America "The Way I See It"

Yeah, your right! Oh well, If I was perfect I wouldn't be here!

Sorry for the double post. I back buttoned to correct the first one and both comments posted some how.

Analytical Mindset,

I was only taking at face value what Lazarus said earlier. I commented;

"In the beginning, the blood was pure and not mixed with impure blood so incest was no problem back then and was the only way people could repopulate."

and Lazarus said

"this is a complete misapprehension as to how dna functions. there is no such thing as "pure" and "impure" dna. the problem is not with mixing "pure" & "impure" dna, it is with too much of the same dna. many a "royal" family, thruout history, has been doomed by the error of believing in "pure" blood. inbreeding is inbreeding, no matter what you breed. every species has a threshold below which a viable breeding population cannot be established due to a lack of genetic diversity. it is a safe bet that a viable breeding population of humans could not be established from eight individuals, much less two."

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Feb 7, 2010, at 1:51 AM

I can not read minds yet, but that looked a lot like it was saying it is impossible to produce children when all (or most of) the DNA is from one family.

I wasn't talking about DNA but blood. DNA if I am right is not only in blood but in all body fluids, dissections, hair and all cells.

That WOULD make it MOOT, but we know that incest and pregnancies happen even today, so that alleged theory can not be true.

So now, that would mean that we all, yes, even you, came from inbreeding unless you can prove a way man could multiply on the earth without mating with family members.

Without proof, I must rely on what I believe just as you will have to do.

*cough*

Nobody said DNA prevents inbreeding; clearly if that were the case, it'd be a moot argument.

Genetic viability of successive generations is something else entirely...

I'm not up for explaining it though; need to focus on finding a job, not itching at this dust thingy in my eye.

If you really want to have some 'fun' trying to make your case, they enjoy hashing at your views here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TO...

Although, some would argue I'm being cruel to them by posting that link... :p

LAHK,

I don't know anything about DNA. I do know that I have seen cases where a family may have a very large family by incest only. Look at the Religions out west where the preacher marries his daughter(s) and has several more daughters and sleeps with them too.

Where is this DNA theory that says it is impossible to inbreed?

It's a National Joke that the families living in the mountains of TN and KY are engaged in inbreeding. And some of it may very well be true or has been true at one time or it wouldn't be said.

If DNA prevented inbreeding to occur, why are we talking about inbreeding/incest?

I think some new tests need to be made on this new DNA Theory.

God came up with a great plan. He would create one man and one woman and tell them to fill the earth instead of having to create everyone.

The angels came down and corrupted the people on earth so God destroyed every living thing except 8 people.

Because only 8 people lived through this disaster, that is why 8 is mentioned in this blogs' DNA Myth.

Then there were 4 couples to repopulate the earth. This would still be brothers and sisters and cousins. There seems to be quite a large world population for a theory to state DNA would prevent inbreeding.

There were no other people around. The Bible tells us how it happened. If anyone can not accept it, they will have to take it up with god.

I have found the bible to be very, very complete in informing me what has happened and what is to happen all the way up to living after death and also living in an eternal life after "life after Death".

After we are Resurrected, I hope God puts out a 2nd Bible for our "Life After Death" which will be a whole new way of living. It is all explained right there in the bible, but some people just can't understand what it says.

The Bible is so complete that it is actually a fantastic book to read.

I haven't even read it all and I know what happens when we die, where we go and what we do, what happens when we are Resurrected and who will be resurrected first and why and what happens after that. There is no mystery about life at all if you read the bible.

The Big Bang theory was originally postulated by a Catholic priest; thought you'd want to know that, since the inference is that the Big Bang is an anti-God theory of the origins to reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_...

So according to the current laws of DNA any mammalian species with less than 8 viable different breeding pairs is doomed to extinction due to the consequences of inbreeding.

So with this Adam and Eve story;

God suspended the laws of DNA for a few years just so the humans could have incest for a while?? Didn't he plan ahead? That God sounds like an idiot!!!

Maybe he didn't forsee that would happen .... not omniscient ===> NOT GOD!!!

OK, so maybe there were OTHER humans around ... well, that makes the BIBLE a LIE, doesn't it?? Put that together with the Jonah and Noah stories and I think this is obviously the case!!!

I suppose some of the Christards are going to try to weasel out of it saying the Bible is incomplete.... WHY would it be incomplete?? Didn't GOD make it complete?? -==> NOT GOD folks!!!

....great Super Bowl game....

UL,

Whatever you tell yourself to sleep better at night. Claim whatever victory you want. Sow the seeds of lies and malcontent.

You already have the last response you're getting from me on spiritual matters, as you refuse to address them with respect. ("Hell" is not a bad word.)

"If you wanted to close discussion, you've succeeded. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory. You can claim all the wins you want from it; and endeavor to bait me back into it; I'm done. This is stupid; it's pedantic; and it is accomplishing nothing that is even REMOTELY Christ-like in apparent motive, or in actualization by deed."

"I'm done with the conversations regarding faith, or spirituality; as apparently this can't be done philosophically here, without being pigeon-holed into a group-think with which I do not self-identify."

I'd rather sit with somecommonsense and have a cup of joe.

Whomever was referring to aquatic origin of life question, scientists don't agree on the origins of life; never have:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

(I generally refuse to answer any question that shows a person hasn't read what I've already written before; no expectation they'd retain that information any better.)

As for what's wrong with America's values today, and abiding by shared morals in who we vote for; here's some recent information on Sarah Palin's camp:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35238034/ns/...

liveforlight,

Gen 1:26-27 is the sixth day creation of man and woman.

In Genesis 5:1-2 (God calls them both Adam)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

God had already created all the fish, birds and animals before Adam and Eve.

Then in Genesis 2:

God rests on the seventh day then the writer recaps what had been created in the first 6 days. This could be misinterpreted as another Adam and Eve, but it describes the animals and birds and plant life that had already been created so it is just rehashing what had already been created.

Gen 2:23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman,

for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 3:20

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

If eve would be the mother of all the living, there could be no other women in the beginning. All generations came from Eve.

DNA just came up in the past century so it is still a new item that they don't know all the answers to. If the DNA of the father, mother and children are the same what does that say about incest?

I know nothing about DNA, so I can't determine what experts say as being true or false.

If it is not the same, how does it identify who someone is? It is more likely to prove someone is Not more than they are.

LOL there is a show on the history chanel right now that says there were two different kinds of caveman (Neanderthal and Cromagnon) on earth 30,000- 35,000 years ago according to radio carbon dating. 6th day creation man and Adam and Eve decendants?

-{ I can not argue what happened on this planet before God recreated it from a void. I would say since experts claim they lived on earth and the fact that bones have been found on earth means that they were here at some time or another.

What lived here past 6,000+ years doesn't concern our lives today. They are not even our history. We don't have to fight or slay dragons today nor walk around like apes or evolve from an insect that survived some meteorite blast that destroyed the earth millions of years ago.

Experts claim Homo sapiens existed 100,000 years ago to present day. I personally haven't seen any, that I know of anyway.

God Created Adam and Eve and God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

He didn't say go find a Homo sapien to mate with so your children won't be idiots.

.....coffee was great.....superbowl comes on shortly.....

AM

Unlike this one, My last post was not intended for you. Nor did I address it to you. It was merely an observation. Interesting that you felt the need to respond as if it were.

I am sorry if you took offense to it. I have no intention of trying to stroke your ego to bring you back into a conversation with me.

There is no need to use foul langauge, even abbreviated. It adds nothing and detracts from the respect to all readers.

If you are considering attending Church, good for you. Don't let my opinions stop you. I am not a member of any of the local churches. I do attended differents ones from time to time.

Just in case there are fundamentalist,(as you call them) you might want to consider not using foul language with them.

Just a suggestion, if you truly want them to hear your objective arguements.

Lazarus,

Thanks for clearing up that bit; I had no clue what he meant by "pure" - to a Californian, that was sounding like Southern for "mixed-ethnic breeding"... and had my anti-racism hairs twitching...

LtL, U-L, everybody else, ad infinitum:

Ignore my previous post; don't bother replying to it; there's no need, as I won't be reading it. There is a ridiculous lack of continuity, respect and comprehension going on here, and I feel myself becoming stupider just by partaking in the conversation, at this point.

I'm done with the conversations regarding faith, or spirituality; as apparently this can't be done philosophically here, without being pigeon-holed into a group-think with which I do not self-identify.

It's become like talking to a wall. THIS is why I stopped participating on Topix; people that just feel a need to pummel a subject to death, to the point that no one cares to discuss it anymore, and then declares themselves victorious. When you bore people off a thread, that doesn't make your point more enduring, or your reasoning more sound. It just means you're too stubborn and dense to actually hold a conversation with, and some people have better things to do. (Yes, I know somecommonsense will apply this statement to me, as well; I'm not ignorant of the irony. There is a difference, however; but I'm not going to get into it.)

If you refuse to listen, there's no point to speak.

In a previous post to the last one, I'd stated - I thought quite clearly - that I was discussing this from the philosophical aspect of God, and was willing to relate the discussion to the bible in discussing Dogmatic principles of the Judea-Christian faith. But YOU, LfL, want to keep harping on the science aspect, and only since I noted that I'm a scientist. W.T.H. is your problem? If you can't keep the conversation to a single scope, and a single purpose, and agree to what's being discussed; if you can't discuss spirituality philosophically, because you feel I'm trying to assault your faith; then what's the point in me holding a dialogue with you concerning faith?

I'm trying to foster thinking and understanding, and introspection into the nature of spirituality; and give you ideas of how to keep people interested in Christianity in the developing information age. All you want to do, it seems, is stand your ground and out-shout the next guy about how it's your view of God or the highway.

Other than turn me off completely from discussing religion with you, or in this rigidly close-minded community (and yes, that's how you're coming across, as a vocal representative of said community), what have you accomplished? I'm disinterested in attending a local church now, if this is the close-mindedness I can expect to be met with in Shelbyville. Thanks for doing a great service towards stewardship for Christ.

I was wondering if there were people in this community spiritually open enough to be worth sharing spiritual time with; and clearly, no; not if I want a rational spiritual experience.

At present the ONLY church I can see myself even -considering- attending is Gateway Church; and then only because Laura was such a great steward for Christ, and I'm hoping her outlook towards faith and spirituality is a reflection of that church's views as well. I'm assuming that's the church Reverend Bobby Scott is from; I really appreciated his words at her service; I don't agree with every sentiment expressed, but he seemed open minded, philosophically speaking.

However, there is a point in trying to talk with a fundamentalist when I just need to shake my head and walk away...

If you wanted to close discussion, you've succeeded. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory. You can claim all the wins you want from it; and endeavor to bait me back into it; I'm done. This is stupid; it's pedantic; and it is accomplishing nothing that is even REMOTELY Christ-like in apparent motive, or in actualization by deed.

(What part of "philosophical" was not clear...?)

In the future, when someone is trying to discuss things rationally and neutrally, and is NOT detailing your statements to death, it's not really conducive to engaging in a meaningful conversation to start doing it yourself. Perhaps you were confusing me with 'lazarus', or think I'm some other poster under a new user name; I don't know. And really, I don't care. I started this out being very respectful of you, and your beliefs, and your rights to them; you have made every effort to not give me the same latitude, though you at the end will feign to stroke my ego, as a way to keep me involved in the conversation. My time is more valuable to me than all this. What a waste...

Like I have some need for validation, by people that I don't even know...

*shakes head and "walks" away*

Pax.

LOL there is a show on the history chanel right now that says there were two different kinds of caveman (Neanderthal and Cromagnon) on earth 30,000- 35,000 years ago according to radio carbon dating. 6th day creation man and Adam and Eve decendants?

"In the beginning, the blood was pure and not mixed with impure blood so incest was no problem back then and was the only way people could repopulate."

this is a complete misapprehension as to how dna functions. there is no such thing as "pure" and "impure" dna. the problem is not with mixing "pure" & "impure" dna, it is with too much of the same dna. many a "royal" family, thruout history, has been doomed by the error of believing in "pure" blood. inbreeding is inbreeding, no matter what you breed. every species has a threshold below which a viable breeding population cannot be established due to a lack of genetic diversity. it is a safe bet that a viable breeding population of humans could not be established from eight individuals, much less two.

I watched an interesting movie earlier tonight called "Inherit the Wind". I mention it because the subject matter is close to some of the discussion here. Thankfully none of you are as radical as the people are portrayed to be in the movie. However, I can visualize a few in Nashville this week end that could possibly compare ( on both sides of the tea cups).LOL

If you get the chance to see this it is a worth while movie, but do also read up on the trial to get the facts straight, they took a few liberties in the creativity department so it is not completely accurate, even though it is about a true event in Tennessee history. One of those old black and white flicks, which makes it fun to watch too.

Description:(copied)

Inherit the Wind (1960) portrays, in partly fictionalized form, the famous and dramatic courtroom "Monkey Trial" battle (in the sultry summer of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee) between two famous lawyers (Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan) who volunteered to heatedly argue both sides of the case (over 12 days, including two weekends).

Its story centers around the issue of evolution vs. creationism, in the prosecution of 24 year-old Dayton High School mathematics teacher and sports coach - and substitute science teacher - John T. Scopes for violating state law (the 1925 Butler Act) by teaching the Darwin's theory of evolution in a state-funded school. The film's title was taken from the Biblical book of Proverbs 11:29: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

(Dayton from what I have read is now Hillsburo.)

==================================

U-L

==================================

"Since I am an American and read English, I use the King James Bible for all my studies about God and his Word. Those are my beliefs and they seem to work out good."

LOL? The KJV was commissioned by that King, for his own reasons, and was NOT written in modern English... oi...

==================================

"The myth you mention is stated as being the word of God so I have to rely on it as the turth. We have seen what we can rely on from scientists and scholars."

Um, I have a piece of paper that was written by God, declaring the Bible to be false. The paper was given to me in a dream, and when I awoke, I found it on a table in my room. I keep it in my back pocket, as a reminder that it is the Word of God. It is infallible. It is so because it said it is so; what scholars or scientists say about it does not matter, as I know it is from God. He told me so in that dream.

Um, how is that different...?

===================================

"Adam and Eve weren't Hebrew."

Really? The Old Testament is the account of the history of the Hebrew nation... how do you figure that Adam and Eve were not Hebrew...? :p

===================================

"Cain was cast out of eden and took a wife who came from, yep, you guessed it, Eve! Cain's descendents did not worship God like Seth's descendents did who became Jesus's bloodline."

Well, damnit, if it was good enough for Cain and his sister, it's good enough for ma and pa!!!

;p

I will accept that 4,000 years of inbreeding could result in a population that accepts the Bible as being infallibly the word of God, on the say so of that God's followers. That is entirely reasonable.

===================================

"The Genealogy in the bible is of the blood line down to Christ."

Wait.. so Christ isn't Hebrew now...? I'm getting confused...

===================================

"When God Flooded the earth, he killed everyone but 8 people who had to re populate the earth. Because Noah and even his wife descended from someone who was born from Adam and Eve, every child they had, came from Adam and Eve."

So.. more non-Hebrews...? And MORE inbreeding! You really should take a course on genetics...

===================================

"Hebrews were a nationality which came later. The first people were just people. If Adam and Eve were Hebrews then everyone in the world would be Hebrew."

Only to their inbred descendants who believe that the world just "poof" appeared one day, a long, long time ago, because they wish to interpret the Bible as a literal account of history.

===================================

"It really makes no difference what nationality anyone was until after the flood, because they were drowned. Only Noah his wife and 3 sons and their wives repopulated the earth."

Mathematically impossible... but whatever....

Where did all of the modern genetic variation come from...?

===================================

"Everyone was one Nationality until they were building the Tower of Babel. God came down and confussed their language si they couldn't understand each other. That is when all the different Nationalities and the different myths came into being."

Ah, here it is; so God made them all different colors and created genetic variation at this point in time? We can now translate for each other again, and have built ships that leave the atmosphere of our planet - why hasn't God come down to do it again? More likely this was a way to explain all the different cultures out there, so young questioning minds were quieted when asking how God could have created just them, when here were all these people they couldn't comprehend.

====================================

"As these Nationalities went their own ways and became a different Nation they had to establish their myth books to explain how they came into existence and their beliefs in a God who split them from all the other people by giving them their own language after a hugh Flood had destroyed the world. All of these people came into existence "After" the flood so they were not true witnesses of this flood, but could only speak of what they were told."

HAHAHHHHAHAHHAH.... MANY of these cultures existed BEFORE that time; the Babylonians PREDATE .. oh, why do I bother...?

====================================

"Here is what you need to consider. All these people who God separated during the building of the Tower of Babel, started their own countries. Let's see now... Rome, Italy, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Africa, France, Egypt, Asia, Turkey, Israel, etc."

LMAO further...? Rome is IN Italy; Africa is a CONTINENT that includes the country of Egypt; Asia is a REGION that includes Turkey; these modernly identifiable cultures did NOT exist at that time; how did they cross the oceans to establish colonies in the Americas? How did they get to Australia?

=====================================

"You can not call all those people Hebrews! Many of them may have been able to speak Hebrew or Greek, but they were NOT all Hebrews."

Um, I thought the point was that they could NOT speak the same language after the Babel incident...

=====================================

"That is your real Myth!"

You need to look up the definition of "myth"...

=====================================

"They argue only science that they know but can not ague faith because it doesn't exist in science."

I've been arguing both sides; consistently. Many scientists do. As most scientists are also of faith - at least the ones I've known personally. It just doesn't have any bearing on the science.

=====================================

"But in the same way, I refuse to believe what a lot of scientists claim. I can not prove them wrong no more than they can prove me wrong."

Science proves the infallibility of the Bible wrong consistently... buy you're right; you can stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it all you want. That won't make you right, though.

And more to the point, a true scientist wouldn't even TRY to prove you wrong for a system of beliefs; there'd be no point. It won't change what we discover about the world, and how it works.

You need to keep in mind that the nomads who founded the religion that birthed Christianity were not scientists; they were not an advanced society; their biggest military advance was the bow and arrow. They had no self-propelled vehicles. They couldn't manufacture a catalytic converter, an airplane or the Internet. If we were to encounter our ancestors, how would we explain ourselves to them; how would we APPEAR to them? Describe how the Internet works to a pre-industrial tribesman, without showing them a computer... explain a computer...?

======================================

"It is MUTE!"

If you mean it doesn't have a voice of its own, then I agree with your misspelling, & mispronunciation, of the word "moot"...

=====================================

LfL

================================

"I think you missed the point here. "The Rings of Saturn". Yes, I agree there are photos, and I have seen the rings myself, but not without a telescope."

It's not the same thing, though. Even with a Bible in hand, I can not objectively SEE God. Using the Bible to describe God is like holding a telescope in hand and describing the telescope, its parts, its manufacture; its invention; and then stating, "This is proof that the rings of Saturn exist."

=================================

"We are pretty good observers of things but poor analyzers, (sorry AM not intended as a poke)."

No, I agree. Most people can't analyze worth a damn...

=================================

"(wish we had spell check on here)"

Use Firefox as your browser; it'll tell you if you're spelling is incorrect.

=================================

"Anyway, if reptiles do continue to grow as long as they live and they lived 500 yrs. how big would they get? Big as a dinosaur?"

If that were the case, we'd have little reptiles that resemble the dinosaurs that the older ones of that species evolved into. :p I have yet to see a lizard that resembles a T-Rex. :p

=================================

"Jesus said he was the truth and that heaven and earth would pass away but his words would not. It is pretty much accepted that for a little over 2000 yrs. his statement has held true."

So? He also said that any who claims to be God most certainly is not. :p

=================================

lazarus,

I kings 7:23 is a passage famous for it's mis-statement of pi.

How does anyone figure that is a wrong interpretation of pi?

Back then they used a cubit as a way to measure everything. A cubit is an ancient linear unit based on the length of the forearm, from elbow to the tip of the middle finger, usually from 17 to 21 in.

With such a variation of 4" in every cubit, pi could not be applied accurately when the "Scientists and experts" can't determine the "EXACT MEASUREMENT" of a cubit!

They know "EXACTLY" how many miles, feet and inches it is to the moon or the sun or the meteorite heading towards earth, but not sure just how long a cubit is, and they have had thousands of people to investigate it and hundreds of years to analyze it, but a cubit is still 17" to 21".

How would the accuracy of pi, "3.141592+", fit into the biblical equations of a cubit?

Looks like they were very intelligent to estimate pi by rounding it off to fit their need, however nothing is said about them using pi or any other formula other than a cubit. The finished circle was in fact a line of thirty cubits that compassed it round.

A stake in the ground and a peace of string 5 cubits long would give them a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits. Lay a string on the circle perimeter and they would have the length of the circumference in cubits. How hard could that have been?

If we knew exactly what their cubit measurement was that they used, it would have been exactly the measurement of pi, because pi is the tested and proven method that expresses the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

Until scientists and the other expert departments and foundations who are getting a lot of grant money from Congress to determine these things, get on the ball and do what they are being paid to do, We average people can only guess right along with the scientists and experts have guessed it to be.

uni-Q, the problem is, you are trying to make the bible something it is not. it is not a geological textbook. you are attempting to date the earth based on a single creation myth. and that is what genesis is, a creation myth. it is hardly unique. every people had their creation myth, and those creation myths have many common characteristics. one of those characteristics is that the creation myth is only concerned with the people for whom the myth is intended. genesis is not about the origin of all people, only the hebrews. it does not ever even address the origin of all people since, in the time period when creation myths came about, those creating the myths considered their own people to be, for all intents and purposes, *the* people.

if you want to use the bible to try to calculate the length of time that the hebrew people have existed, that makes at least some sense. however, given that the finest bible minds cannot agree within a 100% variance (4,000 or 8,000 years) how long the hebrews had existed prior to the time of christ, maybe they should look and see if science doesnt come down on one side or the other?

lazarus,

would this argument not apply equally to the bible scholars who have come up with an earth age of both 6,000 and 10,000 years?

Yes! Because we don't have anyone on this earth who is smart enough to get the B.C.E. correct, including the Carbon Dating Process, no one can honestly say accurately just how old mankind is on the earth.

If we use the begats (births), we can add up the years all the way to the flood of Noah (year 1656 from Adam's creation) and past that point to the death of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. (Abraham died in 2123)(Issac died in 2228) and (Jacob died in 2255 in Egypt at 147 years old)

Then Moses was born in the year (2587) and died (in 2707 at the age of 120).

In the year (3064) King Saul becomes the King for 40 years.

King David takes over as king in (3104). King David reigns for 40 years also making it year (3144) when King Solomon becomes king for 40 years.

That is as far as I can take the dating as per the scriptures.

I then have to go back from today using B.C.E. dates backwards to events in the bible up to the dates the bible has told us.

This is where the problem comes in. There are no accurate B.C.E. dates that are as reliable as the births in the bible. Every dating source uses a different date for the bible events.

The bible kept it accurate for 3,144 years, but man can not go back accurately to the reign of King Solomon. Every article you read has a different date.

The best I can estimate is 6,140 years from today's date back to the year Adam and Eve were created. Most B.C.E. dates are withing a couple hundred years so that's not too bad, but I can't see how anyone comes up with 10,000 years. Of course, if they use a Jewish calendar, there would be a slight difference in the number of days in the months and years, but don't see a 4,000 year different.

"According to the bible, Man has only been on this earth for approximately 6,000 earth years."

no, the bible never states how long people have been on earth. different groups of humans have attempted to use the bible to make such a calculation. their results of 6,000 and 10,000 years seem to be quite at odds with one another.

"If you have ever done a search for an accurate date (before Christ) you will find that the exact times or dates are different from one source to another. That is enough proof for me to question the accuracy of their dating procedure and calculations."

would this argument not apply equally to the bible scholars who have come up with an earth age of both 6,000 and 10,000 years?

"If one group of scientists have proven something to be true and another group has proven it not to be true, then what are we to believe?"

That a scientist is anybody with a science degree who works in a field of science. Or as a coworker once put it, what do you call a student in medical school who graduates at the bottom of their class?

.

.

.

.

.

"Doctor"

.

.

.

Just go to the Bedford County Medical Center; er, I mean, Heritage South; and then go to Vanderbilt; to understand the difference between doctor and medical practice. It is the same with scientist and scientific method.

Factors can affect test results; and interpreting data leaves some room for error. Agenda and backing are factors, as well; look at all the special interest groups whose scientists declare that something is safe and worry free, that the NIH or EPA insists will harm you greatly, if not outright kill you.

Instrumentation, environmental conditions, sensitivity of equipment, method of analysis, experience, anomalous data; all sorts of things might contribute to different reported values - including improper statistical tests being applied to the data, not 'cleaning' the data properly, or throwing out the data that doesn't conform to the desired outcome of your backers.

Just like some people can add HCl to BaCl and report that they got a precipitate, "which proves that HCl and BaCl react to create apprecipitate" - which is false. All they really could say was that a precipitate was observed.

Science, for the record, tries to limit what it considers to be "absolutes" - it's more a matter of what has a higher likelihood of being correct, with all of the available data at its disposal.

"why doesnt science use this to refute claims that the earth is only six or ten thousand years old? because no one even considers that a serious question."

Heh; even the Vatican doesn't dispute this.

After reviewing several sites on the topic for the past 30 minutes (ADD you say...? NEVER...! Not "Analytical Mindset"!!! ;p), this one says it best:

Vatican backed conference in 2009:

http://www.evolution-rome2009.net/

Science & Religion Today blogspot

http://scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot....

Papers submitted to the International Commission on the History of Geological Sciences, 2007

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/conten...

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but here we are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

To be fair, view from the Young Earth perspective:

http://creationwiki.org/Young_Earth

The 'parent site' of the above looks interesting; just take off the "Young_Earth" in the link...

While looking this up I found some potential interesting reading that I have NOT explored as of yet (I'm not Catholic; I just acknowledge that they have the most proven history and globally accepted influence, in the gamut that is Christianity. They are worth recognition and respect, as both a spiritual person and a scientist.):

Vatican Archives:

http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm

Vatican Catalog:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/instit...

(I need a friend to translate these pages for me; it's her major after all.)

Vatican Library:

http://www.vaticanlibrary.va/home.php?li...

Okay; I lied; it's now been an HOUR that I've spent looking at those links. Which precludes me answering anything else until much later tonight. :p

Evil Monkey; I'm going to take a leap of faith and take you up on that call. ;p (In this context I'm referring to the subjective, spiritual context of Faith, in that I'm presuming there's a valid reason why Grandfather inspired you to do that...)

Thank you, Lazarus; another field of study that completely is NOT mine... I love reading it though. I have my magazine rack sorted according to story types: mind, time/physics, body function, humanity and climate change/Earth science.

UL,

Thank you for the encouragement.

Just to clarify something on a quick-read of your recent comments:

"Like Analytical Mindset, I have to wonder why scientist, or whatever they are, came up with the B.C. dates, if they don't believe in the Bible and events. If they put a date on events that would mean they believed those events happened."

B.C. has been supplanted in the scientific communities with B.C.E. - Before the Common Era. B.C. is still used much the same way that we in the older generations believe there are 7 colors in a rainbow (ROYGBIV; my understanding is it's currently taught that I & V are one spectrum), and Pluto is a planet (this is still hotly debated, though it does not fall within current definitions for a planet...). Some generations still believe in a Young Earth, though, so I'm not too concerned with what naming conventions are used to identify points in our recent-history, when many still can't accept geological history... I may not know these fields personally, but I defer to their studies and conclusions, the same way I'd expect them to defer to mine for why HCl and BaCl don't form a precipitate... :p

"I feel that scientists need to calibrate their Carbon Dating equipment with our Bible times."

Hahahahahaahahahaahah.. um, no.

That whole statement suggests you might wish to read up on scientific models, and why our thinking is structured the way it is. You can argue your beliefs more intelligently without arguing that scientific community should recalibrate anything to support scriptures; that would be unscientific, as it would not be an independent observation at that point.

"The bible also states that God recreated the earth from a Void, so the earth could have been here for billions of years."

Example of CYA... ;D

"I refuse to believe there is a machine that can measure time back 30 Million years or even 1 million years."

There isn't; there's a method that applies observed data independently verified in numerous tests, and extrapolates it in applying an age range to rocks, based on the radioactive decay of Carbon; at least, that's how I understand carbon-dating, without looking it up. It's similar to counting rings on a tree trunk to determine the age of a tree.

"Time" is still something I argue in defining, however... :p

"They are saying the bible only contains stories but yet they have gone to all the trouble to put a date as to when these events happened.

That proves to me that they must believe what the bible is saying in order to put dates on the stories, even though they are all different dates."

Um, yeah... if you say so. That's not what it means at all.

You seem to have forgotten that most of modern science has its origins in the Catholic Church, Muslim clerics and Eastern cultures' monastic record-keeping... (And apothecaries, naturally...)

lazarus,

According to the bible, Man has only been on this earth for approximately 6,000 earth years.

The bible also states that God recreated the earth from a Void, so the earth could have been here for billions of years.

Scientists claim Dinosaurs and hominids existed millions of years ago.

Oldest hominid -

Orrorin tugenensis - 6 million years ago. The Dinosaurs lived over 30 million years, or so they say. Yeah. right!

I refuse to believe there is a machine that can measure time back 30 Million years or even 1 million years.

I feel that scientists need to calibrate their Carbon Dating equipment with our Bible times.

Like Analytical Mindset, I have to wonder why scientist, or whatever they are, came up with the B.C. dates, if they don't believe in the Bible and events. If they put a date on events that would mean they believed those events happened.

They are saying the bible only contains stories but yet they have gone to all the trouble to put a date as to when these events happened.

That proves to me that they must believe what the bible is saying in order to put dates on the stories, even though they are all different dates.

If you have ever done a search for an accurate date (before Christ) you will find that the exact times or dates are different from one source to another.

That is enough proof for me to question the accuracy of their dating procedure and calculations.

How can any other dating equipment be accurate when they can not accurately calculate time in our earth age!!!!!!!!!

And I am suppose to believe scientists and experts about something that existed millions of years ago?

Analytical Mindset,

I for one think you have done an excellent job of answering everyone's questions. Everyone hasn't been listening to what you are saying.

I didn't know what kind of a scientist you were, but now I do, so I won't be asking you anymore questions that you aren't qualified to answer, because you are a scientist in another field.

As a Christian, I can say you have given an excellent performance in answering everyone. Now I will leave you alone and let you have some peace.

Thanks for the debates, it has been interesting.

QC,

I excel at analytical, spatial and deductive reasoning; at absorbing information, and applying it to the big picture; and have a limited 'photographic' memory - that is, I have a detailed memory for images, where I referenced something in the past, and places I've been, but not so much for exact words; great creativity and insight; have confidence in my knowledge and skills sets; excel at out-of-the-box thinking; and hyper-aware of my surroundings; and chemical sensitivity.

My challenges are that I think in pictures and concepts vs words, so my vocabulary developed to be overly specific; my auditory memory is relatively short, which is why I prefer written modes of communication; I'm one of those people that learns by doing or watching, not by being given verbal instructions (ironically, supervisors don't seem to listen to this when I tell them that...); I have trouble with foreign languages as I don't think in words typically anyways; general lack of focus and follow-through typical of ADD; poor interpersonal social skills in-person / lack of confidence; sleep apnea (weight related); and I have trouble accepting information solely on the 'color of authority' - I need to understand the big picture myself, or I don't accept it as a personal truth.

My sister, as a high school instructor, thinks that I exhibited signs of Aspergers in High School; if so, I learned to adapt to it in my youth, on my own; though I'm open to the possibility that I could still reside on the far / weak side of the Pervasive Perceptual Disorders spectrum (which affords me a pet interest in research into these areas).

I realize you weren't actually asking me what my disabilities-abilities balance was, but I felt inclined to share that information regardless. :)

I will review LtL and ULs stuff later. Another restless night and 20 hrs away; going to bed. This sleep disorder stuff is playing havok on the job search the past couple months, as I keep getting to bed about the time my target industries are showing up for work. :p

Realquick, to LiveforLight, I don't know that I will have much to add to our discussion; only because we are operating off of different definitions, and a meeting-of-the-minds can't be done if we are both presenting our position from different acceptance of what is being discussed.

My conversation was solely regarding Faith as applied to spiritual tenets, and not the generic use of it in common conversation. If we can't agree that's the definition being used, then I see no point to continuing that particular discourse. You are trying to equate a spiritual sense of subjective faith to the type of faith that comes from objective experiences, in an effort to imply that scientists operate in a manner similar to theists (or at least, that's how it's coming across, as many fundamentalists are fond of that 'tactic'). There's no point to a discussion where the participants don't agree as to the meaning of the terms being discussed.

Shortest conversation ever on abortion rights took place at my college:

Person 1 - It's wrong because an innocent soul is being taken from this world before it has time to experience life in the world.

Person 2 - So you don't accept the possibility of reincarnation, and that such souls will be allowed to experience life through a different body?

Person 1 - Wait, you're saying you believe in reincarnation, and that aborted fetus' souls are given another chance at life?

Person 2 - I'm saying I'm open to the possibility, as an Omnipotent God can do that; when someone older dies, we say it's God's will; why can't God's will be to reincarnate the souls of aborted fetuses?

Person 1 - Well, if you believe that reincarnation's possible, there's no point to debating abortion with you, as there's no moral conflict there.

I knew both people; I laughed at the simplicity of that discussion. :)

ie: agree to disagree.

Ooops I misspelled the website name. It is http://www.marriagebuilders.com

My apologies for anyone who visited the other site.

I wonder how much a "disability" helps in these matters.

The less one can slide by doing things the conventional way,the more creative and adaptive one has to be.

One has to take more notice of things and appreciate more of life's nuances.

Maybe,that's why we have our challenges and limitations.

They keep us humble and encourage us to make the most of every edge that comes our way.

AM's learning diability has probably given him a stronger grip on what knowledge he has acquired.

Michael Bell's speech impediment has probably led him to listen more than glory in the sound of his own voice.

It might not hurt for us to give thanks for our limitations as well as our obvious blessings.

Puh-leeeze!

If we must be "Anal" or "common",poor Shawna's going to have to lie down in a dark room with a cold compress on her head until EVERYone learns to act nice (even *MOI*- yikes!).

(offers SJ some aromatherapy,soft music,appropriate juices and tisanes,approved meds,a nice snack,vouchers for spoiling by her loved ones and a bit of prayer.)

"Anal,

Sorry, I thought from reading your comments you were educated at The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 7:35 AM "

No need to apologize; we realize that "literacy" isn't a high priority in the Tennessee grade-school education system.

(You know that you're really looking childish in your posts, right?)

As a product of my time,I got the impression that the people promoting good ideas would be VERY short-lived and even the most plausible,practical notion would be treated as about as real as legal mandates for the weather.

The question we might ask ourselves now is whether we would fare better to:

1. Declare everything normal and hunky-dory.

2. Panic,grumble or immerse ourselves in the doldrums over the problems we face.

3. Identify our challenges and goals and unite to apply our best to what's in front of us.

Some treat God or the gubmint as vending machines installed for our convenience or dangers to be avoided,opposed or ignored.

Where is the perception that they are our teammates and family?

Maybe we serve One (God) and are served by the other (secular authority) but are we passive afterthoughts or true participants in what occurs in our world?

It seems we see ourselves as being served so much (as autarchs or appetizers) that we forget to ask how we can be of service.

We need not be insignificant drones,slaves or machines.

We can perform our tasks as do those skilled and congenial butlers,secretaries and the like in the old movies who are so loyal and competent that only the very wise comprehend the extent of their accomplishments.

They focus on applying their gifts to do the most good where it's most needed.

When it's all been said and done,what else do heroes have to do?

What happened to Michael Bell. I thought he said he was going to be back for a while?

He has missed a lot of chances to jump in and save the people from this changing government and worldly situations.

Anal,

Sorry, I thought from reading your comments you were educated at The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

"AM,

Missed another one,,, sorry, Maybe if your posts were short enough to be visible on screen all at once. Anyway your post was;

Ltl, to the above most recent post, "Um, what...?"

Yes, free to choose; pick and choose whichever mined quotes support the point you wish to make; ignore the rest of them, or the overall theme. With all the various opinions and interpretations represented in the Bible, you're guaranteed to find one that fits your view if you narrow it in tight enough.

WHAT= Free to obey the commandment to love God or not. Stay focused on the scripture subject. "The greatest commandment"

Please pick a few scripture quotes to support, or oppose, your points on religious matters. I, for one, would appreciate it:)

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 8:21 PM "

I'm not trying to be mean in saying this, but I need to truly understand what you're asking me in order to answer it. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

Hence the, "Um, What...?"

And why would I need to quote scriptures more than I already have? If you didn't read them, that's not my problem. :p

"Anal-ytical,

Nice dissertation on a hill of beans.

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 7:26 PM "

So you still got nothing...? :p

Analytical Mindset,

you posted to me: Um, what...? As a -scientist-, why would I even care to apply a scientific explanation to a scriptural reference, thereby implying credibility to the claim being made? Nice try; consider that whole supposition nuked.

Here I was only asking your scientific knowledge of what the center of earth was like. All hot lava or a mixture of hot and cold or what? Has nothing to do with the parable, but only the composition of center of the earth.

By your above post, you are the wrong scientist for me to be asking this. Sorry for all the long comments that were unnecessary, now that I know what I now know.

I read the webpage:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nr...

I commented on only two things to prove my point.

47). National Guard Authority. Under 32 United States Codes Section 502(f) National Guard forces operating in a State Active Duty or Title 32 status are NOT subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

-> What is this Posse Comitatus Act?

G. Military Authorities

42). The Posse Comitatus Act, Title 18 of the United States Codes, section 1385 (2007), prohibits the use of the Army or the Air Force for law enforcement purposes, EXCEPT as otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Statute. This prohibition applies to Navy and Marine Corps personnel by Department of Defense (DOD) internal regulations. The primary concept in the Posse Comitatus Act is to prevent direct involvement by active duty military personnel in traditional law enforcement activities.

Here 42). states it prohibits the use of the Army or the Air Force for law enforcement purposes, EXCEPT as otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Statute.

What statute? Since it is PROHIBITED by the U.S. Constitution, no statute can enforce this unconstitutional Martial Law.

So. 47). says the National Guard Forces operating in a state are NOT SUBJECT TO the Posse Comitatus Act, meaning they can force Martial Law on the citizens in that state. Highly Unconstitutional and even against the Tennessee Constitution.

Tennessee State Constitution

Article I, Section 25,

§ 25. Martial law

That no citizen of this State, except such as are employed in the army of the United States, or militia in actual service, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confided to any department of the government of this State.

If you read the whole FEMA Authority thingy, you will find this out:

First, FEMA is a Federal Agency which has no jurisdiction in the states unless invited into the state(s).

The Federal law says that during an emergency the president can invoke the Federal Laws giving FEMA Control over everything that happens.

This is a Federal Law and all Federal legislation applies only in Federal territories unless there is a contrary intent where congress gives it jurisdiction over the states, which is hard to do legally.

Once the Governor invites FEMA into the state, FEMA as a Federal Agency takes over complete jurisdiction and control over everything during this emergency (even if it is "MAN MADE").

This means your rights are like they are in an airport. You don't have any rights and they can use the military to enforce the law like they did in New Orleans.

FEMA, by any Federal or State agency, can take control of all forms of transportation and vehicles, private and public, all oil, gas, electricity, in private use or public, food in stores, warehouses or even in your home, money in banks, businesses, or your bank account.

When FEMA is given Authority over the people in any or all of the states we have a Government that is completely Totalitarian. I repeat...TOTALLY TOTALITARIAN!

If we don't have any say in what they do, it is a Totalitarian Government.

No one can truthfully blame Obama for this mess. The Puppet Masters are pulling his strings. If he doesn't want to be "ex-President" he will do and say what they tell him to.

We need to worry LESS about "America as we see it", and MORE about "Tennessee as it is".

Since you mentioned The Tennessee State Lottery!

TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE XI, Section 5.

§ 5. Lotteries

The Legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in this State.

Kinda looks like the totalitarian Government snuck in an unlawful bill right under the noses of the Tennessee State Supreme Court Justices who are suppose to check the laws on items before they can be added to the Tennessee State Constitution.

So what! They amended, changed and added amendments every 4 years for three or four years in a row when the constitution says it can only be amended, repealed, added or changed only once every 6 years just like the U.S. Constitution.

Tennessee State Constitution Article XI, Section 3

...No change in, or amendment to, this Constitution proposed by such convention shall become effective, unless within the limitations of the call of the convention, and unless approved and ratified by a majority of the qualified voters voting separately on such change or amendment at an election to be held in such manner and on such date as may be fixed by the convention. No such convention shall be held oftener than once in six years.

FEI - For Everyone's Information...

In 1998, the voters were asked about two amendments. One was the "Victims' Rights Amendment". The other amendment removed the word "comfortable" from the requirements for minimum standards for prisons. Both of these amendments passed by overwhelming margins in an election that was marked by a very light turnout. These amendments represented the first changes to the constitution in 20 years.

In 2002, just 4 years later, not the required 6 years, the legislature again proposed two amendments. The first proposal passed, repealing a constitutional ban on all lotteries. The amendment established the current state lottery. The other amendment on the 2002 ballot, pushed for by the Tennessee Municipal League (TML), would have eliminated a constitutional provision that set $50 (a large sum in 1870 when the provision was enacted) as the maximum allowable fine for violation of a municipal Ordinance.

Article VI, section 14

No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this State that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers, who shall assess the fine at the time they find the fact, if they think the fine should be more than fifty dollars. (This one didn't pass). It did change prematurely because I read the new amendment in the blue book on the internet and it made no sense to me at all. It was changed back to the original wording

In 2006, just 4 year later instead of the required 6 years, two additional amendments to the Tennessee State Constitution were passed. The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment specifies that only marriages between a man and a woman can be legally recognized in the state of Tennessee.

A second amendment, authorizing the legislature to enact legislation allowing counties and municipalities to exempt people over 65 from property tax increases, was approved by 83% of voters.

I personally wrote a letter to our Bedford County and the Murfreesboro Country Representatives explaining that the State Lottery would be illegal, but because Tennessee was bankrupt, I felt like it was the only way to save their asset.

I also mentioned that Article VI section 14 was a guaranteed right to the people by the State Constitution and could not be removed or changed.

See Article XI Section 16. Bill of rights declared inviolate.

Did my letters make a difference? Never got an answer from either representative, but I was happy with their decisions that year.

The Lottery was passed just 4 years after the Constitution was changed making it an unconstitutional Amendment as well as the TML amendment which stayed the same.

4 years later they passed 2 amendments; only marriages between a man and a woman are legal and exempting people over 65 from property tax increases. Both of these amendments would be void also because they didn't wait 6 years to vote on them from the last change to the Constitution.

Goggle Plastic Coffins and look at the millions of FEMA Plastic Coffins right here in the USA.

Why do we need millions of disposable plastic coffins. None are/were used in Hatti or New Orleans during the mass deaths. They are burying bodies in mass graves not plastic coffins.

Why are most of your quotes of what God wants from the NT, but the ones of proofs he's offered are from the OT?

Why is your understanding of God more correct than a Jew's understanding of God?

1.) Because Christ made the sheep you refered to earlier obsolete, and Christ's words are in the NT. He is the cornerstone that is used to align the gospels. I always seek his quotes. Christ didn't need to quote proofs from the OT. He was there and his works offered the proof in real time.

2.)I didn't say my understanding is more correct than the Jews.

I don't answer all of your posts, or even read them all. They are just too long. If I see my user name I may read some or most of it. Try making your points more brief and narrow them a bit:)

Look at California's Department of Rehabilitation.

I know I wouldn't have my education, and related knowledge, if not for the latter program. I have several learning disadvantages......

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 4:37 PM

Hey anal, are you saying California prisons offer a better education than Tennessee??

Ltl, to the above most recent post, "Um, what...?"

Yes, free to choose; pick and choose whichever mined quotes support the point you wish to make; ignore the rest of them, or the overall theme. With all the various opinions and interpretations represented in the Bible, you're guaranteed to find one that fits your view if you narrow it in tight enough.

Why are most of your quotes of what God wants from the NT, but the ones of proofs he's offered are from the OT?

Why is your understanding of God more correct than a Jew's understanding of God?

========================

(This is long, even by MY standards; but it's also potentially informative; and likely one of my last; so enjoy it, or hate it; I care nor apologize.)

UL, regarding your other questions to me as a 'scientist', being a 'scientist' qualifies me to answer every scientific question about as much as being a Christian qualifies you to answer questions regarding the belief system of the Australian Aborigines and their concept of the Dreamtime. Sure, you can google it, and read up on it, but that's not the same thing as being educated in it; as it being an area of personal interest or expertise.

If you want to pick my brain on general science, that's great; on philosophies of scientific thought, no problem; on specific issues regarding environmental regulations, or toxicological risk assessments, I may be able to offer something worthwhile.

If you want answers that require one to be a geologist, hydrogeologist, climatologist, oceanographer, geographer, archaeologist, physicist, chemical engineer, environmental engineer, statistician, etc.; you're going to be in for a world of disappointment as to quality and accuracy.

I can competently look up and explain in layman terms many concepts related to biology, chemistry and biochemistry, but I am by no means at the same level of proficiency as someone conducting research in those fields, or in possession of a Masters or Doctorate in the pursuit of such fields of study. I have a Bachelor of Science; that's it. And read LOTS of Scientific American and environmental regulations in my spare time. Today, for instance, I've been reading up on the requirements of the Lead-Based Paint, Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Program; administered by TDEC to support Region IV EPA requirements that go into effect April 2010. "Under the rule, beginning in April 2010, contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination."

I can answer questions relating to THESE topics much more competently than those that you asked of me:

"What can you tell us in your own words as a scientist... are we experiencing a Global Warming and will it continue?"

Yes. My 91 yo 5th cousin in the Appalachian hills, with NO education in science, will tell you the same thing. Point...?

"Do you see anyway that this Global Warming would come close to doing what scientists claim it would do?"

I haven't followed their claims. The last time I recall being actively in a discussion on this was in a philosophy course on Environmental Ethics in 1991. At the time I was to do a paper on what Paul Ehrlich claimed in the early 80s regarding global warming, which was directly contradicted by more recent (at the time) findings.

The instructor was miffed that I utterly destroyed the voice of his "authority". There were two science majors in that class; I was one of them. He felt that we were dooming the Earth to eventually fall out of orbit, and crash into the sun. As I recall the discussion, this wouldn't happen for millions and millions of years. I'm more concerned with our survival as a species over the next thousand years.

I'm not commenting on the climatologist aspects of your question as I have no personal interest or knowledge thereof beyond what I've stated, and am disinclined to spend an hour reading up on it just to voice my opinion. I'd recommend reading what those experts say, and what evidence they give.

And keep in mind that there is still debate as to whether Global Warming is even within our ability to affect, control or change; I have not personally read concrete evidence that Global Warming is caused by human interference, and not by a natural cycle of the Earth / universe.

"I also hear claims that asteroids may hit the earth causing blasts greater than nuclear blasts."

Yup. Lots of "near misses", which in Astronomy terms means hundreds of miles, if not more, from our orbit. The geological record shows evidence of past impacts all across the USA, and the world entire.

I'm more interested in why the Space Shuttle program was scrapped; I must have missed that memo. Why would we want to cease seeking means of moving further into our solar system?

"They claim it would cause a dust cloud that would not let the sun shine on earth for years so the people would die from plagues, famine etc."

Yeah, yeah; I see where you're trying to set this up to say that Revelations predicts all this, so that proves the Bible is true. That is your perspective; do with it as you will.

Nostradamus predicted such things, too. So what? NASA and other agencies predict its eventual probability as well.

All the event coming true would prove is that someone, perhaps with advanced scientific knowledge, predicted what would happen if an asteroid impacted the Earth; and looking at star charts, saw when this might happen. :p

Here's some actual stuff from the communities that monitor and prep for such things, though, including a drill conducted in 2008. An asteroid actually IS predicted to have a small chance of striking Earth in 2039; I'll be 69 then - should be fun! :D

http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/Natural_Impa...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apoph...

Personally, I'm more concerned with increased tropical storm activities, and the eroding of coastal defenses against landfall of hurricanes. Subsequent inland incursions, without time to renew defenses, could easily result in hurricanes that rut further and further into the continental United States.

"I see shows where people are trying to out run tidal waves and meteorites in movies."

Yeah, in movies a guy can be kicked ten times in the head and still fight. What of it...?

"Those directors and producers evidently do not know that if an Asteroid was headed to earth it would burn up every live being and thing in it's path before it ever hit the earth?"

They know; cinematic license. Just like in the movies elevator doors don't open if you stick an object between them - all you can do is bang on the doors as they close and the good guy gets away. They also don't have caller-ID in movies, and it still takes law enforcement up to a minute to trace a call. Cinematic license; suspend disbelief; "do not try this at home".

"In your opinion, could that many people be resurrected at one time here on earth?"

Define resurrected? In your definition of resurrection, is reincarnation deemed impossible? In your definition of earth, is the construct limited? In your definition of God, as I'm assuming you are relating this to the Biblical promise of resurrection, is it impossible for God to do this feat?

Silly questions...

I realize I ran liveforlight and ULs comments into one response; I carried the conversation incorrectly over to my text editor. C'est la vie.

I've never claimed to be infallible.

LiveforLight,

"So you know what God wants and doesn't want? How?"

You stated, "If I did not have the bible would I believe God exists? If you did not have a globe would you believe the world is flat?" By using the globe as a reference here, and subsequently, as if it is my evidence for why the world is not flat, you have also stated that the Bible is your evidence for why God is real. I understood that inference when I responded to you as quoted above. In the assumption that what the Bible states about God is true and correct, then God Himself tells us what He wants us to have Faith, and through various stories tells us that Faith does not rely on what can be proven, to be true.

If an omnipotent deity wanted there to be proof that it existed, we'd have that proof. The way I see it, the best evidence in support of a divine force is the fact that there IS NO objective evidence of its existence. Surely in the past several thousand years, the religious leaders of antiquity had more than ample time to leave things for us to find, which would have proven that God existed - even to a scientist - as they were the progenitors of the disciplines that led to modern scientific thought. Being as no evidence exists, and humanity's predisposition to create such "evidence" where it is able, supports an argument that such "evidence" was removed from the historical record by a greater, outside influence.

"Why would you not think the world is flat? History says that the scholars of pre-columbus days did."

It does? What source are you reading?

"Yet you wouldn't? Based on what? You heard what you know from someone and believed based on what you saw. Correct? Or did you test these things yourself?"

Yes, I believe the world is not flat, based on what I can see. If the world were flat, I could stand on a second story building and see all the way to Nashville, and beyond, obstructions notwithstanding. I could not do this, however. Even if there were a 20 story building in town, I could not see Nashville from it. The curvature of the Earth causes it to drop below the range of what I can see. This is observable; it is not subjective. Superstition and a lack of education is why early cultures believed the world was flat.

"Obviously you are well educated and have a lot of knowledge."

I don't know about "well educated"... but I have an education; and my knowledge is limited to my areas of interest.

"Blame my perceived ignorance on the Tennessee education system if you like;)"

If the reasoning you have expressed prior is just "perceived ignorance", it is a perception that is not difficult to come by... :p Honestly, my gripe is more with Bedford County's education up to and including high school. This community's focus seems to be to push the majority to a diploma to satisfy "no child left behind legislation", even if it's a 'resource diploma', and then route them to jobs at WalMart, other retail/fast-food, or in manufacturing. The best and the brightest are focused on, to push them to pursue college and achieve more, so they will reflect greater on Bedford County. The people in "resource" are made pretty promises of learning and preparing them for the world, but once they have that diploma, are told they are no longer the Education system's obligation, as they graduated from high school - so what if they still don't possess basic proficiencies in English, Mathematics or an acceptable level of self-confidence; who cares about instilling them with the tools to succeed; we'll just put them on SSI and set them up with government-funded housing. And IF they find out about the Tennessee Rehabilitation Center, and have the requisite THREE life-affecting challenges, then we'll see about putting them through a program like the (great, for what it is) resident TRC facility in Smyrna, where ALL of the State's qualified applicants go; underfunded and low priority as Education is to the State of Tennessee.

We need to worry LESS about "America as we see it", and MORE about "Tennessee as it is".

I still want to know why the Tennessee Lottery proceeds don't go towards bolstering the Department of Rehabilitation's program into something more robust and comprehensive? Want a good model for success? Look at California's Department of Rehabilitation.

I know I wouldn't have my education, and related knowledge, if not for the latter program. I have several learning disadvantages to how mainstream educational facilities are structured; not only did I receive financial assistance once accepted to the CA DoR, but it qualified me for accomodations in my classes. It BLOWS MY MIND that while we recognize in this state that there are learning disabilities, reasonable accomodations are not made readily available in all cases - despite the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is this really annoying disability, for instance, called an "Auditory Perceptual Disorder", where your retention of words spoken / heard is only a few seconds long. This makes it VERY difficult to both follow a spoken lecture, AND take notes during it. One reasonable accomodation for this is a designated note-taker for qualified persons, using carbonless paper. That allows such individuals to focus more attention on listening, and being able to understand what is being taught, without missing out on key points that everybody else inherently understands are being called attention to by the instructor.

Ah, crike... I carried that off on a tangent. Oh well, it's a Michael Bell blog; it's still on-topic.... :p

And IS a reflection of how I see America; and more so, Tennessee; today. :p

Analytical Mindset,

Here is one more, America "The Way I See It", only it goes deeeeeper!

It pertains to the center of the earth. As a scientist, perhaps you can help me with this one.

In Luke 16:19-31 the bible speaks of a place in the center of the earth where all the dead go.

Myself, I believe it is a parable that Jesus is using to wake the people up to his purpose here on earth, not his death and resurrection.

It is easier for you to read it yourself than for me to explain it.

Most people think that this place actually exists for hell and "Paradise".

My theory on this is that the center of the earth would be like a ball of fire and tremendously hot for Christians to go to as a Paradise.

The two places are separated by a gulf. One side being Hell, the other side representing Paradise for good people.

What would happen if one side was Hot and the other air conditioned for the saints?

This would be an impossibility as far as I know about the earth.

The bible also says that when we die we know nothing and do nothing, so there would be no need for such a place in the center of the earth for the good Christians or even the bad guys if they know nothing and do nothing.

What can you shed on this "center of the earth paradise"?

I know I am changing the subject but since you are a scientist, I would like to learn what I can from you while you're here.

I always wondered why people never asked Jesus when he was here on earth questions about the earth etc. Why did Columbus have to discover the world was round when we had an expert here years before it happened who created the earth and the heavens. They could have asked him hundreds of questions. It was like they were not informed enough about anything to be able to ask questions.

Analytical Mindset

Getting back to the way I see it... What can you tell us in your own words as a scientist... are we experiencing a Global Warming and will it continue?

I have noticed that the earth has been warming up more and more each year since 1970 or before. We do have freak freezes even down in Florida, but that is to be expected.

Do you see anyway that this Global Warming would come close to doing what scientists claim it would do?

First the Ice melts, the suns rays do not bounce back into space causing the earth to get even hotter... melted ice turns to water raising the oceans until it floods the perimeter of the continents...earth becoming so hot it burns up, then turns earth into an Ice age again?

I also hear claims that asteroids may hit the earth causing blasts greater than nuclear blasts. They claim it would cause a dust cloud that would not let the sun shine on earth for years so the people would die from plagues, famine etc.

I see shows where people are trying to out run tidal waves and meteorites in movies. Those directors and producers evidently do not know that if an Asteroid was headed to earth it would burn up every live being and thing in it's path before it ever hit the earth? They wouldn't feel nor hear the impact because they would be dead.

Corey S. Powell, in an article titled "20 Ways the World Could End", stated "Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today." That would add up to approximately 34 1/2 Billion people have lived here on earth or are living on earth today. How Powell came up with this fraction is yet to be seen.

In your opinion, could that many people be resurrected at one time here on earth?

LiveforLight.... just, "wow"....

"There is proof all around that God exists, just open your eyes."

If you have proof, you don't have faith. Bottom line. A tree is not proof of God; it is proof that trees exist in our reality. It may be the evidence that you subjectively see as being proof of God, but it is in no way a reproducible proof.

Also, who cares what Darwin says? Darwin may have first presented the theory formally, but that doesn't make his words equivalent to what God is for Christians. He was a naturalist; his theories and conclusions are open to debate. :p

The Bible does NOT mention dinosaurs. The leviathan is not the description of a species that died out before the people represented in the Bible came to exist. Or is it your contention that all of the dinosaurs died in the flood...?

I like what John Shelby Spong says about the flood in "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", on pgs 29-30 (softcover):

"The literal account in the Bible says that the waters covered the whole earth. "And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep" (Gen. 7:19, 20). A cubit is an ancient unit of length varying from eighteen inches to sometimes twenty-one inches, or more. The Himalayan mountains soar to 28,028 feet in Mount Everest. For the flood story to be literally true, water more than five miles deep would have had to cover the earth. Since the earth is round, not flat, the water could not simply fall off the edges so that dry land could appear. If the polar ice cap melted, it might place coastal cities under water, but a five-mile depth of water covering the entire earth is more water than any of us could imagine. It is also a quantity that could not ever be absorbed by the earth. A universal flood that covered the whole earth to the depth of fifteen cubits is not a fact of human history. It exists only in our mythology."

That's written by a Christian man, who at the time was a Bishop in the Episcopalian Church.

"But when one comes in conflict with the other, which one are you more likely to believe as true?"

The one that has OBJECTIVE evidence to support it...?

"I am not trying to prove that God exists by quoting the bible."

That's how it comes across...

"I beleive he exists just by observing his creation and the spirit within me."

And that's perfectly fine; it's a personal belief - a personal truth. Applying it to everybody else is where conflict takes root.

"Judgemental remarks about me being "THAT" guy, really doesn't help anything. You can apply whatever stereotype you like."

WHAT stereotype...? I suggested that you believe the Bible offers objective evidence that God exists; you are STILL stating that.

I am not trying to prove that God exists by quoting the bible.

I beleive he exists just by observing his creation and the spirit within me.

Judgemental remarks about me being "THAT" guy, really doesn't help anything. You can apply whatever stereotype you like.

My point on faith is this.

Darwin says that the first living animals were in the sea.

The bible says the first living animals were in the sea.

Scientist says dinosaurs existed.

The bible says dinosaurs existed.

As long as both agree there is really no problem right? But when one comes in conflict with the other, which one are you more likely to believe as true? Where do you place your faith?

Why are we here? Because God willed it so.

You want to know more? Sure why not.

There is proof all around that God exists, just open your eyes.

I believe scientists would advance much quicker and more accurately if they worked more in tune with the facts that the bible has already documented. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Remember the tree of knowledge? So we have knowledge. Wisdom is needed to apply it.

Can darkness overpower light? The blackhole as described by science is not a good example to say 'yes'. It is not the darkness in the black hole but the gravity that theoritically overpowers the light. If you have faith in the scientific research.

We can fall, that is for sure. Light overpowered by...satan??? But when you open the door in a lighted room at night, it is the light that shines out, not the dark that shines in.

Analytical Mindset,

You defined faith as:

"Where my rational mind tells me that something is unlikely to be true, but I choose to believe in it anyways, as in my heart I trust it is real."

Yet, you question why an atheist would care what someone else believes through faith. Personally, I care because I agree with your definition of faith. In fact, in most of the debates I've had with religious people, the only thing I hoped to achieve was not to deconvert them, but to force them, by intellectual honesty, to admit that their beliefs are based on faith alone, not logic or evidence.

Many will not admit that, and I think it is because most people, religious or not, know that blind faith is not a good thing, and they want to believe their beliefs are based on reason, not their emotions and a deep desire to believe in something. But that is all that is left when you remove evidence and reason from the equation - feelings. Then God becomes whatever the indivdual wants him to be. A tolerent person will believe in a tolerent God, an intolerant person will believe in an intolerant God, etc. It may be comforting, but it is nothing but a self-pleasing delusion.

I believe the main reason religion is harmful is due to the fact that even the most moderate of beliefs teaches that somehow it is a virtue to blindly accept the unsupported, the unsubstantiated, and the illogical. That it is somehow more noble to hold a position purely on faith, than it is to present evidence for one's position.

The trouble is that once faith-based thinking is incorporated into one aspect of a person's worldview, it has a tendency to spread to others. Then, this can lead to unreasonable behavior, and it often does. The inherent nature of faith makes all humanity vulnerable to any individual, religion, nation, or culture that chooses to utilize the fallacy of faith in its policies and actions.

"And if the contamination had not been found? Then what would you have believed?"

1 + 2 = 3.

If you add 1 + 3 and get 7, you did something wrong.

You can't add BaCl + HCl and get a precipitation. It's not possible. BaCl + HCl -> BaCl + HCl. The chloride ion is already present in both compounds; there is nothing to draw it away, and nothing for it to bind to, to create a different compound. Either you have misappropriately labeled the BaCl salt as the precipitate, or there is something else in the mixture other than BaCl and HCl. There is no third possibility, under the laws to which our reality has been assigned to function.

"A hypothesis may be proven eventually but it requires faith to act on what has become to be the hypothesis."

No, no it does not. It relies on calculations, which are based on past, observable experiences of success. It is not faith in the sense of relying on something for which there is no proof. You are using a different definition of faith here. If you can't make the distinction, we can't have a meaningful discussion on this.

It is not faith comparable to religious belief to predict how a scientific experiment is likely to proceed, given all available data. The outcome that occurs is then recorded, which supports or disproves the hypothesis. No faith required.

"If I did not have the bible would I believe God exists? If you did not have a globe would you believe the world is flat?"

My god... you're THAT guy... the world can be observed and tested. God, by design, can not. He doesn't want you to have proof that He exists; He demands your FAITH that He does.

If I did not have a globe (which, I don't), I still would not think the world is flat.

If I did not have a Bible, I would still have faith in Creator, as that is what my life experiences have upheld as being true and testable - for me. That is a personal, subjective truth; that can't be verified objectively.

But I don't quote the globe as giving proof that the world isn't flat. You are quoting the Bible as proof that God exists. Why else would you be using it to define every argument you present?

"Love is the answer!! Man seeks control."

Maybe where you grew up. Where I grew up, man seeks to answer the question, "Why?"

Why are we here?

Why does this work this way?

Why do some things do this, while some things do that?

Science doesn't seek to control anything; it seeks to understand what already exists, to be able to predict other ways that what exists might be utilized for the betterment of mankind.

Applied to God the way monastic science began the discipline, Science seeks to better understand the reality that God created for us, so that we can obey His directive, and put it the best uses that He had planned for us when He created everything, and set it to rules. If we weren't meant to harness these things to better ourselves, then He would have made everything work without rules; without reproducibility; without logic. It'd all work by 'magic', and there'd be no dicernable patterns in life. There would be no building blocks. It'd be evident that something else was pulling the strings. That would be the proof; but God doesn't want mankind to come to him because they empirically know He exists; He wants them to have FAITH he exists.

"I didn't realize you were just talking about religious faith."

If you weren't paying attention to the conversation, I don't know what I can say that will help you with that in the future. Unique-Lies understood it, to whom I was answering in it. It was pretty clear.

"Not religous faith here; but if the reaction is not as expected as described above, then it is your faith in these "facts" that prompts you to look for the reason why the reaction was not as expected.

Does God expect less? Assuming of course, he does exist:)"

How is it that RIGHT after you close a post stating that now you understand we're talking about religious faith and not generic faith, here you are bringing this up AGAIN? If you want to make up a definition in which logic is supplanted by faith in an objective setting, and apply it to soemthing as subjective as spiritual faith, just to try to 'win' the discussion... which shouldn't even BE an objective...

You seem to still not be able to read for comprehension; you keep addressing me with arguments that tell me that you think I don't believe in a Creator. If you have read this far and STILL think that, I have some serious questions regarding the efficacy of the Education department in Tennessee...

In my opinion, anything that is not already Proof or has some truth to it, the world of science doesn't involve their time with it. They are dissectors of something that is assumed to be true. They don't want to prove it is true, but not true.

If something may be false or not proven, they have nothing to go on. If it is false or not assumed true, what Proof do they have to disprove.

As for our Faith or Beliefs, a scientist can only argue his/her beliefs with what is known. If there is no absolute proof of faith or belief, then there is nothing to argue.

Analytical Mindset made a very excellent scientific statement, which I think all Christians should stand back and look at it for what it is:

"Trying to prove that God exists, shows to me, that one lacks faith that God exists."

God exists in our Hearts, Minds and souls, not on a birth certificate somewhere.

John 20:29

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 10:15 AM

Like in the Chem lab where other students were insisting I was wrong for not adding the BaCl salt to the HCl acid to observe a reaction. They had done so and seen precipitation, meaning that the solid and liquid had reacted with each other to form a new compound. I ignored them and didn't even do the experiment, and wrote down, "no reaction"; as I did for 4 other exercises in that lab. When the instructor became involved, it was found the BaCl was contaminated with something else. A chloride salt will NOT react with a chloride liquid. It just won't. That's not faith; that's fact.

And if the contamination had not been found? Then what would you have believed?

A hypothesis may be proven eventually but it requires faith to act on what has become to be the hypothesis.

"The substance of things hoped for".

If I did not have the bible would I believe God exists? If you did not have a globe would you believe the world is flat?

Love is the answer!! Man seeks control. We want to think we are in control of everything or that we can control everything if we have the proof of how it works. Then there would not really be a miracle. In fact, miracles just do not exist right? We just don't have the facts yet. We can't control the chemicals, substances, or conditions correctly.

Love demands the surrender of control. Once you love something or someone you are at their(its) mercy. What if you had told your wife "I love you" and she rejected you, would that be proof enough that you are not in control once your love was given? Or would you believe that you had the right chemistry and that something else was amiss?

God requires your love first, an act of faith, in his mercy. That, to me, is what religious faith is. I didn't realize you were just talking about religious faith.

Faith in science? Love of science? Faith in God? Love of God? You decide, and place your faith an love where you will. Wisdom comes from placing these in the right order.

There is a HUGE difference between secular faith and religious faith.

If you're going to start using the Bible as a source of evidence to rebut logic and observable truths, I really see no point to holding a conversation with you. I hope you're one of the few sheep farmers in Tennessee, so you have an ample supply of rams for sacrifices - surely it must ALL be true and literal, not just parts of it that are convenient to a modern lifestyle (vs a nomadic one, the audience to which it was written).

When one speaks to religious faith, it is something that needs no proof. If you believe you have proof, or are seeking proof, you don't have faith. If you can only believe in God because you see proof in the Bible, then you fall short of having faith in God; as that implies that without the Bible you would not know that He exists; that He is real.

A scientist doesn't have "faith" in things already proven; he has knowledge that they will work. If they don't work, then he knows he fugged it up somewhere.

Like in the Chem lab where other students were insisting I was wrong for not adding the BaCl salt to the HCl acid to observe a reaction. They had done so and seen precipitation, meaning that the solid and liquid had reacted with each other to form a new compound. I ignored them and didn't even do the experiment, and wrote down, "no reaction"; as I did for 4 other exercises in that lab. When the instructor became involved, it was found the BaCl was contaminated with something else. A chloride salt will NOT react with a chloride liquid. It just won't. That's not faith; that's fact.

Faith is assuming that everybody else in the lab is smart enough not to experiment with unknown chemicals while the instructor isn't paying attention; or that non-science majors won't dump used sodium into waste-water and blow up the lab (happened at my university).

Trying to prove that God exists shows, to me, that one lacks faith that God exists.

Evidence is not the same as proof.

It is not objectively factual that God exists.

It IS subjectively factual that God exists.

The first instance is the requirement of science.

The second is the requirement of religious faith.

Analytical Mindset,

I am not sure what has happened on this blog! I scrolled up and see what appears to be an apology to me.

I have not read anything you have written that would warrant an apology to me.

I must not have read the comment removed if that was it. Since I never read it I don't know anything about it.

I have read much more challenging things than anything you have posted to or about me.

Every now and then I will post something just to see what anyone will say about it. Most of the time I know what I am talking about but ask anyone to challenge me to have to prove what I say.

You posted:

"3). Is it okay for the Government to give other religions more rights as long as they make sure to take several rights away from the Christians?"

Again this was just one of the topics in Michaelbell's blogs. Michael is always posting a crime committed against the Christians brought on by another religious group or sect or by the NAACP. For example: CA courts in favor of gay marriages. That doesn't affect my marriage but it does help the Gays stay home and not go out hunting.

When I was a single man I felt like I had a right to walk up to a woman and ask her out on a date. How else was I going to get a date.

In the work place today, it is sexual harassment unless the man is an attractive hunk to the woman in question.

Now if I read my bible right I could ask a woman out on a date as long as we didn't fornicate. That was a sin, but being young who cared.

Having sex outside of marriage was a sin according to the bible, so how was that any different from a gay asking me or anyone out on a date? We are all sinners and come short of the Glory of God. A man and woman having sex outside the marriage is just as much a sin as a homosexual have same sex relations.

Michael went on to list Abortions as taking rights away from babies, which is true, and no bibles in the work place, no nativity scenes could be put in certain yards, ten commandments couldn't be displayed, blah, blah, blah, etc..

To be honest with you Analytical Mindset, I am kind of surprised that I haven't had my comments removed and not sure but what I haven't. I did post one that I wished I hadn't, so I had to post another comment to smooth it over a little. I actually lost some sleep over that one.

But, Hey! It's all in fun and we get to learn and add something in now and then. Well, some people do when I shut up.

There is no one on here that owes this old man an apology for anything. I have kind of forced myself on everyone.

PS. I kind of thought you might be a scientist of some kind. The scientist who visited us last year was a new youngster just out of school. He was into Plants, etc.. I think I gave him a work over trying to pick his brain. It was enjoyable learning from him.

I will end tonight with this:

Which is why I don't understand your statement about trying to prove or disprove faith.

That was just my way of trying to say what you said about faith. You knew how to put it into words. I didn't do so good with it.

Good night. Talk to you tomorrow.

Last one tonight; I'm tired. AS I'm sure you are of reading this; that's okay. We have different ideological perspectives, and I don't think I can adjust mine to conform to rigidity of the mind...

"Light travels at the speed of Light. Any questions?"

What speed does sound travel at? What about gamma radiation? At what speed does darkness travel?

"I am not a scientist but we had one on this blog at one time and learned quite a bit from him."

I'm a scientist. :p

"He claimed that scientists did not prove anything was true. Their job is to prove something is false. He said that if anything could be proven to be true, no scientist would ever admit it because they only prove that an hypothesis is false."

That's not true. Maybe that's true in his field, but that assumes that "science" does not involve mathematics, chemistry, biology, or other areas that test hypotheses all the time.

All a hypothesis is, really, is a well-studied theory, dictating the expected results under certain conditions. Then the reality is tested to see if those conditions hold to be true in every situation. What's known as a Scientific Theory has more stringent reproducibility than a layman's theory; it isn't just a scientific guess. :p

What he most likely meant to refer to (assuming this person actually existed, and was actually a scientist), was that the scientific community is hesitant to declare that anything is absolutely true, as the more technology evolves, and the more we explore our reality to its extremes, the more complex we realize everything is now than it was 20 minutes ago.

There are certain laws; certain absolutes. And there are constants - such as the speed of light - in our observable universe. It could be that the speed of light is different in another reality; but the laws of the universe in which we reside appears to have it constant, so far as we've observed.

"Further more scientist will not try to argue the bible because it is not an hypothesis to start from, so science is not in the equation of this blog because they have no answers to prove or disprove faith."

You spoke to two different concepts here.

Science CONSTANTLY challenges the historical, and scientific, aspects that are documented in the Bible, and other religion's scriptures. It's just that many of us think that's a colossal waste of their time. Who CARES?

Not as in, "Who cares about the Bible?", but as in, "Who cares about proving it, or disproving it, to be factual?"

If you're a Christian, you believe it's true because you have faith; you don't need proof.

If you're not a Christian, then you don't believe it anyways, so why waste time trying to prove to people something that they believe through faith?

Which is why I don't understand your statement about trying to prove or disprove faith.

Most basic tenets:

God demands that you have FAITH in Him to be saved.

Faith is the acceptance of something as true, in the absence of proof; it is subjectively true.

Proof is something that is factual, testable, verifiable and reproducible; it is objectively true.

They can't coexist.

If you need proof, than you are Thomas, unable to accept God until you have put your fingers into Christ's wounds.

If you have faith, then you'll never ask for proof, or offer anything to anybody else AS proof.

God, assuming the Judeo-Christian faith as being the inerrant truth; is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent; correct? If God WANTED to prove Himself to us, we would HAVE proof. He doesn't; he wants your FAITH. He wants you to TRUST him, despite what science can or cannot verify, because that's what He told you to do.

How would I define a deity? In any instance in which the response is, "That's impossible!" In that instance, one grasps the essence that is God.

How do I define personal faith? Where my rational mind tells me that something is unlikely to be true, but I choose to believe in it anyways, as in my heart I trust it is real.

One can be a scientist without being an atheist.

One can be an atheist without knowing anything about science.

The list of things that are scientifically unsound in the Bible is SO encumbering; there are MANY books on the topic. What amazes me is atheists that write these books; if you don't believe that God exists, why would you even BOTHER wasting your time in discussions about God's existence? Wouldn't you be more inclined to spend your time on something you actually believed to be REAL...?

(I've never claimed I don't believe in God; I've just stated that I would never refer to myself as a Christian. And if you press me on it, I would call myself Christian if you went by the definition John Shelby Spong uses in his books; not that any of you likely would.)

As for science having no place in a discussion that involves Christianity, from where do you think science 'evolved'? Monastic investigations into the natural world, to better understand God's creation; and thereby to better understand the divinity that IS God; that's where science has it's origins...

The Vatican, by example, has LONG been a large financial supporter in the expansion of scientific thought.

I'm sorry; some types of ignorance just have no place in the modern world... even in a small, country town. Progress begins in the minds of our children; it's not our generation that reaps the benefits of changes implemented today.

(And yes; still not responding to attacks to the person, versus to the post. Why persist. :p)

"The thing is the bible doesn't say [4]+[4]= anything but 8."

actually, the bible does contain mathematical errors, including defining pi as exactly 3.

"Hey, who took down anal-ytical mindsets' biographical story on "The Adventures of a Gerbil in San Francisco"? I didn't get a chance to read it but heard about it from several in town today.

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 8:03 PM

somecommonsense,

It was quite descriptive. You would have thought by reading it that he had interviewed the gerbil.

But it was kind of nasty and disgusting so I was glad to see it taken down.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 8:41 PM "

Actually, it wasn't written using any harsher language than I've seen anywhere else, and I never got a notice explaining how it violated the T.O.S. But if you want to see it, send me an email to dream AT springmail DOT com, and I'll send it to you.

I figured that since BA had broached it by asking if the gay men in the jail cell would train mice instead of gerbils, that someone should elaborate on why this wouldn't work. As gerbils and mice, while both rodents, have different jaw tensile strength and chewing habits.

Gerbils tend to eat lettuce and such; mice tend to eat through whatever they need to.

They're kind of like rats that way.

I guess we only remove the post that doesn't stereotypically imply that all homosexuals have a thing for gerbils; especially in jail cells. I'm glad to see the "Liberal?!?" Times-Gazette applies censorship only to things that are factual, and leaves up the stuff that is offensive to a whole group of people protected from persecution under the law.

Eh, go figure.

(Why would ANYBODY say this is a LIBERAL news paper... have you read the blogs here...?)

Pr 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:

Pr 23:2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.

Pr 23:3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.

Pr 23:4 Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.

Pr 23:5 Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.

Pr 23:6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:

Pr 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Pr 23:8 The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.

Pr 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Uh oh!

Now I REALLY have to jump in and straighten things out.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 4:06 PM

God help us all if you are attempting that again.

"In Communist Countries they can be arrested by the testimony of just one snitch which they do not get to face in court. They have to do what they are told to do and have no freedom to change their form of government, nor worship anyway they want to."

Please tell us what country this is. The only truly communist government of which I'm aware is the Science Fiction one in Star Trek, designated the Federation of Planets, where there was no crime, no hunger, no hardships, and everybody had a productive, happy role that contributed to the success of the government, and the police-state.

Certainly you don't mean China... or Russia... a Totalitarian government does not become Communist simply because that's the name they choose to use to describe themselves. Just like we don't have a true Democracy, but a tapered, mostly modeled one.

And -everybody- understands "America" to mean "the United States of America", which is a COUNTRY. "North America" refers to a CONTINENT.

"HOW DO I SEE AMERICA?"

I see America or I should say the Untied states of America because we have, chuckle, North America, Central America and even South America, as the greatest Country in the world! Even thou I dog the system and the people running it, it is still the best there is, because... we still have the right to protect ourselves from oppressive or unjustly severe government dictatorship.

In Communist Countries they can be arrested by the testimony of just one snitch which they do not get to face in court. They have to do what they are told to do and have no freedom to change their form of government, nor worship anyway they want to.

If Jacob's sons weren't jealous of their brother Joseph and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, (descendants of Abraham's first son) who took Joseph to Egypt, none of that may have happened.

If the Israelites lived according to the way God wanted them too, they would not have felt the famine when it hit.

God looked after Joseph but because the tribes turned away from God they were punished.

The moral of the story is that Joseph was the hero and saved the people by taking the food, land and money from the people and giving it to the Pharaoh.

Isn't that what the G-7 is doing today? Taking our land and homes using the IRS and Drug Task Forces. Raising the price of food up so that you can't get your money's worth of food. They make everything smaller so they can raise the price up. How much sense does that make?

President Obama keeps spending and still plans to spend more. I wished I had an unlimited supplier of money like Congress. I could spend and spend and let all of you pay it back.

It is just a matter of time before it will all be called in. China and the other countries are demanding that we get a currency that is worth their money so they can call in our debt.

The US will have to give them your land, home, pay checks and maybe even your first born to pay the debt of the USA.

The biggest difference is... we don't have a Joseph today that will pull us out of this mess. We have to depend on the Anti-Christ to come with all the answers.

Who is this Anti-Christ? He is the MAIN part of the One World Order... the ruler, just as Satan is the god of this world.

2 Corinthians 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.

With an entity like Satan being the God of this world and having the power of death.

It is like Analytical Mindset stated,"...If anything, we're suffering the backlash of being a free commerce society..."

As our right to free speech is violated we go into depression instead of demanding our right. The Government them issues everyone anti-depressant drugs to drug free citizens.

Every one has depressing moments and that is our right. Who wants to be given anti-depressant drugs (besides the drug addicts) for the purpose of becoming a zombie for the Government to control their every action with no resistance?

If the Pharaoh used anti-depressant drugs back then, the Israelites would still be enslaved there, Lol. I call them Israelites because they were not called Jews back them. It wasn't until they left Egypt and spend years in the wilderness before they were called Jews.

And while I am on the subject, some bible scholars claim that Abraham was the first Jew because he was the father of the nation of Israelites. When Abraham and Issac were born there was no 12 tribes in existence yet. So if you go back to Abraham you might as well take the lineage all the way back to the original father, Adam!

I don't read of anyone doing that, because the Jews didn't exist back then, just as they didn't when Abraham was born.

Abraham was not just the father of the nation who became the Jews but also the Ishmaelites. the traditional ancestor of the Arab peoples.

Abraham was 128 years old when Sarah died, then he had another six sons by a second wife, Ke-tu'rah.

Her sons were Zim'ram, Jok'shan, Me'dan, Mid'ian, Ish'bak and Shu'ah. You will find this in Gen. 25:1.

SO God made Abraham the father of many Nations, not just the Jewish Nation.

Now to tie that back into the topic, "HOW DO YOU SEE AMERICA?"

I believe America has a lot of Abraham's descendants over here in America taking away our rights to worship the way we want to worship in our own country.

For some strange reason Congress can not seem to give other people rights without taking ours away.

Yeah! That's what it is!

But remember, when the church[ God's people] are taken away, the Holy Spirit goes with them, then the stage will be set for the worst time that humans have ever seen or ever Wall see, don't plan on being here and I hope you plan the same!

Posted by michaelbell.

Reading that reminded me of this:

Did God Create Evil?

At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade them and to mock their statements of faith. One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?

He replied, "Yes sir, He did!"

The professor responded, "If God made everything, then He made evil." The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.

Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, Sir?"

Yes, you may, responded the professor."

The young man stood up and said sir, is there such thing as cold?"

"Of course there is, what kind of quetion is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"

The young man replied, "Actually, sir cold doesn't exit. What we consider to be cold, is really an absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exit. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there."

The young man continued, Sir, is there such a thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded, "Of course there is."

And once again, the student replied,"Actually, sir, darkness does not exit. Darkness is really the absece of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally, the young man asked, Sir, is there such a thing as evil?" The Professor responded, "Of course. We have murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil.

The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exit. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues... like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The professor had nothing to say....

Be full of Christ today, there is no room for anything else...

* Author Unknown*

America "The Way I See It"

==============================

Here is your topic "HOW DO YOU SEE AMERICA?"

-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 4:16 AM

==============================

Well, yeah; that was clear. How'd I miss that...?

---------------------------------------------

"God's people being persecuted by people who are not or at least questionable."

Define which people are God's and which are not. In Egypt it was the Jews. Is it definitely just the Christians now? All Christians, or just fundamentalists, and others that believe the same way you do? All denominations, or select ones?

Clearly if someone identifying themselves as not Muslim is not showing they're not a Muslim, how can someone saying they're a Christian show that they're a Christian?

I see America as a country where we can HAVE this conversation without censorship or persecution. The Jews in Egypt would not have been given this luxury.

I'm also seeing a spurious logic to equating our situation to that of the slavery of the Jews - have a bit of a complex there...?

We're not being persecuted. If anything, we're suffering the backlash of being a free commerce society...

Our "dependence" on foreign oil doesn't help much, either...

God's people being persecuted by people who are not or at least questionable.

PS: Lazarus, well said. Preach it, brothers and sisters!

Mr. Bell,

I never really noticed the possible similarities developing today as in Joseph's time until you posted the blog. Quite interesting and thought provoking.

michaelbell,

I like your blog. It tells us what is on your mind and how you think.

Actually you only need three Blogs:

1). Abortions - bad or worse and should we kill the parents also?

2). Homosexuals - Why get married when you can live your lifetime with the same sex in a prison somewhere?

3). Is it okay for the Government to give other religions more rights as long as they make sure to take several rights away from the Christians?

You posted: Revelation 13:v16 states that all will take the mark , if you take the mark then you are doomed right, so therefore that tells me that the true believers are gone because they cannot accept the mark. am I right?

No. Not at all!

Revelation 20:4 ...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

These people lived after your "Alleged Rapture" because everyone who was caught up remain with Christ FOREVER and ever, Those who lived through the Tribulations were part of the first Resurrection and only reign with Christ for one thousand years.

These are two different class of people/souls.

You posted: The title states my view of America right now, sad thing is it's going to get worse.

You also gave a view of our nation in the Christmas blog: "Seems as the nation is going back the the paganism and secularism that was in power be for the Messiah came the first time,..."

The paganism and secularism has always been here, we just never paid any attention to it because we were worshiping our God. We were able to say the Lords prayer in school before we started learning for the day. We were always reminded of the Golden Rule when we went off course. Now the Government has stepped in and removed God from the Good ol USA.

God is not in this Nation protecting us or our Country, so we can only keep him in each of us if we pray.

When you read your own words, you have to see how the Prophesies are coming true that Jesus spoke of.

Topic, lets see here, God delivered his people out of that bondage, he will deliver his people out of this bondage also. The Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea then and the Rapture and parting of the clouds now.

Everything was present in Egypt that riled God as it is in America!

The title states my view of America right now, sad thing is it's going to get worse.

Revelation 13:v16 states that all will take the mark , if you take the mark then you are doomed right, so therefore that tells me that the true believers are gone because thae cannot accept the mark. am I right?

Will someone please tell me what the Topic is on this blog so I can be respectful of others and try to stay on-topic!

Sounds like it is about most of the things that I speak about normally that people get annoyed with.

we are relying on our government to save us and the government is forcing itself on us in spite of our rights.

One who turns this mess around - he Will be considered the greatest man in history or -

the Anti-Christ! Yes, the Anti-Christ has to come first. He will have all the answers and the world will worship him first.

First off we need to get America out of the U.N. and the U.N out of America - What is your Plan for that?

Everyone talks of peace and unity, I am sorry to bring this to your attention, but when it does come, as ushered in by the Antichrist, it will only be temporary -

then 3 1/2 years or 1260 days of Trials and Tribulation.

Matthew 10:36-39

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Those who think that God poured his wrath out already - the Four Horsemen

All these quakes, and diseases and natural disasters that have happened, are happening, and yet to happen is only a display of power from Satan, he who has the power of death.

Hebrews 2:14...that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil:

Revelation still has a lot to be poured out - Trials and Tribulation of the Beast and of course the Wrath of God.

And let's not forget the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman topic.

Gays in the service - if they are going to live in our Country I think they should also serve to protect our Country. The services have regulations dealing with Homosexuality and their courts do NOT include your Constitutional rights. The government has exclusive Jurisdiction in all case whatsoever over all persons in the services.

And of course the Abortion topic is still allowed for any reason.

The Topic of Mother Theresa's work vs the United State Postal Service per an Atheist organization - Freedom From Religion Foundation.

A Topic stating: when the church [God's people] are taken away, the Holy Spirit goes with them, then the stage will be set for the worst time that humans have ever seen or ever Will see.

But the you bible readers say that the 144,000 Jews are going to have to stay here on the earth after they are marked in their foreheads (after all the Christians are Raptured up) - to teach the word of God to the sinners who are the only people left on earth besides the 144,000 Jews.

In theory, these 144,000 Jews filled with the Holy Spirit are left here on earth (without the Holy Spirit) trying to teach God's word to sinners who have never listened to it from people who WERE FILLED with the Holy Spirit.

What would happen to those sinners who did accept Christ? Jesus is suppose to baptist everyone who accepts him with the Holy Spirit.

You are saying that God is lying an won't baptize these new Christians with the Holy Spirit because it has been taken away.

That would be saying that Jesus is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

and the Rapture is spoken of here also as a possible Topic.

Then as the last Topic we are allowed to comment on Satan's best lie, you have all the time in the world to be saved.