Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm

[erisch]

(edit: "Academic arrogance" for lack of a better word) Arrogance loosely defined:

Dismiss an idea or theory because it just can't be true.

Example:

Doctors at a Swiss (or German?) hospital couldn't figure out why the infant mortality rate was so high. They thought about it for months, years, then they decided they had to move the maternity ward because of the alignment of the stars. One doctor did some research on his own and found out that the infant mortality rate was high because all the other doctors would go from dissecting dead people and straight into delivering babies without washing their hands. This young doctor (I think his name was Weiss-something) met so much resistance from the arrogant doctors in the establishment that his work was largely dismissed.

I usually think of this story whenever I hear of something that sounds a bit too far fetched. I certainly don't want to be the one to dismiss great ideas because I'm too arrogant.

Nassim Haramein seemed to meet the same kind of arrogance when he was presenting some of his theories to the establishment of physicists.

 

[IronLogik]

Bill Maher said it nice...

If there's anything I hate more than prophecy, it's self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[erect]

"If we're to reconcile this with the meaning of "day", each day would have to be hundreds of millions of years long." - How many light years away is the nearest star? 1 day? Fit that into your 6.5 billion year timeline.

"plants existing for millions of years before there's a sun" - If we've got the technology to grow pot without the sun, I'm sure God does too.

"For instance - saying something such as "the evening and the morning were the first day" Evening and morning are earth-spinning concepts based on the rising and setting of the sun" - You are implying that God stayed here, on this earth, while creating it. A shapeless formless blob of shit rotating around nothing.

There's more holes here but I'm getting bored. The truth is, say it with me here, we just don't know. I certainly don't.

To try to force the creation of everyfuckingthing into some sort of human based framework is absurd. It's also absurd for the bible to sum it up in a chapter ... you'd think it would at least have it's own trilogy.

 

[Gablablah]

Once again you need to actually read the bible before quoting it.
To be more exact it goes:
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".

I used slightly different words and forgot to mention birds. This changes nothing about my point about the length of a day.

God created light before he created vegetation, this obviously implies a source of light other than the Sun (i'd imagine the big bang probably left a lot of radiation light for awhile).

All you've done is reinforce a couple of the Bible's errors - light before stars, and stars after planet earth. Natural light comes from stars. Plants depend on sunlight.

Secondly, many plants don't require photosynthesis and with the polar imbalances of a fairly newly created planet it wouldn't be unreasonable for early plants to be as reliant on the sun.

So "newly created" is hundreds of millions of years old? And as for the plants that do require photosynthesis? Are you excluding them from the passage where god creates all the plants?

In fact of all the species of plants on this planet it's only a small percentage that rely on animals to spread their seeds

Again, are you excluding this small percentage as nonexistent? No matter how small the percent, they still depend on animals.

The order of the early days actually coincides a lot with the theory of evolution and supports it more than disputes it.

How, exactly?

 

[Deliguy]

I think its kinda funny how we can debate in great detail about all these old brilliant minds that lived centuries ago about their theories on how the world started and how the world will end, but if we went back in time to their eras and told them in the future we will have a machine that can look at your bones through your skin they'd throw us in the fuckin looney bin

 

[Deliguy]

How, exactly?

If you don't have the basic capacity to understand why plants don't need animals to survive or how natural light can exist without a star then I'm afraid that would be impossible for anyone to explain to you.

pffft ya know what. I'll make you happy and take it back. I think you may be on to something. All the previous evolutionary scientists who spend their entire careers picking apart holes in the bible must have missed Genesis 1:1, otherwise they would all be like OMG! They got the order wrong! Guys guess what!?! It wouldn't work that way!
You should publish a book on your new findings.

 

[Gablablah]

SOME plants don't need animals. Others do. Ignore them all you want, they don't go away.

There is light other than stars. Plants, however, depend on a particular star which is our sun.

Your inability to explain != my inability to comprehend. You are the one that has claimed genesis lines up with evolution. I have claimed it doesn't. I provided specific reasons for why it doesn't. You provided no specifics and are instead just claiming I don't have capacity to understand. You're generalizing, ignoring specifics, and treating minority percentages as if they don't exist.

 

[schockergd]

It's amazing to me how many people make assumptions on the bible when they have never ever read it and only rely on what others have told them.


Having said that , the bible says in itself that "1 day to God is like 1000 years to us". In addition to that , it never ever gave a date the earth was created, in Genesis it says it was "Formless and Void" It didn't say that it wasn't there, just of no importance.

Christians do accept Evolution, we just don't accept microevolution hook line and sinker, and I'd be willing to be that if every person had a full understanding of what microevolution entails , they wouldn't accept it either.

Science no matter how you look at it has holes in it , some are bigger than others, and NO MATTER what you say today about science , it will most likely be changed in the future.


Remember when scientists were expecting the earth to go through an ice age in the 70s? Complete ozone depletion in the 90s?

Whether you like it or not ,there are alot of interest groups that fight for the scientific community against anything that opposes them, whether it be religious in nature or not.

 

[Deliguy]

SOME plants don't need animals. Others do. Ignore them all you want, they don't go away.

There is light other than stars. Plants, however, depend on a particular star which is our sun.

Your inability to explain != my inability to comprehend. You are the one that has claimed genesis lines up with evolution. I have claimed it doesn't. I provided specific reasons for why it doesn't. You provided no specifics and are instead just claiming I don't have capacity to understand. You're generalizing, ignoring specifics, and treating minority percentages as if they don't exist.

Sorry man you just showed up to the wrong park to play baseball. We're all over here with our mitts of common sense and bats of common knowledge and you're out somewhere else making up quotes that don't exist, saying facts that aren't facts, and claiming simple facts of nature are impossible. Several of us have already tried explaining it to you as clearly as we can and you just didn't understand. You even quoted the exact answer to your question above. At this point you're being a horrible representation of your side of the argument. Trust me they're better off without your input. No one has brought in any complex college level topics here. We're still at the basic junior high, early high school level of input, history, and scientific knowledge and you just don't seem to be understanding any of it. Sorry, but there's not a lot that can be done for ya at this point.

 

[Gablablah]

Literal "day" = earth is not billions of years old - conflict with science

Figurative "day" = a "day" is millions of years to account for age of earth. Though NOT ALL plants depend on the sun and animals, the ONES THAT DO can't survive millions of years without them - conflict with science

 

[cheshire]

Just a quick note ... its the book of Revelation .. not Revelations

 

[Deliguy]

(edit: "Academic arrogance" for lack of a better word) Arrogance loosely defined:

Dismiss an idea or theory because it just can't be true.

Example:

Doctors at a Swiss (or German?) hospital couldn't figure out why the infant mortality rate was so high. They thought about it for months, years, then they decided they had to move the maternity ward because of the alignment of the stars. One doctor did some research on his own and found out that the infant mortality rate was high because all the other doctors would go from dissecting dead people and straight into delivering babies without washing their hands. This young doctor (I think his name was Weiss-something) met so much resistance from the arrogant doctors in the establishment that his work was largely dismissed.

I usually think of this story whenever I hear of something that sounds a bit too far fetched. I certainly don't want to be the one to dismiss great ideas because I'm too arrogant.

Nassim Haramein seemed to meet the same kind of arrogance when he was presenting some of his theories to the establishment of physicists.

That's an excellent way of looking at it. You almost HAVE to be open to new ideas because if you side entirely with any one of our current ideas you're either taking knowledge of the universe from someone who thought the world was flat, getting a world history lesson from a guy who never traveled more than 200 miles from the town he was born, or finding out what will happen when you die from a person who would cut themselves when they were sick hoping to bleed out the disease.

 

[popeye]

"facts" that are the accepted norm of the scientific community are debunked all the time. Keep your mind open. Don't settle your beliefs on one theory. Be open to new ideas and new ways of thought. Only the ignorant attach themselves to one belief!

 

[jenzkc]

anything having to do with religion or prophecies is 301 redirected to my brain's garbage compactor.

 

[popeye]

anything having to do with religion or prophecies is 301 redirected to my brain's garbage compactor.

Einstein, while believing that there was not a "personal god" did often times comment on how athiest were ignorant of the world around them.

Im sorry I am going to have to side with Einstein over some random athiest on the internet.

 

[Avalanche]

I'm not just trolling on this one. I'm seriously curious.

There was a lot of stuff in that book that got me thinking a few years back when I was really in a bad spot w/ the booze.

I considered the coincidences in Revelation, the increasing historical accuracy of the book as more archeological discoveries are made, and some ideas that made me flat-out pissed off but yet I couldn't stop checking it out.

Flash-forward about 4 years later. Life is literally 10000% different (good way) and I've seen some crazy/impossible stuff since then that leaves me no doubt that insight is legit, regardless of if my interpretation may be a bit off.

 

[1nspire]

I'm just going to hit on few subjects and its safe to say that not everyone will agree with each other. I have always been fond of the scientific approach to God. Mainly because God will never be fully understood by our minds. I personally see it as a disgrace to even put God at our level which brings up a point. I think we as humans try to bring God down to our level instead opening our thoughts as best as we can to see through God's eyes. Jesus gave us many examples and in my opinion, showed us what God really is.

About the Bible, anyone with a pure scientific approach will quickly have a difficult time with the facts. In truth it has to be this way. If the path to Heaven was laid out step by step it would not have any merit. Your path is your path, not mine and so on.

Genesis - Think about it just a little bit. God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days and then took a nap. Our calendar system is whacked and not even perfect. We have to slide in an extra day every 4 years. A day is based off 1 full revolution of the Earth and the year is based off of 1 full revolution around the sun. Its quite possible that a day in God's terms is not a day in ours. I do agree that the authors of the Bible did write for the minds of that era. Interestingly though, our minds today are very similar about the subject at hand.

Things that I find interesting about the Bible on a timeline is the fact that God did not like how the first world was progressing so he wipped the slate clean and started over with a better gene pool. I know its hard to think that we are born with incest in our blood line, but think about this. For you to be here today meant that a series of exact events had to take place. Your parents met, had sex, and out comes you. Not only did this have to happen on the exact moment but it had to happen on the exact moment for your parents, parents. This continues on like a reverse pyramid system. The only problem is the number will become to great to support the population of the earth the farther we go. So it is very safe to say that incest is in your blood.

So here we are with a clean slate and Moses is going around teaching us about God and the way of life. The only problem is the more deluted his gene pool gets the more like the first world we become. Well, God made a promise not to wipe the slate clean ever again so he decides that he must be a living example through Jesus.

The facts of the Bible or not nearly as important as the life it brings. Some say it is a living book and I agree. Read the Bible like a scientist and you will find all the questions you were seeking. Read the Bible in pursuit of God and he will be there.

Jesus' testimony is love. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Gablablah]

The order of the early days actually coincides a lot with the theory of evolution and supports it more than disputes it.

How, exactly?

If you don't have the basic capacity to understand why plants don't need animals to survive or how natural light can exist without a star then I'm afraid that would be impossible for anyone to explain to you.

My apologies. I spoke without thinking. I mean, I'm kinda familiar with both the Genesis account and the world's natural history, but I lacked a certain "basic capacity" to see how harmoniously they fit.

 

[Rusky]

^^^Questions
1) After big bang was everything basically pasteurized? What are the implications?

2) First organisms - did the complex organism with many different parts working harmoniously appear from thin air - or you you have a theory you'd like to present.

You seem so sure, you must have prof. Please indulge me.

 

[Gablablah]

Not sure what you mean by pasteurized. And obviously it's not the position of those who accept evolution that organisms came out of thin air. That's kind of the whole point of evolutionary theory, is that it's a gradual process where things get more complex as generations pass.