Religion anyone?
-
Ok,
I’m “persisting in some sort of ludicrous obscurantism”…
Remus wrote: “Science is all about testing theories to see if they’re right.”
Can you, guys, verify for example Alan’s “4.5 billion years”?!!
Cornel
-
You can observe with your eyes the Light coming from the Sun and question with your Mind that it is impossible to Create first the Light and then the Sun.
But one does not have to forget that besides the Eyes and the Mind there is the Heart, that counts as well.
Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, has a beautiful song called GOD IS THE LIGHT
http://www.yusufislam.com/songs-a-z/a14053453e0c6baea40d90726d65aca9For all of you who like Science and Investigation here is a link to a book that I am reading, though I find it hard to understand, about how Creation was done under a Jewish point of view.
http://www.jewishbohemian.com/danceof.htm -
Cornel, that figure has already been verified countless times...in laboratories...with equipment rather more sophisticated than any of the guys you are addressing are likely to possess. And as I've already pointed out, it's verifiable from many different directions in many different disciplines, so it's not a case of one person's belief or one scientist getting his figures wrong.
Can you verify that I'm communicating with you from the UK and not the planet Zog?
-
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, that figure has already been verified countless times...in laboratories...with equipment rather more sophisticated than any of the guys you are addressing are likely to possess.
I'd much prefer it if you wouldn't diss my equipment.
@alan fraser said:
Can you verify that I'm communicating with you from the UK and not the planet Zog?
lol!
-
Cornel asked:
@unknownuser said:
Can you, guys, verify for example Alan’s “4.5 billion years”?!!
Here is some simple evidence that I will put before you:
There are 81 stable elements, with, between them, just under 300 stable
isotopes.
Every one of these stable isotopes has been found on earth.
Several radioactive isotopes are also found on earth. They fall into three
categories:
(1) Very long-lived isotopes, for example Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Thorium-
232, Potassium-40.
(2) Short-lived isotopes that are produced via the decay of these long-lived
isotopes, for example Uranium-234, Radium-226, Radon-222.
(3) Short-lived isotopes of light elements that are produced in nuclear
reactions between high energy particles from the sun and the atmosphere, for
example Carbon-14, Hydrogen-3, Beryllium-10.There is no ongoing source of heavier elements, either stable or
radioactive. It is currently believed that they were produced in a
supernova, which also scattered them as the dust which formed part of the
early solar system. So any of the isotopes of category (1) that are present
on earth today are remnant fractions of what was present when the earth
formed.Now any radioactive isotope decays with a fixed half-life. If it has a half
life of 1 day, then at this time tomorrow only half of it will be left, only
one quarter the next day, and so on. After 10 days there will only be one
thousandth of the original amount, one millionth after 20 days, one
billionth after 30 days, and after 50 days, you can forget it!Here are some category 1 isotopes that are abundantly present on earth:
uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.51 billion years
uranium-235 has a half-life of 0.71 billion years
thorium-232 has a half-life of 14.1 billion years
potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.28 billion years
There are about 6 or 8 others, all with half-lives greater than that of U-
235.Here are some isotopes, potentially category 1, that are not found on earth.
I mention mainly those that are the most stable isotope of their respective
elements, because these would be the easiest to find if, indeed, they were
present:plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80 million years
uranium-236 has a half-life of 23.9 million years (and would be a product of
any plutonium decay!)
curium-247 has a half-life of 16 million years
neptunium-237 has a half-life of 2.14 million years
technetium-99 has a half-life of 0.212 million yearsThere are about a dozen other radioactive isotopes known to have half-lives
greater than 1 million years but less than 50 million years, which are not
found naturally on Earth. All short-lived radioactive isotopes that are
found naturally on earth clearly fall into categories (2) and (3).
Radioactive isotopes can usually be identified by their radiation signature
in amounts much less than you would need for chemical analysis.The absence of plutonium from the natural rocks of the earth indicates that
the earth has been around for at least 30 half-lives of plutonium-244, which
is 2.4 billion years. If its age were any less, we might have expected to
detect the 1 part in 1 billion or more that would remain of any original
plutonium that may have been present.The presence of uranium-235 at a level of just under 1% of all uranium
indicates that the earth has been around for less than 20 half-lives,
which is 14.2 billion years, in the absence of any other evidence. But the
amount of its final decay product, lead-207, in natural lead limits the age
to about 6 billion years maximum. If there had been U-235 decaying for
longer than that, there would have to be a lot more lead-207 around.There is a lot of other evidence and more complicated analysis that makes
geologists and geochemists very confident that the age of the earth is very
close to 4.5 billion years.By Andrew karem.
-
-
Juan,
Please don't confuse one man's point of view with that of every man. This fellow, Dovid Krafchow, represents his point of view based on many things from the Torah, to Kabbalah to pseudo-scientific babbling. He is not a recognized authority within the Jewish Community.
I admire and respect your desire to expand your knowledge and read positions and opinions outside your own deeply felt and believed faith. Just don't be misled and feel this guy speaks for the Jewish people. He most certainly does not any more than Madonna does.
Shana tova (Happy New Year),
Allen
-
You guys crack me up!
-
the debate is on; words and evidences of two parties were laid down all around. discussions were became interesting but creating more discord. Instead of religion, which i do beleive really have been used to control accidentally, knowingly or unknowingly, why not talk on other things. Even during Jesus time he said to the religious leaders how hippocrite they are and how blinded they are in leading the people. See even here we could see how religion and beleif which the Pharissees claimed from GOd eventually were rejected by Jesus himself and in the end Jesus teaching was not even about Religion but freeing people from this bondage by means of what he called "relationship". He is focused on restoring relationship between God and man rather than set of rules and regulations, no wonder the commandments were jsut sreamlined with 2 "Love your God, and Love your neighbours as you love yourselves". After that good church with full of love, see what happened again? All different rules and regualtions were being pushed again to control people, no wonder churches became less and less attendees. Lookin on the history,how many people even killed in the name of advocating religion. Philippines has no exception with this, we were under the Spanish regime for 300 years, and the whole country was controlled by the religion. Womans were raped by the priest, etc. etc. Is that Jesus teaching? its the reversal is int.
Look what's happening around, some Extremist believes that terrorism is ok, Of course many of our muslim brothers dont agree with it. But the extremist view to die with this cause is Martyrdom... hmmmm.
How about global warming? why not these Group of people advocate in the pulpit, the reality of Global warming? How about us? shall we just spend our time arguing which is true and not. The truth is look whats happening around us. Global warming is real and even there are tons of evidence. The bible said God rested in the 7th day, and saw how beautiful his creation. And i believe all of us agree that we should be proactive on this. Perhaps use this forum to discuss some other ways how? perhaps it would be a little impact, but imagine there are 10000 members, how much these 10,000 memebrs can do.
i could say im a creationist, because i want this environment to be protected
Do i have religion? I HATE that word " I prefer more the relationship"
Do i believe in God? Yes I do.
Do i beleive in Science? Yes I do.
Do i respect the opinion of others? YES and yes. even you dont agree wiht me.lastly here is my last word.
Let us be a channel that advocates the reality of Global warming... "no pushing, its up to you. again no rules! it might become a religion hehehehe.
here is one of the poster i did about an advocacy on the reality of Global Warming
All sketchup model+podium render. but lo were such creative bunch of guys were in our small ways we could advocate this cause.
-
@nomeradona said:
...Jesus teaching was not even about Religion but freeing people from this bondage by means of what he called "relationship". He is focused on restoring relationship between God and man rather than set of rules and regulations...
Amen...and well put!
-
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
A quick look at some historic science will show that the age of the earth has been changing faster than a TV at a channel-surfer's convention.
According to science:
In 1899, the earth was 100 million years old.
In 1905, the earth was 500 million years old.
Today, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.At that rate, the earth will age 109,057 years in the next 24 hours; one year from now, the earth will be 39.8 million years older than it is today.
Sure glad science could confirm that for us
@sepo said:
Yeah right but also large number of scientest were killed by the Church in the name of God. I wonder how many of the ones survived were really Christians or where they just putting the act so that they could be left alone. I am afraid Religion ( I mean organized form ) was certainly beeing used to do pilage ,rape and murder.....and that is the case still today... Organised religion is just another mechanism to control humanity... Thank you very much ...not good for me....
Scientists killed? Really? Which ones? Actually, atheists killed more people in the last century than religious people killed in the previous 20 centuries. I've looked at atheistic blogs and forums, and the pure hatred and vitriol I've seen spewed there against Christians in general stands in stark contrast to the care and concern I've seen expressed for atheists on Christian sites. Even in this thread, how many times has Cornel been attacked and ridiculed? How many times has he attacked or retaliated? I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
@andyc said:
@chango70 said:
The man that more than any other credited with kick starting the scientific revolution was 15th Century theologeon Thomas Aquinas. He posited a thesis in which God as a creator set in motion the laws of nature and do not interfere (no freakin' miracles). Sounds familier? Because it is a scientic view of nature.
Sorry chango, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Any thesis which begins with God as creator cannot be described as scientific.
A.
I can certainly agree to disagree. Just thought you might be interested to know you're also disagreeing with Bacon, Boyle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Huygens, Faraday, Newton, Mendel, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Kelvin, Huggins, and others.
These scientists believed that God created the universe with an underlying order, that He created humans with the ability to discover that order, and that by discovering that order, we could be better stewards of the earth. That belief led them to discover and/or develop ideas on the scientific method, gas laws, acids/bases and the litmus test, heliocentric solar system, planetary motion, pendulum motion, electricity, gravity, motion, calculus, genetics, developments in chemistry, differential mathematics, astrophysics, and more.
Surely their discoveries were not implausible because the discoverers were religious, and their faith informed their science. Surely these scientists were not irrational because of their belief in a rational creation. On the contrary, their belief caused them to explore, test, observe, research, and discover what they considered to be rational.
Anyway, as was said earlier - this has been hashed to death many times before, and will be many times in the future. Let's just respect each other's different opinion and get on to other things.
-
@rickw said:
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
A quick look at some historic science will show that the age of the earth has been changing faster than a TV at a channel-surfer's convention.
According to science:
In 1899, the earth was 100 million years old.
In 1905, the earth was 500 million years old.
Today, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.At that rate, the earth will age 109,057 years in the next 24 hours; one year from now, the earth will be 39.8 million years older than it is today.
Talk about dodgy numbers! Your assuming that their was a constant change in the age of the earth (the theorised ages, that is) which is wrong.
From my very brief reading around the subject it seems their is a pretty widespread consensus on 4.6 billion.
-
With respect, Rick. Much of that argument is specious. Certainly science has adjusted the estimated age of the earth backwards into history, just as it has adjusted the estimated emargence of the first hominids...but at no time has it ever claimed that the earth was only six thousand years old, by back-tracking generations through the Bible like Archbishop Ussher.
That's what science does...adjusts it's position in the light of newer and better evidence.
I'm not an atheist; and I'd hazard a guess that the Pope isn't either. Yet he has called this whole debate absurd. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
Newton was deeply religious, but that didn't prevent him from believing that the established Church went seriously off-course at the Council of Nicea in 787...when much of this "Word of God" stuff was concocted.At the risk of repeating myself, mainstream Christianity doesn't have a problem with reconciling scientific knowledge with faith. That absurdity is the sole province of the eccentric fringes...which I'm sorry to say, the US seems to cultivate with relish...be it Creationists, conspiracy theorists or alien abductionists. I'm not saying the rest of the world doesn't have any, but in terms of sheer numbers the US is in a league of its own. In a similar way, it seems that only in America is a stance advocating science and reason automatically seen as being atheistic and anti-religious. I guess this is indicative of how much things have polarised over there.
How could Cornel insult anyone here? Cornel doesn't post anything other than passages from the Bible and exhortations to read it and understand the truth...which, as someone who has read it...cover to cover...several times...I find somewhat patronising.
-
@allen weitzman said:
Juan,
Please don't confuse one man's point of view with that of every man. This fellow, Dovid Krafchow, represents his point of view based on many things from the Torah, to Kabbalah to pseudo-scientific babbling. He is not a recognized authority within the Jewish Community...
AllenYes, Allen
I am sorry. I should of have pointed that it was only his point of view and not the Jewish´s one as I said.
Sorry again andShana tova
-
@rickw said:
I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
Why do a lot of religious people categorise those who don't believe as 'atheists'?
As if you get an automatic subscription to the atheist club when you don't recognise a god.In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
true, even Mr Bush couldn't resist involving God into the Afganistan war.
unfortunately many religions are beeing abused by influential people to serve their course (oil). it is simply easier to justify something brutal as war, if you make all the people around you "believe", that it is the right and only way.concerning science: well I think believing in science has definitely something to do with faith. loads of scientific facts have been revised many times throughout history. so believing in science is quite brave, because you know that you may believe in a false trueth.
the discussion with the age of our planet (currently 4.5 billion years)... I like to think it that way:
if you are in a space shuttle, it is quite easy to figure out, that the earth is round. it is considerably harder though to come to that conclusion if you are standing on the surface of the earth. it may be easier in the mid of the Sahara than in Central London, but it is still difficult.
if we stood on a giant hill for example, we could not see the difference between the curving horizon beeing a hill or a shpere...
and the same, in my eyes, counts for the fact of earth beeing 4.5 years old. every evidence leads to that fact. but we only have a very small period of time that we can rely to where these questions have been explored. so we can't be entirely sure...
of course believing in religion is far more difficult, because you don't have any evidence at all.
this is one of the great things about men, I think; that we can construct complicated philosophical theories and religions - and we can decide ourselves to believe in one of them!I for example have developed my own personal "religion", a theory I can believe in, which is scientific enough to not interfere with physical laws and such, but gives me enough freedom to explain thinks that are out of science's grasp yet, and therefore gives me peace of mind, because I can believe in something (and thats what religion is for in the first place, isn't it?)
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
-
@gaieus said:
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
As you say yourself, they were called 'communists'.
The term 'communist' does not refer to being atheist in the first place.
Which war has ever been started in the name of 'atheism'? -
why should you wage a war for something you don't believe in?
or is it correct to say: "I believe in Atheism!"???
-
@Kwist:
THESE communists were institutionally and oicially atheists and they indeed called themselves atheists. So I name them in this case again.@Jakob:
Yes, it was almost like compulsory "religion".
And wars are not only fought for religious reaons but also for power (which has mostly been the case during the last couple of centuries).
Advertisement