jump to last post 1-50 of 51 discussions (935 posts)

Do you believe in the biblical flood in the days of Noah?

  1. Oscarlites profile image57
    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago

    Do you believe in the biblical flood in the days of Noah?  it was recorded as a cataclysmic earth-covering flood, and mentions waters flowing from the deep, (out of the earth, as well as all the water previously being held in a cloud canopy over the earth falling as the first rain on the earth). It claims the earth inhabitants lived a longer life span prior to this time.  Do you accept that all of our ancestry dates back to this man Noah, and then back another 1200 approx. years to Adam and Eve?  Do you believe there is a real wooden Ark still sitting in the mountains of Ararat, as proof of this fantastic voyage to save the world?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I believe there was some kind of flood as it is recorded in several texts...

      A flood as described in the bible with the corresponding arc... not a chance.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        While its hard to believe there was enough water to cover the entire earth, I've read that the constant turmoil kept the waters pushed up to the tops of the mountains. scientists suggest today that it would be almost cataclysmic if the ocean water level was to rise even one foot world wide. large portions of several continents woould be covered. Science and Blible alike show us there are principles and laws that keep the waters of the earth in control. Ie. in the clouds ( meteorology) in the glaciers, (geology)  and in the internal earth, (Hydrology) ; all of these are effected by gravity, earth and atmospheric temperatures earth rotation and lunar pull draws and holds the precipitation in the skies.  Its not hard for me to believe that if all these forces relaxed for even a short time period, drastic results would occur.   --- one thing that comes to mind is that as a teenager, I found that modern science has discovered proof that the sun stood still for one day ( recorded in bible, where  God caused the sun to stay still for Elijah the prophet. so its not so hard for me to believe otherwise hard to believe claims such as the flood, creation etc.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you serious?  You do realize that the sun does not go around the earth at all and is always "standing still" at all times?

          I can't imagine where you got the "science" that the sun stood still for a day but it wasn't from any scientist, science class or science teacher.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, is it possible then that the "earth" stood still for a day?   I do believe it is in scientific history.. I'm not sure how to go back and research now, but I'm willing to try..

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No.  To stop the earth's rotation would result in tsunamis and winds that would scour the earth's surface of all topsoil, let alone life.  Water and air are "liquids" in that they both move over the surface.  They are rotating at about 1,000 miles per hour; stopping the earth's surface (moving at the same rate) doesn't stop either water or wind.

              Conservation of angular momentum also requires that it not stop, as well as not re-starting if it did stop.  There is no way to get it spinning again short of a blow (asteroid, perhaps?) big enough to once again destroy everything on the surface.  The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to what was necessary.

              Nor is there any record anywhere, verbal or written, of a 24 hour long night.  Remember, if the earth stops, half of it goes dark.

          2. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Recently I had a chance for a good laugh when a woman shared a story with us.. She said " my husband Joe, as a missionary  goes  back and forth to a place where they still have a tribal leader.  He was with the chief of the village and they were out walking at night and they were next to the ocean but looking up at the full moon..  he said to the chief, just think;  We have made much progress; we have two explorers up there right now!     The Old chief looks over at him, and says,,   Joe you've been coming here time after time, and I have tried to believe you, and the things you have taught me.. but this time its unbelieveable!  You tell me we have humans up on the moon?  Why, anybody can look up there with their own eyes and see there isn't room for even one man to stand on it!

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this
          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I woke up this morning; no one can objectively deny that I woke up;  but if someone wanted, they could deny that I did.  Tomorrow perhaps the only proof that I woke up today will be that I am alive tomorrow.  and not less proof is that I am writing this.

            I am not currently following the life of Christopher Columbus, but I understand from some recent articles that his life and exploits are being redefined and he is no less than a despicable marauder that used the Spanish crown to fund his journeys.. yet he was held as a traditional hero to the American dream say 30 years ago. Now the advent of American conquered peoples are pouncing back to claim he was a despot. do you think politics and professors play a role in what is written in textbooks?  I do.

            At least unless you disprove the existence of Jesus, and his Mother, Mary, then you still have to deal with that there WAS a man named Noah, and you cannot disprove that HE trusted God and lived his life as he spoke it. (not as we speak of it now.).  His life is recorded in Marys geneology. His claim was that many scoffed and disregarded that God would send a judgement at the end of the Ark building project. According to his descendents and historical accounts, those people did not get on the Ark of safety provided for them.

            A proof of the exodus of Egypt was that God gave them a living proof. they were to practice the "passover" every year afterwards as a "living" proof that it occured. they still do today.  I have thought about this. it is amazing.

            There is both historical and living proof of the holocaust, yet some already have scoffed that it didn't happen. (please don't tell that to the German peasants! Germany was gutted and diplayed to the world as murderous people, against the will of the people.)  I personally do not blame the entire German people for the atrocities that occured. I blame the evil men that controlled and dictated within the government at that relatively recent time period.

            There were asteroids, and shooting stars in the skies last night.  I looked but I did not see the display. There were clouds in the way.  Should I disbelieve that it happened? that the Geminid showers were a hoax?  I choose to believe, and there are living proofs that they did happen. Society has its own living proofs. but only of what we have witnessed. We only have theories and speculation of what happened in the past. but we cannot deny any civilization thier own living proof's.   

            There are evidences of Dinosaurs and humans walking and living together, yet some of the sciences disagree that they were even in the same period of time.   Since I was a kid, they have changed the supposed time of existence from 55 million years ago, to 30 and even now to 15 and then 6 million years ago.   But yet, in at least two places in existence today, they have proof of man and dinosaur tracks being made the same exact day.  Glen Rose Texas, and at least one other site..

            I believe Noah existed. Ignorance is not an excuse to disbelieve in something. I also beleive that Peter the Great, of european history was real. I beleive other great, but more primitive civilizations existed, such as the Vikings, and others. Before the advent of modern communications, entire continents survived without knowledge of each other. I dare say we have only barely caught up with connecting the races.. much less all the sciences, and historilogical proofs.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It would appear you hold a lot of irrational beliefs that seem to cause you to create logical fallacies and accept nonsense, and then claim science said it was so. I think no one could care less you hold those beliefs, but to state science supports them is dishonest.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I do beleive science is able to produce truth, though many conclusions and experiments have been later proven false, truth remains. does it not?

                I do not assign man the honor of creating science, only of explaining science and experiments.  I give him credit for inventions, and for making the world a better place through using the sciences.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Such as?



                  And yet, men did create the process of science and experiments, despite your denial. That is a fact.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then you should readily concur that there was a first man and a first woman. that there was a first book, and a first child. that there was a first rain and a first cup of tea.   All I am saying in this forum is that Man has a purpose for being here, and I simply asked "do you beleive a certain story of mans existence."

              2. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                _____________________________________
                Its dishonest to say there was no Noahs ark, and no Flood, when all the evidence is not in yet..    Its dishonest to say there was a big bang and THATS where we came from when the evidence is not there. You haven't found THAT ark either. You have only developed theories that we came from a miraculous explosion, or spontaneous series of events.. ---one of the arguments against that theory is that we each have a separate and distinct DNA.   God says in his word that there is a distinction between man and animal creatures.  that we have a living soul.     Sad that some live life without discovering that they have one..

                1. cascoly profile image59
                  cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  nonsense - it's MUCH more dishonest to claim such silly things when there is NO evidence for them - using the bible to prove the bible doesnt count.  what other evidence do you have for these claims?

                2. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, prove that we have a soul, define what that soul is, and how it separates us from all of the other animals.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    soul noun \ˈsōl\
                    Definition of SOUL
                    1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
                    2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
                    3: a person's total self
                    4a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader
                    5a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
                    6: person <not a soul in sight>

                    Mirriam Webster...   

                    BY THE WAY>>   its in all dictionaries and encyclopedias.
                    _____________________________________________________

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Whether I believe Jesus, Mary or even Noah existed is immaterial.  It has nothing to do with whether I believe that physically impossible things, things that violate the laws of nature, happened.

              As you point out yourself, Columbus may not have been the hero we have portrayed him as.  The details of his life are not readily apparent, yet they are recorded far better than details of any of the three biblical characters.  The tales attributed to Columbus are physically possible, the tales of what Jesus did or what happened to Noah are not. 

              That you choose to equate the two is not to your credit, and neither is believing or repeating "science" facts that never, ever came from a scientist.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                With any and all due respect to the sciences. you suggest that we could record and keep records of columbus, but not of earlier civilizations? as great as you believe the sciences are?  see that is unexplicable reasoning.   we are able to read a rock, but not a textbook,. or a scroll, or a drawing, or a hieroglyphic.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Whether we could has nothing to do with whether we actually DID keep those records.  We DID keep records of where Columbus was (supposedly) going; we did NOT keep records of Noah's travels and problems with his ark.  We didn't even keep records that he built an ark - the closest we can come is a single story of physically impossible events written by people long after the fact.

                  Other people followed Columbus, corroborating his story to a large degree.  No one has ever found a shred of evidence of a world wide flood, let alone that Noah collected samples of every animal on earth and cared for them for several months aboard a small boat. 

                  Today, we see the evidence of Columbus's visit to the Americas, but we see no evidence of Noah's ark.  What we DO see is very strong evidence that the details of the ark myth are impossible; that they cannot happen.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have read substantiated and well recorded documnents of the exact dimensions, primitive blueprints, instrucion of waterproofing and even the structural hardware built for the ark.. bolsters built with primitive metals.   -I have read and seen well recorded documents of the exact measurements of religious furniture of the Isrealites used in the first portable tabernacle used in the wilderness. all so real and exact you could build nad reproduce today. and the documents are age specific to the era they are written about. they are mostly held in the antiquities museum of Israel. the living torah is an ancient and beleivable manuscript that is still in existence. agian, you must accept recorded history.

                    I have studied, though briefly even the writing of the chinese, and the "story in the letters" of the chinese language tell a story..  you want to know what it is?  the creation of man.  do you not believe that science requires multiple accounts of consistency?   I am proven, both by the sciences and and by history and of something that could never have been evoluted. a heart.  some will never realize the miracle of the heart.

            3. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Humans and dinosaurs coexisted? Please.  That's possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.  Did you get that from the asinine creation museum that has been debunked even by other Christians?

        3. cascoly profile image59
          cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          what scientific evidence is there for the earth stopping? 

          the bible is ignorant of scientific laws - from gravity to evolution - not surprising, since all humanity was equally ignorant - but some of us have progressed since them

          1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
            GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Excuse me... Evolution is not  scientific... its an unproven theory... its a myth... a magic...

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              evolution isn't "just a theory"  Sorry.  It is scientific, it's tested, proven and peer reviewed, and they can observe it in a laboratory.  What science have you been studying?

              1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
                GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tested? Since when? To claim it as a fact it should pass first the scientific method... And to pass the scientific method there should be an observer... I hope you know this though...

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  are you confusing evolution with the origin of life?

                  Evolution:   
                  1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
                  2.
                  a. The process of developing.
                  b. Gradual development.
                  3. Biology
                  a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
                  b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
                  4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
                  5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

                  Evolution is tested all of the time.  Have you ever looked any of it up?

                  1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
                    GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ROTFL... end of the argument hehehe... your reply was very scientific...

            2. cascoly profile image59
              cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              - you're NOT excused  -- no matter how many times you may type it, it doesn't change the FACT of evolution.   if you actually have any evidence against evolution, please present it, but my psychic powers tell me you'll either trot out the same dead horses creationists love to beat, or more likely you'll fail to reply at all

              1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
                GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In your wonderful world...

                >>>There is no missing link and there are no fossils or evidences that will link humans with apes.
                >>>There are no fossils and evidences that a certain specie of animal evolved into another specie.
                >>>There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom. ---abovetopsecret.com
                >>>The archeopteryx shown by evolutionists before is bogus after all. Unfortunately, this hoax is still present in many Biology books that are published worldwide...
                >>>The origin of life started from a single-celled being, ridiculous... The most modern laboratory was unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. ---abovetopsecret.com
                >>>Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. ---abovetopsecret.com
                >>> How about symbiosis? When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
                A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? --- http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut … out-bible/
                >>>Evolutionist cannot answer the age-old question, Which came first the eggs or the chicken?
                An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
                To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
                Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history. --- http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut … out-bible/

                1. cascoly profile image59
                  cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole -- every one of your mistakes is explained  in the references given above

                  now  you're just copying material wholesale from creationist sites -- not just the one that you do mention  -- it didnt take me long to find most of your other alleged 'problems'  online, word for word

                  try reading a real science book rather than just regurgitating the tripe that creationist sites spew

                  1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
                    GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    These are irrefutable... you cannot twist facts and the evidences around us...

                    It's you who is in the hole now... I wonder if you can still get out...

                    BTW, I will not bother to read your magical "science books," I might just get upset if will see a bogus archeopteryx there...

                2. FrankCurzi profile image78
                  FrankCurziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you believe in God? For that matter, why the Christian God? You do realize that if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would worship Allah, right? So why is the religion of your people so much more credible and worthy of worship than any of the other religion now, or that came before it. Nearly every religion makes impossible claims, but yet, I 'm sure the God you believe in is all too real.

        4. FrankCurzi profile image78
          FrankCurziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Magical Science" Sorry buddy, that is not the way it works. Science is methodical and ever changing. Maybe, you should ask yourself why you believe there is a magic invisible man in the sky who loves you. I bet these beliefs aren't based on concrete evidence and change with new found information as science does. Actually, I bet you, and many others simply believe in impossibilites such as God becasue your family and community embraced God as real and good.

      2. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
        A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You should know?

    2. livewithrichard profile image84
      livewithrichardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There probably was a huge flood... I would guess that it was around the end of the last ice age when all the ice was melting... say 10 or 12 thousand years back.  To someone back then I would also say that it probably looked as if the entire world was flooded since their entire world probably encompassed no more than 50 square miles.  Stories of that flood would have been passed on by word of mouth for many generations, with each generation adding some drama to it for one reason or another, until a written language came along and made it harder for the story to change.  There probably was an arc as well but the addition of the mated animals was just some drama to add to the story...

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        thanks richard.  I lived in Alaska and I know they have records of an ice bridge acroos the continents, and I know there are fish bones etc, historical findings of archeology that they ascribe to a world flood. some of the animals and species found a the tops of mountains that shouldn't be there naturally. there is no doubt as to there having been a huge flood.  Science seems to want to fight against biblical stories, in order to prove evolution, but that being said,   for instance..  in England jsut a few hundred years ago, they claim there was fire breathing dragons. whereas I can't put the date on anything any more than you can; there is existing in South America lizards that have the ability to kill insects with a tiny spark, ( flame)  , put that together with Birmancandys remark about people having lived 905 years( Noah) and the natural known fact that some species such as the lizards and I thnk alligators, and the komoda? dragon; these continue to grow as long as they are alive and providing it was the canopy effect of the atmospere that kept humans alive longer, then it would have kept animals alive .. Imagine if a lizard grew to 900 years!  incidentally they have the same scale and body shape as the pictures of yesteryear's Dragons).  the bible mentions behemoths.  they regularly find woolly mammoths and mastadon bones in the mountains and in the shores of Alaska.. I have lived where they have found these bones washing out of the glacial moraines as the ocean water erode them away.. not to mention what they find locked into the glaciers for  years and years.

        1. cascoly profile image59
          cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          yes, that ice bridge was more than  TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO -- well before any  claims for noah. amzing how many inaccuracies, mistatements and falsehopods you can cram in 1 paragraph!

          the reason there are fossils on mountains is that MILLIONS of years ago those were seabeds and they've been thrust to those hight by tectonic plate activity

          science doesnt fight the bile - the bible is irrelevant to science. it's funndamentalists who deny the reality of the world if it disagrees with their holy book

          claims of dragons are not PROOF or evidence of such

          some animals do continue to grow, but they ALL have lifespans well short of 250 years, most never make it to 100

          humans have never lived for 900 years

    3. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A global flood as described in Genesis is impossible, for multiple reasons.  Firstly, if all of the animals were on the ark, they would have less than a fraction of a square inch each.  Can you fit an elephant in a square inch?  What did the carnivores eat?  How did eight people lug all of the poop?  The decisions of the ark itself are impossible.  A wooden vessel of that size would not be seaworthy.  The largest wooden boat in history that was able to float was nowhere near that size.

      Also, the Egyptian civilization already existed, but the failed to notice the fact that they all died, and continued on like nothing happened.  The global flood is a story.  A myth.  Not a historical event that existed in the past.  Just like the rest of the Bible.

      1. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        not to mention the basic logistics & biology involved - keeping only 2 of each in their climate controlled areas and providing them food, and getting rid of their wastes.  but bigger problem would be the lack of any biological dversity and rapid extinction from incestuous inbreeding

      2. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
        GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Lelz.... Would you think Noah would bring along mature animals by pairs on his ark...

    4. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I believe it, even though I have some background in geology, I'm not going to try very hard to defend the biblical flood from a viewpoint of science.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wba108..     - I respect that.. and though I might be envious of what you know about geology.. I am amazed where I live now the amount of dicoveries recently in minerals and oil etc.. its breaking wide open in the energy field.. necessity perhaps is driving the exploration leading to new discovery?

    5. RealConception7 profile image59
      RealConception7posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I honestly do think it has happened. maybe our minds cant comprehend such a think like Noahs boat and the flood. But i do believe it happened, or something like it. There's a truth in every story. I mean back in the day dinosaurs even existed. we just have proof of it so we seek to believe it.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Our minds comprehend just fine. lol

    6. Frank Menchise profile image14
      Frank Menchiseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is no way that a flood as written in the Bible did ever happen and people that believe in it, they believe it just because they want to believe it, also length of time in the bible is wrong. 
      Here is the proof in a nutshells.
      Look at the geography of  places, Palestine and the dead sea: for those that don't know the Dead Sea is over 400 meters below sea level, if there would have been a flood that covered the whole earth, then it would have taken several hundred thousand years for the water to evaporate to the level it is today. I hope you see what I am saying?

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Frank..   the Bible says that the fountains of the deep were opened up and the waters covered the entire earth.   if they came quickly, then I suppose they could leave quickly.. thank for the comment.   I AM intrigued at the findings in and around the dead sea. I hope to get caught up to date on archeology  in that region.. in the past I have read "the dead sea scrolls,"  the archko volume, the hillel letters, which were about Pauls roots, and portins of Josephus, the lost books, the living torah, the lost books of Isaiah, (portions) and other biblical/historical works such as the life and times of, Archeology in the middle east, The Antiquities.  also have studied the early Roman empire a little and feel much the same end is coming upon America.   .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it says that, but we know it didn't happen that way.  There is not and was not that much water under the surface.

          It would mean that the first 5+ miles of earths crust was water, not stone - a clear falsehood.  Don't forget, too, that at around 2 miles down the temperature is high enough to boil water into vapor and a little deeper it would have to be superheated vapor.  Don't think we are sitting on 2 miles of water with several more miles of gas under that.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            add to that.. the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. average.. east west, at the equator.   what is the radius? about 15,000 miles straight through? do we really know what is at the core?  in the diffeerent quadrants? do anyone want to act intelligent enough to guess? 
            interestingly, admiral James Byrd, (I believe i have his name right) sought to find the mystery of the bermuda triangle.  But all I will note here is that he found at least  ship hulls, wreckage from the triangle reigon off the cosat of Florida. ( according to his diaries) up in the Beaufort sea, and in the very most northern regions of the atlantic.  he theorized that there could be a subterranean water way through the center of the  earth, ( at some level.)  his supposition was that it would explain why he found the shipwrecked vessels that dissapeared in the triangle way up in the Northern seas.     and it has been speculated that there is some sort of underworld incorporatede in this theory, with some mysterious sort of atmosphere and vegetation that could support life. ..  but THAT may be the stuff novels are made of..  yet what about the waterway and sub-oceanic caverns.?   let me say for the geophysics team here that the earths center IS being explored perhaps harder than ever before.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The earth is approximately 8.000 miles in diameter (25,000/pi).  Although we have obviously not drilled to the core, it is thought to be a spinning ball of molten iron, giving the earth it's magnetic field.  The crust (primarily stony material) sits atop molten lava and is of widely varying thickness ranging from a few hundreds of feet (Hawaii, Yellowstone park) to many miles (Tibet).

              No, there is no underwater passage through the center of the earth.  No, there is no underground cavern with vegetation (it's a little dark for photosynthesis) and atmosphere - the last one I'm aware of to speculate that was Jules Verne in a fictional novel.  True, various peoples of the far distant past believed in such caverns, populated with gnomes, dwarves and various other creatures, but then they also believed the earth was flat, the sun traveled around the earth and that God flooded the entire earth at one time.

              To get an idea of what's in the very shallow underground, google south african diamond mines - they are the deepest in the world at something like 2 miles and provide some interesting studies.  You can also look into "tectonic plates" to understand what's under the crust.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                thanks widerness. I first wrote circumference, 25000.   don't know why I changed it.         btw.      I have driven 5500 miles almost nonstop, and it is a very far distance.. its hard to imagine that we have explored even 500 miles into the center of the earth..  but I am an open student on that one.  gosh between here and alaska I drove past your yellowstone, half the lenght of the rockies, entire length of a province of canada.. ( got tired of driving the yellowhead highway as I wanted to drive all the way across Canada/ east/west..  anyway you get my thought here.   many more miles once inside the lower 48 states.  passed up the great lakes.. btw,, they still seem to have plenty of water.    have flown over lake illiamna in alaska.. it has its own lochness monsters. ( debunks as deep water possibly 30 foot sturgeon that occasionally break surface,)

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If I gave the impression that we have explored 500 miles into the earth, I apologize; we haven't even come close to that figure.  I'm not sure what the deepest drill hole is, but it's only a few miles.  Four or five maybe - I'm pretty sure we haven't been even 10 miles down.

                  Yes, 5000 miles is a long way to drive, but it's just a little over halfway to the center of the earth.  It's a big planet, isn't it?

                  The great lakes - did you know the shorelines are receding?  The very earth is slooowly rebounding from the weight of the glaciers that gouged out the lakes, raising the shorelines and making the water recede.  One day Niagara falls we be cut back clear to lake Erie itself, whereupon it will drain via a truly cataclysmic flood to the sea.  Fascinating stuff

        2. Frank Menchise profile image14
          Frank Menchiseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Oscarlites; I know that what you are saying is written in the Bible, but to believe it or not is open to discussions and that is what we are doing here. For me there are a lot of things in the Bible that do not add up so to speak. So I have made up my own mind to look at these things with an open mind, I also could say other things about time and date in the Bible that do not add up, some of these discussions and views I have published in hub pages feel free to check them out.

    7. The0NatureBoy profile image68
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because the cycle the Bible reveals consisting of a spiritual civilization (Revelation 21) and this material one the Adam concept  began, I Believe the flood was not water but of ignorance.  The following is how my vision of the perfect (1 Corinthians 13:9-10) eliminates the parts .

      Genesis 1- 8 is an all-at-once rapture of those saved out of the spiritual civilization.  The waters upon which the Spirit of God moved represent the people like in Revelation 17:15, forming light without a source of light was separating the saved from the unsaved rapturing the saved above the firmament  into heaven.  The remaining spiritual people didn't learn their bodies enough to eat and reproduce until  the ending of the sixth day, thousand years, and reproduced for another thousand, day of rest

      At the end of the 7 thousandth year Adam was born and placed in an isolated garden where his mother disappeared from him about the time he began to crawl but watched him as the voice until he reached about 12 years old.  Then she began to help him name the animals and birds and caused him to have a dream of  a girl being taken from him -- the Bible doesn't say god told him of the operation therefore he dreamed it -- who appeared before him when he awoke.  Assuming she came out of him he called her woven from man or woman, however, he was actually calling them both woman and is why at the flood their descendants are called "daughters of man." 

      Thus, once the Big Foot hairy man saw the fair coats of skin on Adam and their posterity they married what they liked of their ideologies, including liking and disliking, for which the flood (Revelation 12:15) of ignorance which kill the abilities Jesus demonstrated (Genesis 6:4) out of everyone except one tribe of each of the four basic ethnics, Noah = Asians, Japheth = Natives of the Americas, Ham = Africans and Shem Europeans.   

      The reason this material civilization ends with everyone except the saved discarnating (Revelation 19:21) and returnsto life after the first thousand years (Revelation 20:5) is because there is no way to reestablish the spiritual civilization with man-in-mass having memory of this one.  It will take 6000 years for the saved to replenish the earth with the unsaved as they are rapture one at a time (Matthew 20:1-16) leaving the Branch from the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1 & 10) as the Alpha (first saved) and Omega (Last to rapture).   

      And so, that's the perfect rather than the parts most Christians teach.

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What bible do you read?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Old KJV

    8. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lot of questions in one.
      First, there is much information outside the canonical text to support a massive flooding in the Gulf basin, just off the coast of present day Kuwait. If correct, the location of  Adam/Eve "garden" would now be under billions of gallons of water. This aligns with the four rivers -three of which still exist today. These rivers are also mentioned in Sumerian texts, which are possibly some of the oldest known records of human civilization. Extremely detailed, very broad in subjects  from star maps to medicine.  Another important note is the size of these people. A notation made several times in the texts and outside of them. Many artifacts too show very tall people -like the film Avatar. It is said Noah himself was a staggering 3.5 meters. This would explain the "giants" and why so many relics show extremely tall people. That said, the size of the vessel said to have been built by Noah would be larger than first thought. His stature -and that of his sons could easily subdue a giraffe, bear, etc and build a sea-craft in the given time period.

      The land in that area tells quite an interesting story itself. From plush green fields (strong agriculture and viticulture) to complete desert. This suggests a massive erosion by salt water, excessive heat by a meteor collision -a combo of both. Although most do not know this, the average temperature for that region is 31. And after seeing the devastation of Indonesia from the tsunami, by an earthquake thousands of miles away, one cannot rule out this possibility that something major happened and forced salt water into the entire region. Coupled with torrents of rain like that of southern India or even Sri Lanka, such things are possible. The text states something that it took three years for the waters to recede and plant life to spring up. An olive tree at that. I have touched 1,000 year old olive trees and can tell you, they do not grow easily.

      Genealogy is excessively important to most ancient civilizations. Recording lineage established validity for lands, trade/travel, slaves, wives etc.  The time tables of this lineage match quite closely to changes/events mentioned. If Adam/Eve were the first humans, is a mystery. Were they the first of this kind of being? Possibly. The Sumerian people were extremely intelligent, using completely organic methods resulting in what we define as mechanics. Mechanics that could build great cities, ships, etc. Mechanics so precise, we are unable, with such "sophisticated laser equipment- to remake their tools (the Egyptians are a prime example, as they are directly related to them, and some believe the Mayans too). Even quantum physics, complex mathematics -and some scholars think- nuclear and or solar technology existed in their culture.
      From the Sumerians came the lineage of Abram, the forefather of the Nomadic [Hebrews/Arabs]. Artifacts of the first four cities said to have been built by Cain suggest they were either Sumerian themselves or close relatives. The third largest of those cities, Ur, is where Abram, his brothers and father lived. From here he was "called out" from a generally "pagan" civilization to form a more structured/intellectual/civil one, known today as the Nomadic [Hebrews, Arabs].
      If the lineage is correct, then the sons of Noah who went there ways, are the fathers of the 2nd people - Asians, Greeks(Europeans), Indian, etc post flood. There are oddities though like: where the Eskimos, Islanders and South Americans came from. Did the Asians migrate northeast, across "Russia" to "North America" then slowly downward toward the equator; was the land mass all one at a given time; did they travel there by sea vessel; or did these people simply spring up in these places by nature?
      What happened to the remaining species of animals in that region, where this flooding happened? Was it a tsunami or meteor that broke through the thicker layer of atmosphere and melted that layer while it also caused an massive earthquake, which broke open a huge underground water pool and caused the Gulf to flood? Many questions exist but so do many details. A savvy person will take both the informational and the mythological as meaning something great happened to this people, in this time frame of humanity. An event that shaped the world they lived in and resulted in global changes of people, places, ideas, etc. Had these events not happened, what would the world we know today be like? Are their stories a means of grasping the evolution of humans from hunters to space-travelers else a warning of our own devolution, and ultimate complete removal from nature -and with it human history.

      James.

    9. gtyui profile image59
      gtyuiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      yeh  I do

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        y?

    10. 0
      Miriam Weissmannposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm open to most things, but not this. Imagine how big that ark would have had to be to house every creature on Earth. Every creature? Just imagine. Just impossible if you ask me. And if mankind had to start again beginning with only Noah's family, well, that would be incest and incest breeds madness. But that could open another whole philosophical question. Are we all mad and don't know it? No point in trying to answer, because we can't know the answer no matter how long we mull over it. But, in a nutshell, I don't belive the Noah story and I won't even if they find the ark. Of course, they won't find the ark because it was made of wood, so it would have rotted long ago. I think, if you ask me, that like a lot of things in the Bible, it could all just be symbolic.

    11. The0NatureBoy profile image68
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I just wrote a piece on Intelligent Design and Christianity which gives a full view of how I recognize existence, I believe, it will help everyone see from what perspective I come  It's kind of long and I believe it fits there better than here is why I put it there. 

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, but I know all about how all of ID has been debunked. Starting off with the premise that every kind of dating method is fraudulent is not intelligent. Light has been coming from distant galaxies for more than 13 billion (with a B) years.
        Plus these forums are not a place to advertise your hubs. Read the forum rules.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've read the forum rules, if I wanted someone to read my hub I would just send you to my website.  What that does is take away the division of religion and intelligent design or science to show how they are integrated.  Isn't that what these forms are for, to seek a union of concepts rather than maintaining the taught divisions?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't realize you didn't write a hub, just another forum, which I was unable to understand, hopfully because of the blue. Change to black and I'll try again.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Drag the courser over it like you are going to copy it and it turns to white, maybe you can read it then, I don't see any means of editing it now that it's posted.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There is an edit given if to your own posts, but you have a limited amount of time to make those edits.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
                  The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Evidently the time had elapsed I couldn't find one anywhere.  I noticed in the introduction there's supposed to be a edit button but I haven't found one except while I was writing it.  It was posted around 10 am this morning.  Thanks, Rad Man.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Next time you post something go back and look at it. There will be an edit and delete button to the right of the report bottom.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you believe existence is based on ancient myths and superstitions and not reality.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Existence integrates every concept found in it, no [b]fraction of existence can ever reveal the comprehension of the whole of existence.  [/b]

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Gibberish.

    12. 0
      Lybrahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I think it happened.  Prove that it didn't.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol

      2. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're shifting the burden of proof.  You claim that it happened, its your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, Hawaii's record for most consecutive days of rain is 247 days in 1993-1994.

        The Earth didn't flood after 40 of those days or after 247.

        1. cascoly profile image59
          cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          or just apply some simple arithmetic -- in order for the 16,000' summit of ararat to be covered in 40 days would have required 400 FEET of rain to fall evenly over the ENTIRE globe every day

          nowhere on earth has there ever been a fall of 100 feet of rain in a single day

      4. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        you obviously dont understand the basic rules of logic - we have no need to disprove every silly fairy tale -- it's up to those who claim these stories are real to provide some evidence.

      5. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, I will.

        Over most of North America, rock strata contain marine fossils - hundreds of miles from the oceans, and even high in the Rocky Mountains. There are few fossils of land animals in North America, but for one formation known as the Canadian Shield. This formation contains many fossils of land animals.

        Flood geologists explain that the flood carried trilobites and other Cambrian animals to the tops of mountains and to the middle of the American continent, yet fail to explain why it left land creatures in one place.

        The only logical explanation is the one offered by modern geology and paleontology - the North American continent was covered in water for most of its history, with sediment burying trilobites underwater to fossilize on the seafloor. This seafloor would later be uplifted by continental collision to become the dry land we know today. The Canadian Shield was one of the uplifted parts of the continent-to-be, and was populated by land-dwelling creatures as they evolved.

        Flood geologists also fail to explain the lack of sediment in the deep oceans. Water is a powerful eroding force, and enough water to cover the highest mountains would scour the land of sediment and deposit it in the deepest parts of the ocean. Yet at the seafloor there is very little sediment - the crust is very thin.

        Well that's odd - if flood water can carry trilobites to the top of the Rocky Mountains, why didn't it erode the continents as it receded and deposit all that rock at the bottom of the Atlantic?

        The Flood model fails this question, but plate tectonics explains it perfectly. The Atlantic is a young ocean created in recent millions of years by the spreading of the seafloor. This spreading is also proven by the recording of past geomagnetic reversals left in the rocks of the seafloor.

        These are but a few pieces of proof that the Flood did not happen. For more in-depth explanations of how the geologic record disproves the flood, see Senter, Phil (May/June 2001). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31 (3):  http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse … load/44/36

    13. 0
      advicewithspiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I believe in the Bible. Point blank. The whole problem with those that don't believe is just that.  No faith.  If you have no faith you are lost.  I can't believe anyone would even question that, but yes, that is the day we live in.

    14. FrankCurzi profile image78
      FrankCurziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course the magic invisible man in the sky tried to everybody with a mass flood. Don't you people read that magic book that condones child abuse, murder, slavery, and was written when everyone thought the earth was flat and burned "witches" Of course the Bible is true, It is the Koran and everyone elses crazy, yet surprizing simular beliefs we must watch out for.

    15. Pool Of Thoughts profile image61
      Pool Of Thoughtsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just in case someone would reply to something I have said and would like to talk to me, you can contact me via the hubpages.  I'm unfollowing this forum because its just too irreverent and it is not helping anyone to dignify some of these comments with a response. God bless. Outta here.

      1. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
        A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        C-ya!

      2. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent! I'll chalk this up as a victory for our side. smile

  2. brimancandy profile image82
    brimancandyposted 3 years ago

    There is just one thing in the story of Noah that bothers me. In the story it claims that when the waters  receded, Noah went down to the villages and rejoiced with the people. If the entire earth was flooded, and everything was destroyed, except for what was on the ark. Where did theses villages and people come from? And, just how many people were in these villages?

    Of course the church folks will say. Oh, that's easy. Noah lived to be 900 years old, and the people in the villages were all his relatives. Um that would say to me that those people were all created by incest. As the only people on the Ark, were Noah, his family, and the animals.

    But, like Adam and Eve, nobody wants to talk about how the human race was supposedly created by those two people and their children. They always go back to the beasts in the fields, but will not elaborate or guess on what, or who those beasts might be.

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Briman - I will keep an eye out for that passage where it mentions the villages..  that could have been years later possibly.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually Genesis is littered with incest. Brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters.

    3. cascoly profile image59
      cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      besides which, multiple areas of modern science trace human genome back over 100,000 years to originas in africa - not that there were EVER just 2 people.  there is ABSOULTELY no evidence that a world wde flood EVER wiped out everybody who wasnt on an ark.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        you might find this link to be informative
        http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow … ck-1.11431

        the bottom lines reads: "My strong view right now is that the true value of the human mutation rate is an open question"
        If science is such an exact and true tool why is there contradiction, debate and so many theories surrounding everything that science comes up with? Shouldn't, by scientific method they all have the same conclusion?
        Science, to me, seems more like the study of theories than actual facts.

        1. cascoly profile image59
          cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          you obviously have no understanding of how science works -- unlike religion, science makes no dogmatic claims to the one true way -- science EVOLVES

          and, no, the scientific method actually predicts there will be MANY explanations, false starts, deadends and abandoned theories; but along the way progess is made

    4. Re Johnson profile image59
      Re Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good point, the problem I have with stories from the bible is the inconsistency, and vague ramblings not necessarily tied together. Christianity is among the youngest religions on Earth.

    5. youcanwin profile image37
      youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't find what you say in the Bible.  In which book and in which chapter did you read that Noah met the villagers?

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    It being that there is not, nor has there ever been, enough water on earth to cover all the land mass, no it didn't happen. 

    A small, localized flood a few feet deep, probably.  Certainly nothing that could cover all or even most of Mt. Ararat should the claim that the bible lies and the flood was only local be proposed.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago

    Noah and the flood is a rip off from the Epic of Gilgamesh. World wide flood? Not a chance.

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      well, see, then , Paul  you have to explain away the rainbow with that claim.. God claimed to Naoh and his descendents that it was a sign that he would never again destroy the earth with a flood.  but I will keep a note to look for that answer as well.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rainbows can easily be explained, simple physics. I can make one by using a sprayer on my garden hose whenever the sun is shining. Also, the people who wrote that and other stories of the Bible didn't know what an atom was, thought the earth was flat, and had no idea where the sun went every evening. These ancient text were not meant to be a history lesson or a lesson in science. An understanding of ancient beliefs should be manditory before trying to figure out these ancient writings. Taking these old stories as historical fact is simply rediculous.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Even in modern times, many theories are not absolute, such as they have had to re- calculate carbon dating 14 times..  one could even ascribe that since carbon dating relies on the pressures applied to an object, one of the difficulties is that a cataclysmic event could simmilate the necessary steps needed in the process of carbon dating.

          I am not arguing for or against, due to my belief that history, and events happened as they did and no opinions can change the way they actually happened.. only the beleifs about them can be altared As it was already suggested in one of the comments. though we discuss them, none of us are capable of changing the actual events, only the understanding of how they happened.

          Yes I have made rainbows with 2" firehoses in the spray pattern.. its pretty cool!

          1. 0
            JThomp42posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am not aware of the passage of celebrating with villagers? I will have to research that one.

      2. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        why would we have to explain the rainbow myth too? it's just another story from the bible that has nothing to do with the real world

  5. 0
    JThomp42posted 3 years ago

    Genesis 7:23
    Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that is the tale, but do you accept that it is true or is it just another fantasy story recorded millenia ago by people that still thought the earth was flat and the center of everything?

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I CAN say, - that scripture says,,  " as it was in the days of Noah, ( unbeleivers) so shall it be it the days of the coming of the son of man;)  they will scoff and say,  nope , no God.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I do not mean to laugh at anyone.  but it is funny..  in a science class one day Johnny was called out to give his "reason" for believing or not believing in evolution.  johhny finally stood up and began to recite. "first he was a microbe, a new age to begin,; then he became a tadpole, learning how to swim. Then he was a monkey, swinging from a tree.. Now he's a professor, with a PHD...  the story goes that the professor dismissed class. (I wonder if Johhny got in trouble for this "insight" on evolution?)   

          It is truly a debate whether to believe we suddenly popped! or to believe "and God created man, male and female created he them:"
          But I have seen suddenly unaccountable miracles of bones being broken and healed by people relying on their faith. -That is a convincing arguement to me that if you believe in evolution then it is popping little pops all over the place at specific times.    -and miracles such as these don't need a "proof".  -the one that it happens to certainly cannot be convinced it didn't happen. But someone is providing a way for something beyond the natural events of life..

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I've always considered the definition of a "miracle" to be an action or happening that violates natural laws and thus needs supernatural intervention to occur.

            For a bone to heal via a miracle you would thus have to prove beyond doubt that it violated natural laws; that it CANNOT happen, and that's rather difficult.  Simply because we are ignorant of the mechanism of healing, or because it is very rare, does not make a miracle. 

            Mankind will never know everything there is no know, but that ignorance is not proof or even evidence of supernatural activity.

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              nor is ignorance proof that God did not or does not exist..   he claims that he needs no proving of who he is.. with pharoah of egypt.. ie.. recorded relatively modern history, God showed his own power through a miracle presentation of plagues and mighty works.. He said I will show forth my own glory.  now that is what man desires to disprove.. that there is someone greater and mightier than we..

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know what the writings of those ancient people say happened, but I'm asking what YOU believe to be true.  Those wild tales of physically impossible happenings from millenia past or what we know to be true from modern experiments and knowledge of the physical world around us?

          Was the earth inundated with a billion cubic miles of water, killing all life (plant and animal, marine and land based, local to Noah and on the other side of the earth) that was not on board a small boat and that then disappeared from the earth? 

          Or is it just a fanciful tale, perhaps based on a local flood but blown up into something that is plainly impossible?

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Though it is not always presented to the purpose of proiving or disproving creation, much of what I have seen and read, offers me conclusions that there was a flood. scattered through mostly still unexplored mountains of Alaska, Canada and Siberia perhaps the least explored. artifacts, skeletal remains, traces of peoples that are acknowledged to have migrated from central Europe/Asia. many proofs of that region being the beginning of all civilization. yes.  finding fossils of animals and fish up in the high mountians that do not did not belong there naturally?  all give evidence of a rather recent cataclysmic event.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The "cataclysmic event" (call it a flood as that is the main topic here) you reference did indeed happen, at least to the best of our knowledge.

              Unfortunately the event did not happen recently and it did not happen concurrently all over the world.  Rather it happened over hundreds of thousands of years and in only small, local areas in any given time period.  The proposed time frame of Noah's flood, for example, does not correspond with any major flooding in North America.  There have been major floods in what is now the US, but even then they were strictly local.  The Bonneville, flood, for instance, that carved much of Hells Canyon did not occur at the same time as earlier OR subsequent floods further north.  The giant flood from the great lakes area down the Hudson river was in a different time period yet. 

              Floods occur everywhere, as do enormous lakes (Lake Bonneville in Utah, of which the Great Salt Lake is but a tiny remnant) and they are recorded in the folklore of the times but there has never been a time on earth's surface when the entire world was flooded at once.  With liquid, anyway - there was a period when the entire surface was under water in the form of snow and ice.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but those fossils did wind up there naturally, through continental drift and plate tectonics.

            3. cascoly profile image59
              cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              btw, the evidence cited about humans in alaska, etc point to human migrations 10 to possibly 25,000 years ago, and coninuous occupation on the americas since then.  for the noah myth to be true, , humanity would have had to spread out from ararat only a few thousand years ago, and there is just no evidence to support that claim.

          2. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Though I don't pretend to know it all, and we may differ in some areas, wilderness, thank you for being honest and for what you feel to be true.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We differ, but that's what makes the world go around.  Not only no harm in differences, but there is often great good in them instead.

    2. cascoly profile image59
      cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      it's really interesting that other civilizations at the time alleged to be noah's flood never noticed this event.

  6. 0
    JThomp42posted 3 years ago

    There is no mention of this in the Bible.

  7. sabrebIade profile image85
    sabrebIadeposted 3 years ago

    Science catches up to Scripture with evidence of historic flood?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 73143.html

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      thanks for the link, sabreblade - I will read that someonetime today.. I have to go do errands for now.  I have to feed my evulationaried palate..  sigh..

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting link.  Ballard has looked for years for evidence, is still looking and says he's not convinced he has found any, but "science catches up to Scripture with evidence of historic flood"?

      How do you get that from the article?

      1. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        right, i wrote a hub on the book 'Noah's Flood'  which is about an actual, rather local event that took place in the black sea area about 10-15,000 years ago  -- the hub also has links to many other websites that debunk the noah myth

  8. safiq ali patel profile image71
    safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago

    Yes I believe that there was a Noah and his ark. I also believe that the almighty god has wiped out the earth population for being evil in this way. And I believe that future generations will see something like the heavy rains again too.

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      well, safiq.. your word is honestly spoken.. however, if you believe that much then beleive this too. that he said upon the covenant he made with Noah over the rainbow.. that " I will never again destroy the earth with a flood".  -that was his promise to Noah."

      please keep up with the post   -

      1. safiq ali patel profile image71
        safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes the lord vowed never to drown the world again. But if evil surpasses and becomes worse than it was before the ark then I reckon the human race or the in-humane race will invite floods and worse.
        I have said this in other forums. Yes god gave us an amnesty, a promise not to punish, but god also predicted himself in the bible that the earth would become inhabited by evil doers so much that the lord himself would command the angles to stop time and destroy the earth. He will the create a new heaven and a new earth for those who did good works to live in. This philosophy is echoed throughout the bible and other religious texts too.

        1. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I seriously doubt if God would renege on his promise. Never!

          The Flood cured humanity of some wickedness that humanity has been incapable of duplicating since then. The Flood eliminated every possibility of that former crime.

          All of the violence, wickedness and corruption since the Flood has been insufficient to provoke another Flood.

          So, what was the crime humanity did before the Flood? (see my long answer, below, or my Genesis Bible Commentary series)

          I think we have to ask, "What was important to God that was threatened by that unknown crime?"

          I think what has always been important to God is the rescue of His children. And who are His children?

          Look to Genesis 1:26 -- created in His image and likeness. Spiritual, non-physical and immortal sources of creation. Baby gods.

          These baby gods died in the Garden -- escorted out and ended up wearing Homo sapiens flesh (see Genesis 6:3).

          Homo sapiens is important because without the flesh, God's children would be incapable of developing philosophy and religion. God's children would remain trapped in the Long Sleep of spiritual death -- the death cured by the rebirth of spirit of which Jesus spoke.

  9. JMcFarland profile image91
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    why don't you start here:

    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

    and then go on to this one if you want to reeducate yourself and your holy book

    http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So many people trying to prove the bible not true.. there MUST be something to it!  the bible I mean. to match the recantation of the man in the second article, is it not verifyiable that Charles Darwin recanted his belief that there is NOT a God? - right before he had to go meet his eternity..

      WOW... it is amazing the amount of effort towards this .    and reading through the main article, it seems many people there have jumped to a lot of conclusions. for instance- that the wooden ark was not seaworthy, or could not be seaworthy..  once I read where one seaman/ boatbuilder had tried to conclude that wood could not be supported by wood and fasteners to a degree of strength sufficient to sustain an ARK voyage.. then he went back a couple chapters where Noah had metalworkers make metal sockets/ brackets to hold the wood beams.. I personally believe that between God and Noah.. he was a pretty awesome craftsman.. I have seen specs previously shown me on the stress factors of the wood mentioned in the building of the ark,and I ( for myself) saw that it waas indeed strong enough to endure the stress of crashing waves.. I've also seen how primitive Indians pitched their canoes to make them plenty seaworthy.. and the Ark was pitched within and without. See that was early useful and intelligent knowledge of chemicals, natural resources.. (why didn't they mention that in the articles trying to prove the flood false?  did they just overlook? or think it could not be seriously considered.? or perhaps think that if you believe in creation that you are unintelligent?   =There IS a lot of different scenarios cited that tend to take you back and forth and around the world so to speak to get       you     to thier conclusions. it seems..     

      I for one believe also in the book/movie; real or not, of swiss family robinson, by william defoe?   I bet you at least believe in the creativity of that tale.     I'm just saying.. thanks for the info. but I also am appreciative of the fact that the reference site is designed to disprove something  that interferes with another belief or theory, I should say of patented evolution. (the belief of a self created man and self created earth and a self created universe.. ) or some variation of such. 

      I conclude my response with, this for tonight, that if you need a library of books to deny Gods existence, then perhaps someone is still trying to prove something they struggle with. Something that perhaps cannot truly be denied as long as their are witnesses, or believers. and it has been suggested in this article that creationists create "harm" .   shame on intelligent peoples, civilized peoples for entertaining such negativity.. such evil intentions.. .. if you need all belief in God irradicated, in order to be comfortable with your own beliefs.. . do you see that danger within your self?    Or are you tolerant of the idea of free speech, beliefs, and freedoms as we should be?  I ask this question.. seriously.. 

      and its not my Holy Book, but its Gods. and Mose's and Noah's and Abraham's..  Its called the living Torah, and you, I and all men should respect it for what it is..  don't you agree?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I for one, do agree that the bible should be respected for what it is.

        A collection of stories and tales collected over centuries time from primitive and ignorant people.  Partly history, partly an effort to understand the world around them, partly an attempt to gain/increase the power of the shamans of the day.  Partly myth similar to thousands of other myths that man has created to "explain" where, why and how the world came to be, partly a rather sad attempt to eliminate or at least soften the knowledge that we all die.

        The bible is all of these, but what it isn't is a factual history of the world or even of one tribe.  While there are almost certainly some factual records of the times, there are known falsehoods,errors and lies as well.  We need to respect the book for its truths and facts, yes, but we also need to recognize those records and claims that are not factual.

        1. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well said, Wildnerness, but we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions that we "know" all there is to know about it.

          Your assumption that the originators were an "ignorant" people may well be true, but your certainty on that idea is questionable, at best.

          Many "falsehoods," "errors" or "lies" might well be misunderstoods -- misinterpretations -- by the ones making those claims.

          When I was developing my 3D astronomy software, "Stars in the NeighborHood," for the longest time I couldn't wrap my mind around matrix math. Every attempt to generate 3D images on my 2D computer screen resulted in a blank nothingness. I had misunderstood something. If I went around claiming that all the textbooks on such math were full of falsehoods, errors or lies, I wouldn't get very far, would I?

          But I suppose the same point could've been made for Newton's and Goethe's "invention" of calculus. But they didn't sulk and blame. They knew in their guts that there should be a method for describing the natural phenomena they witnessed. Their genius and persistence changed everything.

          I have been outside of my physical body and seen without physical eyes. Unlike most who experience out-of-body events (OBEs), I had not suffered physical trauma, drugs or surgery. I had been receiving spiritual counseling. Powerful stuff. And 41 years after that event, I'm still learning new things about it.

          The body dies, yes. But there's much more to the universe than is dreamt of in your philosophy... or mine.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mankinds knowledge, vast as it seems, is but a minute fraction of what is available, yes.

            However, those "misunderstoods", "errors" or "lies" that ended up in the bible are IN that book no matter what the reason or how they got there.  Whether ancient writings or stories were misinterpreted, were simply changed to something more palatable or were originally false doesn't matter - they are in the holy scriptures and thereby give lie to the book as a whole.  It cannot be accepted as truthful, but instead must be carefully examined and the "lies" expunged before believing whatever is left.

            The tale of Noah's ark is one of the better examples; there is not only zero corroborating evidence as to the veracity of the story, but most of it violates natural laws as well.  While no sane person would claim a man didn't build a boat, load up a few animals and people and float down a river or across a flooded plain, that isn't what the story claims happened.  It may be exaggeration, it may be mistaken interpretation, and it may be outright lie, but whatever the reason the story isn't true. 

            There may well be much more to the universe than we think there is (and personally I agree that there is) but that is insufficient reason to believe any specific claim or theory that does not at the very least have evidence to back it.

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I like the fact that you have faith that a "small" boat could have been built and a few people could have been rescued ,,    you have the necessary faith for that and I think thats great..  -- faith is necessary to beleive a lot of things.. we een have faith in constant principles , because they are beleived and proven to be constant, we don't doubt..

            2. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lonestar-- several of your positions tend to lean toward a Mormon perspective..  I have researched much of the Mormon beleifs.   they have a belief in other ancient civilizations,

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, you were not outside your body and no, you can't "see" without eyes. Whatever 'spiritual counseling' you were smoking at the time must really have been powerful stuff.

        2. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness.   at least you acknowledge this book and that it has truth in it. .  some won't even do that, and it speaks to their lack of understanding.  Some hate the people that it is a testament/ witness of.  -In fact entire nations hate them.  sad.   so far as there being lies?  If God is true.. and if there is truth anywhere in the universe, He is the claimant of being the author of all truth.  It says "let God be true and all men a liar.".  Yes I believe in set principles. set values. set truths.. ( things that no one can argue with.)   not long ago I heard the story of the first definition of "pie" being debunked. it took a second look at it to discover the now "correct" formula for "Pie"..   but in this forum I have reiterated the simplicity that many fail to achieve .. that what "is" is.. whether it is properly formulated, or not. MAN merely tries to verify, or authenticate things they feel they did not have firsthand access to,( to winess firsthand).  so the biggest arguement in this search for the answer is.. that recorded history seems to slowly change itself over time.. then what hope do we have of recording our own history? if someone plants a "time capsule" today and it is found ;say 100 years from now, would you accept it as a "proof" .. or would you do as many do.. and say,.. oh no... I can't beleive that, because by that time even "pie " may have a far more redefined formula , making it hard for the mind of that century to comprehend what they now would term as " our present day stupidity, even as they are saying of biblical times and recorded "time capsules" if you will..  in fact it would be a never ending cycle of unbeleif in what in fact is reality.  ie.. today the proper def. of pie is E = mc 2


          lets say that earth has another cataclysmic upheaval and pluges us into a lights out mode, or pretending we ran out of fossil fuels, ( which isn;t likely).. but fo rthe sake of argument, that now man is riding horses agian and living in an again primitive world.. well, in a coulle hundred years. there woould be broken pieces of history or knowledge of the grand advancements of civilization, but--   my point.. a breakdown of the belief in it having happened.. But would that make it any less truth? and if they set up websites to debunk it having happened? would it cause it to no longer exist as a portion of the "past' or civilization? even if they got diseases.. and could no longer speak or use their vocal chords.. truth speaks of itself. it holds it's on.. its believable to those who believe and is not believable to those who choose not to believe.    that's why I say repeatedly.. I "choose" to believe..  each one of us chooses what he or she believes..
          again for instance.. even if I was a bonifide atheist or evolutionist, I would then have to launch a study to decide which theories, which scientific conclusions I then beleived in.. ( and there IS many conflicting scientific conclusions.)..   

          WE all want to have it nailed down.. all figured out and perhaps we never will,  ( the bible says they are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of truth.)  Human schools and knowledge is even humble enough to express that we are searching as a people for answers to our existence.. well even yourself has indicated how nutty people can be.. don;t you fear what schientific conclusions are drawn in the name of the mighty dollar? and in the name of grants and exploration politics?  do you think we are past and exempt the blunders of columbuus and do you think james byrd's scientific journeys were foolish?  it reamins that they have had their impact on what civilization believes today, but now they are primitive , relative to new state of the art equipment, and things such as satellite labs etc.. 

          btw.. there are natural phenomenons that are still unexplainable to the smartest human mind. yes there are studies and thoughts and thesis's , but real knowledge? yes breakthrough's are happening even as we speak.. some things are so complicated and complex its beyond our ability to believe,.. now that's a new angle.. but knowledge has increased.. and I for one cite that the bible predicted that " in the last days knowledge shall be increased.."  there my friend, is proof of truth, if someone needs it or wants it...knowldege and discoveries have been greatly increased upon the face of the earth..

          yet.. mentioned in Jm's website ref. it says that there aren;t records of the flood in the ancient civilizations.. let me say as communist and socialistic as China is/was? they record their history within the characters of their language.. every letter has a recorded origin and interpretation, just as words in the English language, so does their individual letters/characters.    the symbols used for man.. the origin.. is his toe is in the dirt,. the interpretation/definition is.. that man came from the dust of the earth.. herein, their language testifies to the advent of creation and man being created. There is a lot involved with that study and very interesting. for instance and they did not mention it in the Noah's flood disaproval site, but the Egyptian's do have record of the exodus of the Israelites and the tragedy of the Red Sea event, and have some sort of documents for most of the bible accounts..  it says there requires mulitple accounts of an event.. and contrary to their claims.. there is multiple accounts of the ancestry of Mases, of Abraham.. all of the arab world records they are related to those bible "patriachs".  Most of the proof one needs to believe is there.   But what i see in science is that men are trying to disprove other scientists theories and prove their own.. what I am saying is it didn't get any better when man jumped out of the bible into the textbooks of supposedly higher intelligence..   

          Don't get me wrong..  ... I DO believe in the wonderful inventions of science and mankind.. improvements of our civilizations..  but on the contraire..  I wonder if some aren't misused greatly.. I stress on the highways of today sometimes fearing for my life.. and sometimes too much technology is a precurser to disaster.. as was in the tower of babel?..  perhaps we have misunderstood what God and the bible said about that.. perhaps man had indeed inbred and caused disease and it was a medical anomoly that confused their languages and yet  it says God confused their languages and they were consequently spread abroad upon the face of the earth..  is not God the same as science?  as medicine?  I think in a really fair sense we can say that God IS equal to science.. the creator of science...  but is not science not simply "the study of"? -we only document and study, or research science.  there is a church that calls itself Christian Science in fact. But God created all of the sciences if you will..   either he is God of all or he is not God at all..               
                     ----   and the season proves that emotions are beyond our efforts to understand a simple organic complex alignment of atoms creating the microbe cell and the tadpole and the monkey and the professor now.  God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul.. hold your breath and you will see.. The soul is a living thing. God said the creature knows the creator.... may we have the will to live and the love of life and hope for one another.. and I for one hope that LOVE is great enough to make the difference in your life, in my life, and every single humans life to give them quality and substance of hope in life now and in the future.

      2. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        no, darwin did not recant his theory of evolution on his deathbed.  Sorry.  Even if he did, so what?  It's a theory - my atheism doesn't depend on evolution.  Not even a little bit.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god.  That's it.  You don't seem to understand the core concepts involved.

        No one has to disprove the bible - it does just fine on its own.  And it doesn't mean that it's true just because a lot of people don't agree with it.  A lot of people try to disprove a lot of holy books, but you only accept one of them, and you're most likely against the rest of them.  Does that mean that there's something to all of the ones that you don't accept?  Can you prove that it's gods?  Did he fax it from heaven?  Are there not 3000+ denominations of christianity, and no one can seem to agree with each other?  They all believe that they have the correct interpretation, and everyone else is wrong.  If anyone could actually PROVE it, however, they would have a Nobel prize.  Where's yours?

        It would  be impossible for you to know where I came from, but let me fill you in.  I went to one of the most prestigious bible colleges in the world.  I was a missionary kid, and lived in africa for two years with my family.  I had plans to join the ministry as an adult, so I studied theology.  I learned hebrew, greek and latin and can read the bible in all of them.  After many, many years of study, I realized that the bible is not proof of god.  The bible is a horrific book.  Here's the thing.  If the god of the bible were to appear in front of me this moment, I could no longer maintain that I don't believe that he exists, but I still wouldn't worship such a tyrant.   

        I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist - you believe in him.  The burden of proof rests on YOU.  Prove that he exists, and prove that the global flood actually happens.  Saying that "the bible says so" is not proof.  If it is, then the Iliad and Odyssey is proof of Odysseus - and all of the greek gods.

  10. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    @Oscarlites, this topic has puzzled me ever since I first heard about it.

    I believe most people have incorrect interpretations of the Bible, perhaps even me. That suggests that we should remain humble when approaching the topic. Some people act as if they have it all figured out. Any scientist approaching their own field of study with this attitude would likely miss important details. Humility and restraint are important tools to use when investigating any topic.

    Problems with the Flood

    That being said, I believe that the Flood represents some real event. I suspect very strongly that it was a worldwide event, too. Too many things in the Bible are not to be taken literally. I still don't know what we can take of Noah's story in a literal fashion. But let us say for a moment that there was a worldwide flood of water that covered everything, including the highest mountains.

    That water could not have come from Earth. That leaves two options:
    1) God created the water from nothing (and after creating the entire universe, a tiny bit of water to cover an insignificantly tiny world in a moderately large galaxy amongst billions of galaxies, would be nothing by comparison).
    2) God or some agent of the Heavenly Father might have used advanced technology to gate water from another world, inserting it into our oceans from the gate portal embedded deep in our own waters.

    There are all kinds of problems with freshwater fish, plants that don't like to be without sunlight for months on end, and all those species from every corner of the world. After something like 300 years since Carl Linneaus first started cataloging species, we're still discovering new species every year. Thousands of them! One man traveled the world to gather a sample of each? And he kept alive each species gathered while he was out gathering others? This is a logistical nightmare.

    Okay, let's put aside all of these concerns for a moment. Let's say that God had some method for accomplishing all of this, including the possibility that there were multiple Noahs. So many cultures have their own Flood myths with similar heroes. What if there were several hundred Noahs?

    Problems with a Literal Interpretation

    Taking the Bible literally runs into a myriad of problems that even an omnipotent God would have trouble fixing. Take for instance the fact that Adam and Eve were supposed to die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit. But they didn't literally, physically die. It seems instead that they died spiritually. That begs the question, was Eden a physical place or a spiritual one?

    Taking Genesis literally was what Archbishop Ussher did when he derived his groundbreaking work of scholarship in 1650. He didn't know any better. His brilliant scholarship gave us several dates that we still use -- like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. But taking Genesis literally gave him a Flood date of 2348 BC. In 1650 AD, scientists didn't know that Egypt's sixth dynasty started 3 years after that date. They didn't know that Sargon the Great conquered Sumer 13 years after that date. That's a lot of people in Egypt and Sumer when the world was supposed to be empty, except for Noah's family.

    Problems with the Reason for the Flood

    Perhaps a more compelling problem for Noah's Flood is that inherent in the Genesis story itself. But as some problems tend to be, we find clues to a solution within them.

    The biggest problem with the Flood story is that God was satisfied that the Flood solved His "problem." The Flood cured humanity of some defect or crime. But what was that crime?

    Genesis 6 doesn't help much on this. It says only that man became wicked, violent and beset with a corruption of flesh. But hasn't humanity been wicked and violent since the Flood? This would tend to indicate that some very specific kind of wickedness and violence was found to be bad enough to warrant the Flood. God's guarantee that He would never again use the Flood, tells us that the cure was perfect and complete.

    So, again, what crime is it that humanity can now never again repeat?

    Clues to a Solution

    We know that the timeline is wrong. Humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, so Ussher's 4004 BC could not have been the beginning of everything. Either Genesis should not be looked at for a timeline, or the timeline needs to be adjusted by some factor. I found several clues that lead to such a set of factors. And the derived timeline leads to the identity of the culprit -- the identity of the "daughters of man" mentioned in Genesis 6.

    But what is important to God? After all, it was His needs that were not being met. Human needs may have nothing to do with God's reason for the Flood.

    What is God after?

    It seems, from my study of many of Earth's major religions, that the purpose of it all is the spiritual reawakening of each of us. But what does this mean?

    Genesis 1:26 offers a bold clue, but few are willing to accept it. This passage tells us that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Since God is not Homo sapiens, then we must assume that the "man" of Genesis 1:26 was not human, but spirit.

    Later, in Genesis 2:7, man is created again, but this time from the dust of the ground. This is chemical (dust) man -- Homo sapiens.

    So, man has a dual nature -- immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh. This fact is emphasized in Genesis 6:3, when it says that man is "also flesh." If he is also one thing, then he must be something else, too. That something else is spirit. And flesh is the part that God will not always strive with. Why? Because God wants to rescue His children, not the bodies they're wearing.

    In Genesis 3, we learn of the Fall of Man. This is the spiritual "death" that Jesus said would be cured by the everlasting life he promised.

    Immortal Spirit Needing Rescue

    Now, imagine immortal spirit no longer being able to see -- thrust into darkness and depending on physical methods for perception and control. Imagine those spirits wandering aimlessly through the universe, unattached to anything, and living in a kind of dream world of oblivion. They were suffering the Long Sleep of spiritual "death."

    How much can you do when you sleep? Can you balance your checkbook? Can you work out derivatives in calculus? Can you develop calculus, as Newton and Goethe did?

    Of course not! Such things require stable consciousness. And that's where Homo sapiens comes in. That's where civilization comes in. The new date for Noah's Flood is 27,970 BC. When I compared this date with those in science, I found the culprit. One species which looked very much like man, ceased to exist 28,000 BC. I suspect that the hybrid species from humans and Neanderthals mating would be incapable of building civilization. They would be incapable of quelling their own tendency toward violence. The wonderful philosophy which would be required in order for God's spiritual children to reawaken would thus become impossible in a world without pure-bred humans.

    So, it seems that Noah's Flood may well have been a massive form of triage -- to cure the body human of an infestation of genetic corruption. Noah's Flood made civilization possible.

    How did I come up with the date? That process is detailed in a six-part series of hubs -- Genesis Bible Commentary.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny how believers scoff at scientists who say the universe came from nothing, but their gods can certainly wave their magic hands and create things from nothing.



      It is hilarious the fantasies believers will make up to support other fantasies. That one is classic.



      Noah clones? Lol.



      lol That is some of the funnies stuff I've read in a while here. Coffee spewing through the nose funny.

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi!  how are you?  By the way, if I could get coffee from nothing I would be soooo happy smile   I love coffee

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I like coffee, too.

        Scientists say the universe came from nothing? Good for them. God is no "thing."

        Does everything in the universe have a cause (source)? If so, then reality itself would have a source. But I can imagine a source that does not have a cause.

        Now, where's my coffee?...

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          While I'm sure that answer is most satisfying to those who wish to believe invisible super friends that exist outside of our universe created everything, it isn't an answer to those who actually would like to understand.



          Yes, you can imagine. But, that isn't science.

        2. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          firstly, scientists don't say that the universe came from nothing.

          Secondly, your imagination is not evidence.  You have no proof for your super-being.

  11. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    There are some interesting things about the bible.  Sorry I am going off topic.
    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning,  God created the Heavens and the earth.
    Beginning= when something starts.  When something starts it need time.  ( TIME)
    Heavens=   A place.  A place needs some space in which it can exist.
    Earth=  Matter.  If the earth has no matter it cannot exist at all.

    Scientists are working on the Space Time Continuum.  Whoever wrote the first verse in Genesis, wrote what scientists are working on today.  Kind of interesting.

    Also, there are verses in the bible which write about places, that archaeologists are finding. Like the city of Dan.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are equating Genesis 1:1 In the beginning,  God created the Heavens and the earth with the space time continuum? "Spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions."

      That is the biggest leap I've ever read. After that I couldn't read anything else you wrote seriously.

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ok, then don't read anything else I write smile

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And here I thought you were going to go into greater detail and explain your connection. I guess not.

          1. Michele Travis profile image65
            Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I didn't think you were going to read it.    The thing is people have written so much about the flood, all I can do about the flood is repeat what they have written.  There is so much more about the bible, archaeologists, history, and other things that I can write about.  I just believe what you wrote.

          2. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JM. thank you for sharing your background.  I too had some experience in missions as a child. and I too went to a prestigious bible college.  I have only learned bits and pieces of the hebrew and latin.  thank you for your input.  It makes it more acceptable and realistic to share of yourself and who you are. My hope is that the power of love rules within us.  That future generations could know that we sought the truth, for pure reasons, kept free from hate and intolerance of others.   I personally feel that the most important thing is when we lay our head at night, that we are at peace & that we are healed from past hurts.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        With such shallow understanding and appreciation, your cup is already full (arrogance).

        Perhaps you should return to this forum when your cup is empty.

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Is is good to know that you are humble!


          It is evident that you are replying because your cup is empty, appreciate the honesty.

          1. lone77star profile image90
            lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks @Riddle.

            Yes, awareness is always a good thing. Awareness of humility or degree of humility are always good.

            But someone can be humble and confident. Without ego, this is easy.

            On the road to truth, relative truths are frequently replaced by stronger relative truths. That's part of the learning process. Letting go of previously held relative truths takes humility. Listening (as opposed to merely hearing) takes humility.

            But some people cling to their relative truths as if they are absolute. That's a full cup.

            I hope this helps clarify. smile

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My arrogance?

          arrogant |ˈarəgənt|
          adjective
          having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

          1. One of us thinks human were given the entire universe by a God and we were created by him in his likeness.

          2. One of us thinks evolution brought us here by chance and we are but another animal of this planet.

          Which of the two sounds arrogant?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The bible speaks of lakes and rivers, of sheep and other animals and of air and fish as well.

      All things science is studying.  Science is studying everything around us - that it is studying any particular thing mention in the bible is unsurprising and in fact expected. 

      As Radman says, though, the spacetime continuum is something the ancient peoples never even imagined - that time and space are the same thing was beyond their comprehension level.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But are they the same?

        Space and time have a great many differences from my experience.

        Space is points of view. Time is persistence. True, time can be visualized as an extension of 3D space, but is it really?

        Certainly space and time are related, but I can conceive of space without time, or time without space.

        I can also see energy as an extension of space-time, and mass, of course, as an extension of space-time-energy through gravity.

        You make some good points, sometimes, Wilderness. But sometimes you act like a big know-it-all with nothing but imaginative logic to support your position.

        How do you know the ancient people never imagined such things. Did you interview all of them? wink

        How do you know, for instance, that the primal elements of earth, air, fire and water were not actually symbols for mass, space, energy and time, respectively? Symbolically, I can see a connection. To assume that there is none begs for an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My limited understanding is that time is but one more "dimension" of space.  Length is not the same as breadth, yet in another manner it is identical; so it is with time.  Truthfully, I have but a poor understanding, but it is all I can offer.  For instance, I might suggest that earth, air, fire and water might apply far better to length, width, breadth and duration - mass and energy are interchangeable forms of the same thing and are not equivalent to space or time.  Space|time might be considered to be a placeholder for mass, something that allows mass|energy to exist.

          Do you believe the ancients understood anything of the sort?  Or did they, like you (and I in everyday life), separate space and time into two very different things?  Did they understand that energy equals mass in a very real sense?  Outside of temperature changes (a result of energy but not energy itself) did they have any comprehension of energy at all? 

          I think not; it wasn't until Einstein and his startling and radically different mathematical assessment that understanding began to creep out of the night.  I believe that earth, air, fire and water were superstitious expressions of mythology; on the same plane as astrology or the gods.  Plus, of course, the physical manifestations of each.

          1. lone77star profile image90
            lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you, Wilderness. I too have a limited understanding of physics -- probably better than most, but still far less than that of Hawking or even Newton.

            When I was studying electronic engineering back in the 70s, I doubt many of my fellow students realized as I did the fact that we're surrounded by tank circuits -- trillions of them! As an artist and a scientist, I'm frequently firing from both sides of the brain. When I first saw the diagram of a tank circuit with impedance and inductance working together to constrain the "tuned" frequency of a circuit, I saw the same "coil" and "capacitor" in every atom. I still get goosebumps from that sudden insight.

            Is time an extension of the dimension of space? I think it is. But I don't think it's part of space any more than your fingertips are part of your heart. Certainly, mathematically, it's convenient to treat time as a fourth dimension, but from a creation standpoint, space may be one dimension and time the integration (as in calculus) of space. And it may be that energy is the integration of time, and mass the integration of energy.

            Do I believe the ancients understood anything of the sort? I don't know. And this was why I was so hard on you, before. I don't think you know, either. wink

            But it's possible that someone in the realm of the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for. I was surprised that precession of the equinoxes was understood by the ancient Greeks.

            But we also have other civilizations in the past that may have been more advanced than modern scientists would be comfortable admitting. Atlantis, for instance. Did it exist? I don't know, but I have evidence that an Atlantis like event occurred right when Plato's lost island was supposed to have subsided. I've even found geological evidence of the location that supports its past existence, including tectonic plate boundary damage and the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Could the worldwide myth of dragons be primitive perception of anti-gravity flying craft from Atlantis? I don't know, but the myths seem to suggest commonalities that support this possibility.

            Wilderness, do you know what an "argument to ignorance" type logical fallacy is? I'm glad you said "I think not," in your last paragraph, but you trouble me with your claim, "it wasn't until Einstein." Why do you claim this? Because you believe it strongly, or because you have proof, or because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary? If you have proof, then I'd be happy to say, "I agree with you. Proof is proof. I like facts and evidence." But interpretation makes things a little fuzzy -- always. And a lack of evidence never disproves anything.

            Of course, earth, air, fire and water could well have been superstitious expressions of mythology; on the same plane as astrology or the gods. I think this is a very strong possibility, but I don't know it as fact. The fact that you believe it to be so does not make it true. So, thank you for stating it as "I believe..."

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You yourself provided ample examples.

        2. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          and equating the four elements to the creation story in genesis has already been debunked several times.  A TV/Internet show weekly has gone over this several times, and there have been dozens of articles about it.  I suggest you do some non-biased research and see what you come up with.  It's an argument from incredulity.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            TV is an authority now?  really!   I have no doubt that more on TV wouold like to disprove BIBLE than Prove BIBLE

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Tell that to all those televangelists. You know, all those nice christian people who extort money from the old and gullible.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I hear that!  thats another hub/ forum though.

            2. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It was simply one EXAMPLE - and it's a show that's produced, sponsored and manned by one of the biggest Atheist associations in the world - by people who have spent years, if not decades, studying and have a very strong background.  They're not THE authority, but I do respect their opinions and the evidence that they supply to back those positions up.  I find that to be more of an authority than a 6000 year old book of frigging fairy tales.

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh boy, you need to do some homework before pretending you know what space-time means. Well you called me arrogant and I'd like to call you ignorant, but I won't because that wouldn't be nice of me.

    3. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      and what about the parts of the bible that archeologists AREN'T finding?  what about the locations of places that are absolutely wrong?  What about the fact that the field of "biblical archaeology" is now called "archeology" because even archeologists recognize that there's nothing biblical about it.

      You don't seem to bringing THAT to anyone's attention.  Wonder why?

    4. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lovely, @Michele.

      I had never looked at the STM being in Genesis 1:1. Very nice. And then the "E" comes in with "let there be light."

      I have long wondered if the primal elements of the Greeks were not really the same basic elements of modern science.

      Earth - mass
      Air - space
      Water - time
      Fire - energy

      And it seems that the mechanics of creation are suggested by Genesis 1-2.

      1. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        among other problems, one of the 2 creation myths in genesis has 'light' being created BEFORE the sun & moon [also implying that the moon is a lightsource!]

  12. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    Ok, there is a  huge universe out there Its physical characteristics are defined by time, space, and mass/energy (usually abbreviated as just "matter").

    Any effort to determine the cause of the universe is purely hypothetical. No human was there to observe the processes, so any attempt to understand events of  history (especially original events) must, therefore, be based on  belief systems, While the theories and ideas may be many, but. this is what scientists believe

    1) there is an infinite series of causes, going back into infinite time, with NO ultimate Cause;

      2) there exists an  First Cause that was "outside" or transcendent to the universe.  How can a First Cause start if there is nothing to start that cause.

    Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists.

    But, how can something come from nothing?

    Do you believe in big bang theory?

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      do you realize that the argument you're attempting to use is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and not even a majority of christian apologists use it anymore? 

      Start Here:
      http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

      And before jumping right into the TAG argument, you can visit here:
      http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=TAG

      Your beginning premises are flawed.  Something does not have to come from nothing.  There is no nothing.  you're confusing "nothing" with "no thing" - and that "no thing" includes no god.  Sorry.

      If you're going to move forward regardless of the inherent flaws, if nothing can come from nothing and there has to be a first cause, what created god?  Something can't come from nothing, after all.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And your argument is flawed.

        Not every cause has to have a cause. But every cause in the realm of continuity has to have a cause. God resides in the realm of discontinuity. In fact, creation itself is an act of discontinuity. So are forgiveness and inspiration.

        Science only studies the realm of continuity. It depends on the commensurability of cause-and-effect. God is superior to cause-and-effect. He/it is the ultimate source.

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          and your conclusion is flawed.  If everything, as you stated, has to has a cause, you cannot stop at god and say he doesn't have to have one.  It's special pleading.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is all meaningless gibberish. You create conclusions about where God resides and then toss it into a word salad.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, but you are mistaken on several accounts. 

      There is no infinite series of causes and there is no infinite time.  Although the concept of "infinity" exists in mathematical terms it has no place in the real world that we know of.  Certainly there is no "going back" an infinity of time as time itself began with the big bang.

      There is no known "first cause" necessary for the big bang.  There may have been one, there may have not - we don't know. 

      Should you really wish to understand that something really can come from nothing it should not take more than half a lifetime or so of study.  At least that's what it has taken physicists that have made the study.  Might take less now, though, as we continue to find instances of just such an occurrence.

      Should you decline to undertake those years and years of study (as I do) then you have a choice to make: either believe the imaginative ramblings of ancient goat herders that also claimed the sun went around the (flat) earth or accept the honesty and work of modern physicists that have put their own lifetimes into the study.

      You will, of course, make your own choice just as everyone else has done.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        May I humbly, so humbly add, widerness?  that it takes a lot of faith to believe what you just said what you have referred to and every other belief about what happened " back there"... sounds hillbilish doesn't it... even modern sciences descriptions begin to weak when it is just guessing,.. like you referred.. kinda-like an explosion.. or bang.. and your own words we don;t know.. ..  jsut saying..  lots of faith man..   I like that.. the faith part..  we must believe..

        even Believers.. it says in Heb. 11-6 for without faith it is impossible to beleive or come to God.. for he that cometh to God must "first" believe in Him.that he is rewarder of them that diligently seek him..

        instead our modern minds keep trying in the void of knowledge of God to believe in something else. with total faith, yet random and hopeful faith that they can ultimately prove something else to be true.. 

        but "some day" we hope they can finally find and establish what we "believed" all along..  we had faith in our modern sciences.. yes we did .. this is our more intelligent religion of faith..     

        No I don't think all science is wrong, but when it seeks to make its own religion.. it is just as guiilty as all of the other religions.. and it has become a religion to those who live by it and eat by it and think by it..

        but the God of the Bible says one day we will all stand before him young and old.. and give an account.

        Moses said Pharoah will not listen to me!  and God said.. yes he will.  and for a while the scientists of Pharoah ( living torah) said they could keep up with the miracles that Moses and Aaron did, but finally they could no longer do the things that God could perform..  and God said " I will harden Pharoahs heart" so that in the end all men will see my glory..      humbly I say he can do all of this again today, because he did it then.

        I CHOOSE to believe in the basic scciences as well.. but not in the religion of science. where you have to absolutely have to beleive and have faith in thier findings.. and use faith to catch a falling star way back in the "back there"..        but the science of research and "what is real"  wow.     I am amazed at the cosmic bodies and the saturn rings and how it is all held in perfect place, or left in random disorder according to its purpose..    and "random" and "purpose" are antonyms.. we want to accept their purpose but we want to belief they were created in randomness?  with no higher designer?    hmm.  lots of faith there.. don't you agree?

        but thats why I DO like you.. you acknowledge the things you DO believe in.  -thanks..

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          science is not a religion that hands down a milleneum old book that can be interpreted a million different ways by a million different people and expect modern society to conform (or conveniently ignore) the rules, regulations and lifestyles of bronze-age goat-herders.

          You don't understand how science works.  Science follows the evidence, wherever it leads.  Sometimes that means that previously held theories need to be reexamined in the light of new evidence.  Sometimes that means that old hypothesis need to be thrown out altogether and a new set has to be tested and reviewed.  Sometimes repeated tests prove a theory true or reliable.  there is no religion of science, and contrary to what you may believe it requires NO faith to be an atheist.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.  That's it.  why is that so hard for you to come to grips with?

          It's convenient, however, that your holy book says you have to blindly believe and follow something before you can realize it's true - since there's no proof for the book, the deity supposedly behind it or its historical reliability whatsoever.

          1. Michele Travis profile image65
            Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What you wrote is very interesting.  Blindness.  Blindly. 
            2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Michele I was trying to find that.  thank you!    I didn't have my blue letter program open.

            2. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't find the bible to be credible or authoritative, so you can quote whatever verses you'd like.  I may just know it better than you do.

              Tell me, michelle - where is the story of how Lucifer became the devil in the bible?  Where does the idea of Satan come from?  I'm just trying to discern where you're at, so I know how to respond to you.

              1. Michele Travis profile image65
                Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The Adam and Eve?  The casting out? or the creation?

                1. Michele Travis profile image65
                  Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I meant the creation of Lucifer

                2. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Adam and eve and the garden of Eden have nothing to do with satan. 

                  I'm asking where you get the idea of the "devil" - the evil counter to god that you mentioned in your previous post.

                  1. Michele Travis profile image65
                    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok,  well in the King James Bible it tells us
                    Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function."
                    God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he ( Lucifer perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God... rather than "just" being the Angel of God.

                    Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
                    ( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )
                    Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will.

                    Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17)

                    Of course he was cast out of Heaven.  Then he was given the earth for a short time.
                    Satan wanted to be God. The Bible tells us in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 that Satan has become the "god of this world". And Revelation 20:10 tells us that he will be eternally punished for it.

            3. lone77star profile image90
              lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Beautiful passage, @Michele.

              And ego does it's share of blinding.

              My one experience being outside my physical body with full perception was an interesting example of this. It took me 41 years to realize that ego was the reason why everything went spiritually dark again. And I suddenly found myself back in my human body. Ego does, in many ways, seem to be the master of this world.

              Ego is vulnerable. The child of God, within, is invulnerable.

              Ego says, "Notice me."

              And the reason why I was given a moment's spiritual bliss in the light I suddenly saw had to do with shifting my focus from "me" to others -- from ego, to pure selflessness. I think this is what Jesus was talking about when he talked about being born again and everlasting life.

              Everlasting life has nothing to do with these human bodies we wear. It has to do with continuity of consciousness which is impossible without these bodies until spiritual reawakening occurs.

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Matter is defined as physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy: the structure and properties of matter. I've never heard of space-time being abbreviated as just "matter".


      Infinite time, no. 13.75 billion years is a long time but not infinite. Who told you there was no cause?


      The cause did not start from the outside of the universe. You are assuming that it did because you have been mislead. There is a cause in the description of the big bang.


      The big bang theory does not say something came from nothing. Someone has mislead you. It's said to be kind of like an explosion where everything was compressed into something very small much like a neutron star. To claim that because we don't fully understand it yet God did it is much like saying nothing exist beyond what the naked eye can see. All we need to see beyond what the eye can see is a telescope. Telesopes are now looking back in time 13.5 billion years and in just a few years they will be able to see farther back in time.

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Then you probably know about the  the singularity theory, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came.  But, I am going to stop.  Neither one of us, can agree, but that is fine.  Some of the Christians here judge you, but I don't  I think that is bad.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The question remains can a singularity be described as "nothing". With the naked eye a molecule or an atom looks like nothing.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            mentioned the telescope looking into the "past"  /////  "way out there"     you will never find it..   God said "worlds without end".   period.   he made it large enough to keep you busy at it though.. ther is plenty in fact to keep us all busy..       the poor, the hungry, the children, the basic life needs.. and compassion.. yes he made us to be filled with compassin, emotion .. etc.. I hope we are all filled with this spirit.. of loving someone.. one another.. this season..

            Rad I even respect that you acknowledge what you do..  you have faith that there is somethign you cannot see.  I like that..

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You should have faith in people. We will eventually find all the answers. There was a time when gravity was misunderstood and because of the bible people thought the earth was flat and the centre of the universe.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Rad Man, a cause in the description of the Big Bang? Is that similar to Hawking's claim that gravity caused it all? Gravity requires space and what put the space there?

        Every physical thing is a part of continuity-based reality. Continuity presupposes a cause or source.

        But the source of all continuity resides in the realm of discontinuity. In fact, creation is an act of discontinuity. Poof, it now exists. This is not subject to the rules of science, because science only deals with continuity-based phenomena.

        But where do you get the idea that the Bible was the source of the flat-earth idea?

        And I think ego was just as much a cause of geocentrism as any interpretation of the Bible.

        And that raises a far bigger issue. Interpretation. That, and ego, result in a great many difficulties. People cling to their own ideas (both scientists and non-scientists). Take the "Clovis First" fiasco, for instance. Ego got out of hand, there, and scientists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon because of fear that doing so would jeopardize their careers. Science by intimidation. How childish. As a scientist, I'm appalled that such things exist in professional circles.

        Ego does damage in every human endeavor. And in such forums as this, too many use ego, rather than scientific restraint. Such know-it-all attitudes don't forward the discussion. There's a lot I don't know, but some of the claims on both sides are laced with arrogance, rather than facts and logic.

        There are likely millions of interpretations of the Bible. Yours is likely somewhat different from that of many scientists or atheists or agnostics. Likely all of them are inaccurate, just as the interpretations of most (if not all) Christians.

        The search for answers takes humility and restraint, qualities which scientists frequently mistaken for skepticism (doubt-biased restraint, which all too frequently descends into unrestrained and self-indulgent ridicule). Tsk, tsk!

        Most scientists instinctively do the right thing, most of the time, but ego messes things up even there.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By definition, space is the distance between two objects, hence it was energy/matter from the Big Bang, which are the physical attributes defining that space. And, the reason space is expanding is because those objects in the universe are moving away from each other.



          That is why there is the peer review process, so that any injecting of ones ego is immediately dismissed. Scientists all know this, hence most never attempt to inject their egos in the first place.

          1. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
            GeneralHowitzerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Sir Knowles... hehe... you said before that space is nothing (synonymous to vacuum)...

            and now you have a new definition of space...

            The universe is expanding and this is the reason why the objects are moving away from each other... thus it requires space to do it...

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I like how you talk about ego as if yours is perfect. Your very quick to call others arrogant, because they don't think just like you and your very quick to talk about stuff you clearly have no idea of. You seem to think only you have all the answers. You seem to think you can transcend your own body, I'll wait for proof if you don't mind.

    4. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Michele.  thanks..  yes.. God claims that without him nothing exist's or will exist.. that he brought order to the chaos.  It says that he hung the earth on nothing as well..   all this search of science is trying to debunk that God make order from Choas, and yet in order to do so prove that something came from nothing.  Man cannot easily accept the beginning of life is within us.. the DNA of our creator.

    5. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but scientists do not conduct research with that presupposition in mind, in fact, they give it no thought whatsoever because it is entirely irrelevant to their research.



      There is evidence and explanations for such phenomena in nature to occur.



      No, I understand it.

  13. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    What you wrote is true,  well in the choice part.   But as for scientists.  No, it is not a mistake, I am just writing what they are researching.  They do not have the answer.

    People do not believe in things they cannot see.

    If you cannot see it, you cannot prove it exists.

    It is kind of like a tiny microorganism a hundred times smaller than a virus, called a prion

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Proof.  What constitutes proof?

      Does a virus exist?  How about an electron?  Universally accepted, very few people have ever seen either one.  We see the effects of both and can manipulate both with predictable results so we accept both as real - are they proven to be real?

      Not a soul on earth has ever seen infrared or ultraviolet light, yet we are confident it exists because we can manipulate and detect it with "senses" other than our own.  Is that proof?  Ditto for X-rays.

      I can see mars with the naked eye, but only as a spot of light and not as a planet.  Do we know that it is a spherical object circling the sun?  Is it proven?

      We don't need to see things to have proof.  There are other methods of proving the existence of things than seeing them.

  14. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    We have proof.  Scientists have seen them.  The few people who have seen them, have shown them to us.

    Can you touch something and feel it?  Maybe it does not exist.
    Can you hear?  Guess it does not exist.
    Can you eat?  Maybe food does not exist. 
    How much proof do you need?
    A whole lot!

    As for me,  I think you exist.  Perhaps that makes me a fool.

  15. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    What about Steven Hawking?

    Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

    In the book he wrote " A Brief History of Time.

       But he is angry at God.  For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it"  (p. 122)

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      what about steven hawking?  Bringing him up without any reason at all is an appeal to authority - it's a logical fallacy.  Who cares if he's an atheist or not?  He's not a theist by the pure definition of the word.  Deists believe in a god that does not manifest in reality - and if a god does not manifest in reality, it is absolutely indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist at all.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, not "absolutely."

        The big difference between the God that doesn't exist and the God that produced all physical law is the product of creation.

        Does every thing have a cause? If so, then reality itself should have a cause. The cause of (source for) reality could thus be known by the "fruits of its/his/her labor."

    2. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      also, do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms?  Gnosticism/Agnosticism speaks to KNOWLEDGE.  Atheism/Theism speak to belief. 

      Are you going to respond to ANYTHING I say to you, or just continue to be intellectually dishonest and ignore me completely?

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        JM..  I sense hate. I'm surprised you show such strong emotion. and your wanting to take over the forum.. to dictate the rules..  that is not what we are doing here.

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          how on earth do you equate hate with anything I've said, and how in the world am I trying to take over the forum?  What basis do you have for such baseless and groundless assumptions about someone you don't even know?  How do you get to dictate the rules of what happens here?  I'm not insulting anyone, or violating any of the forum rules and I participate in dozens of forums every day.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest and demanding they answer according to your terms?   please accept we are in an open discussion and every is allowed to submit their opinions.  If they don't answer the way we like we must accept that and move on.  do you agree?

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Intellectual dishonesty is not accusing someone of being a liar.  To be intellectually honest, you accept all answers on their own terms.  She has thus far failed to acknowledge anything that I've said directly TO her, but has answered other people.  That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty, and to call a logical fallacy out is hardly rude or inappropriate.  I was simply trying to discern whether or not she was going to answer anything I said - if she was, I would continue to respond to her posts.  If not, I was going to move on to other posts that I could actually discuss and not waste my own time.  I don't believe that's unfair.  I didn't "demand" anything.  Just asked a question.

      2. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am not ignoring you,  I am doing laundry.  Sorry

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In an interview published in The Guardian newspaper, Hawking regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is true,  he does not believe in Heaven.

        1. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But interesting that Hawking should say such an unsupportable thing as, "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

          Heaven is actually place of light, so there may be some truth in Hawking's statement. Physical reality and ego-bound awareness are places of darkness, spiritually at least. But "fairy story?" Hawking believes in fairies? How quaint. (joke)

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Even this you don't understand? He is not saying he believes in Fairy tales, he's saying you do.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is astounding, to say the least, one can so easily dismiss those who have a very strong understanding of how the nature works by invoking claims and knowledge for physical characteristics and properties of the very fairy story location in question. Ego-bound awareness, indeed.

  16. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    From the Wilderness dictionary (which many will disagree with):

    An atheist states "There is no God"

    A theist states "There is a God"

    An agnositic states "I don't know if there is a God"


    Only a fool would claim to be either atheist or theist as there is not, nor can there be, evidence proving or disproving the existence of God.

    Is that what Hawking meant in denying he is an atheist?

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would disagree with those terms.  An atheist may say that there is no god, but they would be considered "strong atheists".  Most atheists, including myself, would state that I don't have a belief in a god.  Not that there isn't one outright.  I consider myself to be an Atheist Agnostic, personally.  I don't have a belief in a god, but I don't know if one exists or not.  If it does, it has yet to be proven sufficiently.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The God that you disbelieve declares " only a fool would say in his heart "there is no God".   beleive it or not, the Bible is his written word and it, beleive it or not is the most read book in the world from time beginning..  it is the bestseller of all times.. and it has an author.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          oops.. sorry Jm..  I misplaced the comment.    You didn't say you disbelieve.. accept my apology?
          ]

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is exactly what a dictator or despot would state emphatically to those within his control.



          It is without a doubt, unbelievable.



          That could be said about the Iliad.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Holy men of Old spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. God was the author.  The Flood was our topic and we have now beat it to death, some of you literally. We are getting away from our topic..  we are now in a hub about everything else.. 

            thank you everyone for your input.  It is all appreciated..

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There is absolutely and unequivocally no evidence whatsoever to suggest anyone at any time was ever "moved by the holy spirit" - it is a belief strictly created from incredulity and an appeal to the consequences of belief. We now have institutions filled with people who make similar claims.

              Holy men of Old = Mentally Disturbed



              There is no evidence of that. If God is so omnipotent as to create a universe from nothing, surely he can create a book himself and reveal it to everyone.

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The bible is the written word from the church, translated by men, from the words of other men that claimed they talked to God.  It is authored by men, picking and choosing amongst many, many writings and verbal tales from centuries prior. 

          You may claim that it is the word of God, but that doesn't make it so.  The bible itself makes the same claim, but that doesn't make it so, either. 

          You even claim that God himself declares that " only a fool would say in his heart "there is no God" but can offer no evidence to back the claim up and it, too, becomes just another claim and not necessarily truth.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            then by your own rules , you cannot say it is not true.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Of course not!  It is possible that the entire bible, word for word, is absolutely true and the actual word of God.

              I do find the probability rather low, however,  Perhaps 10^(-19).  Or less.  Certainly not anywhere high enough to base my life on.

        4. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Is god's autograph on the bible?  Was it faxed from heaven?  It was written by human beings, who, by the very book, are innately sinful and likely to err.  Which version of the bible is god's word?  Which denomination is the right one?  How do you know?  How can you tell?  I understand that you believe that the bible is gods word, but to use the bible to prove that it is accurate or authoritative is circular logic and special pleading.  That does not count as evidence.  What actual evidence do you have?

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yet you wish us to beleive that science proves itself?   yes. God signed it with blood. yes it was delivered from heaven. yes man is sinful of his own nature. the courts are built on HIs laws to govern the sinful acts of man,. it is in the books of Law. Only True faith ( hopefuly in most denominations) is the right one.  God has a divine living and working hand.. HE LIVES. HE IS.   for those who believe in him, he is true to them.  HE helps them with wisdom, with gifts of life, love, and manny other things.  I have actual evidence myself of his power. of instant and permanent healing. of seeing the unbelievable. I have flown as a pilot , and observed things from the top down, and yet I didnt need to do that to beleive him.  He opened my heart. he gave me understanding. he directed me. But as I keep saying in this hub.. You express faith in mans knowledge, in mans prowess.. is that not equally as amazing?  man that dies and according to science has no ending? their end is no ending in my book.  You won't believe even Noah's or Moses or Abrahams own words and witness to their being a God and his power, so why go ask someone else?  believe what you will. the world is spinning out of control faster than you can control it.. Man is finite. God is infinite. His desire is for man to have an ending.. one that is substantial, progressive and lasting. Science offers you no such thing. Just a memory when you fall back into the dust..  but the wonderful thing is science cannot and never will stop God from being God.  And yet God acknowledges science in the bible. as a wonderful thing that should exist in harmony with him and his word. yes I DO beleive there is scientific evidence. I believe all of it is scientific evidence of God.  even the disbelief is evidence of Him. 
            I am truly sorry if that does not fit your desire for evidence of him, but that is your choice to disbelieve .. if you do.

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Where do you get the idea that science proves itself?  There is a scientific method in place that either helps to prove or disprove a current existing theory, and as science continually develops, so do theories, hypothesis and scientists.

              Courts are not built on gods laws.  When's the last time you were hauled before a judge because you were wearing a cotton/poly blend t-shirt?  When's the last time you gathered together with your family, dragged an unruly child to the edge of town and stoned him for disobedience?  Was the bible hand-delivered from heaven or was it written by fallible, changing human beings?  You can't have it both ways. 

              To me, there is an enormous distinction to be made between faith and trust.  I trust what a lot of people have said.  I believe that doctors (for the most part) can be trusted, because they've gotten medical degrees and gained their knowledge - and as medical knowledge evolves, so do the doctors.  I trust that biologists know more about biology than I do, because it's what they DO.  I don't profess to have faith in ANYTHING.  I don't know where you got that idea.

              I won't believe Noah, Abraham or Moses' own words?  We don't HAVE their own words.  We have a book that was written down decades or centuries later by people who were relaying an oral tradition.  That's not the same as an eyewitness account, and even eyewitness accounts are suspect.  When you go into a court of law, it's not sufficient to call one eyewitness and rest your case.  You call all the witnesses that you can, and their stories do not always agree - in fact they rarely if ever do.  Have you ever played the child's game "telephone"?  You whisper a sentence or phrase in someone's ear, they tell someone else, and it goes on around the circle.  the last person relays what they think they were told - and it's usually SO different from the original phrase that everyone has a good laugh - and that's in the span of a few minutes.  How much different would the story be 50 years later?  How about 100 years?  How about 1000?

              God acknowledges science in the bible?  Where?  By saying the earth has four corners?  By calling bats birds?  By saying that he made the sun stand still so Joshua could slaughter all of the people possible before it got dark (incidentally, shouldn't god of all beings know that the sun always stands still - it's the earth that moves).  God's science is less scientific than a kindergartener's science.  For a supposedly all-knowing being, he's really rather stupid. 

              Again, I'll ask you.  What PROOF do you have of god?

              here's the basis.

              either a god exists, or no god exists.

              If a god exists, there are two possibilities.  That god either manifests in the material world (like the bible claims that he does) or he doesn't manifest in the material world.  If a god exists that does not manifest in the material world, that god is indistinguishable from no god.

              if a god manifests in the material world, there should be plenty of evidence to prove that he exists.  If you could prove god, you would have a Nobel prize.  Where is it?

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I simply disagree, Jm.. Nobel Prize is not the basis of reward for proving that God does or not exist.  Because he is God, he does not    have to prove himself on our terms.   yes there is reference to science in the word.  when was the last time you read it?    I am reading the most protected book in the world ..  the Living Torah.    have you heard of the Essenes?  they were protectors of the Law, and of ancient manuscripts.. we are still finding what they kept protected.   there is evidence , but most of all it stands forever..   it is so simple that many miss its presence.  but cut your finger and watch for a moment. and yu will know that you are fallible.  He is infallible. He is self existant.  no, JM   I don't need or require a Nobel prize to make me the "finder" of God.  I have found him for myself.  I have witnessed him myself.  He is of a spiritual nature and substance and man and science do not understand the spiritual or supernatural without knowing him.

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I read it every day - in the original languages I might add.

                  Have you read Bart Ehrman's forged?  Or how about Misquoting Jesus?  Ehrman is a world-renowned biblical scholar who has an enormous body of work on how the bible has been altered, sometimes intentionally, changed, added to, subtracted, etc.  I highly recommend his work.

                  If you could prove that god existed, it would be a worldwide phenomenon.  You would be on every news network known to man.  If god could be proven, then I could no longer say that I don't believe he exists.  I would still, however, refuse to worship him.  The god of the bible is a mob boss - not a being worthy of worship. 

                  You're saying that god doesn't have to prove himself on our terms.  How about prove himself at all?  You have the bible - and archaeologists and historians have constantly found fault in it.  There is no basis for the belief in the god of the bible, or in the bible itself. 

                  Do you not admit that the bible has changed in the last 5000 years?  It doesn't even agree with ITSELF, let alone history, archaeology or science.  It is vulnerable and open to interpretation.  that fact alone is enough to make me disbelieve it's reliability.  There is no evidence for god, and you have not provided any.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have nothing to argue about this. I don't disclaim it.  I stand on and come from the position it is Gods word .   Others may disbelieve it, but that is their choice.  God said it was passed on from generation to generation. you are the one trying to prove that it is incorrect or ineffectual.  not I.   I believe in Naohs Ark, ( Gods Ark) enough that if it showed up today , I would hop on it..  I don't have any reason.. you haven't given me enough reason to disbeleive his word .  There is something more powerful than man. Its called life, and it comes from God.  Science can put the rocks together but God has to breath the life into it.  " in HIM we live and move and have our being".

                  2. Michele Travis profile image65
                    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You read it every day in Hebrew?  Wow,  that is great.  You are very intelligent.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that's why I gave the disclaimer that not all would agree.  I've used those definitions for decades, but lately seem to communicate better in these forums by ignoring "agnostic" and simply using "atheist" for anyone without a belief in God.

        I don't think I'm alone, though, in using those definitions.  Until these forums I was never misunderstood - people seemed to grasp my meaning without having a definition given to them.

        In any case, I was simply asking what Hawking meant when he denied being an atheist.

        1. Michele Travis profile image65
          Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I like your disclaimer.  I have seen a few hubs in which stupid people became very angry at each other, because they did not agree.  There were stupid people on both side of the fence smile

          1. Michele Travis profile image65
            Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Opps I meant forums.  I am usually not in forums.

        2. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I understand.  I just wanted to point out that, at least in today's terms, atheism speaks more to a lack of a belief.  Atheists tend to refuse to outrightly say that no god exists.  If they make a positive claim, the burden of proof shifts.  Therefore, by simply stating that they lack a belief in a god (like I assert myself), the burden of proof still rests upon the person making a positive claim i.e: a god exists.

          1. Michele Travis profile image65
            Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I understand,  that is ok,  with me.

      3. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo, @JMcFarland.

        Many of the atheists with whom I've conversed say they don't believe in God, but act as if they are "strong atheists," instead.

  17. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 3 years ago

    I think he meant he was not an Atheist.  It was kind of clear in the book.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I dunno.  The closest to that I've seen from him was a clear statement that there is no need for a God to create the universe - that it could all happen very naturally.  He very carefully did NOT say there was no God involved in that creation.

      1. Michele Travis profile image65
        Michele Travisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That makes sense.  But, what is stupid. at least to me, is all the idiots who hate him because they think he is an atheist.   You can find that out by looking it up on google.    They are really stupid.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I don't think they hate him because of that.  They hate him because he said that God is not necessary and his knowledge is enough that he is respected worldwide for his opinions.  Put those two together and he has driven another chink from the fortress of religion and is therefore to be hated for it.

          1. lone77star profile image90
            lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Chink in the fortress of religion?" Interesting choice of words.

            The hate that any people hold isn't from religion or spirituality; it's from ego. Fear of "assault" is an egocentric attitude. The same ego that made it difficult for scientists to dig below the Clovis horizon for many years, in American anthropology. Ego is an equal-opportunity destroyer in religion, science, government and every other human institution.

            The only permanent thing is nothing of the realm of physical continuity. The only thing permanent is that which is source and resides in the realm of discontinuity. That's the best I can describe it in English, having been there a few times. Breaking the laws of physical reality, after millennia of habit being subject to those laws, is not that easy. Bad habits are hard to break, but I'm breaking them. And it's actually pretty cool. As a scientist, it's kind of fun to experiment on things outside the realm of continuity.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A poetic turn of words, little more.  Far, far too many people demand that all knowledge conform to a pre-formed notion derived from their religion; when it doesn't and yet is forced upon them it creates that "chink" in the "walls of ignorance" their religion has given them.  They don't want to learn that those notions of reality are, in fact, nothing but notions and hate the idea that they are wrong.

              I understand the feeling all too well.  When you tell me that you break the laws of physical reality at will it doesn't mean much to me - I don't believe you.  You may well be telling the truth as you see it, but if so you are deluding yourself and either can't or won't prove otherwise.

              When I see that multiple experiments by multiple respected physicists show that turning a watching camera on will affect the photon diffraction through a lattice it upsets me.  That shouldn't happen; it appears to violate natural law, but nothing can.  It is discordant with the universe that I know. 

              Stephen Hawking is highly respected, and has made a statement that no one has dared to refute (at least no one with his depth of knowledge and respect) - that upsets the believers that find his statement in violation of their beliefs.  Were I to make the same claim it won't upset them any more than your claim upsets me.

              1. lone77star profile image90
                lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Wilderness, for the clarification.

                I wholeheartedly agree that people get bent out of shape trying to force everything to conform to their notions. This happens to the religious and the non-religious alike. That's called ego. And it does create a wall of ignorance.

                But like I said, scientists do it, too. "Clovis First" dogma was only one example. Some scientists become downright childish when it comes to cherished beliefs. That's ego.

                You said, "You may well be telling the truth as you see it, but if so you are deluding yourself and either can't or won't prove otherwise." Telling the truth is delusion? You have an interesting viewpoint on this. That you say (somewhat arrogantly) "you are deluding yourself," doesn't bode well for your use of logic and scientific restraint. Again, you're falling into the trap of an argument to ignorance logical fallacy. I suggest you look this up, before you repeat the mistake many more times. wink

                If you had said, instead, that you have never experienced such a thing and find it incredible to believe, that would have been more well-reasoned. But to call the observer of phenomena "delusional" as fact rather than possibility, shows that you're not approaching the subject with the proper humility.

                No scientist can ever learn anything new if they think they know something that is not true. This tripped up Einstein when he refused to accept quantum mechanics. I can understand his desire to have a God which does not play dice, but fixed ideas tend to shorten one's runway.

                Hawking has said many things that inspire even me. They are real brain teasers that stimulate new thought. I love it. But that doesn't make him omniscient.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  *sigh*.  I apologize yet again, Lonestar - once more I've failed to make myself clear.

                  That little tidbit about your experience and my reaction to it was intended to be added to my reaction to the bit about diffraction, and then compared to the believers response to a similar statement from me as opposed to the one from Hawking.

                  But I do disagree with the humility part.  You have repeatedly made such claims in the forums but have offered no proof.  You have offered no indication of what controls were used, whether observers also saw the same thing, what steps were taken to eliminate any other possibilities for what you think happened.  As far as I can tell from reading several of your posts you are reporting a subjective experience without taking any care to providing alternate conclusions to the observations.  Seems like I've seen you post that they are not repeatable and that they cannot happen on demand.

                  If so, no humility needed - those observations are nearly worthless as a source of knowledge.  As a question, yes.  As a starting point of investigation, certainly.  Just not as a source of knowledge that you have violated natural law - you haven't proven that at all and should recognize that without prompting.

                  1. lone77star profile image90
                    lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As a question? That was my point, Wilderness. You were not treating it with a question (humility), but with a judgment (arrogance). Real science doesn't do that. wink

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No ego problem here. (sarcasm) Had to spell it out because you seem to miss it every time.

  18. Smokes Angel profile image73
    Smokes Angelposted 3 years ago

    yes i do... I believe every word of the Bible... there have even been sightings of the remains of the great ark

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      no, there absolutely have not been.  Where are you getting your facts?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They are allowed to lie for Jesus. It says so in the bible. wink

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There have been people lying for Jesus claiming to have seen things, but they never bring any evidence.

      1. RealConception7 profile image59
        RealConception7posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are always people making others look bad. there's always something negative about everything. you can watch the best movie in the world or read a flawless book, and when you read the 5 star reviews there are always a few that say its just the worst and rate it with 0. What do you have to loose to believe there is something greater?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Honesty with self.  Reality.  Ability to reason correctly.  Time.  Money.  Emotional stability.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Dignity. I would lose my dignity and self respect.
          It must be hard for people like you to understand people like me. Rating a book cannot be equated with believing the lies of other who are purposely misleading you. Rating a book requires no evidence, just opinion. Someone telling they've seen evidence of an old wooden boat on a mountain in Turkey, but not sharing that evidence is misleading.

          You may not understand that's not a choice to not believe in God. I can't choose it any more then you can choose not to. I would love to find evidence of an afterlife with a loving God, but there is not and I prefer reality.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But have you personally gone and seen where they claim there is a boat buried in the ice half way up a mountain (Turkey I believe?)   that is estimated to be the size of the Biblical ark?  If that comes spilling out of the mountain in a seasonal/climate change, would you then beleive?   I think not.. you are not looking for proof of the biblical story.. you are looking for proof of your more fantastic theory of man's self creation..   IMHO 

            I AM glad Rad regardless of what you believe to be true in your search for life.. that you spoke the words above.. that DOES give me more hope in humans. more faith in humans . that you would desire it if it were true and provable in your calculations..  but hey man..  it is ALREADY done. as you said. Life is already here. if there is an afterlife it is already in existence regardless of what you do or don't do.   
            let me ask you a serious question..  you say you are a scientist. right?  maybe you aren't. but you have that mentality.   is this your final experiment when you state "there is not"?  have you concluded all the evidence and findings and buried this thing? have you exhausted all of the science possibiities required to prove there is no God? no afterlife?   

            formerly as a pilot, I watched the radar go around in circles.. whether it be mobile transponders, or stationary radar in a tower.   it goes around in circles..  even as the weather radar.. and yet in aviation.. blip, blip, blip..   it suddenly picks up an aircraft.. a moving object.  its simply observation.. right?   but  it becomes present and has to be directed in the air traffic control center.  communications have to be established. radio or transmitted information. the pilot has to respond.. in some cases perhaps an MOA, ( an  F-15 aircraft) will escort you out if you don't respond quickly..
            or a sigmet charlie needs to be broad cast, that you are entering a severe weather system..

            even though they SEEM more primitive than even modern religion, (lonestar)  it was their navigation system of life.. it was thier belief system ( I beleive I give credit to wilderness) it was what they had.  and it did good for them. perhaps not all civilizations have done good though, and perhaps they were disobedient to the laws and the guides that they had.  MAybe flubbed it up good a few times as well. but they somehow musta got it back on track, for here we are today...

            My point is.. that whether it be civilization, or any elemental or more complex force field, it has some laws in place to govern its existance..   -- random ( maybe they need a better word) seems in my mind to violate the order required to sustain life.  it has very selective and constant factors.   you can get me out there in the space wagon a little ways with your theories, but you leave me hanging in the chaos of random design..random order..   does it not contradict stable vapor? stable solids? stable physics? stable experiments? stable life?  in fact every microorgasm has its own stable set of blueprints.  I was taught that in school, not saying a school is up to date..  have we all become quick change organisms that can suddenly through a wif! sping! transform us into a different species ?  or you think.. your theory can only happen once, it can/t happen again , if its true?  can't reproduce itself?  but first you must prove its even the way it really happened, which no one can do that. (thanks michele.)

            the bible has one quote that is right.. "Iron sharpeneth Iron".. at least they got that one right.. yeah!!

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am no scientist. I do however enjoy the logic of science and am keenly interested in learning as much as my little brain can absorb.

              I did do as much research as possible on the interesting broken ground in Turkey. It has been found to be a hoax. The people doing the research have no reason to lie unless they are trying to prove the accuracy of the bible. Those trying to do so have never produced evidence.

              There are many things that are not yet understood and the study of sub-atomic particles is no different. This is a new field and there are lots to be discovered. I've read at that level particles can appear and disappear seemingly at random. Where do they go? Just because something is not understood doesn't mean we should assume it was made.

            2. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              you get that those supposed rock formations that resembled an "ark" have been proven to be nothing more than rock and an anomaly, right?  have YOU hiked up there to prove that it's a boat?

            3. cascoly profile image59
              cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I HAVE been to mt ararat, in 1999, and there was no evidence of any ark

              there have been many hoaxes about finding wood on ararat, going back to medieval times when monks supposedly scammed pilgrims on their way to the holy land -- just like the pieces of the true cross if gathered togwehter would build a comfortable house. [not to mention the medieval king who had 2 skulls of john the baptist in his collection]  see joe nickell's book The Jesus Relics in which he writes 'My favourite joke about relics, which he includes, is about the pilgrim seeing a second skull of John the Baptist, asking how this could be so, and being told: "The other one was from when he was a boy." '

        3. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Pascal's wager.  I wrote a whole hub on it.  Thanks, I just won a bet on how long it would take until that came up.

      2. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Jesus spoke.. even though someone comes back from the dead, they still would not believe.      you are proving yourself a negatron of unbelief.. Because one DID come back from the dead.. in reecent enough history there is plenty of RECORDED first hand witness.  evidence that the secular world has tried very hard to erase, to hide, to disprove, and finally ignore and not believe... if you won;t believe records from 1800-2000 years ago, then it appears very selective , event arrogant that you would believe "probable" threory, that has no recorded history, of what "possibly" happened 2 - 6 million years ago..  IMHO

        Beleive in God IS based on faith as well as fact. so if its needful for you to do so, keep your science studies separate.    i have no problem letting them entertwine.. and I for one belevie that we would have had it all fitting together Science and Bible if you had used your intelligence objectively to include substance with Faith..  before man even made his move to reach the moon, he engaged in a "beleif that he could.".   and man put his "faith" in the science programs, scientists experiments and trial and error. .. Just ask Neil Armstrong.. I could name some others.  What we have here is some boys still stuck in their egostical thoughts...   its mind blowing at best..    but have on..     tell others that the are lying..   tell others that they don't have a real experience.  But really.. you don't have much better..   
        Ponder it more..  the Word of God says... the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life..   I have abundant faith that if you put your intellectual rope around the mechanics of the internal spirit , it will get its grip on ya.  and you will be a changed man..  You do agree I suppose that your entire life can be changed instantly, right? if the right sequence of events happen?  perhaps it will..  God has ways of changing hearts..

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you think no one believed he came back from the dead and was the son of God? I doesn't make sense really does it. If I saw it with my own eyes and was a witness I'd believe it. Everyone would right? But they didn't did they and you don't know why? There is only one reasonable explanation but your not going to like it. The only possible explanation is that it never happened, but it made a good ending to the story. You need to understand this story was written for the Jews, but even jewish witnesses didn't by it because it never happened. That is the only explanation for why they didn't believe him.


          You're kidding yourself if you think the secular world needs to cover anything up. This is your indoctrination talking. Sure no thanks to Christianity doctors routinely bring back people who have been dead for a short time and sometimes they claim to have seen things, but studies have shown that they have never seen anything they could not have seen from there own perspective.


          Sure science and religion worked well together during the dark/middle ages?

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Seriously, Rad!    do you REALLY believe no one believes/ or believed that Jesus came back from the dead?   how many millions of believers, scholars and intectual, well educated are you dillusional of?  sorry.. man.  You're out of touch.. really.  the jews wanted to deny, to disbeleive for other reasons than to accept evolution,, that is bonifide for sure..  you should study WHY they refused to accept him as the son of GOd. it might open another of your spiritual senses..  yes.. even those who deny that they have spiritual senses have them.    an inner spirit. that has an author.  there is a God DNA within us.   I will have to come back at ya with that info.  i hate to leave ya hanging..
            but we have been left hanging out there a few billion light years as well looking for a self made man.   I submit that if he could have made himself in the first place he would have made himself a little more infallible. a little more indestructable.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Billions believe that, but that doesn't mean people can just come back from the dead. And, even if they did, do we just start worshiping them for something that happened beyond their control? Ridiculous.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                maybe a billion believe a bang a billion years ago too.. but that doesn't mean its true.. men are as ready to believe that even without proof. ridiculous.  men are desperate to believe "something" , don't you agree?

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is evidence for the big bang, none for God, but you worship him and nobody worship the big bang.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Only those men who operate on belief systems and have little to no understanding of the world around them.

                3. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  don't you think of dozens of zombies roaming the streets of jerusalem, hours of darkness, the curtain ripping in the temple and an earthquake MIGHT have been noticed by SOMEONE if any of it was true?  Yet it seems to slip the minds of people.....funny, that.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    you ascribe on the one side,  that the people of that day were superstitious,( which they were to a large degree) and you  state they weren't trustworthy accountants of history,      But yet,  on the other side,  you want us to "trust" their credibility?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps you misunderstood or more likely the case I didn't properly articulate my thoughts. I did not say no one today believes. No one believed it at the time. Does that not seem strange to you? All these Jews waiting for the prophesies to be revealed and when they are they don't believe? Sure 40 or 100 years after his death scriptures are written and some start to believe the scripture, but as the story goes, only his followers were believers. Sure seems strange to me.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't believe that no one believed at that  time, as you do.   Jesus went everywhere, and people beleived him everywhere..it spilled all over the earth with people believing him.. RIGHT from the start. = some of the statements made towards his existence are ill thought, ill prepared and slung out without thought to the lie they telling about history. Jesus life is recorded quite well. you just don't acknowledge your own historians, or practice fairness when dealing with your opponents.       Go ahead an feel strange.. I would too.   what I just said has meaning. no, you did articulate quite well.  thank you. 
                troubled-  btw.. you are troubled for you believe nothing. your own words thrown back at ya.. that is sad.  I will pray that you will believe at some point and have a better life.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't have to believe me, just look at the text.

                  Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

                  Some of his own disciples doubted him according to the story. Why? This guy was said to be dead for two or three day and he confronts his only followers and even they doubt?

                2. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  that's not true.  Examine the letters of Pliny and Tacitus - christianity was little more than a jewish cult until Constantine.  The myth that it spread like wildfire from the time of jesus' death until today is just that - a myth. It isn't supported by facts or evidence.

              2. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are articulate enough, and even rather blunt , at times, but that's ok.. thats your style.       God has his own style, as well, and we can't very  control him either, even as you are insistant we don't; try to control you.    Why not let God BE who he is.. just like you are who you are.
                Note:.. Yes, it was very hard for the disciples to believe that Jesus had come back from the dead, but that is becasue we are trained in the natural realm.  God does things that break natural laws.. because he is transitional to time and space..       --    just like people today WANT to conquer that realm, in context of "Time Travel" and of course space travel. .. we are doing better at that one, so far.    Yes, too, modern day scientist have a knack for "reading rocks"...  but yet when they look back at previous civilizations doing basically the same thing, they are in denial that such could be realistic.  But there were intelligent people back then.. only technology wasn't as developed to what it is now.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I like this, your trying to tell me that Jesus's own followers didn't believe he rose from the dead even though he stood directly in front of them. So these guy following him around believing he was the son of God were surprised and were themselves in disbelief when he returned? Him returning wasn't enough for the Jews either? But you two thousand and some odd years later are convinced?

                  Your are right that there were intelligent people back then as well, perhaps the jews who were direct witnesses new better?

        2. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          there are  recorded first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses.  Even biblical scholars worldwide agree on that.  Do you claim to know more than them?

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You guys have got to get together and perhaps agree which story to tell..
            again.  the fact that there were eyewitnesses.  to you does that mean it happened or didn't happen? at least agree on the logic..  peter first doubted but then he believed.  did you get the whole story?  Thomas doubted lest he could put his hand into Jesus side. and he did. and he beleived from that day forward.  men died for thier belief. many many men died for their belief.    Yes the sanhedrin said lets cover it up.. lets hide it.. by their words to the roman government.  You don;t have to understand that if you're not interested in this. right out of the tomb.. they paid off the soldiers not to tell. So the records show.I don't think it is practical or logical for you to borrow their reasoning for this..  Jesus presence was upsetting to them.. DO you really know why?   how can you add their testimony to your arguement then?    its very pick and choose up in here !..   I'm not going to reprove anything to someone who doesn;t want to know. who doesnt really give a care about it. .  It stands for itself of what it is.. regardless of you or me.  its part of our homo sapien history.. even as much as other supposed ignorant ones that you easily throw in the ditch because of your supposed higher knowledge..  let me speak of a higher knowledge and then you duck and run.. becasue you don't share the experience that goes with.. the spiritual side of it. the inner spirit of man.    LIfe exists without  you.  without and before the advent of mans scientific experiments I might add.      Jesus confounded the wise of his day.. perhaps he stood on your level ? or maybe higher in understanding of life!  have you honestly considered that?    that would be humbleness.  IMHO

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry ! the above was not intended to those who DO believe in a higher, spiritual experience.  >

              I have personal encounters.. but I wouldn't care to throw them out here for you to debate.  they are mine.        worldwide and time eternal wise, others have similar and greater personal testimonies of experiences with a higher power.  My opinion is these accounts should be allowed in the searches for a higher existence. which is perhaps not exactly your study.    But note that one of the MAIN reasons for search of the planets is for higher intelligence.. Of course mans way, according to the human sciences, but nonetheless its being explored as we speak.  and yes they are finding some pretty amazing things.  but let me ask.. what platform will you stand on if they DO find the existence of GOD out there in scientific measurements? 
              -- I can answerr this myself.. they will try to manage it.. they will try to control it.. and they will try to reduce it to their terms.. But once they find him, he will NOT be controlled.   Only by his terms.. For HE is God. omniscient, omnopotent, and omnipresent. . all powerful, all knowing and all present.  Yes I would want to find him and get connected to that life source too, if I felt I already wasn't... just saying..

            2. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You of all people are in no position to judge my humbleness - or anyone else's.  Who are your eyewitnesses?  None of them write a gospel.  The authorship of the epistles of peter are hotly debated.  There is no grands conspiracy except in the Bible - and of course it would say that in order to cover its own ass.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  How could the Sanhedrin (who was repressed and controlled) cover up zombies, earthquakes and hours of darkness in the middle of the day?  No one noticed at all, and there were plenty of.contemporary historians that were documenting other things - except for ANYTHING about Jesus at all.  Your personal experiences are personal.  You can't prove them (which is most likely why you won't even talk about them) and you know turret don't Clint as evidence.  Millions of people claim to be abducted by aliens, but you probably don't believe them.  So what?  Go ahead and pray for me.  I'll THINK for you.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                see.. you fit the role I spoke of..  maybe I fit the role you speak of.. then we disagree, but nonetheless.  as someone else said. What have you gained if you disprove God for yourself, except another personal opinion?

                What have you lost if you prove God for yourself and share the experience?
                I personally think the answer is bigger than me, bigger than you..bigger than this planet.  Its HUGE...   bigger than any mountain or microbe that you can or cannot see. bigger than any problem.   You just can't get your scientific rope around all of it.. and never will..  its bigger than you and me..    Yes I like coffee.  yes you can smell coffee.  and yes you can feel Gods presence.      If you are ever privileged to feel it , you will know..  you won't need a science book.  You won't ever doubt again.. once you meet God and experience his love and power.

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, I was a believer for 25 years, until I realized there was no justification for blind faith.  I don't worship science.  I don't have faith in science.  I don't need faith, and I don't have to take the word of a multi-thousand year old fairy tale to define my life and confine my experiences.  You didn't comment on any of the issues I brought up about the Bible.  Interesting.  AS far as the disciples being willing to die for a lie, out at least what they believed to be true.  People die for less all the time.  Nine people killed several thousand others by flying planes into buildings for a religion you most likely believe to be a lie because it contradicts yours.  It doesn't make the story true.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image91
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Also, I don't have to disprove god.  You, and others like you carry the burden of proof because you are making the positive claim.  The fact if the mater remains that you have failed.

  19. Smokes Angel profile image73
    Smokes Angelposted 3 years ago

    let the doubters doubt for I know Jesus lives in me through His Holy Spirit... you can argue until you're blue in the face but the fact is CHRIST IS ALIVE TODAY

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's nice.  Prove it.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        JM - disprove it

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, no.  The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not on the listener.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            She has offered you her proof ..  you have a choice to believe or disbelieve..  just as I do, and just as we all do.. 

            read below.. her daughter experienced healing.  her daughter lives with her.   I choose to believe.   

              ... close your eyes a moment and imagine if it was yourself and your child..    If you still disbelieved- then ?   

            no! no!    I don't want to believe even if you show me!    sorry..      its ok though... its late.. 

            thanks smoke angel..  I think we all believe you.

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              you haven't shown me anything.

              I could tell you that I have a purple pet dragon - do you believe me?

              A bunch of anonymous people making claims on the internet to complete strangers doesn't constitute proof, sorry.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This shows great disrespect from you!..        Smoke Angel is not a "bunch of people, and she is NOT anonymous..   

                are you speaking of yourself as the "stranger"  ?   

                Unless you didn't mean this?      your ppd is showing if you do.  smile

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, smokes angel is anonymous.  I don't know her name, I don't know anything about her, and I also have no way of researching her claim.  Conversely, my user name IS my name, and I I'm more than happy to provide backup for any claims I do have.  Do you believe therefore that I do have a purple pet dragon because I posted it on a forum, therefore it must be true?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's because the concept of "proof" in the religious sense is far different than what I would accept as "proof".

              She makes a (unsubstantiated) claim that church members laid hands on her daughter and subsequently the daughter was healed.  She assumes that the laying on of hands was the cause of that healing (through God) but made no effort to ascertain that.  She made no tests with other similarly afflicted children to see if they could be helped as well.  She did not look at other children that did not receive the help of the church.  She made no effort to find out if atheists (with their empty words and gestures) could produce the same effect. 

              In short she claims a correlation in time between two actions and because she is ignorant of other causal effects declares it the work of God.  That type of "proof" is valuable only in the religious field, where truth and knowledge are not the goal, but a bolstering of faith is.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                well, thanks for making the distinction.     but again, she has her daughter and she is healed.  what other proof would one possibly want?   I believe she could produce doctors evidence if she wanted.  She could take statements from each and every one who witnessed it.  still some would not believe..  you know that..    they don't really want scientific proof.  They only want to prove that God is not real. that there is not miracles.. that there is not life outside of mans own invention. But the silly thing is that man never invented himself.  he never could breathe on his own. he is limited certain laws of existence.   Yes I am willing to talk about those laws of existence, but I cannot deny God.  I choose not to deny God. You cannot prove their is no God.. But events such as this strongly suggest a supernatural spirit, or "being" outside of the explainable laws of science.. and yes we could argue that day after day.       

                your claim that her statement is unsubstantiated is purely conjecture on your part.      It is only unsubstantiated to you.    I am sure you are welcome at her  church, as long as you are respectful.   And I realize I take a lot of liberty in saying that..   she MIGHT not want such anonymous men in her world/ life.
                And you assume she is ignorant of causal effects may be your downfall should you go there... assumptions of themself are not scientific btw.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  See?  You are doing the same thing.  You're not interested in hard evidence of a miracle; all you need are statements that there was a correlation in time between two isolated actions.  All those things you would accept as proof (observer statements, doctor statements etc.) can witness ONLY that correlation and not actually provide corroborating evidence of God's intervention in a natural occurrence.  Even the doctor can only state the he is ignorant of any natural cause, not that it was God.

                  Would you accept the same level of evidence if it weren't religious?  Say you stumble in your yard, spilling a quart of oil.  Three days later your neighbor, putting up Christmas lights, falls off the roof and breaks his leg.  He claims your oil contaminated his well, causing minor pneumonia and dizziness which is why he fell.  He wants you to pay for his medical bills.

                  Will you pay, or will you ask for evidence?  Will you make him test his well water?  If he finds traces of hydrocarbons, will you make him show that they are the same as the brand of oil you spilled?  Will you make him show a reasonable path for oil to travel between the spill and his well?  Will you dump a different brand in the same spot and look for it to show up in the well in three days?  Will you ask for proof that he didn't spill some himself, or any other neighbor?

                  Why isn't that kind of evidence required in showing a miracle?  Why is a simple claim that God did it accepted instead of testing further? As I say, it's a "feel good" thing - it makes the believer happy to see "proof" of his God and God's love for him.  Whether it actually does that or not is immaterial - only the perception that it does counts and if that requires that no further investigation be done (so that it cannot be found to be natural) then that's fine. 

                  Events such as these do not offer strong proof of a supernatural spirit, or any proof at all.  What they DO offer is proof that people want their God badly enough that they are happy accepting any conclusions that agree with that want, while ignoring conclusions and data that doesn't.

                  There is nothing actually wrong somehow with that approach to "prove" God.  At least not until the speaker attempts to use the same reasoning on someone that doesn't have that tremendous desire for belief.  At that point the discussion falls apart; the believer can't understand why their
                  proof is not accepted and the non-believer can't understand why the believer is saying such things as they have nothing to do with the discussion.

                  1. Oscarlites profile image57
                    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    whether it's "feel good" or being thankful that it happened. Its real enough. Life is real enough in the living of it and the  experiencing it.  It is a living evidence. its alive. yes you are right its different.. but its still real and undeniable to those living it. 
                    And the benefits as stated by this woman are tremnendous. Medical science has not offered a real cure for asthma.  doctors only treat the "symptoms" if they are there. The symptoms are the primary evidence of the asthma. therefore if the symptoms disapear, don't go back and try to make it reoccur.  thats my advice.  ( no I wouldn't want the second can of oil spilled. ) and if the neighbor made a claim, then if I felt I was at fault I would do my best to make it right.  but really!           here I must assert. - sometimes as you are suggesting very tacitly, lets leave the scientific work to the scientists.  I agree with that.  We can follow and study as we want.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but that is just something she said on an open forum and could very well be a lie.

                   

                  But, she won't because she can't.



                  Irrelevant, unless everyone actually witnessed God healing the person, the statements are meaningless.



                  Strawman fallacy.



                  Childhood indoctrination is mighty powerful.



                  You can't prove there is a God, hence your claims are meaningless.



                  It strongly suggests a lie and little more.

        2. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          why don't you understand that the person who is MAKING THE CLAIM to know that a god exists is the one who has the burden of proof. 

          In a courtroom, the defense attorney does not have to disprove that their client is guilty.  the prosecution, who is accusing them of guilt, has to prove them guilty.  You do not have to prove your innocence, and the jury never delivers a verdict of "innocent"  You are either guilty or not guilty.  For someone who claims to be so intelligent and knowledgeable, how do you NOT know anything about the burden of proof?  You're trying to shift the goalposts.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            you are exactly right..  but add the prosecution attorney role which you seem to be playing that role here. the preponderous of proving this witness as guilty is on you.  but this case is not going to happen.. for she is already pleading guilty as charged..   She does not have to defend that!

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not true.  I am not the prosecution.  You are claiming that your god exists, I'm asking for evidence to prove it.  You haven't given any.  I don't have to prove without a doubt that no god exists.  I'm not claiming that god doesn't exist concretely.  I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that he does.  You're so busy trying to shift the goalposts and insisting that its my job to prove you Wong, you haven't presented any evidence at all

    2. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      smile

  20. Smokes Angel profile image73
    Smokes Angelposted 3 years ago

    tell me then how my daughter was healed of her asthma when people from church laid hands on her? or the little boy i went to school with could see without retinas?  prove to them that Jesus doesn't exist

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those are obviously fabricated stories that only the gullible would swallow.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can you produce this person that can see without retina's? Surely there must be documented proof. The study must have been exhaustive? While I wait for you to produce the evidence I require I see if I can find this person myself.

      Edit: Strangely I found nothing?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think I've heard of something along those lines - a patient was fitted with cameras, a computer and direct brain stimulation and was able to see for the first time in his life.  Not well, but shapes at least.  I didn't realize that God was the designer of the equipment, though, or the surgeon arranging the implants.

        In a similar vein, people without an inner ear can hear.  The technical term is "cochlear implant" though, not "goddunnit".

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the correct answer. She of course will have none or she will not give the credit of those invention to where it's due, the scientist and doctors. They are incapable of giving credit where due or receiving fault where that's due. Thank God or blame Satan is the motto.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, of course not.  Miracles, perceived OR actual, will give a tremendous boost to faith and help quieten those small, questioning, voices,

            One should never look at a miracle and either try to find a natural cause/explanation or question it in any way.  To do so will almost always ruin the effect.  Miracles should never be tested or examined closely; just proclaim it as God's work and be happy.

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness I'm sorry man. sorry.. I didn't realize you had this post up..   it makes me have to apologize.. sincerely!

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ?? Forgiven, although I haven't a clue what you are apologizing for.

      2. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think her firsthand story of healing of her daughter stands on its on..  It is up to you to disprove it if that is your goal..  but you can't disprove..  she has stood up to you .    Truth, and miracles stand on their own. No one has to prove or disprove them.  they are personal experience ; proprietary rights of the one who received them.   Some scientists can't quite grasp the supernatural;  but perhaps some can.. just as the doctors that recognize and accept they are but "helpers" or "assistants".. as I have heard them say many times in my own life.

        (Wilderness you are back to your  hobby of trying to explain away what you don't understand.  this is not information you can "bat around" as you seem to be senselessly doing. ) ****** this was referring to the comment of cochlear..  I have posted an apology.. below wildernesses acknowledgement of God and Miracles.         

        Be careful Rad.. you are telling a real life person you don't believe their first hand account of observing an experience.. you are betraying your own "code" of discovery.

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You have a nasty habit of shifting the burden of proof which is common to apologists.  I don't have to disprove anything.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence prior to them being accepted as true - and you exhibit your knowledge of this for all the god claims that you  DON'T believe, yet seem incapable of applying the same logic to the god you like.  Someone saying something does not make it true.  To say otherwise while you do it yourself is the height of both arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're not understanding how this works. When someone makes a claim (in this case a miracle) that someone has to back up that claim. I asked for proof which is a reasonable thing to ask for. I've noticed that people in these forums from time to time make claims of miracles and no Christians ever ask for proof. This is someone they don't know and Christians just seem to except the claim without evidence. Do you think they are just gullible? What happens when someone shows up at the door and claims that God has blessed them with the ability to grow hair or straighten teeth, but they need $1000 to get started on the process. Do you just give them the money or do ask for evidence?

          All I ask is for documented evidence. I don't know this person and I'm not gullible.

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed.  I'm astounded that things are just accepted at face-value from complete strangers without question that's not how the world works.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              To make matters worse they become defensive if anyone asked for evidence as seen below when he tells me to be careful.

              "Be careful Rad.. you are telling a real life person you don't believe their first hand account of observing an experience.. you are betraying your own "code" of discovery."

              Perhaps I should make the claim that during a near death experience God spoke to me and revealed that the Muslims have it right. Jesus and Mohammad were both only prophets. I bet then they'd be less gullible.

              1. JMcFarland profile image91
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He told me that she's not a complete stranger because her name is Smoke's Angel and how dare I not believe her at her word.  (I'm paraphrasing, but it was something to that affect).

                I'm sorry, but when it comes down to it, I may trust some of the things that you say, for example, because I respect you, and I've followed you around the forums.  If, however, you start telling me that your house rests on the back of a gigantic turtle, and when it belches it causes earthquakes, I would require something in the way of evidence.  It seems to work for everything - except for the one religion he clings to.

                Try this one on for size. (and I'm speaking to the gullible one, not you)

                I am god.

                Prove that I'm not :-)  By his logic, that should be sufficient for him to start sending me a stipend, don't you think?

              2. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Joesph Smith did basically that already. He said God showed me all the religions are confusing everyone..  Here is the right one .  he mentioned visitng 30 Churchs in Upstate New York.    now there are 31 to confuse people.  but that is what he thought of too, in order to get followers. Like you said fantastic claims get fantastic response. (lots of people beleived him)   but God didn't come after, he came before the other Gods, and religions. I agree , organized religions have their problems..   You can refute though all you want, but it doesn't make God or miracles any less real.  Yes you ( men) and (women)  have taught me better to stand up for myself.  and for what I believe.  sorry that bothers you so much.   No knowing any of you in person, I don't know whether to REALLY care whether you are real Atheists, agnostics, etc  however..   Why should I believe you that what you say is real or not?   (your own counter conclusions).     But You personally are not carrying a claim such as this woman who is a modern day miracle receiver.. .. you are also not even carrying evidence that we popped out of a proton.. ..  If you were, now THAT would be in the papers.. ( I think) if enough people believed you..            But I generally respect you and that you do believe what you say you believe ..  now there is an example of trust..   I don't know that I would trust you beyond that.. but there is a chance.. 50/50  or so..

                Biblical proof of prophecy is stated in the Bible.. If what a proophet declares to you comes to pass, then he is a true Prophet.  but don't get excited.  he's not talking about simple man made predictions..

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  here is the thing about prophecy Oscar.  If you actively work to fulfill it, it's not a fulfillment of prophecy.  If you spin the prophecies to make them fit the way you want them to (as the gospel of matthew did) it's not prophecy. 

                  The jews for the most part don't accept jesus as the messiah.  Why?  Because they have a WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF PROPHECIES that pertain to the messiah.  Christians went through the old testament with a fine-toothed comb to pick out bits and pieces that they could then claim were prophetic to fit the life of jesus (if he indeed had a life) that's not fulfillment of prophecy.  and NO ONE seems to pay any attention to the prophecies that NEVER were fulfilled, like the destruction of tyre, or Jesus telling his disciples that he would return before all of them were dead.  We're still waiting, 2000+ years later.  Guess he was mistaken.  Funny, that, since he's supposed to be all-knowing and all. (but then again, jesus wasn't even considered to be god until about 200 years after his death when the council of Nicaea declared him divine and human.  Up until then, the large majority of christians didn't even believe in his divinity at all.)

        3. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hilarious. She can say whatever she wants on an open forum, that doesn't mean it's true. Most likely, she is lying.



          Sorry,  but that is pure nonsense. Personal experiences mean squat.



          Sorry,  but scientists understand the supernatural is meaningless.



          Yeah, sure you have. roll

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            it is truly  SAD.. that you fail to see that as wonderful as all the world is and as expansive as space is.  that you fail to comprehend  WHO man is, WHAT man is, WHERE man is, and HOW man is.    - and to take advantage of that experience..    I'm not sure you are even riding the rollercoaster or the ferris wheel..   are you in oblivion?       Hey,  this life we're on is quite the experience. hey , stop and smell the roses!    you're not a robotic rock!        can I get you a cup of coffee? do you enjoy coffee?     wink

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hogwash. That's exactly what I do spend my time trying to understand.



              Gibberish.

              1. Oscarlites profile image57
                Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hogwash? Gibberish?           

                wow.. that must be quite a study..         

                btw.. not laughing at ya..   laughing with ya!

                I'm glad you are trying to understand..

  21. Oscarlites profile image57
    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago

    I accidentally deleted this when I was trying to add content.. ( sometimes my computer is prehistorically slow..)   


    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    No .. burden of proof is on God.  he said try ME and see.. I'm sorry you feel that he failed.  I'm also sad about the loss of lives that you speak of. I have pity for people with those beleifs.   

    SAD ABOUT THE  SCHOOL CRISIS! SO SAD 

    JM   I am the proof;  the ones that have posted on here that DO have an experience are proof.. we are alive, we have the experience, and we are duplicating it every day.   you just aren't willing to accept it.     I have been physically healed, with doctors present. but you would never accept one doctors opinion, OR documents.  you want a million and still you might not believe..   you might be blinded to truth, as someone said earlier. 

    Someone told me today of one of our ancestors. how he was blind his last few years.. and yet he learned how to follow a string to get to the outhouse, and to go all the way around his farm/ homestead. people in a blizzard have used strings , ropes to get them back to safety when they needed to rescue someone or feed the livestock..   God said "there is a plumbline in Israel."  He gave us a safety line.. it is our choice to follow it or to lose it and be lost.

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      good night ......

    2. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      you were miraculously healed in front of doctors?  Where are the documents and peer reviewed journals about it, because all of the doctors I know would be all over it.

      Do you know that out of the prayer studies conducted to try and determine the effectiveness of prayer has shown repeatedly that people who know they are being prayed for after a surgical procedure do WORSE than the people who are not?

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not So.. I have seen time and again where studies show that people WITH faith and prayer do MUCH better..       

        on your comment. -doctors usually leave miracles and things they can't explain by medical science alone.  Some do give great credit to God or a higher power.. and many many doctors practice and have their own faith.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          JM statement:
          Do you know that out of the prayer studies conducted to try and determine the effectiveness of prayer has shown repeatedly that people who know they are being prayed for after a surgical procedure do WORSE than the people who are not?
          _________________________
          Oscarlites statement:
          Not So.. I have seen time and again where studies show that people WITH faith and prayer do MUCH better..       

          on your comment. -doctors usually leave miracles and things they can't explain by medical science alone.  Some do give great credit to God or a higher power.. and many many doctors practice and have their own faith.

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            and many do not.  Look up the prayer study.  seriously.

            http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/ … euters.pdf

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is false, those studies produced no such results.



          So what?

  22. JMcFarland profile image91
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    By your own logic, therefore, you should be able to prove that I don't have a purple pet dragon.  Go for it.

    1. Oscarlites profile image57
      Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      if you say you have a purple pet dragon, then I accept that.   it doesn't make it true or not true. I have no desire to disprove you.  I'll let you keep it and whatever else you want it for.  If you don't really have it, then why would you mention it?   

      http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_ … fm?id=1398

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Great, that was easy. You're gullible, I get that. But we are not as gullible and require evidence. Gather your evidence and display or stop making claims that a God exists please.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          haha.   I'm not gullible because you say so. you aren't THAT simple to believe that , are you?

      2. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, Oscar - I have now had the time to read your link.

        I disagree.

        Point number 1: I don't consider myself to be proud.  There's a lot that I don't know, and I'll be the first person to admit when I don't know something.  That's not proud - that's human.  My pride has nothing to do with my lack of a belief in god.  My morals do.

        Point number 2: I resent the implication that I'm ignorant.  I have a college level education on theology, scripture and apologetics from a very prestigious christian school.  I read the bible in hebrew, greek and latin.  Ignorance is the people that accept whatever they're told without question - regardless of the lack of evidence.  As to the power of god - what power?  I was a believer for 25 years and in the missionary field for several more.  So what?

        If someone could provide ANY evidence whatsoever, I would be open minded enough to consider it.  Don't you have a better source than the "blue letter bible"?  Seriously?  I could give you a link to the church of the flying spaghetti monster - would you believe in him since you read it on the internet?

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is why one would have no credibility, they accept outrageous and extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence.

  23. Oscarlites profile image57
    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago

    do you ask for how many people have had their lives saved by your doctor? do you ask, how many hearts have you transplanted?   really?  do you ask him to pull his credentials out of his pocket?   you are just as blind..   I think I remember Jesus saying just about the same thing to a bunch of publicans and lawyers and they slank away.. another place he said  "let the one that has Not commited adultery throw the first stone!."  they all fled from before him..  too bad you weren't there huh,..   you would have stood up to him?   or would you have let the woman was being judged walk away as he did?  why do people hate truth so much? why do they hate hate hate..  No one that I know hates the fact that he died for our sins..  but they hate that he claims to have created the universe. that he has all power. they try every day to proof that he didn't.. they try to get people to be quiet about him..  why don't those people  take it up with him.    He said he will listen to you if you are truthful and sincere.. can you not do that, long enough to ask.. GOD are you real?

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      you get that the story in John that you're referring to wasn't even IN the gospel of John until it was added by a scribe several hundred years later, right?  I bet your bible even says it in the notes under the passage.  It never happened.  It wasn't in the gospel until someone added it hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived.  Come up with a more relevant example, please.

      and I DO ask for my doctor's credentials, thank you very much.  If you don't do your research before receiving treatment, you are even more ridiculous than I thought you were.  Additionally, I don't hate fairy tales.  You get that I don't believe in Jesus or god, right?  How could I hate something that I don't even believe is real?  Do you hate the boogeyman?  Do you hate santa clause?  Do you hate my purple pet dragon?  No.  You don't believe in them.  Why do you ASSUME that a lack of belief, and the ridicule of ridiculous beliefs amounts to hate?  Are you THAT narrow minded and incredulous that you simply cannot accept that other people don't conform to your narrow, insignificant god-box so you have to inject hate into the equation.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        you SOUND hateful in this text.. why?

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not hateful.  I just find it funny that out of all the scriptures you can quote, you quote a passage that is accepted by all biblical scholars to be a known forgery.  I don't like being accused of hating something - especially when it's a something I don't even believe exists.  Do you understand how silly that is?  Do you waste a lot of time hating things that you don't even believe in?

    2. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      On top of all that - you have your fingers in your ears, or blind-glasses on.  How many times do I have to tell you I WAS a christian for over 25 years?  I did the song and dance and happy-kool-aid dance thingie.  I woke up.  Studying the bible allowed me to become an atheist.  I did the whole "god are you real" bologna.  Still an atheist.  how are you not comprehending this?

      The idea that an all-powerful, all-benevolent super being created the world so flawed that he had to come up with a plan to save it from the rules that he imposed in the first place, so he sent himself to earth as a human being in order to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for his OWN creation is so ridiculous that I pity your ignorance.  god is supposed to be all-powerful.  Why demand blood/burning flesh or death at all?  Why not just say "you know what, my laws were kind of stupid, and you're going to disregard them all eventually anyway when you move out of the bronze age, so I'll just forgive you for them, cause I'm god and I can"? 

      Any god that would enjoy the smell of burning flesh, thinks that forcing a woman to marry her rapist, condones slavery and hates women is not a moral god.  Any god that would create a place like hell to send all of the people who use the brains that he created them to have to not believe in him is not a moral god.  He's a mob-boss.  He stands up there and says "if you don't do what i say, i'm going to torture you forever - and by the way, if you call my prophet bald, I'm going to send 2 she-bears to maul 42 children to death", is not a moral, just or good god.  Any god that thinks that the murder of an innocent is good enough to save the guilty so they never have to be accountable to their crimes is not a moral god.  Any god that demands worship and adoration instead of earning it is an egomaniac.

      Any god that would allow a teenage girl to be raped, murdered and mutilated but sends her to hell because she didn't believe in him, while also allowing her rapist to go to heaven because of a death-bed conversion is repulsive.  How does any of this make sense to you?  How is any of this acceptable to you, and how can you POSSIBLY give this tyrant any adoration at all?

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        All I can respond with, JM, is go ahead and get it all out.. we're listening..

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Any god that would allow a teenage girl to be raped, murdered and mutilated but sends her to hell because she didn't believe in him, while also allowing her rapist to go to heaven because of a death-bed conversion is repulsive.  How does any of this make sense to you?  How is any of this acceptable to you, and how can you POSSIBLY give this tyrant any adoration at all?"

        God gave us paradise at first and mankind fell away from it and everything that happens, happens because of some evil in a mans heart.
        How do you propose that God correct these types of situations? God has allowed mankind to govern themselves - God will help anyone who calls upon his name - but God will not teleport any offender to another place, God will not kill people because their intentions are evil.  All the harm that falls on mankind is mankinds responsibility and not that of a magic God, who is restrained by the same laws of nature and physics that we know of today.
        Human beings are a stubborn race. We will sit comfy and suck up all the resources around us and live in a comfy lifestyle until the cows come home or some affliction; losing a job, moving home because of family crisis, sickness.. atheists look at God as the marvellous, nay miraculous cure all of everything but they forget to take that off the paper and try to apply it ubiquitously across the board, When one does one soon finds out that stopping all injustice and horrendous crimes would change our physical laws forever and it would be a much bigger job and it would ruin our chances to come to God of our own free decision. Our own free decision is so very important because love is the issue. "Love the lord your God with all your heart... how can we do this when he is our jail keeper, whisking people around the planet on the whims of their evil yetzer hara nature?
        IF atheists really look objectively and without bias at their beliefs they are more ludicrous than some of the christian beliefs.

        Btw, hell is a catholic invention to control the masses. God does not send people to hell... john 3:16.. god sent his son... whosoever believes.. would not perish... perish means to be destroyed fully, completely.

        1. Oscarlites profile image57
          Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          gosh, now I am learning again, how can I leave?   

          God did physically enforce his laws in the old covenant OT:  HE was the Lawman (sos)... but in the new, he chose to let us play it out.. our way perhaps?   but with a choice to call on him..  doesn't mean he is overlooking anything..

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            People did what they did in the OT as well and things like what happen today, although car accidents were so very much less frequent.

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, yes.  I didn't have any options when I had a heart attack, but before going back for follow up visits I made sure that he was far from a novice in the cardiac field.

      When I had a crystalens implant put into my eye, the doctor I chose had done more implants (by a large margin) than anyone within 500 miles.  And not from his words, either - the company that sells those lenses provided the information.

      I don't want to guess with my life, physical or otherwise.  I don't want to make unwarranted assumptions without evidence.  I much prefer to know, where the word means more than a desire that it be true.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness..  I can respect that.   please believe though I might not convince some people on this post, God is very real to me. if they disagree with me or where I stand then we just have to disagree.  One day it will all be proven for each and every one.    One thing I learned of the roughest of fishermen and roustabouts on Bristol Bay.. They almost to the last one have told me , and I asked many.. the most common answer was "I can't see God, but I know he is there." Some have said "I know he's real, because I have felt his strength and he's given me wisdom and answers that I did not have within myself."   they have claimed to me "l know God exists, because evil exists.".    Science can't quite put a rope around that.., but they try.  plato, freud and others..  and the modern physiologies..  they try really hard..  but some people put a sign out; whether they see it or not, that  " I don't want proof"...and no wise person will ever waste his time to try to convince someone who has said within himself "there is no God."   though a man scream at God, and say "kill me right now if you are real", and a tree fall on his head, and he die, that man will not accept, but he will be dead nonetheless, and in judgement God would only have to say,  "hey I only did what you asked."  quoting someone else here, men can be very ignorant and arrogant..    I'm sorry if I said anyone was ignorant. that is not my purpose in being on this forum..  everyone has some intelligence. some just choose not to believe.  in that some of us disagree.  The Bible says "ye do well if you believe.. the devil also believes and trembles." But the devil isn't save nor is he going to be saved.    If anyoone though doesn't want the Ark to be discovered or proven, its lucifer.. the deciever..      its says ---2Cr 4:4   In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

        God is not blinding anyone , but the god of this world is.     Jesus also said in the gospels, blessed are those who have seen me and believe, but more blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.
        I do not know how to prove the Gospel to anyone that has a closed mind to it. Or that requires proof in a specified way that by its own logic denies the existence of an intelligent creator, yet demands everyone to live by intelligence such as some seem to do on this forum.. sounds kinda simple minded and wishy washy..  ..    but let me ask YOU one more question before I bow outa here..  if you were found out at a campsite, stricken with a stroke , or symptoms, and drug into a strange hospital, or clinic, and they engaged to operate on you before you could affirm thier credentials, or perhaps you were so badly ill that you couldn't tend to that task prior to being saved, what then?  would you deny that you were well? recovered? ( I know these are hypothetical) but do you get my point? would you scream foul! or pursue a lawsuit as some ambulance chasers do today, in case something goes wrong? or would you appreciate the humane sincere efforts of others to save you? All you would have at that point would be circumstantial evidence, correct? you would just have to accept then, that you are recovered, or?      I'm interested to know..

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I understand that your God is very real to you as well, and that to take that away would be to take away a part of what makes you you.

          That God isn't real to me, and I don't think He's real to the universe either, but that needn't and shouldn't affect you.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is highly unlikely and is a claim made by every believer of pretty much every religion for their particular god. God is no more real for you than the invisible purple dragon living in my garage is for me.

             

          Baloney. One does not lead to the other. Evil can exist without the need for gods.



          That would be good evidence for their intelligence.



          No, there would be documented evidence of everything that occurred. No, I don't get your point.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            then , by your own thinking, there are no opposites.   >>>>>>I<<<<<<

            1. Oscarlites profile image57
              Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Evil has no master?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Man.  Man would be evil's master.  Or it's subject, take your choice.

                Evil is not a living organism, nor even in inanimate object.  It is a construct of mans mind, a name given to actions mankind finds wrong somehow. And no, there are no actions that intrinsically wrong; at one time or another man has found every conceivable thing right (and wrong for that matter).

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, from where do you draw such silly conclusions?

          2. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No way!  You have an invisible pet purple dragon, too?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Waahh!  I want one!  Mine's just a dirty gray, and not pretty at all.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They're all the rage.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have a small visible orange one. We pretend he's a dog so as not to upset the neighbours.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7483977_f248.jpg

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  this made me laugh so hard I snorted my soda.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Careful, you can tell by his eyes he can go off at any moment and certainly doesn't like snorted soda. I will attempt to shield him from your comments.
                    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7484207_f248.jpg

          3. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Evil could exist without God, but God points the way to goodness, which might not be easily found if not for God as the hearts of men were wicked and a flood was used ... We put to much onice on our society being so very much like theirs, which is rubbish.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your ridiculous and obvious contradictions are so blatant, it's laughable.

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If genocide is God's goodness, I certainly want no part in it.

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You do not take into consideration anything vital to making the right conclusion. You do not understand the primitive violence of those times and that war was a way of life. You do not understand the seriousness of the situation or of Gods protective love for His people. You totally skip over what is going on now with God and the planet and You understand nothing of what you debate and therefore as you have proven by your posts, no debate exists.
                  have many nice days

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The great man with understanding, you?
                    You have no understanding of science, your comments lack logic and your morals are primitive, if not barbaric.You know nothing( or can't think) outside a book written by fanatic bandits which you believe with all abandon, which you rationalize and justify as you want, and say who ever didn't do or think as you did, do not know anything, and you accuse me of lack of understanding, great! And this is the great christian love and humility. Sick!

                    "Gods protective love for His people"
                    Which god, which people? How many gods are there?
                    God's people? Then whose are the rest? Who created them?
                    If you have two children and one of them didn't obey you and could think for himself, would you kill him?
                    I think you would, as you would only want puppets and you can protect the puppet from the other.

                    Or are you a priest?  Then it is understandable that you accuse anybody who threaten your profession with lack of understanding. It is then, to your best interest, to keep as many people in the dark as possible.

              2. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Now that's laughable, you are truly comedic

        3. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The blinding that God does is a blinding by UNrevelation. God does not reveal because "their hearts were hard" and they had no place for truth.
          If we look at 2 cor 3:14 "but their minds were blinded" 2 cor 3 talks about this blinded state of Gods people and vs 21 says Now the lord is that spirit (that reveals) [or does not reveal]
          So the blinding that God (yahweh) does is not a stick in the eye blinding but a situation of not revealing. 
          The word god (small g) is a translator interpretation of the same word used for God, theos.
          This passage cannot be used to prove a biblical satan.

          "The Bible says "ye do well if you believe.. the devil also believes and trembles."  This scripture comes from the book of James who in acts 21:20  ran a compromised church (for they were zealous of the law of moses);  Christ for salvation but the law for righteousness. Since the jewish nation blamed devils for every medical and bad experience they experienced we can say that James would carry this belief into his church, as all of the jewish nation believed in devils, Sooo when james says the devils believe and tremble he most probably, i believe, believed that, but James' 1/2 mosaic and 1/2 jesus blended religion does not make devils true.  Devils are false and non existent and if one does the study, quite UN-new testament and old testament too, because this devil belief has some root in Egypts' religions but mostly comes from the  Persian (Zoroastrian) and Babylon time of exile.
          Points to ponder

        4. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No one can prove the bible to those who do not believe.
            Hebrews 6:4   For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
            Hebrews 6:5   And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
            Hebrews 6:6   If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing (as) they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

          Those who rail against God are impossible to convert, seeing as they rail against God every day, these are reprobates and their heart is hard.

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So I guess you don't believe in any of the famous conversions of people who claimed to be atheists and then became christians, like the kook Kirk Cameron, Lee Stroble, CS Lewis, etc that the famous christian apologists like to parade in front of crowd whenever possible.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Seeing as they crucify..". its a matter of heart problem here that is being spoken of. When they stop crucifying... then they can be turned to the lord... but not until.  See the difference?

  24. Oscarlites profile image57
    Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago

    you say, "somehow"   ... but where are your principles and laws that  premise your finding of evil?   

    you tripped up.. You DO recognize Evil as an unseen force, that creates negative actions. Yet you don;t pretend to understand it..   hmmmmmmmm

    widerness, Jm, troubled, rad, who else?     comon,,,  enlighten us further.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    Webster:
    1evil adjective \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
    evil·er or evil·lerevil·est or evil·lest
    Definition of EVIL
    1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
    2a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
    3a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can you please be more specific as to who or what you're replying to? Why do I and others have to guess what "somehow" is referring too. I'll gladly address evil when you address what your talking about.

    2. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      is evil absolute?  Is murder, for example, or genocide always an act of evil?  What would you consider evil to be?

      It is not a supernatural force, dude - it's completely subjective and has to be examined within context and culture.

      1. Oscarlites profile image57
        Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes  .   President Obama has mentioned the absolute evil that happened this past week..    Its real man.    You can argue it any way you want but  there is your event.  Evil Is Real . It can take control of a person. science study or no science study.  there is something inside your soul that tells you its wrong to kill your fellow man.  Evil is the force that activates the trigger.    what culture and context do you want to compare this to?

        I'm sorry.. I'm out of here for tonight.  I for one pray for those victims of the very terrible evil that just occurred.

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          George Bush Sr. also said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.  Just because someone says something does not make it true. 

          Here's the thing, Oscar, and feel free to respond tomorrow when you have time.

          Would you Consider Hitler's actions to be evil?

          Nevermind the fact that Hitler claimed to be a catholic.  If murder is absolutely evil all of the time, and genocide is even more so - how did the god of the bible command genocide repeatedly.

          If slavery is evil, why does the bible condone it?

          If rape is evil, why is the penalty to force the woman to marry her rapist - according to the "good book" anyway.

          Christians believe that lying is absolutely wrong.  Consider the following scenario. 
          You wake up in the middle of the night because someone is pounding on your door.  You go to answer it, and it's your neighbor's wife, sporting a bloody nose, a black eye, and a few other injuries. You let her in and she tells you that her husband beat her to a bloody pulp.  Soon, your door is being pounded on again.  You tell her to wait, and you go to answer it.  It's her husband.  He demands to know where his wife is.  Do you do what the bible commands and tell the truth - or do you lie and tell him that you don't know to protect an innocent life?

          Evil is subjective, and it's relative.  It is not a supernatural "force" that possesses people or causes things to happen.

          1. Oscarlites profile image57
            Oscarlitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JM..  I'm glad that you still believe in right and wrong  ... ther is another alternative here. whether I told him the truth or not, ( and I could ask for forgiveness, if I did (not).), I would likely at least try to constrain him, contact the police.. look here, I might NOT turn the other cheek. I would take whatever measures at my disposal to protect her. 
            Bush?  Hitler?  totally two different situations. Hitler was at least driven by evil, ( in the world I live in)..  the embodiment of evil . and had a lot of power to carry out his evils..  It took the entire United States, France, England, Russia, and a few more countries to stop him, but thank God we did.    ( I came back online. thanks.).   let me ask you, would you have liked living in the world he was trying to create?     there were a lots of followers...suggesting that evil beliefs are indoctrinable.  Lucifer / Satan exists. Evil Exists.

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Russia moved to stop Hitler, yet Russia was a secular country, was it not?  Americans DID live in the world that he was trying to create - and they stood on the sidelines refusing to get involved, regardless of the proven atrocities that were taking place - until Japan bombed us on our own soil.

              There is no more proof of lucifer/satan etc than there is of your god.  Although, without a satan, humans would have no need of a god to "save" them.  maybe that's why god supposedly created satan in the first place, palled around with him whenever the mood struck and allowed him to torture his faithful followers at will to prove how great he was.

              Would you like to live in the age of the Inquisition?  the Witch Hunts?  The crusades?  You know, the world when christians were killing those that disagreed with their opinions on a massive scale regardless of guilt?  How about through the reformation when christians were killing other christians?  The bible has caused more bloodshed than any other book in history. 

              Take a look at the book itself.  God goes out of his way to list murder in the 10 commandments, then commands his chosen people to massacre entire races.  he sends bears to mutilate children because they called his prophet bald.  Rape isn't so bad, really - in fact, if the woman doesn't scream loud enough - stone her.  Kill disrespectful children.  THAT to me is what evil incarnate would be - if evil was a being on its own.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "he sends bears to mutilate children because they called his prophet bald."
                the 'children' is really more accurately translated 'little ones', little ones are any age under 20. Now what is not commonly known about the time in which this verse occurs, is that unwanted children were cast out or left home or became homeless, some kids were just rebellious, living in caves or whatever apart from towns, employment and an easy life. Many of these rejected children became rejected adults and most certainly all became beggars, robbers and thieves indeed, bandits just to survive.
                Now we notice that there were 40 of them, that is quite a lot of desperate robbers, looking for a quick profit, so we have in actuality a gang situation against one man. Put yourself in that situation, 40 to one and this is no small trifle affair, this means life and death.
                Calling someone baldy refers to the pagan practice of shaving the head and beard, in short, perhaps metaphorically a huge insult with even worse intentions behind it.  Go up, means to worship in the high places or groves where pagans built altars to their Gods.
                So we see a large gang, wanting something to make their life easier, even if it resulted in the death of another.
                There are many ways that God could have handled this situation, in fact there could have been no homeless or rejected children if God .... well that's a pipe dream because we are allowed to govern ourselves and pick and choose what we do... God could have sent down fire, God could have teleported them to another country, God could have said, hey go a different way.. but bears were used, and since this is knowledgeable  meat and not milk, bears were necessary for the job but i will not reveal this. If you want to look it up yourself do a study on bears in the OT.

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hitler was driven by evil?
              Then was your god driven by evil when he commanded genocide?

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hitler was driven by politics and the political or masonic group that put this unknown man quickly into power.  Germany is in the center of europe and that put germany, at that time, smack dab in the middle of trouble. Germany could either sit and wait and watch or do something, because either way, they were gonna be in the war whether they liked it or not.
                Remember coca colas debut on the american scene, laced with cocaine. It is purported that germany, in order to rouse their people to a state of excitation, also introduced cocaine to the populace, unawares, just as in america.
                So we have some interesting information about germanys position and of course the ones who would worry the most would be the politicians, who, may have been masonic, like so many of the presidents of the united states.
                As to God commanding genocide, it is a very acute decision confronting some important issues at those times. The book of joshua depicts quite vividly the war that went on to possess the promised land. God said, wipe them out and the reason for this was because the hebrew people at that time, would have been plagued by war continuously - as war was a way to wealth and prosperity and land ownership - in those primitive times of an UNcivilized world. Also, God was concerned with the hebrews being influenced by the pagans who worshipped so many sundry gods.
                Love, wears many hats. Protection love is only concerned with protecting what it considers worthy of protection and will cross lines and go to extremes to ensure the safety and prosperity of those it is concerned with.
                Just two aspects for your consideration.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow.  So the Hebrews committed genocide (under God's instruction) because they didn't want the rightful owners of the land they stole to ever come back for it.

                  Maybe the Palestinians have it right after all.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    God owns the planet. It is all Gods land. There are no rightful owners except the land that is given by God. They did not steal the land. They did not do anything that any other nation would do to them or each other. Do you think the whole world was peaceful until the hebrews left egypt. lol.

                2. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  All except the Hebrews are scums and killing them is a glorious act! Hitler, may be god wanted Hitler to do the same act, as with Jesus he changed his mind about Hebrews!

                3. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The sick psychotic who treated people like scum and killed them, killing his own son/body is understandable, but to claim that this fellow loves humans is nauseating. And to think that there are some people depraved enough to justify this atrocious behavior is sickening.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    killed his own son.... the body God created is more to the term. God told Mary she was to conceive messiah. Did mary own messiah? No. Was He her son? No. Instead of God allowing Joseph to father Jesus, God fathered Jesus. Mary knew her place. Incubator. "woman, what have i to do with thee?"  John 2:4
                    Without getting into too much depth here, a body was needed both to die and to be resurrected. So where is this atrocious behavior of killing if then to resurrect? You clearly do not understand this importance.
                    When we get back to 4,000 yrs ago you seem to marvel at how barbaric things were and omgosh, you got something right! In the "old west" for example, they were called lawless times, no sherriff, the indians were slaughtered by the white man who brought slaves from africa. Finger pointing sucks doesn't it. The only difference here is that you choose to blame a holy God. A God who worked all things out for the better. He brought laws to the Hebrews and told them how to prosper in ridiculous ways, fallow the ground every 7th year... why would He even bother with that unless He cared. Sabbath rest.. what?   Few other Gods in time, if any, devoted so much effort into prospering their societies in fact, many Gods were much more feared than yahweh or Jesus. Zeus had this nasty habit of lightning bolt target practice. Balak wanted babies on his heated metal idol. Societies back in those barbaric times offered human sacrifice, but i don't see you up in arms about that.
                    hate eats a person up. I fear your plate is just about empty.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Would it have been evil to kill/murder Hitler? Was it evil to fight and kill Hitler's forces? We train our military to murder and give them permission, is that evil?

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thou shalt not kill (actually murder is the correct word)
            God gave laws to his people and the above was one of them. Now God did not give laws, like the above, as a blanket rule covering all situations, that would be ridiculous to think that. So this law must be personalized and woven into the experience of the individual to define the parameters of this law themselves.  The Hebrews and Jewish peoples went overboard trying to figure it out as a nation, when the spirit of the law was intended that each define for themselves.
            There are obvious situations where only murder can resolve a situation, that's fact. Is God unaware of that? Not at all. When it comes to war and protecting oneself from invading armies then yes protection is good but should everyone protect or join the army?
            I believe that before a christian join the army he pray good and long before doing so, as God may have other plans for his life.
            Try to avoid killing and lying and hurting people as much as possible and pray that you do not end up in situations that require murder to be the only solution.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's most interesting. Let me ask where in your bible it says that Gods laws don't cover all situations? Or did you make that part up on your own to appease your conscience?

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you ask that?   It is most interesting that this is not what i said.  I make nothing up to appease my own conscience, unless you mistake my conclusions that don't make sense to you as a way of my appeasement or did you flippantly put that sentence in there to... naw... too easy.

      2. The0NatureBoy profile image68
        The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for what it is, a mental food, I would say evil and good are only what someone disliked or liked and enticed others to do the same.  Looking at what is supposed to be god's name YeHoVeH with the meaning of I AM THAT I AM, it tells me neither good nor evil are actual but cultivated beliefs of the different cultures. Because I recognize karma controlling reincarnation causes everything consider evil or good done to any living being by another to have been done or shall be done to the lifeforce performing the acts as they incarnate(d) in the exact same body.  Life is a repetitious learning process for lifeforces which follows the exact same actions continually, the only differences is the lifeforces in the bodies evolves until they become angels and move to the next plane.

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          there is no more proof of this than there is to support christianity

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So long as anyone rejects anything instead of reasoning to determine meanings they will never find proof because they don't want to accept it.  When one is objectively searching for truth they don't reject anything until they have found no comprehensible meaning to it.  I fit the latter group and is supposing you fit the first.  I'm not speaking about the things in the Bible from the perspective of Christianity but as an independent and objective reasoner seeking truth.

            The reason it's called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
            is because for each season tree grows the more fruit it bears per season; it's called knowledge because it's not something eaten with the mouth but the mind [ever hear of food for thought?] therefore it's a metaphor to explain how man came to the belief in good and evil, through mental conditioning. 

            If you disagree, verbally prove me erroneous.

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              again, I don't have to prove you wrong.  you're making a  lot of interpretations about the bible and genesis that aren't supported in or mentioned in the text itself.  You're making positive claims.  It's up to you to back them up.  That's logic 101.

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
                The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I've given you logical reasoning based on the self-reproducing environment, scientific findings, what we know about man and what is written in scriptures, to a reasoning mind that's proof, to people who don't want to believe a thing anyway there is no way of proving it, therefore, we'll agree to disagree. 

                1. cascoly profile image59
                  cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  your science is at best spotty, and basing your claims on scripture is not reasoning, it's faith

                  1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
                    The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But the Hebrews 11:1 KJV Bible says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" which makes faith the science of finding evidence and substance to justify one's believing anything scriptural. In that light, what you know about science must also be spotty sine it requires finding evidence and substance to support a supposition.

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image68
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JMcFarland,
            Here are some examples of detecting metaphors. 
            KJV Genesis 1:14 gives us the moon, stars and sun are for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years with the signs suggesting to look at them as a means of determining the plight of man on earth  Thus, we're to look at the events on earth as happening in cycles with with 2 major times like mornings and evenings and 2 short transitions between them and something happens in quarters like the seasons of the year.  Therefore, we are to get out of the straight line approach to existence, instructed in metaphor.

            Genesis 1 suggest man, fish, birds and animals were made by speaking, then Genesis 2:7-18 suggest they all were formed from the earth, chapter 1 say both genders were man made together while 5:1-2 say both genders were called Adam but in 2:21-23 say the girl -- egg producer of man making prepubescence children to be called man-child (Revelation 12:5) -- was made from the boy's --sperm producer of man -- rib in an operation and Adam renamed them both woven from man or woman meaning this new less than the Bigfoot specie.  Because 2:7 says Adam was formed from the earth why would he  be told a man must leave {parents} in 2:24 except he was born and the whole scenario of Adan is a metaphor of the beginning of civilization which the flood was it becoming earth wide?

            Does that show you ho to determine metaphors from supposed facts?



            1. gtyui profile image59
              gtyuiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              yeh and what are you talking about

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
                The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Gtyui,
                Above JMcFarland asked me how to detect metaphors from supposed facts in the Bible and that's some examples of how I determined them to be metaphors, using logical reasoning.

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, but the flood is not Biblically portrayed as a metaphor.  The supposed sun standing still is not portrayed as a metaphor.  They are portrayed a factual, historical events that took place - but they never did.

                  1. cascoly profile image59
                    cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    exactly - this is the problem bible literalists face - mist christians regard the entire genesis story as myth / metaphor and therefore have no trouble acceptiong both their faith and evolution.  but if you claim parts of the bible are loterally true, and other parts are metaphor, it becomes entirely subjective

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL. Dude, that is so childish.

  25. brotheryochanan profile image61
    brotheryochananposted 3 years ago

    Science has stated 'Pangaea' existed (one continent only), science says the continents broke apart. Science has shown that all the tectonic plates fit very comfily together without twisting and turning them - On a smaller planet.
    The bible says the heavens broke apart and from a firmament down came the rain.
    Now scientists have agreed that water surrounding our planet would decrease cosmic rays.
    Our oceans are filled with salt water, rain is fresh water. If a tantamount rain covered all the earth then our oceans would be so very diluted if not replaced by fresh water.
    If we look at Noahs flood and understand the metaphoric use of 'earth' as meaning a generalized area and world meaning 'the world that they knew of' - the earth was circumnavigated by Christopher Columbus - then we can understand a bit more the difficult task of translating ancient documents.
    If we look at the middle east we notice that it is a large basin, residing some 2,000 feet below sea level.
    If we use the Himalaya mountains as a 'high point reference' we may well be mistaken about how high the waters covered the known world at that time.
    If we allow for a splitting apart of the continents and our planet enlarging we can see how the water would drain out of this basin and our small planet now larger can accommodate more 'fresh' water and we can allow for higher mountains ranges like our Himalayas today.
    If we claim the flood of noah covered all the earth, 'proper', than we cannot account for gilamesh's secular attestation to a large flood or other accounts.

    Yes i believe in noahs flood.  Jesus mentioned "in the days of Noah" and that is very concrete substantiation that the flood occurred.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is this smaller planet?

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The charlatans who wrote Jesus story were historians?
        Who will give concrete substantiation that this Jesus fellow ever lived?

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          After studying the bible and knowing God, I refuse to enter into discussions about substantiation that Jesus ever lived.
          If you can't figure it out. I could fill this whole page.
          Good luck with this.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            After studying Harry potter my 10 year old niece refuse to enter into discussions about substantiation that Harry Potter ever lived. But I know that she will out grow and mature to see fiction as fiction, though I can't say the same about everybody.
            Good luck with this

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course you won't because you can't substantiate it. Simple, really.

        2. The0NatureBoy profile image68
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If a person will obey the teachings of said Jesus weather or not he lived is not important, your proving or disproving the truth of his alleged teachings make it unnecessary for him to have lived.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Then why don't you obey Albus Dumbledore?

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The main reason, I have never heard of it, if someone provide me its teachings and I determine there may be some reality to them I will.

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So it is simply this ' I obey those teachings which I like and discard others and I want everybody to obey the teachings I like or they will be in hell'?

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
                  The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No!  After objectively reasoning with the concepts, turning them every way I can conceive of to determine if they're metaphors or direct, I either follow them or put them in my to be proven file.

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Isn't that what I said?  You took what you liked and discarded the rest and is asking everybody to follow what you liked.

    2. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but the facts do not allow for an enlarging of the planet. There is no evidence that this occurred, and no possible mechanism for it to occur.

      Like the Biblical flood, the enlarging planet is fiction.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, there is evidence.  Best guess as to the moon's formation is that a collision occurred with another, smaller planet.  While much of the debris from the collision ended up in space and coalesced into the moon, there was a considerable net gain in mass for the earth.  It grew in size.

        Of course, that happened long before any life was present (the earth was mostly molten at that time), but the earth did grow in size.

        In addition, every time an asteroid falls to earth, the earth gains mass.  True, the change is minute (I would hate to write all the zeros in the percentage size change) but it does change.

        I would be more questioning of the idea that the entire middle east is a basin at 2,000 below sea level.  The lowest point on earth is the dead sea, at 1312 feet below sea level, and it certainly doesn't occupy the entire near east.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness,
          What you provided is only a supposition, not evidence.  When we look at time as the measurement of cycles which should put us in the frame of mind that cycles governs everything in existence which would make many things considered to be illusions based on the straight line approach to existence.  Existence is so precise in it's formation that no major bodies will ever collide with another.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ???

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course.  The major asteroids that collided with Jupiter, the pock marking all over the moon and the dinosaur killer in the gulf of Mexico are no indication that large bodies collide.

            We also fully understand that cycles, not gravity, control the movement of the planets and other bodies.

            You might take a hard look at the evidence concerning the formation of the moon before declaring that it is only supposition, that it never did and never could have happened.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image68
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have looked at the assumed by scientist concepts forming the moon by asteroids supposing to have made the pock markings all over the place.  Since no man is alive who can verify what did therm that's no valid proof, they only suggest to me that that's a possibility and not facts.  I, personally, can't believe there is any room in existence for major collisions. 

              That's my story and I'll stick to it until I'm able to find more substantial evidence, however, it's still in my to be proven memory bank.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here is a recording of it occurring: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc … rsporadic/

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As always, it comes down to what you (or I or anyone else) will accept as evidence or "proof".

                The evidence of asteroid collisions today is incontrovertible, but of course that doesn't say anything about them yesterday.  We didn't see thousands hit the moon, just the results that we attribute to collisions.  There could be a thousand other explanations for those pock marks, ranging from ET to buried life digging through the soil to solar flares.

                In a technical sense, then, there can be no proof as the past cannot be observed.  In a practical sense we must choose the most likely cause for those pock marks and either accept it as proof or proclaim that we can never know what happened in the past if we did not observe it directly.

                Of course, the latter decision will eliminate any reason to every study the past - any study of tectonic plates, archeology, dinosaurs or other creatures from the past are all a moot question as we weren't there to see it happen.  We weren't there, and there were no survivors to report the incident, so we don't know that Krakatoa ever blew up.  We don't know that the Bonneville flood out of Utah happened or that there was an ice age in North America.

      2. cascoly profile image59
        cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        besides the obvious problem than the splitting of continents & rise of the Himalaya took place MILLIONS of years before any alleged global flood

      3. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No evidence? i just told you that if we shrink the planet then the tectonic plates line up perfectly. ... that's all you need and its all i needed to know.
        No possible mechanism? What are you doing this thread? lol.

        1. cascoly profile image59
          cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          first, there's no need to 'shrink the planet' - the continents WERE connected many millions of years ago - LONG before the flood.  so even if your theory held water, it all happened millions of years before any humans and anynoah's flood occurred.

          we have scientific evidence for the age of the earth, plate tectonics, human evolution, etc.  if you choose not to believe it, your saying so doesn't negate those FACTS

          you have yet to present ANY evidence that corroborates the bible's myth of global flood

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I hope you are not confusing facts with theories. See dictionary.com for a definition of theory and discover theories are not facts.
            human evolution, i hope you are not gonna place darwin in front of me again, that's debunked.
            if you want a fact how about the moons ever so slight shift away from the earth. The moon is gaining greater distance away all the time. If we move the earth back 30 million years approx that puts the moon in the center of the earth.
            When it comes to the age of the earth, ponder this.. when you buy a car and it says year 2,000 on it you may be surprised to discover that the transmission was assembled in 1993, the wheels formed in 1995, the steering wheel sat in a warehouse with many others for 20 yrs. My point here is that in anything assembled there is always an indication of age.
            When i put a model car together with glue that glue may have been made years prior.
            If or since, we have an old universe and matter was collected from that old universe our planet is going to have a semblance of age.

            As to the flood, gilgamesh and others which i would have to trace, there are four accounts in total. Nothing from north america however smile

            1. cascoly profile image59
              cascolyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              your writing defies logic - you ASSUME any movement by the moon now has always been that way; your conclusion is false.  as far as the age of the earth itself, your analogy once again defies logic since we HAVE the FACT of multiple forms of dating of the earth. 

              your resort to the old 'it's just a theory' nonsense just [proves how intellectually dishonest creationism is.  nothing in what you write gives any evidence FOR the bible's fairy tales

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He has his arrogance to prove genesis is right. Who else will "create"  arrogant ones other than an arrogant, idiotic and barbaric god who always have to resort to barbaric ways to "save" human beings..

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First we notice when reading genesis that the earth was created before the sun and moon on a different "day".
                      If we take 'evening and morning' as a literal 24hr period which at this stage in development i find doubtful to be 24hrs, because the 'evening and morning' occur in each phase of creation even before the sun and moon, which would logically/physically give an 'evening and morning'. hmmm
                  Therefore, my personal hypothesis up to present, is that these are the periods of time that moses was given a vision of each stage of creation by God.  Day/24hr period cannot be without the sun and moon, but it can be periods of time between sleep for moses. God gave the vision of the heaven, moses wrote it down and then probably exhausted, slept. Woke up and got the second vision, wrote it down and slept etc.
                       If you prefer to go by day as a 24hr period we must note that H3117 in Strongs has many definitions for this word day which include; day, eon, age, year, process of time etc.
                  Just to clarify what i think i might be a further question, 'evening' at its root means to 'loop as in a cycle' we see cycles. Morning figuratively means, to inspect, care, consider. I would not want to have been a translator for genesis at all.
                        I prefer "eon or age to create and keep in the cycle by inspection" but now i get way over your head, since you missed that there was even a period of time between the earth and moons creation. This period of time, proccess or passage of time could have been eons.
                  Summary:
                  In the case of our discussion about the moon, suffice it to say, the earth was created first and then the moon. The period of time between the two probably being a long time. It is important that their is a difference of time between the earth and moon creation to allow for mathematical correctness about its retreating away from us.  To state that the moons shift away from us has been constant throughout the moons' history as being our asteroid is i think, speculation.
                  arrogantly yours,
                  Brotheryochanan
                  Sorry for the brevity but i expect i will get a chance to speak more on this topic as the ravens swoop in. lol.
                  Good luck with this

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We can concise it further
                    Superstition.

                2. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Who else will "create"  arrogant ones other than an arrogant, idiotic and barbaric god who always have to resort to barbaric ways to "save" human beings"

                  Good thing you just popped up outta some primordial goo.. you don't have to worry about being arrogant smile

            2. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah the old moon recession creationist theory just does not work. The moon is currently at a distance of 356,700 km. That is, 35,670,000,000 cm.

              The recession of the moon today is known directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year.

              Thus assuming a constant rate of recession, we have Earth/Moon surface contact at about 9,337,696,335 years ago, which is the right order of magnitude for estimates of the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years.

              If you want the Earth and moon to be 6000 years old, then we would need a recession of over 59 km per year, which is just silly. A 30 million year old Earth would need a recession of 12 metres per year. If that was true, I think NASA has big problems, not to mention the Earth's sea tides.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The moon was not created snuggly up against the earth and that it was made after the earth.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Where do you get this information from?

                2. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course it wasn't snuggled up nicely, but the principle is proved that the Creationist argument that claims the moon is only a few thousand years old because of its recession is pure bunkum.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And how do you now figure this since you first said that mathematically:
                    Thus ASSUMING a CONSTANT rate of recession, we have Earth/Moon surface CONTACT at about 9,337,696,335 years ago, which is the RIGHT ORDER of magnitude for ESTIMATES of the AGE of the Earth at 4.5 BILLION years.
                    Do you see the contradiction here? The moon was not snuggled up against the earth yet this assumption and estimation inferring constant.... there is nothing concrete here at all. Yet this mathematics is supposed to state conclusively the age of the earth.
                    pure bunkum.