A path to faith with science

[mfqr]

Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

[mfqr]

And also, take a look at:

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Please tell us why this is. Read the sites I posted. Perhaps some of you christians might end up re-thinking your belief...

[imitator]

In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.

I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.

The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.

[Kai as a kite]

I also find it humurous that people who are seemingly so well educated can still deny what others bring to a discussion about religion and cling to their beliefs. I, for one, don't believe in god, but in a way I appreciate religion. It's got a lot of control over its believers, and can be used to spread good ideas. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. I also like the tales I hear about the bible, they sound like lovely little fables. Hopefully I can get a whole load of weed soon, maybe I'll just smoke and read the bible for a day.

By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living.

Even though your intention to save mankind and shit is pretty noble, at this stage in the game, I doubt many people will be swayed over to some radical new way of thinking just because of a post on cannabis.com.

[Hardcore Newbie]

By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living.

Haha that's pretty funny.

Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:

Convert Xians.

[imitator]

Haha that's pretty funny.

Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:

Convert Xians.

They already have the Gay Mafia working on it... The Mauve Hand.

[natureisawesome]

mfqr:

Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:

The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.

They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.

No, that's not true at all:

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that â??although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.â?�

And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.

no it's not by any means. Compare the bone structure to that of other fish and you will find, that it was a fish. A special fish.

And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.

Assumption!

Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.

I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?

Do you know anything about dating methods? They are all based on assumptions. And carbon dating, which they use on dead things, can only be used up to a period of about 100,000 years If I remember correctly. They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks are dating by the fossils. They use circular logic, theirs really no other way for them to do it:

In the April 2006, issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a Crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae. These well preserved specimens were found in sedimentary layers of siltstoneâ??cross-bedded with sandstonesâ??in Arctic Canada.4

Like the other lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik was declared to be late Devonian (between 385-359 million years old) by means of a â??datingâ?� method known as palynomorph biostratigraphy. This method presumes to date sedimentary rock layers on the basis of the assumed evolutionary age of pollen and spores contained in the rock. Most importantly, the discoverers of Tiktaalik claim that it â??represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.â?�

These claims are all based on evolutionary assumptions. cannot be validated by empirical science. You have to realize that empirical science only works in the present! When it comes to talking about origins, it's a totally different matter.

[imitator]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

Was reading through the 50 reasons website, came across this gem of a quote.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:

natureisawesome:
Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.

If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?

First off, string theory is only a hypothesis which lacks experimental support and has not yet connected as far as I know with any data whatsoever. It doesn't predict or explain any data. Second, string theory has been replaced by superstring theory also lacking in experimental support, which postulates eleven dimensions.

Third, as far as I know any other dimensions would still be subject to space-mass-time. (proponents say for instance, the reason some of these hypothetical dimensions are not seen is that they are rolled up into incredibly tiny spaces). As our space-mass-time universe (sometimes called the space-time continuum) was created by God, He is therefore beyond or transcendent to itâ??i.e., not subject to its limitations (Genesis 1:1)