logo Sign In

Myths — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
That's right.

I hear we'll be loosing the blond hair gene within the next 100 years or so, because it is so recessive. The whole ideal behind natural selection is that life is specialized to one area, and the life best fit to survive there will. White rabbits evolved from multi-colored rabbits as the other color genes were being killed off. Natural selection doesn't promote diversity; it promotes species in an area gradually become homogenous.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Ok, let's just one thing straight. The Big Bang Theory says nothing regarding what happened before the event itself. It does not claim to be the beginning or to be producing something out of nothing. No one really knows what happened before as we have no information from before. I just want you to get that straight before you bring it up one more time. Also, DanielB, you said that you feel people who believe in evolution adhere to the theory of the Big Bang. I'll give you this one as they are both scientifically logical and currently most widely accepted. However, you seem to think that by disproving one you disprove both. This is of course ridiculous but whatever. You also seem to think that both theories hinge on what you seem to feel is a fundamental flaw. This of course being the fact that they rely on prior genetic material/matter. Once again no one claims that matter had to exist before the Big Bang. No one even claims that it marks the beginning of time. I actually think that the current thought is that this the 8th or something iteration of our universe. Currently accepted theory following of course that a universe will bang then later Crunch if it posesses a cretain minimum mass (the omega point). So the Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe at all, but merely it is an explanation for observable phenomenon in the current universe.

It would seem to be a similar case for evolution. In our world there are many varied and diverse species. Science has been insofar unable to properly determine the origin of life but it's workin on it. While it is true that a properly diverse species will eventually tend towards a very homogenous single genetic group, certain things must be taken ito consideration. This will only happen if interbreeding is encouraged, possible, and done consistently. In today's society of near racial equality and acceptance, our society will likely tend towards a single race species. However, in the past races have infrequently interbred and when it comes to animals or past species, often times one kind will be wiped out, or isolated, or simply can't reproduce properly. This leads to isolated unique groupings which can no longer move towards a homogenous species. looking at the diversity of animals on the earth, it is hard to believe chance situations of separation and difficulty of reproduction could really cause it but this is a huge timeframe were talking about here.

Now Daniel, I have to say I'm not liking the random bits of uncoordinated information you keep using. Let me just put up a couple things that pissed me off about your post

1) Gluons- You seem to think that gluons are imaginary fudge factors invented by particle physicists to explain things that fucked with their theories. I'd like to tell you a story of something called "The Ether".When Einstein first started toying with electro-magnetic radiation (light) who couldn't understand how a wave could travel ina vaccuum. So he proposed something called the ether. The ether was an undetectable medium permiating the entire universe and what light propagated through. This was another example of a fudge factor. However, a few simple tests were later conducted which disproved the existence of the ether and that was that. Einstein claimed it was his greatest blunder and moved on. See no Gluons are kinda the same with one major difference. Some really smart people began playing around with particle accelerators to see if they existed and low and behold some gluons started showing up all over the place. So I'm not entirely sure wher you got the whole there's no evidence thing, unless yur posting from around the mid-seventies, which would actually explain alot of the hideousely wrong information you keep gabbing about.

2)Particles aren't complex?- Why you think this I have no idea. As far as fundamental particles go, there are 12 quarks, 12 leptons and all their anti-particles. So that leaves 48 fundamental particles floating around which we have to assume must be doing something other than posting dumbass facts on a forum. And these guys don't even obey normal laws. I mean these things are ten-dimensional string particles, they're up to cool shit all the time. Entire branches of science are dedicated to the study of the complexities of particles so why do you say this.

3)Viruses aren't alive-Granted life is a bit of a tricky thing to define but currently I'd have to say viruses fit the definition. They replicate, react, consume, and adapt. And viruses are one of the best and most successful forms of life out there. They adapt to new environments almost instantaneousely and some kinds can be self sustaining. So while I am forced to assume you are an intelligent person, I must also assume that you don't really think viruses aren't alive. I think what you really mean is that viruses aren't intelligent. And if this is true, I am forced to agree. I often find myself wanting more from a conversation with a virus, I've never been beaten by one at chess, and all the ones I know never made the entrance avgs to university so granted they are dumbfucks. But they're still alive, I mean people work on ways to kill viruses all the time and it's hard to kill something that was never alive.

4) Daniel shoots himself in the foot - belive it or not I feel this phrase embodies your use of moths. For one, you seem to think that industrial evolutionists used this example to prove this theory. No no no. They created this example so that simple-minded folk who didn't understand complex science could understand what they were talking about. It's like schrodinger and his cat. It's a thought experiment, designed to give a more tangible understanding to a difficult concept. Interestingly enough, schrodinger used his cat to make fun of quantum mechanics and the fact that it was used as a dumbed down example of it pissed the hell out of him. And the point of the moths is to limit the options so it's easy to understand. There were of course some grey moths around at the time and this all goes back to the evolution thing that I really don't want to go into again. I hope your ealize that you tried to use a well-thought of example of evolution to disprove it. Not the best of ideas really.

And now I'm tired of this. When you post in response or even when you post next. Please for the love of whatever god you feel supports your beliefs, try to only use information you are sure of. talking about things you don't understand makes you look like a dumbass and makes me have to redefine my definition of blatent ignorance (you're lowering the bar btw). toodle-pip
If you want to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn, sometimes it means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I don't think i could have said it better. execpt for the bit on viruses. if anyone has any questions about that i can explain it a little bt more accurately.

Will i didnt know you made an account.
Author
Time
Post link
"Ok, let's just one thing straight. The Big Bang Theory says nothing regarding what happened before the event itself."

It claims "some gasses had a reaction that made a gigantic bang". Gasses that had to pre-date the big bang.

"However, you seem to think that by disproving one you disprove both. This is of course ridiculous but whatever."

They both fail for the same reasons.

"Once again no one claims that matter had to exist before the Big Bang."

*Scratches head*, care to explain why the big bang theory needs gasses to pre-date the big bang then (without claiming that matter had to exist before the big bag)?

"I actually think that the current thought is that this the 8th or something iteration of our universe."

Shows what you "know". This is demonstratably wrong, there is no "big crunch" there never was, and there never will be. Some variant of the big bang theory theorized big crunch-big bang-big crunch-big bang, but it is completely wrong.

"So the Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe at all, but merely it is an explanation for observable phenomenon in the current universe."

Thank you for agreeing with what I said.

"Gluons- You seem to think that gluons are imaginary fudge factors invented by particle physicists to explain things that fucked with their theories. (...) Some really smart people began playing around with particle accelerators to see if they existed and low and behold some gluons started showing up all over the place."

What I think you mean is that the existence of gluons is one possible explanation for the results they observed. There is hardly conclusive evidence, or even "strong" evidence.

"2)Particles aren't complex?- Why you think this I have no idea. As far as fundamental particles go, there are 12 quarks, 12 leptons and all their anti-particles. So that leaves 48 fundamental particles floating around which we have to assume must be doing something other than posting dumbass facts on a forum. And these guys don't even obey normal laws. I mean these things are ten-dimensional string particles, they're up to cool shit all the time. Entire branches of science are dedicated to the study of the complexities of particles so why do you say this."

Indeed, though like I said, it is all inexplicable. Even if you point out that "quarks are (believed to be) the building blocks of all matter". We still don't know what light is, how it works - or why it reacts with other particles. Why is the question not answerable. "Why do quarks obey laws?"

"3)Viruses aren't alive-Granted life is a bit of a tricky thing to define but currently I'd have to say viruses fit the definition."

There's always one. A virus is something that infects life, that's completely different to actually being alive. What does it do? "live independently in other living cells"? No, it doesn't. It infects a cell, then goes and infects another, because viruses do not perform the chemical actions/reactions of life. It can't move to a new "home", it must have a host cell. It is a useless functionless mass of non-living nucleic acid without one. And it relies on survival of the host living cell. If it dies, so does the virus. If the virus dies, the cell lives on.

Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living oganisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisims if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow.

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212089/virus.htm?tqskip1=1

"But they're still alive, I mean people work on ways to kill viruses all the time and it's hard to kill something that was never alive."

Well, not very well. There are no known antibiotics that kill viruses. That's why you get injected with (lesser) viruses intended to provoke your body to build antibodies compatible with fighting certain (greater-risk) viruses instead. In fact, to use your example of HIV - even sharing needles it is difficult to contract because it "survives" for a very short time while the blood is outside the body.
Author
Time
Post link
What exactly do you have against theories, and what did a gluon ever do to you?

It claims "some gasses had a reaction that made a gigantic bang". Gasses that had to pre-date the big bang.


Where did you get this? I have never heard this before. Current Scientific Theory admits that it does not know what existed before the Big Bang and leaves it open to pure speculation. I've never heard anyone say that it required gasses to predate it. Hell it could have been some giant energy matrix that collapsed in on itself due to fluctuations and formed matter. Or a a set of strings may have begun vibrating in harmonics and formed a field disturbance appearing as matter. Or perhaps two empty universes collided with each other and the resulting collision and the energy with it produced matter. All these are current accepted possibilities but the Big Bang says nothing about what happned before. You keep trying to strengthen your point by saying the Big Bang fails or saying what came before but It never even tried. Also I'd like to know why you feel the crunch bang theory is soooo wrong. It has been recently contested due to the fact that the expansionof the universe actually seems to be speeding up so it may turn out to be quite wrong. However, for the sake of giving me something to argue, try to make a point and not just say soemthing is wrong. Just because you claim soemthing is wrong does not help convince me of your position.

And Gluons are not theorized. They have been seen. All those wonderful particle curves shown in science centres, on close inspection reveal gluons. In addition to being right where evryone said they would be, they do what everyone said they should do. The only currently contested force carrier particle out there is the graviton which is a fairly recent addition to the bunch upon that gravity is truly a quantum force.

Indeed, though like I said, it is all inexplicable. Even if you point out that "quarks are (believed to be) the building blocks of all matter". We still don't know what light is, how it works - or why it reacts with other particles. Why is the question not answerable. "Why do quarks obey laws?"


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Currently quarks and leptons are believed to be fundamental particles. The key word here is currently. If it turns out they aren't then so what. But the point I was trying to make is that science acknowledges the complexity of matter and works very hard to understand it. Then you threw light in there for some reason. And what question are you posing exactly. Light is understood to a fairly strong degree and quarks don't really obey any laws anyone's been able to make up. Particle decays have momentum, colour charge, spin, and charge conservation but that's about it. It seems that when particles become very small they act more like waves than particles. In advanced physics this becomes easy to understand and in fact is a very predictable behavior. However, they do not obey newtonian laws at all and seem to adhere to a world of probabilities. They also exist in ten dimensions so they're actions are somewhat difficult to predict.

I am curious to know what your views on the origin of the universe and the origin of species is. You are vehemently fighting soem of mine so I would like to know what you think.
If you want to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn, sometimes it means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow this debate is getting complex.
Author
Time
Post link
ok DanielB you bring up some very good points about viruses. i really like how your using examples and good science now. maybe we can be friends.

Anyway viruses are not by the current definition of life alive. However they have many, not all, but many charateristics of life. they 'evolve' that is why you have a different form of influenza every year, they feed, once they are in a cell, the virus will use the food the cell makes to replicate. i give you a example of where this occurs in the animal kingdom. paracites follow this exact same proccess, however they are made up of cells and most can break down very simple forms of food. they still require there host to provide all these things though. they are like larger living examples viruses. you are incorrect in saying that viruses cannot survive without a cell. this is true from some viruses like HIV however it is not true for others which will remain intacte for long peroids of time outside of a cell and you stated that a cell can survive without the virus, once a cell has been infected it cant survive without the virus. the only reason viruses are not defined as life is because by definition the fundimental form of life is the cell, and since viruses are not made up of cells the cant be called life even if they fills all of the other requirements, that is why viruses are not defined as living. IF this definition were changed which can happen very easily then viruses could be called life. there is a push in the world of science now to change this definition, these scientists propose that nucleic acids should be defined as the fundimental form of life. however, that is beside the point when i said that viruses could have been involved in evolution the theory spans from the fact that viruses can substantially change the DNA make up of a cell, it could be possible that at some point in the past there was a virus which would fuse itself with the cells DNA rather then take full control of the DNA it would would become a part of the cell and change it, in this way when the cell reproduced it would create a much different form of life. so even thou viruses are not currently defined as life they still could have affected evolution in the method decribed above.
Author
Time
Post link
I think this should clear up a few of the 'myths'

http://www.flat-earth.org/



-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
That's Hilarious. For awhile there I wasn't sure if these guys were serious or not. I think the Spirngfield Paradox is what makes it all worthwhile though.
If you want to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn, sometimes it means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.
Author
Time
Post link
They make a good point, heat does not travel through a vacuum. But their claim about gravity - ughh, gravity even effects light (though *some* scientists will claim it doesn't, it just bends the fabric of space - which is stupid, because a void cannot bend!).
Author
Time
Post link
I'm a big believer in starting at the beginning and moving your way up. For this reason I'll point out another huge problem with the big-bang theory:

The cosmic micro-wave background (called the remnants of the "Big Bang") is very uniform. This is (naturally) what you would expect from a big bang (if it ever occurred). However galaxies are not uniform. They are very large, are said to have developed early on after the big-bang, yet they're so "clumped". This contradicting fact all but completely sing-handedly disproves the big-bang theory.

The rate-of-expansion of the universe is also used to claim it is the result of the big-bang, however it hasn't been shown to be in the right ballpark for the expansion after a big bang. It is also expanding so much that it will never collapse on itself, which is what completely disproves the "big-crunch" theory. Funny how they'll let that disprove the big crunch, but won't let a little thing like non-uniform galaxies get in the way of their big-bang theory.

"it could be possible that at some point in the past there was a virus which would fuse itself with the cells DNA rather then take full control of the DNA it would would become a part of the cell and change it"

Shimraa, you're talking about things that don't exist, and there's no evidence of them existing either. You're right, the fundamental form of life is the cell. Even ignoring that, a virus does not perform the necessary functions of life. It is a non-living thing. It performs operations out of necessity only.

Anyhow, I’ll explain, if I must, to you why such a virus could not exist. Because it wouldn't be able to reproduce, end-of-story. If it fused with a cell, then it can't infect other cells, it can't spread. I find the idea of a single cell's DNA changing effecting the whole completely ludicrous.
Author
Time
Post link
the big bang theory is uniform.

at the beginning there were Protgalaxies (100-300 ly across), they were uniformly spread, but chaos theory will have it that they did not uniformly evolve.
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
Author
Time
Post link
Chaos does not disprove it. Even with unpredictable results, it should be uniform.
Author
Time
Post link
DanielB, I'm curious to know what your beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and life are. You are quite vehemently arguing with current theories so I wanted to know which theories you subscribe to. Also, all the things you keep saying (non-uniformity etc.) are simply problems with the theory, they don't disprove it at all. There are explanations for these phenomenon (Chaos etc.) but you seem disinclined to accept them.
If you want to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn, sometimes it means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.
Author
Time
Post link
Again, you are misrepresenting the chaos theory if you think it explains how the universe became so scattered and clumped. The law of probabilities can be used to counter it, just for a start. Just because every atom COULD end up in a unique place, doesn't mean it will. If you are going to use chaos, use it properly. You may as well say "the big bang cannot be proven, because by the theory of chaos, you can't start from the result and work your way back - due to not knowing the cause (and only having a vague idea about the effect)". That would be a reasonable chaos-orientated theory. It is futile trying to reverse-step according to the theory of chaos, because the results came from unpredictable origins.

And even so, if you claim that according to Chaos it shouldn't be uniform - then neither should the cosmic background radiation, but it is isn't it? I don't subscribe to theories based on conjecture, I do believe the universe and everything in it was designed with a purpose, and is not the result of random (note that according to chaos randomness does not exist). I'll give you an example of conjecture:

Three Bible verses describe the same event, using it from the Gospel of Mark (10:25) it reads:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

Biblical Scholars have reason to believe that Jesus was talking about the gate to Jerusalem. There isn't much evidence that gate actually existed, but if it did this is a good theory. While strictly speaking it isn't conjecture, it isn't a claim that can be conclusively proven either. Other people have pointed out that the Aramac word for camel also means rope. While this is also true, and entirely plausible - it is wrong to therefore assume a double meaning, because it is conjecture. In those times the Jews, the Romans - and everyone else - were all multilingual. Aramaic was hardly the only possible language he could have been talking in, and since the Gospels are all written in Greek (with some Aramaic quotes), there is really no way of knowing what language was actually in use at any given time.

Long-story-shot, if you see someone quote "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" and claim Jesus said that, then it is merely conjecture - an unprovable statement, and they are mistaking. (On the other hand, something like saying Jesus given name was Yeshua, and this is most-likely what he was called on a day-to-day basis is very true, there is a lot of evidence for it, it isn't based on conjecture even though in some respects it is tracking a Hebrew name reversely translated from Greek).

Daniel
Author
Time
Post link
And anyway the point is, the prevailing mindset back then was that if you were rich it indicated that you were blessed by God, while the poor were being punished. Being rich was viewed by the secular religious people (those who followed the code without really involving God in the whole thing) as a sign of righteousness.

Whatever the literal translation, the point is, a rich man can't get himself into heaven. Jesus doesn't then say "go make yourself poor so you can get into heaven." The disciples response, "then who can be saved?" not "so we need to get rid of our money?", indicates that they understood what he was saying. The prevailing opinion, poor people are unrighteous and rich people have honored God. Jesus is saying rich people can't enter heaven either, basically saying no one can enter heaven.

So the statement appears to be addressing the human need for God, not some statement about material possessions. No one can naturally fit into heaven, no one has earned the right or made themselves into something that can enter heaven. Hence the need for God's involvement, and His sacrifice.

Elsewhere it's not a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to ignore the needs of others or value your money above God. To be unwilling to lose it or sacrifice it when called to. I guess you could call it the difference between "having" and "possessing", if that makes sense (read AW Tozer, he's got a whole chapter on it).

I know this isn't directly on point, but it came up. It's a great travesty when the bible is read verse by verse rather than as a whole because it gets misquoted, misused, misunderstood, and then you get comments about "contradicitons in the bible" from people who have never read it and so forth. It riles me up so I felt it important to explain the cultural and written context of that statement for those who don't know it, since this is one of those "verses in a vacuum."

Anyway, carry on.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
thanks for that starboy i haven't read the bible and am not christian but i have always been interested in what says.

my one question what does that quote have to with creation and the big bang?
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB

Shimraa, you're talking about things that don't exist, and there's no evidence of them existing either. You're right, the fundamental form of life is the cell. Even ignoring that, a virus does not perform the necessary functions of life. It is a non-living thing. It performs operations out of necessity only.

Anyhow, I’ll explain, if I must, to you why such a virus could not exist. Because it wouldn't be able to reproduce, end-of-story. If it fused with a cell, then it can't infect other cells, it can't spread. I find the idea of a single cell's DNA changing effecting the whole completely ludicrous.



Quote
Anyway viruses are not, by the current definition of life, alive. (Correct). However they have many, not all, but many characteristics of life. they 'evolve'; that is why you have a different form of influenza every year, (yes) they feed, once they are in a cell NO. (They don’t feed. They use the cell’s machinery (Transcription and Translation) to produce more viral particles), the virus will use the food the cell makes to replicate (actually they use the cell’s energy molecules such as glucose as a source of energy to be able to accomplish their goal of producing more viral particles). Parasites which are a form of life follow this exact same proccess, (correct) however they are made up of cells and most can break down very simple forms of food. they still require there host to provide all these things though. they are like larger living examples viruses. you are incorrect in saying that viruses cannot survive without a cell. this is true from some viruses like HIV however it is not true for others which will remain intacte for long peroids of time outside of a cell (you are correct. Some viruses can survive for long periods outside of a cell). and you stated that a cell can survive without the virus, once a cell has been infected it cant survive without the virus. the reason viruses are not defined as life is because by definition the fundimental form of life is the cell, and since viruses are not made up of cells the can't be called life even if they fill many of the other requirements, that is why viruses are not defined as living. (Remember viruses don’t grow nor do they respire, two characteristics generally associated with living cells). IF this definition were changed which can happen very easily then viruses could be called life. there is a push in the world of science now to change this definition,(true – my personal opinion is that the definition does need to change). these scientists propose that nucleic acids should be defined as the fundimental form of life. however, that is beside the point when i said that viruses could have been involved in evolution the theory ( - current thought is that they have been interlinked in evolution for a long time). spans from the fact that viruses can substantially change the DNA make up of a cell, it could be possible that at some point in the past there was a virus which would fuse itself with the cells DNA rather then take full control of the cell it would become a part of the cell and change it, in this way when the cell reproduced it would create a much different form of life. so even thou viruses are not currently defined as life they still could have affected evolution in the method decribed above. (True, therefore the argument goes that if they have affected evolution in such a way, which is very plausible, then we need to rethink the definition of life.)

Hope this helps.

Call me when you’re in town.



ok what i have posted above was my post which was critiqued by a biologist that i know this is done by am man that knows alot moreabout this then both of us. the process of viruses in evolution are very complicated he added to me. i will not begin to explain that to you because frankly i do not know much about them however besides the point, it is still 'very plausible' that virus were part of evolution. the mechanism that i used to explain it is correct but only just it is a very very simple way of explaining it.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Starboy
It's a great travesty when the bible is read verse by verse rather than as a whole because it gets misquoted, misused, misunderstood, and then you get comments about "contradicitons in the bible" from people who have never read it and so forth.
Yes that's true, which is why I refuse to believe in verse-by-verse evangelising, like "the Romans Road" which is (I think) 3:23, 6:23a - 5:8 and 9:11 (reality of sin, result of sin, Christ our substitute and salvation by faith). Yes, I remember that - however it's a useless piece of information because it's picking and choosing between verses, taking them out of context - as if they are somehow more important than the rest of Romans, or the rest of the Bible.

But for the purposes I was using, which is to show why quoting "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" is conjecture. If you can change one word per verse, imagine the implications it could have on what you are reading. You may as well pick any 4 other verses:

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 19:26
But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Matthew 5:20 (Jesus Says)
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 14:21 (Jesus Says)
For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

Heck using the method of verse-by-verse rubbish you can misrepresent it thus:

Matthew 5:20 (Jesus Says)
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:11
But he [Jesus] said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.

Matthew 19:25-26a
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible

Starboy it is important, because misquoting yields so much nonsense. For instance:

1 Timothy 6:10a
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

Have you ever heard someone:
a. Claim Jesus said it?
b. Misquote it "money is the root of all evil"?

Misquoting changes the meaning. It's not THE root of all evil, and it isn't money it's the love of money. And everything aside, Jesus never said it (that we know of). The closest he ever came to saying it is when he talked about the rich young man in the verse previously quoted (Mark 10:25).

Well that was a long way of agreeing with you SB... carry on indeed...
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa

my one question what does that quote have to with creation and the big bang?


Nothing, sorry It just got brought up and I wanted to post a note while it was there. It's a cul de sac in the conversation.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
I've been reading all these bible quotes present in posts of late and an interesting thought occured. Please keep in mind that this is entirely in good humour and i by no means mean to insult anyone.
Consider the quotes:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

and
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."


Looking at both of these I would imagine that at around the time Jesus, it was particularly difficlt to get into Heaven. Also, assuming that entrance requirements do not change that much over time, all preceding applicants to Heaven must have also found it equally difficult. Now consider this. Jesus gives his life on the crossn forgiving everyone's sins and so paving the way for all people to enter Heaven. The previous rate was probably something equivalent to one of every 100,000 souls due to the high moral standards required. So the rate at the time of Jesus' death likely increased something on the order of 100,000 times. Even in an infinite space, this is quite an increase. We are also forced to assume that there is either only one entrance to Heaven or more than one Saint Peter. Since there is only one Saint Peter, it would seem that there are now 100,000 times as many people he must interview. However, the entrance rerquirements being negligible, he can allow most of then to pass without much more as a "Welcome to Heaven! Here is a map of Heaven and also a brochure mentioning some of the best places to shop and dine. And remember, they don't call it Heaven for nothing!".
Also, in addition to this new influx, all the souls in limbo that didn't make the original cut into Heaven, enter Heaven at the moment of Jesus' death. Considering the sheer number of people that didn't make it into Heaven before and the fact that humans have been intelligent/ possessed souls for well over 10,000 years, there is also likely almost 100 billion souls wanting enter Heaven all at once.

Still remembering that entrance time in negligible, the population of Heaven must have grown enormousely at the time of Jesus' death. This can be roughly compared to normal immigration. Still using previous values, there is approximately 100,000 times as many people immigrating to Heaven as there are already in heaven. This would likely cause enormous civil disorder and widespread unemployment all over Heaven. Th ensuing mass riots regarding broken promises consisting of billions of people would likely cause massive damage to the infrastructure of Heaven. These riots and cries for help would envariably ensue until God took some kind of affirmative action. People have now come to Heaven from limbo, now away from their families, jobs, affordable homes, and dogs, and are now forced to leave on the street or in cheap housing with no money to their name (Since Heaven should be infinitely better than limbo, it is likely that its economy is also infinitely better, thus making the limbo dollar completely worthless). And the influx of people would still continue at the new large rate.

Assuming that God is all-powerful, it is likely that he considered all possible solutions, and in three days he found the best one. Sending Jesus back. God realised his mistake in redeeming all sins so thought that maybe if Jesus went back the souls would too and he could get back to watching CSI:Miami (It's not that great but it makes you think). On discovering that this didn't work, God was forced to take his son back and began to fight off the riots by constructing more livable space in Heaven. It is likely that during this time of massive restructuring, individuals producing detour signs made a large fortune in the poverty stricken Kingdom of Heaven. Considering that it took God seven days to fully create the Earth and all people are promised their own perfect world, he would have to create at least 100 billion worlds and increase his rate of production by 100,000 times. Working at his normal rate this would take God approximately 2 billion years to simply meet the demand of those living in limbo. Just taking that into consideration and assuming that he halted entrance to Heaven as soon so the problems arose, God would either need to increase his production rate by a million times or increaes occupancy by a million for Heaven to be now as it was promised. This of course not taking into consideration the backlog of people now in limbo from when he shut off the gate. As it is unlikely that the immensely disatisfied immigrants would take a million times less than they were promised, Heaven is either still under construction or consists almost entirely of very poorly built structures (assuming a rate increase of a million would produce structures one millionth the quality). Also, anyone dying now would be forced to wait in limbo until heaven's capacity has inccreased to allow the new population. So just a tip to everyone, stay alive as long as you can. Cheers
If you want to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn, sometimes it means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.
Author
Time
Post link
Nice. I fully appreciate the whimsical stuff I also remember the the argument that hell was endothermic, which someone submitted on a final.

I also appreciate your point of view (referring to all your posts). I'm glad to have you in the discussion. A lot of knowledge and thoughtfulness goes into your points which is good both for the discussion and for each of us to defend or propose our own understanding of the truth.

Lastly, welcome to the message board. Sorry it started in being pissed off.

Now, in seriousness, some thoughts.

- if God is God, He exists outside of time. What happened before or after Jesus' death matters to we who exist inside creation, but to God and to those who are dead, there is no before or after. For God to be subject to time would make Him cease to be God, and would make time pre-existant to God.

- Add another quote to your list, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. I say to you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. The first, as I said above, was telling people that success in life was not a requisite or sign of salvation. The second was saying that you had to be more righteous than the most righteous people on earth to enter heaven (the scribes and pharisees dedicated their whole lives to learning and understanding God's law). Which is to say, righteousness cannot get you into heaven. The third says that even with the smallest faith, we can do anything. But we can't do anything, like move mountains or get ourselves into heaven, so even faith has nothing to do with it.

What he's getting at here is what he says later, "I am the way and the truth and the life." It isn't success or righteousness or faith that Christianity preaches, it is the OBJECT of our faith. It is not by actively doing anything; by obedience, by growing and living our faith, or anything that we get into heaven. We can't actively get into heaven. It is by passively accepting. The void between God and man is uncrossable by man. A God of perfect justice demands that justice, and the wages of any and all sin is death. To reconcile perfect justice wiht perfect love, God took that death in our place. And for God, who is outside of time, that separation of God from God, that very real death and schism that happened on the cross, is eternal. To us in creation, it looks like three days in Hell and it's all over, but not so from the perspective on the throne.

But God has said "you deserve death for what you have done with creation, with yourselves, and what you have done to me. But I cannot bear to be separated from you." And he went in our place, to be with us. To get into heaven, you accept what he did for you, that's all.

And in beginning that love relationship with him, He will make you righteous as you grow, He will grow your faith, He will bless you as he sees fit to bless you, but all those things follow the object of your faith, they do not precede or replace it. It's all on his shoulders, and to be a Christian, you have to humbly accept how little you had to do with any of it, but in that broken failure, to accept Him.

---

So that's a serious note in response to some whimsy. I just wanted to lay it out plain and simple for once rather than keep touching on smaller parts of it here and there.

And that is the truth. If you disagree and don't believe it, that is your decision to make. If you understand it but don't want it, that's your decision too. I don't say any of this to convince or persuade anyone. I have reasons and arguments behind those claims, but ultimately it's between you and the silence in your heart to take it or reject it. I just want to lay it out there because I'm tired of Time Magazine and college professors and historians trying to tell the world what Jesus is about.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
lol. starboy will lives two doors down from me. he didnt actuall mean any of it there was no reason to rebut it cus we already knew what was wrong with it. it was just a funny thought lol.