Where was God on 9/11?
- Thread starter Pako
- 319 comments
- 9,324 views
- 10,832
Originally posted by rufrgt_sn00pie2001
People choose to participate in discussions, the fact that you dissaprove of them does not mean they're actually as stupid as you describe them. Drop the judgmentality a little bit, milefile.
I'm not dropping anything. The fact that you have a problem with what I said tells me more than anything you could say. Judging is all any of you are doing here anyway.
All thinking is evaluation. Judgement is inherent in being a human. Justice defines Being. There is no objectivity.
That is my type of injustice.
I never said anyone was stupid. I actually said they were smart, just wasing it.
In many cases I end up respecting those I disagree with the most, including in this thread. It's not what they think that matters most, but rather, that they think.
So you are afraid if you say the big bang theory I will ask what set it off right?
I guess that would be the logical progression of questioning.
Do you mean ad infinitum? ("to infinity; endlessly; without limit.")
If so then you think there is no beginning and no end? Kind of like God?
- 197
In the mid 1960's, man was approaching the attainment of an age-old dream, to make a space voyage to the moon. Among the most frightening aspect, was our old friend-cosmic dust. Althought the earth is a living planet with constant wind and water action to mix and erode the surface materials, the moon is dead and sterile. As dust from space slowly filters down on the moon's suface, there is no erosion to wash or blow it away, so it just sits there collecting deeper and deeper.
Since the scientists were convinced that the moon was atleast 4.5 billion years old, this prospect of a slow but steady "snow" of space dust over that span of time gave them justifiable cause for alarm.
On the basis of certain measurements, it seemed possible that there might be anywhere from 50 to 180 feet of loosly packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface. The threat was that our manned Lunar Lander would sink down into this loose layer and never be able to blast off for the return trip to earth. We also wanted the first astrtonauts to plant the American flag on the moon. This was expected to be no problem, since it could be easily tapped down into the cosmic dust layer.
As the time of the first manned landing approached, much concern and controversy over the moon dust problem remained. In a television interview, Bob Hope what was his greatest fear when he set that first historic step on the moon's surface. Without hesitation Armstrong responded that his greatest fear was the moon-dust layer that scientists had told the astronauts to expect. Many precautions had been taken. Additional expensive impact probes had been sent to check for the safe landing sites, and, most important of all, one very crucial addition to the landing vehcle was made. Huge duck feet landing pods were attached to the legs of the Lunar Lander so it would safely settle down into the theorized dust layer.
To make what's left of the already long post shorter.....
Neil Armstong stood on the moon and tried to plant the American flag by hammering it down into the supposed billions of years of accumulated cosmic dust. Neil Armstrong hammered, but the flag wouldn't budge, because the anticipated dust layer was simply not there. Oh, of course, it was there, but if the calculations indicating the rate of dust accumulation were accurate, there was not a billions years' worth of dust, nor was there a million years' worth of dust. There was, in fact, only a few thousand years worth of dust on the moon's suface.
The weight of the evidence is clearly in favor of a recent creation. The moon-dust evidence is a very powerful witness that the solar system is much younger than most evolutionists believe.
Sorry for such a long post,
but it's pretty interesting
Since the scientists were convinced that the moon was atleast 4.5 billion years old, this prospect of a slow but steady "snow" of space dust over that span of time gave them justifiable cause for alarm.
On the basis of certain measurements, it seemed possible that there might be anywhere from 50 to 180 feet of loosly packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface. The threat was that our manned Lunar Lander would sink down into this loose layer and never be able to blast off for the return trip to earth. We also wanted the first astrtonauts to plant the American flag on the moon. This was expected to be no problem, since it could be easily tapped down into the cosmic dust layer.
As the time of the first manned landing approached, much concern and controversy over the moon dust problem remained. In a television interview, Bob Hope what was his greatest fear when he set that first historic step on the moon's surface. Without hesitation Armstrong responded that his greatest fear was the moon-dust layer that scientists had told the astronauts to expect. Many precautions had been taken. Additional expensive impact probes had been sent to check for the safe landing sites, and, most important of all, one very crucial addition to the landing vehcle was made. Huge duck feet landing pods were attached to the legs of the Lunar Lander so it would safely settle down into the theorized dust layer.
To make what's left of the already long post shorter.....
Neil Armstong stood on the moon and tried to plant the American flag by hammering it down into the supposed billions of years of accumulated cosmic dust. Neil Armstrong hammered, but the flag wouldn't budge, because the anticipated dust layer was simply not there. Oh, of course, it was there, but if the calculations indicating the rate of dust accumulation were accurate, there was not a billions years' worth of dust, nor was there a million years' worth of dust. There was, in fact, only a few thousand years worth of dust on the moon's suface.
The weight of the evidence is clearly in favor of a recent creation. The moon-dust evidence is a very powerful witness that the solar system is much younger than most evolutionists believe.
Sorry for such a long post,
but it's pretty interesting
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I have to ask: do you seriously believe this? I'm not trying to be obnoxious here. I'm trying to find out if people really think that something like this - which is easily dismissed by simply assuming that the calculations were wrong (a very reasonable assumption considering Man had very little experience in space at the time) - can outwiegh the vast quantity of physical evidence which (with a high degree of consistency) indicates that the solar system is in fact several billion years old.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
ONe question that begs asking and will indeed set off a lot of interesting replies:
How long were God's six days?
The Bible says it was morning. It was evening. One day.
The other problem I have with evolution and the "proof" that man evolved from the ape, ad nauseum...Why have I never been spoken to by an ape?
I've seen fish fly, cats use toilets, birds build their own homes, and catfish "walk". Why are there no "between stage" evolutionary apes or other animals?
The point I guess I'm trying to make is that with the high degree of specialization of cells, it's hard for me to believe that all the different things that appeared stemmed from one cell, without some sort of intervention.
Granted, I can't pull out "empirical evidence" that will satisfy evolutionists that God exists.
Neither can evolutionists empirically show that God doesn't exist.
The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 "But without FAITH it is impossible to please HIM, for he that comes to God must BELIEVE that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him."
Maybe God used a form of evolution to create the world. Maybe he left enough evidence (of evolution) to see if we would believe in Him.
I know that in the book of Exodus, God hardened Pharoah's heart to good counsel (closed his mind) and he held the Hebrew's in captivity thru ten plagues. Each worse than the one before it.
The point being; "A closed mind gathers no information".
I'd like to believe that if I was Pharoah, that once the river turned to blood (Exod. Chapter 7-8) Not only would I have let the people go, I would have made sure they ALL had a ride to the border.
The bible also says that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Now, I know that there are multitudes of people that have to see to believe. That's the challenge. You can't see God. But, If you believe the Bible, you see evidence of him.
Personally, I'd rather believe in a God and a heaven and hell, then to believe that this life is all we get.
How long were God's six days?
The Bible says it was morning. It was evening. One day.
The other problem I have with evolution and the "proof" that man evolved from the ape, ad nauseum...Why have I never been spoken to by an ape?
I've seen fish fly, cats use toilets, birds build their own homes, and catfish "walk". Why are there no "between stage" evolutionary apes or other animals?
The point I guess I'm trying to make is that with the high degree of specialization of cells, it's hard for me to believe that all the different things that appeared stemmed from one cell, without some sort of intervention.
Granted, I can't pull out "empirical evidence" that will satisfy evolutionists that God exists.
Neither can evolutionists empirically show that God doesn't exist.
The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 "But without FAITH it is impossible to please HIM, for he that comes to God must BELIEVE that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him."
Maybe God used a form of evolution to create the world. Maybe he left enough evidence (of evolution) to see if we would believe in Him.
I know that in the book of Exodus, God hardened Pharoah's heart to good counsel (closed his mind) and he held the Hebrew's in captivity thru ten plagues. Each worse than the one before it.
The point being; "A closed mind gathers no information".
I'd like to believe that if I was Pharoah, that once the river turned to blood (Exod. Chapter 7-8) Not only would I have let the people go, I would have made sure they ALL had a ride to the border.
The bible also says that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Now, I know that there are multitudes of people that have to see to believe. That's the challenge. You can't see God. But, If you believe the Bible, you see evidence of him.
Personally, I'd rather believe in a God and a heaven and hell, then to believe that this life is all we get.
- 10,832
First I'll tell you the reason you expect to hear an ape talk: You think humans are an advanced ape, a better version of an ape, "more" evolved, perfected. This is an error. Apes do not desire to be human and there is no force that wants to make them human so they will be better. The fact of the matter is that long ago there were many species of Hominid on Earth. Most went extinct. The rest evolved into their current species, one of which is Homo Sapiens, us. The others are not mistakes. They are apes. They are our genetic relatives. We are not better than them, nor are we even more necessary.
And why limit it to apes? Why can't dogs talk? Why can't bears talk? We all have tongues and lips and big brains. Apes can't talk for the same reason they can't. They don't need to.
And as far as the thing about our moon...
Ugh. I read that last night and started writing a post to it. Then I closed my browser and went and did something else; my hands were literally trembling with outrage and shock that anyone could actually believe such nonsense. Frankly, that was quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's pitiful when religious fundementalist types attempt to use science to debunk science, and that was an exquisite example... very quaint.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Gil, I'll be glad to debate this with you, because it is a debate in this case, and I respect how your mind works even if I disagree with your result.
The mistake you are making is a common misperception: Man did not evolve from the apes. There are no in-between animals because the evolution didn't happen that way. Apes and humans share a common ancestry, and while it is true that the one, unequivocable 'missing link' has never been isolated, there are plenty of animal steps in between that show the two species converge as you move back through time. After all, horses are not donkeys but they are genetically similar enough to breed and make a mule. Dogs are radically different between breeds, are they not? Yet if you can get the equipment to fit together, you can make new dogs. The point is that simply looking at a gorilla and a human next to each other and pointing out the differences does not automatically invalidate the theory of evolution. And, in fact, you can talk to a gorilla if you teach it sign language... and, in Koko's case, that gorilla began teaching sign language to her babies. So really, I fail to understand why this is such a laughable idea.
Agreed! My mind is open to the possibility of divine Creation, and I'll believe it the minute I see actual evidence of it. Until that time, however, I will not believe in it as a valid explanation for the world I see around me, and I will object strenuously to it being taught on an equal footing with physical sciences.
But you're not saying anything different than what I feel here: once you actually saw the event, you would believe its validity. It is true that I have not witnessed 'evolution' with my own eyes, but I have seen actual fossils (even dug them up myself), and I have seen them presented in a logical arrangement that supports the theory of evolution. I have seen nothing presented in a logical arrangement that supports the myth of Creation as a physical occurance. The best I have seen is the assertion that the fossil record doesn't prove that divine creation didn't happen... which is 100% true, and something that is logically stipulated by all scientists. Evolutionary theory does not prove that God didn't create the universe, but it also does not prove that the Keebler Elves didn't create the universe, either.
If you believe in the Keebler Elves without physical proof, you see evidence of them, too. I'm not deliberately being offensive with my choice of analogy, here, but I am trying to reinforce the point that reading a book written by men with absolutely no proof of their statements beyond their words themselves reduces the choice of what you believe in to an arbitrary thing.
The things I hope for don't require faith for their substance. They require me to identify them, then work to achieve them. And as I've said above, 'evidence of things unseen' is wide open to the arbitrary choice of the believer.
I've mentioned these words before, but the single thing that has most crystallized my resistance to religion is this statement, made by Immanuel Kant, in support of religion over secularism:
"I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to leave room for faith."
That doesn't sound like an open mind to me. That sounds like pure evil.
Here's where we differ. I'd rather believe that my reward is life itself, with all its pitfalls and pleasures, than believe that I need to deny the physical life I know I have in favor of the 'afterlife' that may or may not exist.
I'm glad to keep going on this with a worthy discussion partner like Gil.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
- 6,977
- old-guy64
It was easier to quote myself than to re-type.
Duke,
I also truly appreciate the way your mind works. Especially, in this age of inanity for the sake of inanity. It is refreshing to carry on intelligent discourse.
As you used the Keebler elves, I use the "between-stage" animals, as an example.
As far as life being a reward in itself, that's fine for you and me, indoors, with enough to eat and clothes to wear.
How is life rewarding the people in Ethiopia, or for that matter Appalachia, that are "subsistance" living.
Is it just a "luck" thing?
Granted, as I stated, you have to hold to faith to believe in Creation. You, also have to hold to faith to believe in evolution.
What you described in your last post seems to be more survivalism rather than evolution. (Which may just branch this thing off in a whole 'nother direction.
)I also allowed that God may have used a form of evolution, when creating all this stuff. We just don't know. So in substance, we COULD both be right.
I imagine that in the end we will have to agree to disagree on Evolution VS Creation. But it sure has been stimulating to discuss it with you.
Another part of that faith in the Bible, is that it was divinely inspired. Yes it was written by men, but, in my belief, inspired by God. I didn't see Jesus turn water into wine. I didn't see the multitude fed with five loaves and two fishes. Nor did I see the children of Isreal follow a column of fire thru the wilderness.
I have seen and experienced healing thru prayer. Not some televangelist, or some "soothsayer", or other "snake oil" peddler. But a small group agreeing in prayer, and healing occured.
So that is my proof. Understand, I believed, strongly, before I saw someone healed. But when you ask, and recieve (Matt. 7:7), the byproduct is belief, or a stronger belief.
Oh and BTW DGB, what was the question you asked?
Gil,
This is the one I asked.
"One question. How does everyone believe everything started? I don't mean man. I am talking about everything. The universe and everything in it. Excluding man."
I think I PO'd a few people when we started to get into it though.
Don't really know why but it seemed to upset 2 people in particular. (didn't mean too)
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
But notice that America is a capatilast (well, somewhat) country and there are quite a number of atheists, and Christians who think like atheists (although I'm not to fond of that idea). Then, notice the countries where everyone is Islamic (nothing against Muslims... I'm just pointing out the country as a whole). I'll let you decide.
You do? If we can't trust our senses, then what can we trust? Can I trust my eyes and ears that my mom is in the house right now, or is that faith?
The ironic thing is that I'm doing an outline right at this moment for AP Bio on evolution... there are so many arguments in this thread that I personally feel could be solved if I just could show you some of the pages in my textbook, but I can't take the time to type it all up, nor is my scanner working.
However, I have seen so much evidence in support of evolution, that it is undeniable to me that it happened.Here's a side question: Why do some snakes have pelvic girdles?
Oh, and, on the topic of why there aren't animals between apes and humans, Duke has hit the nail on the head... We haven't necessarily stated that humans came straight from apes, but rather that we share a comman ancestor. In fact, Chapter 19 in my book is a complete chapter about Speciation, which is exactly what I just described.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Gil: yes, we've agreed to disagree. I just figured I'd give it another go 'round for the benefit of a different audience, plus the format of the discussion was a little different.
On the subject of common ancestors, did you know that through DNA testing scientists have shown that nearly all people of European background are decended from a single woman who lived about 60,000 years ago? I will try to find the article where the exact numbers and explanation are given.
DGB454: In answer to your question, I don't know how the universe started. The fact that it is not understood now does not require the intervention of a supernatural being, though. As I said above, based on the available physical evidence, it could have been God, it could have been Keebler Elves, or it could have been completely natural in origin. Given that there is no evidence supporting the first two 'theories', and no evidence denying the last one, my choice becomes clear: Physics 1, God/Elves 0.
If you want my daydreaming response to where the universe came from, I'd have to say this: I imagine that there is an almost-infinite amount of matter in an infinite space, or perhaps the matter is infinite also. At any rate, I see the cosmic Big Bang as the beginning of this universe, but as only one in an infinite (?) cycle of creations/destructions. The universe is currently expanding as a result of that explosion, only to fall back into itself from gravity after countless billions of years. At the point where it reaches 'critical mass', the next Big Bang creates another universe. Perhaps the laws of physics survive this, or perhaps even they are re-created in a different way. Perhaps one of these times the explosion will be a little bigger than the others and the universe will expand forever instead of falling back, ending the cycle and eventually dissipating itself so thinly that it no londer exists as an entity. Perhaps some of the Bangs are smaller, and lead to universes with a life span of only a few million or billion years.
The point is that just because I do not yet understand how the universe began (or if it even did), I do not need to invent a mystic Creator to account for it. If I must make a decision on the idea, I might as well choose the one that at least has some physical supporting it rather than none.
On the subject of common ancestors, did you know that through DNA testing scientists have shown that nearly all people of European background are decended from a single woman who lived about 60,000 years ago? I will try to find the article where the exact numbers and explanation are given.
DGB454: In answer to your question, I don't know how the universe started. The fact that it is not understood now does not require the intervention of a supernatural being, though. As I said above, based on the available physical evidence, it could have been God, it could have been Keebler Elves, or it could have been completely natural in origin. Given that there is no evidence supporting the first two 'theories', and no evidence denying the last one, my choice becomes clear: Physics 1, God/Elves 0.
If you want my daydreaming response to where the universe came from, I'd have to say this: I imagine that there is an almost-infinite amount of matter in an infinite space, or perhaps the matter is infinite also. At any rate, I see the cosmic Big Bang as the beginning of this universe, but as only one in an infinite (?) cycle of creations/destructions. The universe is currently expanding as a result of that explosion, only to fall back into itself from gravity after countless billions of years. At the point where it reaches 'critical mass', the next Big Bang creates another universe. Perhaps the laws of physics survive this, or perhaps even they are re-created in a different way. Perhaps one of these times the explosion will be a little bigger than the others and the universe will expand forever instead of falling back, ending the cycle and eventually dissipating itself so thinly that it no londer exists as an entity. Perhaps some of the Bangs are smaller, and lead to universes with a life span of only a few million or billion years.
The point is that just because I do not yet understand how the universe began (or if it even did), I do not need to invent a mystic Creator to account for it. If I must make a decision on the idea, I might as well choose the one that at least has some physical supporting it rather than none.
Neon Duke
I understand that most people who believe in evolution as the beginning of the human race don't know how the universe started. Believe me I completly understand why. I do appreciate you giving me an answer about how you believe it may have started.
You did hit on something that has me puzzled.
1. That you don't have to invent a mystic creator to account for it.
But in saying that the universe is possibly forever expanding and contracting(no beginning and no ending) then you are saying you believe that the universe or it's matter is God like. Some type of mystical power that needs no beginning or end.
If not then it must have had a beginning where all the matter started. If it did have a beginning then what was it?
To quote a song...."nothing from nothing leaves nothing."
That is what confuses me about evolution. Evolutionist only seem to be able to go back as far as what they see as man's beginning but no further. To go back further to where everything started (given the evolutionist idea of a series of events happening and eventually leading to this moment ) would be as I see it impossible.
Unless I am wrong on the way they think and they do believe that you can start with absolutely nothing in a huge nowhere and suddenly something appears.
I'm not trying to get anyone POed at me I just don't get the whole line of thinking on this subject based on the idea of no creator.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
DGB: I, for one, know you're not trying to PO anybody. I never mind explaining what I think and why I think it to someone who really wants to know.
I am saying that the forever-cycling universe may continue doing so forever, literally, without beginning or end, yes. But that doesn't mean that it does not obey objective, knowable laws of physics that we don't fully understand at the moment. In that way, it is not like God. 'God' works in 'mysterious ways' that we cannot ever understand, as we are told by the Bible. But physics works in ways that are 'partly mysterious at the moment' and are becoming less mysterious every day as scientists make better experiments and better instruments and refine their theories to better fit the better information. There is an objective set of rules that can be understood, and used to predict what will happen under a given set of circumstances. The fact that we don't fully understand them now does not mean that we cannot understand them ever.
You can point to plenty of errors in what scientists used to believe and say that invalidates science, but that's not true. The whole point of science is to find out where the model is wrong, and correct it. This is a continuous process that is self-correcting, and in fact works quite well. Look at how much we have learned about the universe in just a few hundred short years, and the pace is only accelerating.
If you accept the idea of a mystic Creator, you're just moving your problem back one step and not reaching any greater understanding of the issue. It's the immortal question: If God created the universe, then who created God? That doesn't solve your basic problem, and in fact it denies that the problem can be solved.
I'd rather believe in something that can eventually be understood than believe in something that denies all understanding.
I am saying that the forever-cycling universe may continue doing so forever, literally, without beginning or end, yes. But that doesn't mean that it does not obey objective, knowable laws of physics that we don't fully understand at the moment. In that way, it is not like God. 'God' works in 'mysterious ways' that we cannot ever understand, as we are told by the Bible. But physics works in ways that are 'partly mysterious at the moment' and are becoming less mysterious every day as scientists make better experiments and better instruments and refine their theories to better fit the better information. There is an objective set of rules that can be understood, and used to predict what will happen under a given set of circumstances. The fact that we don't fully understand them now does not mean that we cannot understand them ever.
You can point to plenty of errors in what scientists used to believe and say that invalidates science, but that's not true. The whole point of science is to find out where the model is wrong, and correct it. This is a continuous process that is self-correcting, and in fact works quite well. Look at how much we have learned about the universe in just a few hundred short years, and the pace is only accelerating.
If you accept the idea of a mystic Creator, you're just moving your problem back one step and not reaching any greater understanding of the issue. It's the immortal question: If God created the universe, then who created God? That doesn't solve your basic problem, and in fact it denies that the problem can be solved.
I'd rather believe in something that can eventually be understood than believe in something that denies all understanding.
I'm glad you aren't getting upset with this line of questioning. A few have but fortunatly those post were deleted.
Ok, to answer your question. As a Christian I believe no one created God. Hence the meaning of God. Almighty, all knowing and no beginning and end. I imagine it's hard to accept as an evolutionist believer but that's where faith comes in as a Christian. It may seem like we have our eys closed to other possibilities but when I look at the other possibilities they now seem ubsurd to me. I wasn't always a Christian. That happened in the last 10 or so years.
I still don't understand the idea of believing in matter floating around in an empty space and making planets and life. What created the matter. What are it's origins? If you think about it in terms of everything having a beginning and an end(which is as I see it the only way you could think of it as a believer in evolution.)
Then where did it start? Again, I know I am repeating myself and I apologize but "nothing from nothing leaves nothing".
I can guarantee without any doubt on my part that if science ever trys to give a scientific explaination of the origin of the matter floating around around in some infinite space they will eventually end up at someone or something creating it. There is no other possibility. If I am wrong on this then please let me know. I would love to understand where science thinks the start of everything was without some kind of Divine intervention.
I have never read, heard, or seen anyone who had an explanation or the origins of everything other that a Creator and I doubt I ever will.
Thanks for your input. I respect your views as well as those who's are different than mine even if I don't accept them.
Ok, to answer your question. As a Christian I believe no one created God. Hence the meaning of God. Almighty, all knowing and no beginning and end. I imagine it's hard to accept as an evolutionist believer but that's where faith comes in as a Christian. It may seem like we have our eys closed to other possibilities but when I look at the other possibilities they now seem ubsurd to me. I wasn't always a Christian. That happened in the last 10 or so years.
I still don't understand the idea of believing in matter floating around in an empty space and making planets and life. What created the matter. What are it's origins? If you think about it in terms of everything having a beginning and an end(which is as I see it the only way you could think of it as a believer in evolution.)
Then where did it start? Again, I know I am repeating myself and I apologize but "nothing from nothing leaves nothing".
I can guarantee without any doubt on my part that if science ever trys to give a scientific explaination of the origin of the matter floating around around in some infinite space they will eventually end up at someone or something creating it. There is no other possibility. If I am wrong on this then please let me know. I would love to understand where science thinks the start of everything was without some kind of Divine intervention.
I have never read, heard, or seen anyone who had an explanation or the origins of everything other that a Creator and I doubt I ever will.
Thanks for your input. I respect your views as well as those who's are different than mine even if I don't accept them.
Similar threads
- Poll
