aren't supposed to in the first place. But every human judges people anyway because it is in their nature. Also, nothing is fact. Nothing. Your entire world, our entire world, could be a figment of someone's imagination. Even yours, even mine.
forgesmith5 years ago
Alright, I've read the piece and the comments, least all that matters, here's my 2 cents worth. And they're the all-copper ones so they may be worth more than that as scrap.

skate6566, don't say evolution is tried and proven, it ain't. It's just the theory that best explains the observed results. We have no observational records from while it was happening, no one has spent millions to billions of years trying to replicate the results. The theory itself has undergone change since Darwin, is subject to tweaks and revisions even today, thus there isn't a final absolute version that could be "tried and proven" anyway.

Frankly, I don't care which one wishes to believe as long as it's agreed who's behind it all. It's a debate between Created and Evolved. Well, it don't take much engineering skills to realize evolved systems can be much better than created ones. Windows is created, Linux is evolved. One university I visited, they didn't put in walkways the first year they were open, they put them in later where the students had left paths. If you're called upon to improve a manufacturing process so the workers get better quality with less effort, you don't ask the people high in the office for suggestions, you ask the guy on the floor what he thinks would work.

That said, evolution has limits, the initial setup must be done before the process can be sent off running. No computers, no programmers, no concept of an OS, no Linux. The idea that this all "just happened" would be incredulous at best for practically any other topic. Consider the odds of there even being a planet that can have life period, and also sustain it indefinitely, and allow for massively multi-celled life like us. Moreover, it sure looks like there are some general guidelines and plans involved. All known life is carbon-based, not silicon, and has water content. The most advanced life forms, at least roughly, follow a 4-limbed layout, with 1 brain housed separately from the internal organs. Etc. And I have yet to hear about how that final "tweak" to self-awareness, to being able to contemplate about things that are not directly sensed, can be of such an evolutionary benefit as to have been selected. Indeed, we're doing our level best to defeat and even reverse natural selection, stopping evolution dead. In our own species, and in many we're trying to "preserve" that prevailing conditions would wipe out in favor of something better, more adaptable.

Look, I have no problem accepting evolution in general. I know of no religious texts that have warned against immersing yourself in water and letting it flood your lungs lest you die. We are meant to observe, theorize, experiment, and share what was learned, beyond those texts. We are lead to believe that evolution is the best explanation, so be it. BUT, there is no way I know of to demonstrate that it isn't a directed evolution, one normally left to itself but subject to rare nudges and tweaks. To believe absolutely that there isn't something greater supplying that direction, is an act of faith.

BTW, from chooseausername: "B : However the advantage of matter over deities, is that we can touch and feel it : we have the proof it exists."

Haven't you been keeping track of current theories? Matter that you can touch and feel is rare, practically a contaminant, well over 90% of everything is dark matter and dark energy. There are no electromagnetic interactions, a moon-sized glob of dark matter could go straight thru the Earth, you'd never know. Our best science, the best theories for explaining the universe we have, are telling us to accept the unseen, what we can't sense. What we will never touch and feel.

Why is it okay to accept one thing that can't be sensed that's based on new work by a few people, and reject another that's based on writings thruout recorded history and anecdotal evidence from many, many millions of people?

Now, back to the original topic, Global Warming!!

So what?

Just think about it. The permafrost is thawing, leading to greater CO2 releases; the polar ice is melting, exposing deep dark water that's soaking up sunlight and heating up, leading to more melting. Other things are happening beyond mankind's influence. If we would shut down our CO2 emissions today, we'd only slow the rate of increase down. We're past the tipping point. It's happening. It'll be about a hundred years of our best most unified efforts, everyone worldwide, to bring it to a halt. And, so what?

You want to believe in evolution, then accept adaptability. Whatever happens, we'll adapt to it, we'll survive. If we don't then we're not a good species, we deserve extinction. But, we'll make it.

However, the most offensive part of the whole GW thing, is the marketing of it. Teaching little kids in school to be afraid of the oceans rising 20 feet! That one CGI piece I saw of what looked like a quickly-deserted New York City, swiftly inundated by a tsunami-like wave! And the disaster movies... To those of you who had high hopes, I'm sorry, but Waterworld ain't going to happen.

Face the facts, reject the hype. The changes will be far more gradual, what qualifies as good science on climate change shows it'll take decades for really noticeable things to occur. We'll have plenty of time to adapt. We're past the tipping point anyway, it'll be 5, 10, maybe 20 generations from now until it's stopped. All those generations, adapting as they go.

And then, they'll look around at what they've adapted to. What is normal to them. And consider what more they'll have to do to make things like they were in their ancient ancestor's time, our time. And loudly proclaim:

"So what? Who cares?"
skate6566, don't say evolution is tried and proven, it ain't. It's just the theory that best explains the observed results. We have no observational records from while it was happening, no one has spent millions to billions of years trying to replicate the results. The theory itself has undergone change since Darwin, is subject to tweaks and revisions even today, thus there isn't a final absolute version that could be "tried and proven" anyway.

All I'm saying is that Evolution is the one side that makes the most sense, has the most science backing it up, and has the most evidence.
But by your terms its all relative anyway, if you don't have the complete truth then you cannot have truth at all, you say it makes the most sense, but I say I make the most sense. So until one side comes up with a 100% positive conclusion, neither side can be relatively more right than the other.
Yes, they can.

Let's look at it this way.

My sister says the sky is orange. She believes this.
I know the sky is blue. I know this for a fact.
Just because we both believe them doesn't make us both right.
And I know for a fact I'm right because I can just look up at the sky and see... that it's blue. So I have evidence backing it up, but yet my sister doesn't. She still, however, believes it's orange. Despite overwhelming evidence otherwise.

You are basically saying that the sky is orange.

Or we could look at it this way.

I write a book about a leprechaun that lives under my bed and created the world. Do you:
  • A: Automatically believe it until I show you that there isn't one? (Even then, you still think there is or that it was just an analogy)
  • B: Say "that's absurd" until I PROVE to you that there is? (Or I admit that there isn't one)
Personally, I prefer the latter.
How old is your sister?
sane xACIDITYx5 years ago
Actually the sky isn't blue, it is a mixture of blue based colors and white from the clouds. Also technically speaking you just see the blue particles, there actually are orange particles and others that just aren't seen. These particles are color FOR EVERYTHING! By the way evolution is real, it's just god made us and then we evolved. So stop whining and get over it!
xACIDITYx sane5 years ago
To us, we interpret it as blue. I was talking about the interpretations of colours, not particles and etc.
sane xACIDITYx5 years ago
Well we still interpret the sky as not being on a solid blue. It has many different shades so still :P
xACIDITYx sane5 years ago
Yes, but when someone asks you what color is the sky most people who happen to be without a medal rod up their rectal area answer blue.
Heh. You're looking up at the sky during the day, she's looking at the horizon during sunrise/sunset. There are also other atmospheric conditions where the sky looks red/orangey like after a dusty volcanic eruption, etc, no blue at all. She needs to see the sky at other times, you have to accept that sometimes it really is orange. And you're both wrong in the middle of a moonless night.
Whatever, now you're over analyzing a simple analogy. I can look at my digital camera and see that it's silver. But she refuses to believe that and believes that it's orange. No matter what she believes, it's absurd. I can physically see that it's silver, but she still refuses to believe it. Despite overwhelming evidence supporting otherwise. You know what I meant by the analogy and are just over analyzing it.
Heh, wasn't over-analyzing, just busting your chops, your analogy was a bit sloppy. Changing it from the sky to a camera doesn't help much. The problem with these type debates, that as seen here can put people off on science, is polarization, insisting this is the answer, this is the only truth, everything else is false. It also doesn't help to automatically assume others are inferior under-educated morons. To arbitrarily group many things into complete worldviews and insist only one is correct, like here is religion and there is everything that's really true, really doesn't help. History is filled with people of undeniable intellect who accomplished great deeds yet choose to believe otherwise; Ghandi wasn't an atheist. And, people don't like change, takes a good reason to make it happen. Plus, you're asking people to trade an absolute for something you admit is open to change, you need a very good reason for that. Insisting someone's an inferior moron if they don't, just doesn't cut it.

Elitism in science is bad. Elitism leads to revolt, revolution. Elitism excludes, however fundmentalism includes. Keep shutting people out and they'll go where they're accepted. And it seems really out of place on this site, which sure seems dedicated to showing anyone they can do anything.

Scientific people need to relax, and accept what you're already using, the concept of the working model. It doesn't have to be completely true, perhaps not true at all, but it works for the situation so you use it. Chemists generally don't sit down and do quantum mechanical calculations to figure out chemcal reactions, they just use the electron shell model of the atom, it ain't true but it works. Working models provide framework, understanding, are a simple and reliable place to work from without delving into unneeded complexity. Ghandi was a Hindu, his faith provided the structure and motivation for his great works. Are his accomplishments invalidated because he didn't accept the "truth" of atheism? Would he have even accomplished so much, done what he did, if he had become an atheist? Sure seems a big "no" on both counts.

Travel to some remote isolated village, let the tribe explain how the gift of the fire pleases the water spirits so they dance. You try to explain about atoms, molecules, kinetic and thermal energy. Doesn't matter either way, the water is still going to boil and they can make supper. You insist that the spirits don't exist, or even that the water won't boil if they don't accept your truth, don't be surprised if they burn you at the stake. And I'll bring my Zippo. Afterwards, me and the tribe will talk about why lighter fluid burns but water doesn't, swap explanations, maybe throw in the different evaporation rates. I'll also whip up a solar water heater, show them the fire isn't needed, see what they say then. Hopefully they'll see that my system, while seeming complex, is actually simpler, and adapt it for that reason. If not, well at least they now know how to boil water when the sun is out, cuts down on the wildfires.

Oh, BTW, here's your camera back. You can clearly see it's actually mostly an off-white color, looks like plastic. An hour in the sandblaster will do that. Wait, why are you so upset, don't like that color? Here, let's cover that over, got a can of orange paint around here somewhere....
But I mean, seriously.

Think about it. With what we know about this earth and world, it is completely absurd to actually base your entire life off of a book retranslated and rewritten tons of times. It makes no true sense to believe there is a man in the sky. IT MAKES NO SENSE! NONE. In this day and age it is... {subbed out} to Actually believe we were created magically. Logical thinking would show that there is no such thing as magic or supernatural beings.
Affirming a universal negative...I'm only a novice at logic myself but I think that's an untenable position. Agnosticism is much more supportable. Also, "retranslated and rewritten tons of times" is an inaccurate, though common, belief. I did get a chuckle out of "man in the sky" and "created magically," though.
Also, "retranslated and rewritten tons of times" is an inaccurate, though common, belief.
Erm.. Not it's not. That's the truth. The bible has been written, rewritten, and translated back and forth tons of times.

Affirming a universal negative...I'm only a novice at logic myself but I think that's an untenable position

What in the... WHat are you talking about there?
So tell me then...when was the bible written? When was it rewritten? Where was it translate and by whom? How many times has it been retranslated consecutively. Is the bible that we have today a retranslated translation. And which translation would you be speaking of? The NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, NASV, the Latin Vulgate maybe? What techniques did the translators use? Go study the subject a bit and you'll find that statements such as "retranslated and rewritten tons of times" are laughable. As for my other statement: "there is no such thing as " is affirming a logical negative. That position is untenable without some qualification as to the reason why. I'll give you two examples: If I say, "There is no such thing as an apple that, unaided, will fall upwards," I have made a logical statement that can be supported by fact. All matter is subject to gravity and falls downward and an apple is made of matter so it must fall downward unless there is some force that propels it upward. If, however, I say, "There is no such thing as a perfectly spherical rock," I have made an unsupported - and unsupportable I might add - statement. It may be argued that a perfectly spherical rock cannot exist in nature but there is no physical law that says it could not have happened. Add to that the fact that I would have to omnisciently know about every rock in the universe before I could make such a blanket statement. So lets draw a logical conclusion from all this. Only an omniscient - supernatural - being could know if there's no such thing as a supernatural being. You claim that there is no such thing as a supernatural being. Therefore, you must be a supernatural being. Eureka!!! I found god and he's a 13yo kid from PA! You see why you can't affirm a universal negative now?
That's absurd! Me saying that I know Supernatural beings doesn't mean that I'm a supernatural being.

Only an omniscient - supernatural - being could know if there's no such thing as a supernatural being. You claim that there is no such thing as a supernatural being. Therefore, you must be a supernatural being.
By your logic, then I don't exist. But I'm typing, aren't I?

If I say, "There is no such thing as an apple that, unaided, will fall upwards," I have made a logical statement that can be supported by fact. All matter is subject to gravity and falls downward and an apple is made of matter so it must fall downward unless there is some force that propels it upward.
Yes, but there is Scientific Evidence supporting that fact. Where is the science behind Creationism? Where? The bible? The bible has no science backing it up. The only thing backing up the bible... is the bible. Circular? Yes, I know.

So tell me then...when was the bible written? When was it rewritten? Where was it translate and by whom?

So the bible was originally written in Hebrew(?). It must have been translated to English, French, etc. So everyone can read it. Over time, however, a Spanish version may have been retranslated back to English. If you know how translation works, the meanings were changed noticeably and even possibly catastrophically.

Also, Agnosticism isn't more thought out. Agnosticism is the most simple and basic thing anyone can come up with. I can just come out and say 'Global warming might be true, or it might not'. Agnostics don't have to back up facts or even really think about it. Atheists have to think it through and come up with a logical answer. Religious folks just have to go to church on sunday and say a prayer every so often. Even most Religious folks don't have to think it through, they just do what they were told by their mom, dad, and pastor.
Atheists have to think it through and come up with a logical answer. Religious folks just have to go to church on sunday and say a prayer every so often. Even most Religious folks don't have to think it through, they just do what they were told by their mom, dad, and pastor.

Everyone has to accept something from someone because they can't research everything themselves. You accepted everything that your school taught and I accepted some of what I was taught in church. So you are saying that you really have to think things through more than anybody who has a different belief. Everything that my pastor teaches about creation includes facts from NON-Religious sources. Pastors don't come up week after week telling you to accept what you are told without proof. A pastors job is to explain the bible and and not to scientifically prove it. There are scientists for both sides and those who are skeptical about evolution have a lot more to think through with a lot less to work with. Fewer scientists and therefore fewer facts for creation. Think about how it would be if we changed places and you were the one who was trying to prove creation, you would have a real hard time with the limited scientific proof. Everything that the evolutionists tell me I have to think through and discover why it is wrong/right because I don't believe everything I hear. You say look How Much evidence there is and I say look AT the evidence there is. Have you ever tried to prove to yourself any of the things that you are told?
It is pretty hard to do!
Everyone takes an extreme amount for granted.
The only reason there is more evidence to support evolution is because there are more people trying to get evidence for evolution. There are cases for both sides but ever since evolution was taught as truth in school there has been virtually no one even trying to prove anything but evolution.

Even most Religious folks don't have to think it through, they just do what they were told by their mom, dad, and pastor.

I do listen to my Mom and Dad and often do what I am told. Is that bad?
So that is what atheists do! They rebel against the wisdom of their parents and cling to the socialized schooling for guidance. And then they justify their lack of respect for their elders by saying that they think things through and don't allow their parents to indoctrinate them.

Do you believe differently from your parents in any way?
Now do you believe differently from the school system in any way?
Which do you trust more?

Thanks for commenting
Kentjoe
I do listen to my Mom and Dad and often do what I am told. Is that bad?

Yes, it is! That means you don't have a mind of your own. I don't just follow what the schools teach, I did my own research on both topics before I decided that atheism was the correct choice. Why? Because there is factual evidence and we have physically observed evolution in practice. The only thing backing up creationism as evidence is the bible.

AT But why believe the bible?
CH Because it's infallible.
AT How do you know it's infallible?
CH Because it's the word of god.
AT How do you know it's the word of god?
CH Because the bible says so.
AT But why believe the bible?
etc.

You're basically believing in creationism because the bible says so. But the only way to prove the bible is the word of god is to read the bible, where it says it right there. It's a never ending loop of absurdities and lack of evidence.

Which do you trust more?
The schooling system. Why? Because my parents are christian and therefore biased towards creationism and god.
Yes, it is! That means you don't have a mind of your own

At lease I know were you are coming from. Without a moral standard like the Bible you can't say that it is right or wrong. But the Bible says honor your father and mother and that is what I am going to do. I know of many people who had too much of a "mind of there own" and are now dead or in prison. Schools teach science but not wisdom. And because of this we now have sky-rocketing crime, AIDs, Scholastic decline, and much more. The open minded little boy runs out into the street and gets hit by the car but the obedient respectful little boy stays on the sidewalk and stays alive. It seems to me that you think that your parents are stupid because they are Christians and they could never be as smart as you. Because they are Christians you reject all of the wisdom that they would offer you on the basis that nothing a Christian has to offer could be of any value.

The only thing backing up creationism as evidence is the bible.

The only thing that you have heard of or care to admit that you have heard of is the Bible. There are scientific facts in favor of creation, in fact there are plenty of whole books on it. If you care I could find a few that you could look.

I am not saying that you shouldn't look for truth.
But I believe it is wise to respect your parents and obey them until you are an adult and even then it is a good idea to heed their advice.

Thanks for commenting
Without a moral standard like the Bible you can't say that it is right or wrong.
WRONG!. I have my own moral standard that I live by, and I would say that it's higher than what the bible says, which is to kill people who don't believe.
I just don't follow the moral standard of the bible.
Everyone has there own moral standard!
Everyone does what is right in there own eyes.
If there is no absolute standard then there really is nothing that is right or wrong. Hitler had a moral standard, Murderers have a moral standard, and we have our moral standards. If everyones standards are correct then there is in fact no standard. You may have a perfectly fine standard but without a law to begin with you can't break the law.

which is to kill people who don't believe.

Please tell me what part of the Bible or of Christianity that you heard that from.
NO CHRISTIAN that I know of is in favor of killing people who don't believe the same. You must be confused with the Muslim religion with includes killing Christians and Jews in its religion. Where in the world did you get the idea that Christians are killers.
I heard it quoted many a-times here and directly from the bible. Why should I base my life upon a moral standard from a book whereas it's my life; I'll live it by whatever moral standard I want to. Most atheists, however, feel the need to place that moral standard at or above the moral standard of Christians, muslims, etc.
Most atheists, however, feel the need to place that moral standard at or above the moral standard of Christians

The Bible tells Christians "Be holy as God is holy", that is the standard. Of course no one can achieve this standard so they don't appear to the atheists as have a high moral standard. Since everyone falls short of the standard people tend to lower the standard so that it fits them.

You may live a more moral life then I do but still my standard is God and your standard is whatever you decide works for you. I will never be good enough to meet my standard but in your eyes you have already reached the standard that you picked and are thus morally perfect.
I am in no way shape or form morally perfect. But at least I can reach my goal. You are wasting your one life trying to be something you can never be.
Since when has striving for excellence ever been a waste? Athletes and artists often set themselves unattainable goals, for it is the pursuit that makes them the best they can be. Machinists may strive for zero defects, no junk parts, it's an impossible goal but leads to new ways of doing things that reduce scrap considerably. Where would they be, where would mankind be, if "Eh, good enough" was always the standard? Oh BTW, Christians believe the one true life is yet to come. This is just the sorting phase.
Don't mind em; I just wanted to see what the Instructables forum does with long words like nondisestablishmentarianism when the post width is narrower than the word. :)
Dang...I was hoping for something more spectacular than bumping over the margin. :(
Yes it is absurd, you are not a supernatural being, you do exist, and you were typing. Therein lies the problem with a blanket statement like, "There is no such thing as ." Unless there is some proof, some physical law, or some rational reason why then the statement is invalid. The apple falling up was a perfect example of a blanket statement that can be supported. The perfectly spherical rock was an example of a statement that cannot be supported. The reason is that there is a physical law that says apples cannot fall up but there is no law or rule that says that a perfectly spherical rock doesn't exist. So it is reasonable to say that no apple can fall up unaided but it is unreasonable to say that no perfectly spherical rock exists. Anyone who makes such an unsupportable statement and defends it - and PLEASE don't take this the wrong way - is either omniscient, insane, ignorant, or lying.
There are physical laws! There's science that says you can't make us out of dirt! We can't be scientifically made from dirt unless some outside force is used. But the outside force that would have to be used would be magic, which is also absurd.
I'm quite sure that there are no laws of science that say the elements in dirt can be rearranged into a human being, every necessary element is present. What was not present in the dirt was the souls or "breath of life" if you will that God put into them. What is impossible is that evolution can evolve monkeys so that they gain a soul and turn into humans. Also magic is only a thing associated with the devil, so I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to God's power as magic.
The only way dirt could be made into humans would be by an outside force. Seeing as how no outside force able to do that exists on this earth, we just sub out truth with god. When you look at evolution in it's simplest, non-researched at all, form, you could say that, yes, we were made from monkeys. But we are observing evolution as we speak.

Hell, I'm observing it as we speak. I recently sprayed some bug spray to kill some cockroaches. One didn't die. Now today we have cockroaches that just won't die. Me and my sister have to stomp on them.

Religion isn't just absurd to the nth degree, it's also going to be the death and downfall of us all.
Yes, calling God's power "magic" is a technique that is used to make anyone who believes in a God sound stupid and crazy. skate6566 is trying to make people associate Merlin with anyone who talks about something outside of this realm. You don't have any proof that there is nothing outside of this realm and you don't have any proof that there are not supernatural occurrences. So don't call it magic to try and make us appear stupid!
But you see, it is magic. Magic. Magic and spells and hickory dockery.
heh...your still affirming a universal negative. Sure, mankind cannot make a human being out of dirt - and whether science is involved is irrelevent as this would be more in the domain of technology. There would still need to be an outside force but you haven't provided a reason why that outside force couldn't exist. The only reason you've given is...it just can't.
But Science IS involved. It always is.
pretty soon we'll only be able to fit one word per line :) heh
I'm going to post this one separately to keep comment length down.

Part of the bible we have these days is from texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The latter portion is in Greek. There is some debate about whether the Greek portions were originally in Hebrew but only speculation at this point.

We do in fact know exactly where every version and translation came from; here they are as a matter of fact. One thing you'll notice is that there are revisions but very few retranslations - one exception being and most of the rest are based on original manuscripts. The two I use, New American Standard BibleNew American Standard Bible and New International VersionNew International Version - are both based on original texts. There is some debate about whether
sorry...I hit the post comment button accidentally instead of the add link button. hehe...my bad.

I shall complete the two gaps I left and call it quits for now:

"one exception being..." the Great BibleGreat Bible which hasn't probably been used in two or three hundred years.

I was revising things and forgot to erase "There is some debate about whether..." when I move that section to the previous paragraph.

Well, now my train of thought has derailed. I'll have to pick this back up later.
I'd like to amend my final statement: You see why you can't affirm a universal negative without qualification now? Sorry...I'll quite replying to my own posts now.
BTW...to round off that whole spiel... Given the choice between Atheism and Agnosticism I'd choose Agnosticism. Atheism says, "There's no such thing as god..." with an implied, "and I absolutely positive of that." Agnosticism just says, "I don't know if there's a god, and if there is I don't know if there's a way to know said god." Agnosticism just seems a bit more thought out.
skate if you are clueless when it comes to logic debates, then don't bother posting anymore in a debate related thread, go take a beginners logic course, then come back and I might listen to what you have to say
Screw off. I have never heard the term stated that way before. Now that I understand it, we can move on.
As I said before, go take a course in logic and then I will hear out what you have to say, otherwise I have no purpose wasting my time debating with you.
Whatever. If you're going to be so one sided and idiotic I don't even want to debate with you.
looking at a human being and the trillions of variables that have to be exactly right for life to even be possible, and call that chance-thats what I define as absurd. Believing in evolution MAKES NO SENSE. "It makes no true sense to believe there is a man in the sky." ever heard of the international space station? ;-)
So you are saying that the chances had to be exactly right for us to come to be? That's absurd! Do you even understand the evolutionary processes in their most simplistic state? The point is that we were an accident. So you're saying that the chances had to be exactly right for the Mountain Dew can to fall on my foot. It was accidental.
Yeah sure I get that it's an "accident" but what your saying is that a can of MD fell on your foot and then for the next ten minutes a can of mountain dew happened to fall on your for every other second and after that the cans assembled themselves into an organism that proceeded to make a wonderful masterpiece on a piano... And if all evolution said was that a bunch of amino acids formed in a large amount of primordial soup-then I might be able to believe that, but that those amino acids over billions of years just happened to have a couple trillion "lucky breaks" and formed us humans with souls...that sounds like you need to be institutionalized
But you're assuming that we're perfect animals... We're not. We are just a dropped mountain dew. Accidental...
Accidents are what happens when someone screws up. Stop sign is ignored. Deer jumps out in front of the car, and it's your fault because you weren't driving slow enough to allow for deer. Why'd that can of MD hit your foot? Did you let it slip out of your hand, bump it with your arm, did you leave it too close to the edge and the dog bumped the table leg? If you're saying we're accidents, then you're saying someone screwed up.

Now now, I get what you're saying. You're really talking about something that happens that's just so incredibly improbable, you can't see there being any reason for it whatsoever. Like an asteroid hurtling thru space, then thru Earth's atmosphere, then straight thru your car windshield.

Which your insurance company will call an Act of God.
No, accidents can happen any time, it doesn't have to have a purpose.
Accidents do not need to happen, they're preventable, all of them. Just ask a lawyer. The question that crops up is if something reasonable could have been done to prevent it. Didn't want that can to fall on your foot? Could've epoxied it to the table. It's your own fault anyway for having a can, they're dangerous. You can throw them at people! Everything happens for a reason. Accidents are nature's way of saying we should check if something's wrong, if there's something we need to fix. If you keep dropping cans and other things, check with a doctor, maybe you had a stroke or have a brain tumor, or just carpal tunnel syndrome.

Look, let's just cut to the chase. You don't want to believe that someone created you. So you don't believe in creationism, you chose evolution. Well right off you should notice that evolution seems rigged to creating advanced lifeforms making humans much more likely, if it really was only about survivability, adaptation, and reproductive success then bacteria alone have everything else beat, nothing multicellular can survive where bacteria can't, plus they don't even need sunlight. And then, as I've argued here, there's no valid reason to assert there is no "God" involved in evolution. On the one side there's what Genesis appears to say, but the Bible reflects the general level of scientific understanding at the time thus the creation story is metaphor. They didn't know about germs either, but the laws of Moses, especially the kosher stuff, yield an astounding level of good hygiene and safe food preparation for the time. Then on the other side, since it is impossible to prove God does not exist, it is impossible to prove He didn't influence evolution.

Nah, the only way for you to get off the hook, to absolutely say there is no higher being, nothing "magical" or "supernatural," is to say there is no purpose whatsoever to your being made, no reason at all, no reason even possible. You are trying to assert that. And you are failing.
they didn't know about germs either...
But I thought god knew everything? Are you pulling my leg?
Um, excuse me for butting in on this conversation, but...

The point is that we were an accident.

I thought accidents had no purpose behind them. Yet evolution has a purpose, a direction, developing a more successful lifeform.

Just a thought, moving on...
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!